In today's pages: Turkey, Tibet, tumbling, twittering
Kishore Mahbubani of the National University of Singapore explains why China sees Tibet quite differently than the West:
Chinese history records dominion over Tibet as far back as the 13th century. China's control has ebbed and flowed -- but this is equally true in many other parts of China. Central control by the capital has never been consistent, shifting with the strength of the central government. But this much is certain: China has been in control of most of its territories longer than some Western nations have existed.
More important, the Chinese recall that the latest efforts to separate Tibet from China came as recently as the 1940s and 1950s, when British and U.S. agents were seen to be encouraging Tibetan independence while the new People's Republic was still weak.... Virtually no Chinese believe that Western governments have a strictly moral interest in Tibet. They are convinced that their efforts are only the latest efforts to dismember or derail China.
Author Carolyn See navigates Santa Monica sans car, and columnist Joel Stein finds a place for thoughts that aren't even well-formed enough to be blogposts: the tumble and the twitter.
The editorial board encourages Congress to extend unemployment benefits, urges California to fight proposed federal fuel emissions rules, and says there are small signs of a thaw in Turkey-Armenia relations.
Readers discuss McCain's disability pension and whether it raises questions about his ability to serve as president. L.A.'s Anthony Filosa says, "I'd like to remind The Times that Franklin D. Roosevelt's significant disabilities did not affect his ability to successfully lead this country through some of our most tumultuous times and be remembered as one of our greatest presidents."
And Long Beach's Barbara Hubbs hopes that "McCain is donating that money to the disabled veterans who were not able to put their lives back together."
International lawyers from all over the world--U.S, Australia etc. had a conference in 1993 (around that time) to go through evidences from China and from Tibet to determine whether Tibet was an independant country. The conclusion from the lawyers after all evidences considered is that Tibet is an independant country. Thus, under international law the legal status of Tibet is that of a country under illegal occupation.
Posted by: jetblaze | April 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Like you say World Lawyers. I didn't know U.S and Australia is consider the world. Did the U.S and Australia exist 300 years ago?....no
Posted by: ignorance is a bliss | April 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Singapore should be happily submitting to total Chinese control and domination and become a part of the old “Motherland”.
I’m sure that the CCP will be able to manufacture a version of history convincing enough that the most naïve in the world will be believing in it and start arguing for an “Anschluss” of Singapore.
After all hat’s what this scribe is proffering in this, sorry, but quite frankly silly, incoherent and uninformed piece of tripe.
Most Chinese would not even argue that the Manchu empire was actually Chinese, today it is the Han who run the show and identify with the notion of the ‘Nation China’.
Let alone the distortion of the other historic facts: Tibet never ever was ‘part’ of China, it only ever had some loose ties with it.
Under the Mongols China was conquered and subjugated whereas Tibet entered into a Cho Yon agreement with them and ruled itself through Tibetan rulers.
Does being in the same fold under someone elses rule constitute “Part of” a country being ruled by someone else?
During the Qing Dynasty there was no effective control by “China” I.E actually the Manchus, a completely different entity according to today’s “Chinese”.
Suggest you enquire into some informed accounts of history first before making such silly pronouncements.
And ahhh yes, legal experts surely have nothing to lose but theire reputation, be they from Australia, US or maybe even Singapore. They are only the finest legal minds who determined the legals status of Tibet and unequivocally found it to be an ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED COUNTRY.
Would they find that Singapore is “part of China”?
Posted by: Cardano | April 25, 2008 at 05:41 PM