• People Talk and My Ear Bleeds


    from Twitter


    Friday, March 21, 2008

    The World's Conscience

    "If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China's oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world, ... The situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world." (Nancy Pelosi, US House Speaker, March 21, 2008)

    via CNN.com


    Anonymous said...

    Imagine that was happened in New Orlean and the police did their thing s to restore orders, would you label the entire police dept as racsit against blacks. Give me a common sense break. show me a single clip of police open fire to those not so peaceful protester....

    Anonymous said...

    Freedom-loving people spoke out against the American war-machine yet we invaded Iraq anyway– a sovereign nation that did nothing to us. Thousands of people dying in Iraq and she wants to criticize China for stopping a riot. Wonderful foreign policy.

    Anonymous said...

    Of course everybody wants to send the exile "Tibetans" "back" to China. They are a burden to everybody. Except for violence and begging for money, what else do they have?

    Triet said...

    To the first anonymous comment:

    If the New Orleans police did this to restore order, I might not call it racist, but I would call it wanton and excessive use of force. If they did it for years, I would call it opression. That's what's happening in Tibet.

    Do I have clips of police opening fire on Tibetans? No, but I do have pictures of shot Tibetans, and I'm pretty sure they're not shooting themselves.

    To the second anonymous comment:

    Yes, I agree, "wonderful foreign policy." That said, Iraq and Tibet are not exactly the same and not mutually exclusive. For whatever you or I feel should have been done in Iraq (or not done), the fact is we have a new situation in Tibet and the opportunity to do it right.

    I see 1) a people disenfranchised from their homeland for 50 years (although they had lived there for thousands), 2) a people so fed up with oppressive Communist rule that they have hit the breaking point, 3) a people that have openly appealed to the United States and the world for help in establishing a free society.

    Given these three points, we should help Tibet. Iraq had none of these three points, so we cannot equate this to Iraq. We must evaluate it on its own merits -- and on those it passes.

    To anonymous comment #3:

    Tibetans had a vibrant culture and nation, including a land full of natural resources, which is why China invaded in 1950. Since that time, they have lived as bastard children, poor and homeless, while the Communist government purposely relocated Han Chinese into Tibet and scarred the land with mining and logging -- all of which went back to building Beijing. And they have spent the last 50 years telling the Chinese that they are doing the right thing.

    I feel bad for the Tibetans that were forceably kicked out of their homes, and bad for the Chinese who have been lied to by their government for the last 50 years.

    A Tibet full of Tibetans would foster that culture again, and keep economic progress in Tibet instead of exporting it to Beijing, relieving a burden on the Indians who house so many exiles, and adding to the beauty of our multicultural world.

    Anonymous said...

    Moral authority? We have lost moral authority on human right with what we've done in Iraq.

    In response to the comment above "Tibetans had a vibrant culture and nation, including a land full of natural resources, which is why China invaded in 1950", SPEND A LITTLE TIME STUDYING HISTORY!

    Anonymous said...


    Triet said...


    I have. In fact, I spent four years studying History with emphases on Asian and Military History at college. I've also studied Buddhism -- besides living among a Buddhist people -- and focused on Tibetan Buddhism.

    What have you done? You hide behind the "anonymous" name and shout such trite comments, without offering anything of substance.

    Where are you from?
    What do you do for work?
    If you feel we lost our moral authority in Iraq, what should we have done? What should we do now? Why?
    What should we do given the current situation in Tibet?

    Sitting back and calling names, like "except for violence and begging for money, what else do they have?" expresses a contempt for the Tibetan people, but does nothing to further the discourse on what, if anything, should be done.

    Specifically regarding the link you left, it did nothing to refute what I said. If anything, it shows the USA already has a history of fostering democracy with Tibet. I would add that the CIA (or precursor to it, to be exact) did the same thing with Ho Chi Minh in the 1940s against China.

    Sure, you might say that the NED doesn't achieve it's purpose, and produces "polyarchy" instead of democracy, but that criticism is old news. We all know that America's nation building efforts in Central America were a failure.

    Again, you may feel that we went into Iraq wrongly, stayed there wrongly, and did everything wrong. But, Tibet is not Iraq. The connection comes in that Iraq's aftermath has created a worldview that Tibet is emerging under. Outside of that, the macro similarites aren't there.

    The United States has a unique opportunity. China's entry into Tibet was hailed as wrong when it happened in 1949-50 (or '51, depending on what date they use). Tibet was acknowledged by the world as a separate country, and had formalized relations with Great Britain, among others.

    China's oppression of the Tibetan people is well documented. It is very easy to get on Youtube or google and find pictures and videos and first-hand stories about what is going on in Tibet.

    China has lots of pressure on it this year with the Olympics in Beijing. It desperately wants to be seen on par with Europe and the USA. To do this it must clean up its image as a bargain-basement labor supplier, void of human rights, provider of imperfect goods, polluted country.

    The United States has suffered in world opinion by entering and staying in Iraq when many feel it wasn't warranted and is just an expansion of empiric influence.

    The Tibetans want autonomy, and have appealed to the international community (including the USA) and seized on this olympic year, to spur interest in their plight.

    If the United States publicly gives support to Tibetans, it will do many things:

    It will regain some of its lost prestige by answering a generally accepted call of support (the opposite of Iraq).

    It will put pressure on the Communist government in China to explain actions, helping to educate the Chinese people and further that country's path to democracy.

    It will, possibly, succeed in giving Tibet autonomy, relieving the burden of Nepal and India to pay for the millions of refugees, and ensuring an ally in a key strategic location in Asia.

    It will weaken a Communist regime that has clearly and openly joined with Russia to veto measures on the UN Security council that had full support of every other member (ex. UN intervention in Myanmar).

    Yes, every action has associated costs, and we can continue this discourse discussing those costs and whether we should accept them, but the reasons why American should not stay silent on Tibet are clear.

    Sara said...

    Thanks, Triet--your comment from 3/22/2008 07:10:00 PM was exactly what I had been waiting to hear from you regarding the situation. I have nothing further to add to your clear-cut explanation.