Hello everyone,

My name is Robert Vance. Many of you are probably here because you are very angry about a recent post that I wrote. Quite simply, my words were misunderstood and I apoligize if they offended you. I have great respect for the Chinese people and its culture and I hope that we can have an open dialogue. I would like to give you the chance to post your thought and opinions. I will try to respond as much as possible. You do not have to sign up to post. This forum is open to everyone.

Read original blog post

Jason,

I apoligize for the inconvenience. The page was simply getting too long and I thought that the forum would be a better place to continue the conversation. I'm very sorry that you lost your last post.

Robert Vance

This is just for sharing information:

http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/protest-at-colgate-university-ny-april-22-2008

Is Dalai really worth for Nobel price althoush his smile is charming and his words are honey?

Your thinking for uprising is not true. Think about evern in their website they accepted that

for the whole 8 years, Dalai ruled the Tibet peacefully. That means during these 8years, the

system didn't change. Please take a look a the 17points agreements, you will know this truth. So

in Hungary, the communist was really controlling the whole country. So how could the cause be

the same?

Thanks that you have metioned the CIA involvement. This is the 1 cause. Another cause is from

the beginning, some Tibetans wanted to be independent. They didn't want to accept the 17points

agreement.

But those 2 cuases is not the main cause which may change Dalai's mind.

The key point is the Serfdom system which Tibetan nobles wanted to keep it forever. The central

government wanted to Dalai to have “democracy” reform to liberate the slaveries. But the

goverment didn't set up the deadline. Therefore with 8 years, there were nothing changed. But

outside of Tibet Autonomy Region, which was not protected by 17points agreement, the China was

proceeding land reform and the tibetan living there such as in Qinghai, Gansu,Yunnan and

Sichuan.

What is called the Land Reform? It is the process of land reallocation. The landlord would lost

most of their lands and was forced to give the land to farms who had no lands and relied on

renting lands to farm for survive. Although this was not fair to landlords, it is really

supported by most of farmers. The communist at time really won most of Chinese heart at that

time and that could be explained why they could win the civil war.

For those Tibetan nobles living in the area out of Tibet Autonomy Region(TAR), the serfdom

system can not be sustained anymore, the slaves were liberted by governmen and were given lands

they never thought they could have and the liberty of life. They were really happy and

appreciated the communist party to give them second life. (Believe or not, this is the true

fact. In some Tibetan families, the Mao's portrait was still hanged there, in Han Chinese, we

never hang Mao's portrait any more.)

But the Tibetan nobles there resisted and off course it was failure. So they ran to Lhasa to

appeal to Dalai. And CIA took the chance to pursade Dalai to be independent. US seems to have a

logic “Enemy's enemy is our friend, need to use them against the enemy”, this logic could be

seen in other places, such as Bin Laden was supported by CIA because he fought against Soviet

Union in Afghanistan. CIA supported the Sadam because he could help US to fight Iran. Tibetan is

the same case.

Although the central government didn't give any deadline for reform, the unwilliness of giving

up the serfdom system from Nobles made him finally decionsion to make independence. The fighting

actually began and the result was obvious.

The Dalai's leave was given all of the slaves the opportunity to be liberted immediately. Think

about that there were 95% of population at that time. The liberation of so many slaves with very

few cost should be deemed as a great deed regardless of ideology. Think about in US, what the

cost did Lincon libert black slavery from South? If you think Chinese government is the

communist part and deny this deed, that's unfair. British has occupied Tibet, but it seemed that

Britain has no interesting on liberting slavery although they knew the situation (you could find

the documents from UK) about the slavery systme in Tibet.

Why did this history hidden by western country? They wanted to say that everything communist did

was wrong. But theocracy and slavery systme were totally condemned in Western sociaty. Any

positive things about communist would be banned. And hiding this history would be better to

polish Dalai's image.

So the conclusion is:
1. It's Dalai who finally broke 17points agreement and announced indepence
2. The root cause was from the land reform and slavery libert from the area outside of TAR.

When you said that no religous freedom in China, I don't think so.

“At any rate, the incident is now in the distant past, there is no religious freedom in Tibet (or in the rest of China, for that matter), there is no meaningful autonomy - all that exists is the power of central government to set different policies in Tibet. All that the Dalai is currently asking for is the same level of autonomy as enjoyed by Hong Kong. Now, it seems very likely that having granted that it would be difficult to prevent Tibet becoming independent - but this is a problem that China has brought on itself.”

Please note that the Chinese government always has contacted with Dalai for negotiation, but there were under table. But Dalai has the requirement is somewhere unacceptable. First please note the area of autonomy, before 1959, 14 Dalai is the ruler of Tibet Autonomy Region(TAR). Now he brought up another concept as big Tibet which is area all of Tibetan are living. He include all of Qinghai, part of Gansu, part of Yunna and part of Sichuan. So when we say Tibet, we normally mean TAR, but when he says Tibet, he used it sometime as his “big Tibet”. So be careful for this trick. So when he asked for autonomy is really very big area and he asked all of other ethnics left these area, would you think it's the sincerely way to talk?

Questions:
1. Do you support theocracy?
Sometimes you just think about freedom and independence, but forget whether this is really benefit for the people.
The cost of independence sometimes is much much large than what really gained.
What if the independence cuased another dictator country? How about the decay of economy? Any possible of civil war? Are you seriouly thinking about all of these kinds of things?
The apart of Ugoslavia caused so many brutal massacre is the fresh lesson we should not forget soon. Chenchnia's independence brought more terrorists. There is another truth, for normal people, they just want to have peaceful life regardless of whether it's independence or not. But the war may really ruined their life and their right to survive as a human being. You just there shout out for them with endangering your life. Look at the Iraq war, Iraq people now really enjoyed the so called america “democracy” but they are having hard time for survial for the daily life and more than 10,000 people already lost their lifes and also 4000 US soldiers.

2. The Tibetan Exile said “Hit doesn't mean violence. Only killing is violence. Those people died there by fire are caused by accident not the killing. Therefore there were no violence happened in 3.14″ Do you support this idea?
If such kind of people organized as a government, do you think they could be democracy system?

3. Do you support Scotland and Wales independence?

You didn't support riots. That's good.

But Tibetan exile said it's peaceful. And sounds like Western media also thought it's peaceful.

The violence protest happened everywhere. But we didn't hear any condemn about such kind of activity. The killing of so many innocent people, we didn't hear any sympathy on those who died on 3.14 events.

That's one reason why Chinese were angry.

You said Chinese government shoot, do you have evidence?

My opinion is. If the protest became the riots, the police has the right to control the situation and in the western sociaty does the same thing.

But from all of the current situation, we didn't find any evidence to show police shooting against riots yet on 3.14 in Lahsa.

“Now, I'm not trying to claim that there were any good motives in the invasion, I'm just saying that to the Tibetan leadership of the time Britain and China were equally as bad -

what created this attitude? Why should China wish to go on repeating our mistakes?”

I didn't agree with your statement.

First we need to understand the definition of Invasion. Invasion means 1 country invaded the land to the other country's land.
So the UK invaded the Tibet, that's the truth.

For Chinese central government marched toward his own province, to use “invasion” is not correct.

1. First UN, UK and US accepted that Tibet was part of China. Tibet tried to appeal to UN, but was rejected.

That's the fact, isn't it? (Please give me your answer with yes,or no, no need to explain)

2. Did China violate any international law when claimed the soveignty of Tibet?

UN didn't support Tibet independence, China wanted to claim the country soveingty and wanted to talk with Tibet in 1950s. Tibet at first time refused to talk and used the military against Chinese Army, at this time China fought at Changdu, the border area of TAR and there is no more further war between central government and Tibet. I didn't see that China was wrong. After that, to respect TAR's autonomy, the Chinese government. signed the 17points agreement and sticked to this points until the time of Tibet uprising for independence again.

So if you think that China invaded Tibet, I could find any law to support your statement. If anyone in the world wanted to blame China government, I think they should blame UN, US

and UK first. It's them to let the Tibet's appeal down.

” But Tibetan exile said it's peaceful. And sounds like Western media also thought it's peaceful.”

Once again, you are mistaking the quoting of Tibetan sources for support - I did not see one piece which did not also quote the Chinese government's side of the story.

“You said Chinese government shoot, do you have evidence?”

We have the accounts of eye-witnesses. More than that we have common sense, which tells us that Buddhist monks are unlikely to suddenly march out of their monasteries and start attacking people, we also have the photos of monks killed by gunshot wounds. Now - is this the same as having reporters on the scene who would be able to confirm the stories? No. But why should we simply accept the CCP story on this? The Tibetans may be guilty of exaggerating in some cases (especially the 1.2 million figure), but this is not the same as simply fabricating stories in the fashion that Chinese state media does. If you doubt that the Chinese media makes up stories, then let me tell you I have with my own eyes seen a more than ten-thousand strong pro-independence demonstration in Taipei where at the very most three hundred mostly elderly KMT supporters staged a counter-demonstration reported in the Chinese press as:

“Tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Taipei yesterday to oppose moves toward independence in the island province.

Defying
the hot weather, throngs of people held banners declaring their
opposition to moves to change the island's “official name” from the
“Republic of China” to “Taiwan” - a move supported by former
“president” Lee Teng-hui.

The demonstration, which was joined by
around 1,000 taxis and private cars, was also in response to a protest
held by pro-independence forces at the weekend.

Banners
displayed by marchers on the orderly and good natured anti-independence
demonstration, which was joined by many passers-by, read: “Against
Taiwan Independence”, “I am Taiwanese and Chinese as well” and “Direct
links for transport, post and trade between Taiwan and the mainland
will lead Taiwan to prosperity”.

Other marchers sent a very
simple but clear message to those seeking to split Taiwan from its
motherland, displaying the word “Chinese” on their T-shirts.”

This was a total lie, no passers-by joined in, 1,000 cars and taxis did not join the demonstration, as I just said the demonstration itself was only a three-hundred strong counter-demonstration by elderly KMT supporters. Ten thousand people did march that day, but they were marching for independence. If you doubt what I am saying then just do a search for the september 2003 pro-independence demonstrations - even the pro-KMT press will support what I am saying. When you have seen that, rather than just use some photos in a way that was potentially misleading, or have a commentater who made some unwise comments, the Chinese media simply makes things up that they would like to be true, then you will be inclined to dismiss pretty much anything they say.

By the way, the definition of 'invasion' in English covers pretty much any thrust into enemy-held territory, be it in a civil war or an international one. For example, the D-Day landings in Normandy were called an 'invasion', likewise the forces which liberated Kuwait and the Falkland Islands were also called 'invasion forces'. Was what China carried out in 1951 an 'invasion'? Most certainly it was.

” That's the fact, isn't it? (Please give me your answer with yes,or no, no need to explain)”

My answer is yes and no, and such things always need explanation - by the time the matter came before the UN the 17-point agreement had already been signed. As I said , if the Dalai leadership had known what was happening at the UN they might not have signed it, as it was the issue was a dead letter even befor it reached the UN.

“Did China violate any international law when claimed the soveignty of Tibet?”

Since the neither the People's Republic of China nor the the Dalai government were at that point internationally recognised governments I do not know why you would even think that international law would be applicable at this point. But let us put this in a different way - it is the duty of the members of the UN security council to maintain world peace. When Kim Il-Sung's army invaded North Korea this was deemed to be a threat to world peace even though he was invading territory that his government claimed and (mainly American) UN forces were dispatched to stop them. But imagine if Syngman Rhee had signed a peace deal recognising South Korea as being part of the DPRK - then there would have been no grounds for the dispatch of the force. Of course, the vote in the UN only took place because the Soviet Union was boycotting the assembly over its non-recognition of the PRC.

Compare this to the 1975 invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam - there can be no question that this, too, was an invasion, large columns of tanks and motorised infantry rolled over the DMZ between the two states, but because there was no will in the international community to protect what was seen as a failed state the invasion was allowed un-opposed. The 200,000 ethic-Chinese refugees who had to flee across the border from Vietnam into China in the years that followed are part of the consequence of this decision.

“After that, to respect TAR's autonomy, the Chinese government. signed
the 17points agreement and sticked to this points until the time of
Tibet uprising for independence again.”

Since the terms of the agreement were dictated at gunpoint it is strange that you think that the Tibetans would have been happy with this situation.

As for talks with the Dalai, I have to say I do not believe anything will come of them. It is impossible for the Chinese government to make any concessions to greater Tibetan autonomy, as they would then face claims for greater autonomy from many other groups. Of course, in the long-term democracy and the granting of full human rights is the only real solution to this - fear of what people will do with freedom once they have it is a totally false and immoral reason to deny them it. The situation in Iraq has showed us that the rule of law is important, but where the imposition of that law robs people of their freedom it ceases to be 'law' in any real sense. In the UK we created the common-law system, where law (at least theoretically) is supposed to be built up over generations by the decisions of the courts and with the consent of the people - and in any just law system the law can only be developed with the consent of the people. Did the Tibetans consent to have their right to display pictures of the Dalai - who is the leader of the religion that most of them follow - taken away from them? Did they consent to being ruled by the CCP? Did they consent to having the land which they had tended their herds on for generations taken away from them and being herded into villages in which there is no work and no hope?

I think that the root cause of the disturbances in Tibet are the same as those of most of China's problems - the lack of freedom. What makes the situation in Tibet different is that the Tibetans have a seperate ethnic and religious identity which acts as a unifying force. When Hu Jia was arrested I doubt very much that any of his neighbours lifted a hand to defend him, but if the communist authorities in Tibet wish to arrest someone they are likely to be faced with an angry group of Tibetans - this in fact was how the riots in Tibet started.

Jason, the Chinese ambassador wrote about the links between China and Tibet in both of her recent articles in British newspapers, and I am yet to read one western historian of China who does not write about the connection between China and Tibet. The westrn media definitely does report on the tribute that the Tibetan leadership paid as part of its feudal allegiance to the Chinese emperor. It's just that this is not touted as a justification for CCP domination of Tibet - because in any logical appreciation of the Tibetan problem a tribute paid by a feudal leader to his overlord is no justification for the invasion, conquest and subjugation of a nation hundreds of years later. Similar exchanges also went on with Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Burma, Thailand and Nepal during the China's imperial history - do you also wish to claim these countries as part of China? Britain and Ireland also share a long history where the Irish High Kings of Tara would swear allegiance to the English monarch - should the British army then invade and conquer Eire on this basis?

A large part of the reason that many countries opposed the 1982 Argentine invasion of the Falklands was not out of any real sympathy for the British position, but simply because if countries were going to start resurrecting 150-year old claims then the world would descend into chaos. My fear is that given the way in that the current generation of politically active young Chinese people have become radicalised, in the future we will see calls for the return of Mongolia, the 'sixty-four villages across the Heilongjiang river', regions in North Korea, the Spratly and Paracel Islands, Arunachal Pradesh and other territory that has at one point or another been ruled by a Chinese dynasty.

The Chinese government could make two measures which would go a long way towards silencing these fears. Firstly it could be more willing to come to agreements fixing the borders between China and its neighbours, especially with India, the way that China refused to recognised India's annexation of Sikkim for almost thirty years was particularly weird - a dictatorship insisting on the independence of a country whose people had voted it out of existance, can you imagine anything more grotesque? Secondly, by signalling a greater willingness to allow dialogue on granting autonomy to ethnic minorities it would show that China does not seek to crush ethnic minorities through the migration of large numbers of Han Chinese. However, I doubt either of these will be possible as long as the communists remain in power - they need these issues to keep the population in line.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=2732

Here is the article about

How Repressive Is the Chinese Government in Tibet?

Scholar tells skeptical audience that claims by Tibetan exiles of Chinese cultural discrimination are greatly exaggerated.