Db

Thanks. My point about Mao was that the Chinese took Tibet by force of arms without asking the Tibetans.

I understand your point about prodding the dragon. One of my colleagues from a certain part of China has been telling me about the repression he faces just to organise ina seemingly non-political way.

Nevertheless the dragon is not monolithic. It is made up of different classes each with different material interests. In fact the CCP, like ruling classes everywhere, is a tiny minority.

Prodding the dragon may produce an upsurge in struggle in China itself, an upsurge that can see Tibet gain its independence or autonomy or whatever it is Tibetans want.

And you ask if we could eventually become one people. My memory is that Marx wrote that when nation states disappeared and labour was free to move around the world (he envisaged a world where production occurred democratically to satisfy human need) the world's population would meld. That seems to make sense to me.

ClarionCall

I’m not going to re-argue terra nullius with you, however it would seem to me that the British in 1788 had much more belief that they were abiding by the law than the Chinese did in 1951. The people’s liberation armies’ invasion of Tibet cannot reasonably be equated to the first fleet. Not unless you have a real flair for the dramatic.

The Chinese legal claim is disputed by the Tibetans, as you would expect. Chinas’ claims to Tibet evolve from events in the 17th and 18th centuries. As I said to Whats the Deal, if we redrew maps based upon the borders and ethnic groupings from the 17th century virtually every country would have disputed ownership. The website you directed me to is blatant Chinese propaganda, and it’s appallingly written. Might as well have directed me to Big Hu’s blog.

Self determination for the Tibetans is absolutely a different concept to that which Australia’s aborigines have sought. Australia’s aborigines are Australian for a start. The Tibetans don’t consider themselves Chinese. So we are talking about the difference between self determination for a nation state and self determination for a diverse indigenous people (with no history of nationhood) within the society in which they live. Further the Aborigines don’t want their own country, they just want to be able to live their own lives within our country.

I thought you actually were intelligent until you suggested we give the Aborigines Western Australia. What a moron, mate. Are you talking about ethnically cleansing all the eastern seaboard and central Australian states of Aborigines to move them to this supposed Aboriginal land? Did you condsider the fact that Aborigines who live in FNQ have no interest whatsoever in WA? They have no connection with that land.

But tell me why you haven’t signed over your own back yard yet? I bet you’re not from WA, that’s for sure. Why not give them Victoria, I can do without it? Or NSW?

Lev,

When the majority of Jews and the majority of Palestinians want to live in a single country I’ll support that.

In preparation you would obviously have monitored extensive media coverage and reliable databases. You claim disrespect and verbal abuse during debate is considered a time honoured sport for the West. You describe China debate as calm, measured and respectful, requiring time to get things into perspective.

Is it possible that there are two China's?

Let's take a simple example of calm, measured and respectful. The last NPC included numerous vitriolic outbursts by delegates against various individuals and leaders. These outbursts included internationally respected individuals such as the Dalai Lama and others that disagree with CCP policy. Public record shows that Mr Rudd is only one of many who have been calling for dialogue for a long period of time, including the Dalai Lama. Rudd's is just another voice, but possibly at a most opportune time.

When it comes down to improvements in freedom of speech, the second China appears to emerge more often. Let us take the latest case.

The BBC reported the April 3 conviction of prominent Chinese activist Hu Jia. The Beijing Number One Intermediate People's Court Convicted Hu Jia on charges of “inciting subversion of state power” for criticising the ruling Communist Party and sentenced him to three and a half years imprisonment.

Hu has been internationally recognized for his long campaign against environmental degradation, religious freedom, and democratic rights in China and rights for HIV and Aids sufferers.

Han was arrested during pre Olympic crackdowns on activists that included the arrest of land-rights activist Yang Chunlin and housing-rights activists Ye Guozhu and Wang Ling. None were in Tibet.

Do you consider people dedicated to such humane causes as so dangerous to be given such sentences? Or is it just to keep them in prison during the run up to and including the Olympics? You must also be aware of the hundreds of others who have been caught up in the recent raids and for whom calls are being made for quick trials.

None of the foregoing is personal vendetta against you or your article Graeme, just statements of verified plain facts to bring balance.

Arthur Thomas

You describe China debate as calm, measured and respectful, requiring time to get things into perspective.

I didn't actually.

I have followed Online Opinion for some time just as an observer. At times enlightened by well researched articles and at other times, disgusted by blatantly biased and ill informed opinions.

I was enlightened by the recent appearance of articles and responses by Arthur Thomas and was getting to like the guy. His response to Graeme Mills "What to do About Tibet" was spot on. His article "Who is to Blame for the Tibet Uprising" was interesting but the paragraph on "conquering nature" stopped me in my tracks when he referred to the planned diversion of the Brahmaputra. I can only assume that this was written on the 1st of April as an attempt to outdo Richard Dimbleby's 1957 April Fools Day spoof "The Spaghetti Tree Festival."

No one in their right mind, and not even China would consider such a lunatic plan. If Tibet was a disaster in credibility and public relations for China, diverting the lifeblood of north east India and Bangladesh would be sheer lunacy, genocide and abuse of human rights on an unheard of scale. Come on Arthur, get real. China really can't be that stupid!

Arthur, to spoil what had been such a realistic article up to that stage is unforgivable and you plunged in my estimations.

Cyclops

Arthur T

You could not see the positive changes in China. In your eyes, Chinese government and all Han are evils. Unfortunately I am one of them, although I never feel I have any superiority in China comparing with our ethnic minorities.

Freedom of speech is still a issue in China although it is improved recent years. However I am also very disappointed by western media. I start to realize nowhere I can find a truth. Western media is not restricted by government like China. However it is driven by looking for sales points which could lead more revenue. So they create an issue and a evil - China.

They do need to lie about since there are lots of problems in China (a developing country). It is enough for just giving all negative images without one good.

I do not understand what you appeal for changing human rights of China for. 96% of Chinese are racist (Han)as you said in your "Who is to blame ...". And thank you, you let me know who I am.

Graeme Mills just want you give Chinese government a time other than instant change. He also suggest everyone should look at it in both sides. From his article, I can see he is trying to understand and know more about China. For me his comments and suggestion are more positive.