Trevor Manual, who just loves to defend the corrupt arms deal, is at it again. Last night Manuel told a packed gathering at the University of Cape Town that saying anything against the Dalai Lama was in “many quarters equivalent to trying to shoot Bambi”, but the question was, who is he? According to Business Day:
“Is he just the spiritual leader of the Buddhists in Tibet or is he the one who on March 28 1959 established the government of Tibet in exile in the same way Taiwan was established to counter the legality of a single China?” Manuel asked. … “The reason why the Dalai Lama wants to be here is to make a big global political statement about the secession of Tibet from China. He wants to do it on the free soil of SA,” Manuel said.
This is terrible! I am shocked! I am chastised! If only I knew that the Dalai Lama opposed the annexation of his country by the Chinese, and the vicious oppression of Tibetans and their language and religion. If only I knew the Dalai Lama had the bloody cheek to launch a struggle to have his country restored to its people and that he – gasp! – established a government in exile after the annexation of Tibet by China, I would never have supported his visit to South Africa and would never have criticised the government for refusing him a visa.
If only I knew that the Dalai Lama was going to abuse the freedom of speech we have enshrined in our constitution to criticise the illegal annexation of his country by those freedom loving, human rights supporting, Chinese, I would never have mouthed off about the government decision.
After all, who wants to support a man who resists the annexation of his country? If we went down that road, we would have had to support Churchill in the second world war and this would have made Hitler very angry, for God sake! Surely anyone with a moral compass can now see how dangerous it would have been to allow that so called “peaceful” terrorist on our shores. He is for freedom and against tyranny and if we allowed him here it might actually give the natives ideas and we cannot have that, can we?
Really, South Africans just do not understand how precious our freedom of expression is, so they want to abuse it and want to allow a man of the cloth to talk about counter-revolutionary ideas like freedom and self-determination. But as the Minister has now pointed out, freedom must be jealously guarded so we should not share it with anyone. It’s far too dangerous! What next? Before we know it people will be agitating for the independence of Rhodesia and South West Africa (Oops, too late to stop that, I suppose.)
I am so proud of my Minister of Finance. He really knows his right from his wrong. Besides what is wrong with shooting Bambi? I never liked those big innocent eyes and always thought Bambi was a terrorist in Disney Drag. I am sure Trevor, on reflection, will agree that shooting one’s enemies – as the Chinese often do – is the way to go. Let’s start with Zille and Lekota. That will teach them a lesson and will show how freedom loving we really are. You go girl!
Pierre,
I don’t know but I can’t shake off the idea that this whole Dalai Lama thing is a storm in a tea cup. They guy from Cosatu who was criticising the government’s decision couldn’t even pronounce the “Dalai Lama” but he just couldn’t resist jumping on the bandwagon.
The decision does not necessarily mean that South Africa does not sympathise with the Tibetan cause, but surely we did not have an obligation to allow the conference to be used as a platform to fight for that cause?
Shakira, why this is a big deal is because news reports – not denied by the ANC – said the ANC received money from the Chinese. What we know now therefore suggests that our foreign policy was subjugated to the financial interest of the governing party. “National interest” actually then means “ANC interest”. This is part of a tread and if true would be deeply worrying as it would show the complete corruption of the ANC by money.
Second, we are a free democracy. We should – unless exceptionally pressing circumstances exist – “allow” anyone to use our country to fight for freedom. If we do not, it means our foreign policy is only based at the very best on power politics and not on any respect for human rights. I understand that pragmatic and practical considerations always play a role in foreign policy (hello, the USA has friendly relations with Saudi Arabia!), but a complete abdication of human rights principles for narrow party political gain is, I would suggest, outrageous.
“the annexation of his country by the Chinese”
Is this really entirely factually true Pierre?
Does China not have any legitimate historical basis for considering Tibet to have long been a part of China and that current actions by Tibetans and the Dalai Lama are perhaps not entirely dissimilar to that of the US Confederates?
What a joke the clowns (aka ANC) are:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-03-27-zuma-dalai-lama-visa-refusal-did-not-undermine-human-rights
Pierre,
If the reason behind the refusal of the visa was solely because of China being a funder of the ANC’s election campaign, then yes, the decision was clearly wrong. But that is only speculation at this stage. The fact that they have not denied that they received funding from China cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the funding was behind the reason for the refusal.
But China is also a major trading partner of South Africa and when it comes to trade relations it is not only the ANC’s interest that are at stake. It is the country’s interests that are at stake and then in my view the government is allowed to weigh up diplomatic relations with China when making decisions about who to allow to make certain statements on our soil.
And here you have to consider that there are two sides to the Tibetan story. There is China’s version, and there is the Dalai Lama’s version. China has never regarded Tibet as an independant region seperate from China. They have always viewed Tibet as historically part of China. The powers that the governors of Tibet had were, according to China, always bestowed upon them by the Chinese central government. According to China, Tibet has no right to independance, no more than the Western Cape has the right to claim independance from the rest of South Africa or the inhabitants of Orania for that matter. That is why they regard the “invasion of Tibet” as a myth. There is also a dispute as to whether the Dalai Lama is speaking for all Tibetans.
Now, please, I am not advocating that China’s position is correct, I am merely pointing out that there is another side to this story.
Taking this to its logical conclusion many in the ANC should not have been allowed to enter countries in the SADC region during the struggle. They lived there for many years, and then they returned, in glory. Look at them now . . . embarrasing us at every turn. Many do not know that Mao killed 70 million people – in this during peace not war. And now Mao’s underlings run China. I hope those in the ANC wear waterproof watches; being in deep poo constantly cannot be pleasant. Either they like poo, or there is plenty of money in that poo! I suspect the later, Chinese flavoured poo with money.
From Wipikedia: In the history of Tibet, it has been an independent country[2], divided into different countries, and a part of China each for a certain amount of time. Tibet was first unified under King Songtsän Gampo in the seventh century. A government nominally headed by the Dalai Lamas, a line of spiritual leaders, ruled Tibet beginning in the 1640s. The 13th Dalai Lama proclaimed Tibet independent from China in 1913, but this declaration was not accepted by China. Furthermore, Tibet was not recognized by any country as a de jure independent nation. As a measure of the power that regents must have wielded, it is important to note that only three of the fourteen Dalai Lamas have actually ruled Tibet; regents ruled during 77 percent of the period from 1751 until 1960.[3] The Communist Party of China gained control of central and western Tibet (Tibet area controlled by the Dalai Lama) after a decisive military victory at Chamdo in 1950. The 14th Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959.
But article 1 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” China denies this right to the Tibetan people and does so through terror and force.
Zuma seems to thinks there should have been more consultation on this…at least as he addressed the Afrikaner audience!
I liked the comparison the GB Council made between the Dalai Lama incident and the denial of Chief Albert Luthuli of his passport to travel and receive the Nobel Peace Prize!
“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Ja Pierre, but that cannot mean that every minority grouping (even one concentrated within a defined geopraphic area) has a right to secede and partition the state of which it is part at will. Can you imagine the Zulu’s in Natal, the Xhosa’s in the Eastern Cape and the Sotho’s in the Free State, not to mention another crowd of unmentionables in Orania? Where does it end?
CD
yeh but u forget Tibet was a sovereign country with its own army remember tibet was invaded.
how would swaziland feel if south africa invaded it?
Pierre, come on now… What Trevor was merely saying, as correctly said by Dlamini-Zuma on Morning live this morning, is that the platform was not gona be an appropriate one for His Holiness to go on about China vs Independent Tibet. Remember, the peace conference was aimed at addressing GLOBAL peace issues in general. Beside, S.A considers/recognises 1(one) Peoples Republic of China, so allowing any view advancing the contrary would be inconsistent or contradictory. For crying in the bucket-this nothing to do with who is funding who mense!
“yeh but u forget Tibet was a sovereign country with its own army remember tibet was invaded.”
Proclaiming something repeatedly does not make it a truth.
You are behind the curve on this discussion.
We have already dealt with the first part of your statement which appears on the most favourable interpretation, to be open to debate.
As for having an army, that hardly makes for an independant state. If it did the Duke of Atholl would be entitled to proclaim an independant state.
“For crying in the bucket-this nothing to do with who is funding who mense!”
I am a bit more cynical about this than you are Spuy. I’m never sure with politicians whether what they say is the truth or pure self-justification.
CD
behind the curve in the discussion? i think ur behind the curve in history
open to debate? ok so what makes u think tibet is just a “province” of china?
since tibet has been running there own affairs for 1300 yrs with its own rulers and officialy declared independence in 1912 and was invaded in 1950 by the chines.
so really i dont see the difference between Greece and the ottoman empire and tibet and the chines empire.
and u didnt answer my question how would swaziland feel if south africa invaded it?
This was supposed to be a peace conference – hello! You only need to talk about peace if there are areas where there is no peace.
Here’s a thought – would they have let in someone from Palestine talking about the ned for Israel to stop killing inncoent Palestinians?
Tibetian History once known as Bod\
Tibetan History as an independent and sovereign state dates back to the early part of the 7th century. Prior history includes that in 1063 B.C., Five hundred years prior to the arrival of Buddha Sakyamuni into this world, Lord Shenrab Miwo reformed the primitive Shen race and founded the Tibetan Bon religion. After a series of Kings the kingdom known as Bod, the present name of Tibet, came into existence. The lineage of Tibetan monarchy continued for well over a thousand years until King Lang Darma, was assassinated in 842 A.D.. In the prior two centuries to this assassination the Tibetan Empire was at its peak and its armies invaded China and several Central Asian countries. In 763 the Tibetans seized the then Chinese capital at Ch’ang-an (present day Xian). As the Chinese Emperor had fled, the Tibetans appointed a new Emperor. This memorable victory has been preserved for posterity in the Zhol Doring (stone pillar) in Lhasa. It was during his time that Samye, the first monastery in Tibet, was founded by Guru Padmasambhava established the supremacy of Buddhism and converted the indigenous deities into guardians of the Dharma. In 821 China and Tibet ended almost 200 years of fighting with a treaty engraved on three stone pillars, one of which still stands in front of the Jokhang cathedral in Lhasa. The treaty established that both Tibet and China shall keep the country and frontiers of which they are now possessed. The whole region to the East of that being the country of Great China and the whole region to the West being assuredly the country of Great Tibet, from either side there shall be no hostile invasion, and no seizure of territory.
In the 13th century Tibet became part of the Asian Mongol empire. Tibet was able to swoon the Mongols that conquered and ruled China, but allowed Tibet to semi self rule under allegiance and influence to the Mongol Empire. A spiritual relationship with the Mongols developed and even resulted in their aristocracy converting to Buddhism. The Mongols promised to protect Tibet. After the fall of the Mongol Empire , Tibet fell into a state of no central rule. The Manchu Dynasty arrives and in 1720, along with the help of the Tibetan army drove the remnants of the Mongolia army out of the Tibet. The reason Tibet assisted the Manchu was that in prior years much controversy and mistrust began to brew between the ruling Mongols and the Tibetan Buddhist as to whom the new Dalai Lama actually was.
The Tibetans fell under the rule of the Manchu, but as with the Mongols were able for the most part to self rule with allegiance to the Manchu (Ching Dynasty). However this fell through as conflicts arose among Tibetan and the Manchu and a new government was put into place to provide more control for the Ching Dynasty. The Ching Dynasty had other objectives as they sought to expand their growing empire and influence. Over all the Ching Dynasty period brought relative peace to Tibet.
After the Manchu Empire ended, the Chinese government in 1912 officially became the Republic of China. The Chinese troops that were in Tibet over time dwindled away and returned to China proper. Tibet felt that they were once a gain on their own. The foreign Mongols and Manchus armies were gone.
Chris,
The Tibetan sovereignty debate is just that … a debate. It is not an open and shut case that Tibet is sovereign and independent from China. The Chinese government does not recognise Tibet’s independence. The fact is that there is a dispute over whether Tibet is part of China or not. And I am not saying that China is correct, I am just saying that we cannot start the debate from a premise that is disputed.
There is no debate as to whether Swaziland is independent from South Africa. The South African government does not dispute its independence. Therefore you cannot compare the invasion of Swaziland to the “invasion of Tibet.”
Mike,
I do not know whether the South African Government would have allowed the Palestinians a platform or not, but I am very sure that there would not have been such an outcry if they didn’t.
As much I sympathise with the Palestinians, I for one would not have blamed the government if they did not want them to usurp the conference to plead their cause.
shakira // Mar 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm
it is an open and shut case because you cant ignore history, im sorry.
the very first time Tibet lost there independece was during the Mongal invasions hence the Great Wall of China and this carried on led by possiably one of the greatest generals to have ever lived The Great Genghis Khan and formed the Mongal empire note that during this time was tibet part of China?
it was only until the 17th century that china became powerful and conqured Tibet and the Mongal empire and funny enough during the 1911 and 1912 both Mongolia and Tibet where declared independent countries once again.
That is history and it also exsplains why during WW2 tibet remained neutral had its own foreign burea and issued its own passports.
History made this an open and shut case
The fact is that there is a debate. We should allow the Dalai Lama to come here andhave his say. He was not exactly going to throw bombs at the Chinese Embassy!
The question is not whether China is correct – it is whether China can tell South Africa to silence the Dalai Lama. We should tell China firmly but politely that we choose our own foreign policy. As we tell the West. Hmm…
Chris, I think I say on behalf of all, when I say we appreciate the history lesson. Still, that doesnt change the fact that in terms of our foreign policy, only ONE People s Republic of China is recognised by our gov. We would first have to review this stance (if we have time in future) within ourselves, then allow any opinion advocating the opposite in our soil. At this stage we only know one China-as my frend Jakie would say- “finish and klaar”. Nothing wrong with continueing this debate in the chattering classes but with a clear understanding that our government, for now, recognises 1(ONE) Republic of China and can therefore be seen to be contradicting itself.
….can’t be seen contradicting itself. (I meant – eish, English is my fourth language jy weet – so do pardon me if i butcher it here and there!)
Spuy
look i agree but sometimes a history listen is needed in order to know who you dealing with or who your country wants to be in bed with? agreed. to many whores around. For the south african government who would share a simler history of oppression can relate to tibet of cause this would be a shock why south africa politcly snobbed the DL on the bases of soccer?? its a bit petty dont you think…infact you should be pleasing FIFA right now as they werent impressed by this.
See you rproblem is this south africa has placed one to too many eggs into one basket. yes I know china has the 2nd biggest economy in the world so what? the problem is this china has no resources and now needs to focus on africa to feed its machine, this should of however put you in a power postion instead you found yourselfs being dectated to.
China isnt the only country besides south africa in the world….listen i checked there’s Russia theres the EU countries and the western countries and the arabs. Plenty of rich nations to make business with
and last time i checked africa was preclaiming obama as there own? so surly china should be greatful to be doing business with south africa as im sure you country has changed attitudes towards mine?
Quoting the sources Chris quotes above:
“the Tibetan Empire was at its peak and its armies invaded China”
and
“The Mongols promised to protect Tibet. After the fall of the Mongol Empire , Tibet fell into a state of no central rule. The Manchu Dynasty arrives and in 1720, along with the help of the Tibetan army drove the remnants of the Mongolia army out of the Tibet.”
and
“The Tibetans fell under the rule of the Manchu”
and from the source quoted by Pierre:
“13th Dalai Lama proclaimed Tibet independent from China in 1913, but this declaration was not accepted by China. Furthermore, Tibet was not recognized by ANY [my emphasis] country as a de jure independent nation.”
Sounds to me rather like the Tibetans started the fight with the Chinese, then later finding themselves in trouble with the Mongols accepted Chinese overlordship in return for helping turf the Mongols out and that nobody has ever accepted their unilateral claim of independance since.
Conclusion: Chris is talking balderdash.
I was at the debate where Manual made the comments – the majority of people there just couldn’t believe what he’d said – after the other people there had been rather compassionate he appeared just dismissive.
I wanted to ask him about the ANC being funded by the Chinese but didn’t get the chance
I’m not saying the Dalai Lama is in the wrong, but even if he is completely in the wrong, he should still be allowed to come here and state his case. Why not? Hear him out. Debate it. Let both him and China come to the party and the world hear them. The only reason I can imagine why the Dalai Lama was blocked by the ANC (and I thought this before I read anything that confirmed it) was that the ANC received money and instruction from China to do so. It’s obvious. Do you really think the ANC is clever enough to deny the Dalai Lama access WITHOUT them being told and bribed to do so!? Get real. Why did De Klerk and Tutu threaten to boycott the conference if the Dalai Lama was not allowed? Because they have more than three brain cells and more than an ounce of morality. I pity, and fear, the people who still vote for the ANC. How out-of-touch / immoral / irrational must you be?
If it was a cut and dried issue, we could just chalk it up to the ANC being idiotic again, and leave it there.
Unfortunately it’s not. This isn’t even about China’s economic role in SA. China funds the ANC directly, to the tune of something like $50m for their last campaign, if I recalll correctly. The SA government denied that there was any pressure from China, but China immediately stands up and basically admits that they requested that the visa be denied, and thanks the government. We then get some cock-and-bull excuse about not wanting to detract attention from the 2010 World Cup being the real reason.
Even so, it *might* be possible to discount the above…if it weren’t for the fact that the ANC has proven many times that it exists for the benefit of itself and it’s higher ups, and not for the country as a whole. This is how it governs, this is how we have things like the Arms Deal, Zuma’s fraud case, and so forth. Therefore, it is almost impossible in my opinion to simply dismiss this as saying the government may have made a mistake, but it was with good intentions, because it sure as hell doesn’t look that way.
The issue is not what happened, it’s why it happened. And it seems to me that ridiculous ideological ties and money again were the currency in this little deal.
Mike Atkins // Mar 27, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“The fact is that there is a debate. We should allow the Dalai Lama to come here andhave his say.”
Why? Why is there an automatic obligation on South Africa to allow the Dalai Lama to have his say on our soil?
“The question is not whether China is correct – it is whether China can tell South Africa to silence the Dalai Lama. We should tell China firmly but politely that we choose our own foreign policy.”
What if it is our foreign policy to preserve diplomatic relations with China? By the way, the UK government also recognises Tibet as part of the Peoples Republic of China.
I think the South African government’s biggest problem on this issue was that they have poor spokespeople or spin doctors or whatever you call them.
Chris @,
“See you rproblem is this south africa has placed one to too many eggs into one basket.”
This is rich, coming from someone whose country is basically owned by China. Your country has a huge trade deficit with China. What’s going to happen if China decides to dump all those US currency they hold in reserve?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4OYGjUrdllo/SGxiJ4Sa86I/AAAAAAAAEyc/A-OyNEW_3IE/s400/pdaP31D1ca6q8os72eCcJq76_500.jpg
Taking the long view, no-one can accuse the ANC of inconsistency. The ANC was not too squeamish to accept generous support from the Soviet Union and the PRC. And does Barbara Hogan need to be reminded that the ANC in exile supported for Moscow’s crushing of opposition of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and the invasion of Afghanistan?
The sentimental affection felt by westerners for the Dalai Lama is a liberal indulgence alien to the ANC’s political culture. Get used to it.
Michael Osborne // Mar 29, 2009 at 9:58 am
“The sentimental affection felt by westerners for the Dalai Lama is a liberal indulgence alien to the ANC’s political culture. ”
The sentimental affection is a bit of a fad if you ask me. The fascination with the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddism was made popular by Hollywood celebrities like Richard Gere and Brad Pitt. And many people have simply jumped on the bandwagon with no idea of what the actual issues are.
The guy from Cosatu who criticised the government on this issue, without being able to pronounce “Dalai Lama” reminded me of the American pro-Tibetan protesters who couldn’t even point out Tibet on a map.
Shakira, I agree with you. But then the same would go for the Mandela mania of the 80’s and 90’s. Tens of thousands of American college kids, without the faintest idea of what was going on in Africa, proudly wore their Mandela t-shirts to marches demanding divestment from apartheid South Africa.
Successive generations young idealists march against Vietnam, apartheid, Israel, China, and George Bush’s wars. Yes, they were ignorant. Does that make them wrong?
CD
Fistly CD your history on the tibets is shocking….and it took the mongals until 1945 to be declared independent however Tibet still has some ways to go….but i dont expect you to understand the geography of the place and the importance between India and china after all these two country’s have uncomfortable relationships and the fact that both these countries have the biggest army in the world….has it ever occuried to you Tibet is just used as a proxy state by china and is the gateway for india to china. CD this is about greed and power, but you ignore history and the importance of Tibet….please do your research.
@shakira
“This is rich, coming from someone whose country is basically owned by China.”
Lol i thought the Jews owned our country?? listen we got investments all over the world hell we even going into space now. Wall street is not completely owned by the Chines. Sorry.
shakira wrote:
”
Why? Why is there an automatic obligation on South Africa to allow the Dalai Lama to have his say on our soil”
Because I thought your soil was free and for all….think about it/
Chris,
“Lol i thought the Jews owned our country?? listen we got investments all over the world hell we even going into space now. Wall street is not completely owned by the Chines. Sorry.”
I am not referring to Wall Street. I am referring to international trade, and specifically your country’s massive trade deficit which is mostly sponsored by China.
In 2006 Warren Buffet was quoted as saying ” The US trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either the federal budget deficit or consumer debt…right now the world owns 3 trillion dollars more of us than we own of them”
Guess who owns the biggest chunk of that 3 trillion dollars? None other than China. At the end of 2008 they owned about 1,9 trillion dollars of it.
But you have to understand international trade to really understand this. I happen to know this because I study international trade and have done research on China’s rise as an economic powerhouse.
The government’s decision about the Dalai Lama had absolutely nothing to do with human rights, but everything to do with foreign policy and about who is calling the shots these days in international relations. If they deserved any criticism for the decision it should have been based on whether it is sound foreign policy or not, not whether they respect human rights.
There is a new world order with countries such as China becoming much more powerful and countries like your country (Obama or no Obama) becoming more irrelevant.
Chris Mcdaniel // Mar 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“(Tibetan independence) it is an open and shut case because you cant ignore history, im sorry”
If it is such an open and shut case why do countries such as France and the UK not recognise Tibet’s independence?
Michael,
“Successive generations young idealists march against Vietnam, apartheid, Israel, China, and George Bush’s wars. Yes, they were ignorant. Does that make them wrong?”
No, of course not. And of course it is absolutely possible to support a just cause, even though you do not understand all the underlying issues.
But the flipside of it is that just because a specific cause has popular appeal and lots of people are jumping on that bandwagon, doesn’t mean that the people who do not hold or support the popular view should be vilified as having no regard for human rights.
Lets rather debate the issues and see if the cause is really that just.
Shakira
Thats nicely laid out with some truths in there but i must enlighten you
firstly if you going to be talking about international trade with our country you have to refer to wall street.Several major U.S. stock and other exchanges remain headquartered on Wall Street and in the Financial District, including the NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX, NYMEX, and NYBOT.
and you should be aware that NASDAQ has more trading volume per hour than any other stock exchange in the world. So actually you are refering to wall street as international trade with the US is counted and measured there.
China owns more than 1,4 Trillion, of the U.S.’s total debt outstanding of $10.9 trillion but you also need to look at China’s trade imbalances since you have studed these
China’s largest export market is the UnitedStates followed by the EU-25 and Japan
Now having said that and I will concure that the US does owe China a hell of a lot of money and the same with Japan
but they dont dictate to us why because our economy is bigger than china. China is manipulating its currency
Chine has been buying American bonds with proceeds from their massive trade surplus
but here is the lovely play China may have just recognized that the trade deficit the U.S. runs finances Chinese purchases of American bonds
However your economy is not bigger than china and china is funding your ANC party thats the difference you are caught on there hook and you are going to cause more jobs losses here because China is mainly an export country which can manipulate is currency like it did in the US and come much cheaper in the south african markets….but your government doesnt quit get that do they….
As for Obama becoming more irrelevant we did say his first job is to fix our economy and last time i checked he is still concentrating on the Israel and Palistine issue.
And yes I do hope our country becomes more irrelevent so who can stop wasting money on Aids and every other crap we giving away for free in africa and funding for it since africa owes us how much already???
Irrelevent hey
Chris,
“And yes I do hope our country becomes more irrelevent so who can stop wasting money on Aids and every other crap we giving away for free in africa and funding for it since africa owes us how much already???”
My country has until very recently operated on a budget surplus not a budget deficit. That is more than what can be said for your country which has had a massive budget deficit (which I think the 10,9 trillion which you quoted represents) for years, which deficit is rising as I type here. In other words they are spending money which they do not have (incurring further debt).
So any money that your country is spending, or as you put it “wasting” in Africa, is in fact money that is financed by other countries. And according to your figures 1.4 trillion of it is financed by China!
Chris,
“firstly if you going to be talking about international trade with our country you have to refer to wall street.Several major U.S. stock and other exchanges remain headquartered on Wall Street and in the Financial District, including the NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX, NYMEX, and NYBOT.”
International trade does not have much to do with the Stock Exhange. But it has got everyhting to do with trade in goods and services accross borders, in other words exports and imports. The reason why your country has such a massive trade deficit is because it imports more than what it exports. In other words it consumes more than what it produces. And most of what it consumes is imported from China, hence the massive trade deficit with China.
But maybe I was a bit harsh when I said your country is becoming irrelevant. It is not becoming irrelevant, but its role and power in international relations have diminished. And China has become more powerful, and therefore they have a lot of influence in the foreign policy decisions of other countries as was just demonstrated by this Dalai Lama furore. They have a lot of influence, almost as much as your country had when it was at the height of its superpower status.
Chris, I didn’t ignore anything.
I simply the information *you* provided to show that it contradicts your *own* position.
If you don’t like where that points, then I can’t help that.
But I think it’s pretty clear to all except maybe yourself that you aren’t exactly a scholar of Tibetan history either.
shakira
lol go have china i dont give a rats ass to be honest.
firstly i admire south africa for gradual growth but that is expected with the fall of apartheid but you guys did show a loss last year however i am confident south africa will continualy grow and lets hope so
but since your attcking my country you missed this ill say it again trade deficit the U.S. runs finances Chinese purchases of American bonds and you should also know China cannot subsidize its exports through a dollar peg without also importing US monetary policy and today the dollar commands around 70 per cent both of trade and world reserves but since you have studied international trade i shouldnt have to tell you this
and then you should also know the US has 40 trillion in financial assets including the value of corporation/stock market and bonds, both corporate and government.
shakira you going to loss this argument with me we are a 1st world super power we are one of the richest nations in the world that still seems happy enough to write of countries debts and one of them being south africa but we have made some mistakes but we correcting them we not stupid however i feel your country has falling for china’s hook but your being abit to snotty to see this and like ozoneblue continue to attack my country blows my mind
cd
ok clearly i dont know my history, since you seem to know more about tibetian history then educate me
by the way was not contradicting myself tibet was formed independently was invaded by mongals and then china so how am i contradicting myself?
i dont see the great wall of china being built round tibet?
Chris,
“but since your attcking my country ”
“continue to attack my country blows my mind”;
You are constantly criticising my country and I never take offence. In fact, I even sometimes agree with the sentiments that you express against some of the leaders of my country.
It is only on this particular point that I happen to disagree with your criticism against my country and unfortunately I also had to point out some of your own country’s shortcomings to illustrate my point.
I do not wish your country any ill, in fact I hope that it would be able to sort out its financial woes.
lol shakira im yanking ur chain i love your country why u think im still here……sweety have a great evening
[[[ok clearly i dont know my history, since you seem to know more about tibetian history then educate me]]]
But Chris, unlike you I never claimed to know. I simply questioned the statement about Tibet’s sovereignty and whether it was correct. It was Pierre and yourself who presented the “history information”. I merely pointed out that based upon which your own data your conclusions appear at the very least open to question.
[[[by the way was not contradicting myself tibet was formed independently was invaded by mongals and then china so how am i contradicting myself?]]]
You seem not to appreciate that whether Tibet was, correctly speaking, “invaded” by China is the very question that is being discussed.
[[[i dont see the great wall of china being built round tibet?]]]
What is the relevance of this? A wall does not a state make nor of necessity define its boundary.
CD
its very simple its in the history books go read it then you can claim to know..
but yet you say im contradicting myself ….I asked you how….if you claiming now that you dont now the basic history then its abit silly you saying im contradicting myself because you dont seem to know the subject and shouting out randem things..
Look just back you arguments up with links or fact so i can check it out and learn something myself but you seem to have problems with providing.
as for the Greatwall do you know why it was built? I dont think you do cos you wouldnt of said what is the relevence of building something which i might add that you can see from space.
and please answer my 2 qustions which you are avoiding
what is the difference between Greece and the ottoman empire and tibet and the chines empire?
and\
how would swaziland feel if south africa invaded it?
and do me a favor give me the dates when tibet invaded china and china invaded tibet and through in the mongals in there for me please dates they invaded….just to prove something for me
sorry guys but i got a point to prove and can prove by legal means through cutlure and customs about tibet existings is independent infact its writen in stone and this is for CD with facts and back
The Great Tibetian Empire and proof of the Independece of Tibet
Tibetian Kings
Reign of Mangsong Mangtsen (650-676)
Reign of ‘Dus-rong Mang-po-rje (677-704)
Reign of Mes-ag-tshoms (704-754)
Reign of Trisong Detsän (756-797 or 804) TIbet invading Great China
Reign of Mune Tsenpo (c. 797-799?)
Reign of Sadnalegs (799-815)
Reign of Ralpacan (815-838)
The Great Sino-Tibetan Peace Treaty of 821/822
Legally Binding by custom and culture and rule of a treaty
“The whole region to the east of that being the country of Great China and the whole region to the west being assuredly the country of Great Tibet, from either side of that frontier there should be no warfare, no hostile invasions, and no seizure of territory”
Reign of Langdarma (838-842)
Tibet divided (842-1247) the civil wars
The Mongols and the Sakya school (1236-1354)
Phagmodrupa dynasty (1354-17th century) (the Mongal Yuan dynasty)
17th century to 18th century Qing Dynasty ruled tibet
The ‘king’ or governor of Tibet was no longer appointed by the Chinese after 1750, and the Dalai Lama was tacitly recognized as sovereign of Tibet,
The 1791 Nepalese invasion of tibet then reconqured by the Qing
British invasions of Tibet (1904-1911)
1912-1949: de facto independence
1950 Rule of the Chinese Communist Government
Chris,
What you are doing is making out a case in support of Tibet’s independence. There are many people just like you trying to prove that on the basis of history, Tibet should be independent from China. There is nothing wrong with that.
But the fact of the matter is, it is not an indisputable universally accepted fact that it is independent from China. Most countries accept that Tibet is part of China, even though some of them might support the Tibetan struggle for independence.
And that’s just it…there is a struggle for independence. Therefore there is a debate as to whether they should be independent or not. All the bloggers here have conceded that ages ago, including Pierre, who made out a case on the basis of the right to self-determination.
That is the point that I was trying to make (and I think CD as well). There is a debate… its not an irrefutable fact.
You cannot compare the Tibetan situation with Swaziland. There is no country in the world that accepts Swaziland as part of South Africa. It is a universally accepted fact that Swaziland is independent from South Africa. It is not the case with Tibet.
Chris, my only point was that the data you presented previously did not clearly support your contention of a independant sovereign Tibet.
If you are convinced that Tibet is an independant sovereign state, then so be it. It is clear though that that is by no means a universally espoused view, that’s all.
As for your statement that I should go read the history books, perhaps you are not aware that “history” is a current construction of past events that is perpetually being rewritten all the time. It is by no means something that is cast in stone.
I have no idea how “Swaziland” would feel about being invaded by South Africa as I have no idea how to attribute an emotion to a territory. If you asked how the Swazi’s, the populace would feel, then I say that anything I say would be pure speculation on my part and in truth I cannot be certain. If you asked me how *I think* they *might feel*, then that is a different matter yet again and I would say that I cannot see the relevance to the question of whether Tibet is a sovereign independant state; it may be that most Tibetan’s are unhappy about the Chinese presence in their country but that is not the determinant in and of itself as to whether Tibet is an independant sovereign state.
Prof
Ek voel jammer vir Manuel, want die ANC besef hy is een van min in die ANC wat nog beskou word as iemand met integriteit, en nou moet hy hierdie tipe ding namens die ANC sê om legitimiteit daaran te gee. Dit sal my nie verbaas as hy nie werklik daarmee saamstem nie.
So wat is sy keuses? Basies dit: Staan vir die Dalai Lama se reg om in SA te praat, of behou sy posisie en verhoed (vir so lank hy kan) dat die staatskas totaal geplunder word.
Btw Prof, ek is bly jy het “All peoples have the right of self-determination” op hierdie blog genoem.
Shakira and CD (part 1)
What if I can prove that irrefutable fact?
Lets first start with The Great Sino-Tibetan Peace Treaty of 821/822
Firstly it is noted that Great China recognises the Great empire of Tibet infact tibet was roughly the same size as china. This is the first hurdle you have to accept in the independence of tibet. One great empire would not recognise another great empire just for fun and games Tibet at this stage was invading china. Whether you like it or not this is fact, this is history
secondly you need to look at what this treaty says and it still holds water till to this day and what is actually set in stone actually very literally there is a stone graving of the peace treaty.
A bilingual account of this treaty is inscribed on a stone pillar which stands outside the Jokhang temple in Lhasa. Here is the main core of this remarkable agreement:
Lhasa is actually the border between tibet and china and these pillers marked these borders
lets see what it says
“all gods and men have been made aware of it and taken as witnesses; and so that it may be celebrated in every age and in every generation the terms of agreement have been inscribed on a stone pillar. ”
This agreement is bounded by there costums and traditions between theres gods and man (THAT IS LAW) If you now about your customary law you that that is binding
“Both Tibet and China shall keep the country and frontiers of which they are now in possession”
Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China shall never be changed, the Three Jewels, the body of saints, the sun and moon, planets and stars have been invoked as witnesses”
“Thus the rulers and ministers of both Tibet and China declared, and swore the oath; and the text having been written in detail it was sealed with the seals of both great kings. It was inscribed with the signatures of those ministers who took part in the agreement and the text of the agreement was deposited in the archives of each party….”
Now soak that in and let it marinate ……Tibet was never part China to begin with.
Now let me skip ahead into the future and move on to Part to 2
Shakira and CD (Part 2)
Now you know about the MOngals and you know about China expelling the Mongols from tibet and china colonized tibet from the 17th century so im not going to get into that.
What I want to point out is this
1912 – 1949 Tibet De Facto independent from China by the british india even america
that is fact a soverign country once again…proof of this is during WW2 they remained a neutral country.
what is in dispute is that China claims sovereignty over Tibet for the past 700 yrs….well if we going to have that approach then britian still has sovereignty over south africa, india and america and the same with spain over south america.
Whats the relevence of Swaziland is Britian formed there independence as it was going to be soaked into south africa.
if we use the chinies approach then Greece under the Ottoman empire from the 14th century to 1821 then ottomans still have sovereignty over greece
Tibet was invaded by a new army a new country People of the Republic of China a communitic country
the problem is deplomacy how the hell do you to tell the largest army in the world to back the F**K off?
Tibet has always been independent its writen in stone
Alleman,
Ek dink Trevor het elke woord wat hy gese het bedoel. Dis juis oor hy so besorgd is oor die staatskas dat hy so spring as China praat.
Chris, this debate is really past its sell by date.
One last parting shot though: I know you’re not a historian. Neither am I. Where do you get the data you present as “the immaculate truth”? How do you know what its probative value is? Do you believe everything you read? I certainly don’t. I know that to get an sort of clear picture on historical events you need to look to a mulitiplicity of sources to establish what the broad consensus is – and even then you cannot be sure the dissenting voice is not in fact correct. Take for for example the very, very different interpretations today of who the victors at Cuito Cuanavale were and the consequences of that engagement. Things are simply not cut and dried as one would wish them. I suspect the same applies in the Tibetan debate context.