My NYT Comment #531.
EthicalDemocracy
New York City
October 18th, 2009
2:52 pm
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18dowd.html?sort=newest&offset=2
EthicalDemocracy
New York City
October 18th, 2009
10:43 am
Ethical Reassurance vs. "Strategic Reassurance"
I am going to posit my term "Ethical Reassurances" against Obama's "Strategic Reassurances."
Obama has declined to meet the Dalai Lama duirng his recent visit to Washington, because Obama has an upcoming visit to China -- and you know, Obama wouldn't want to offend the freedom loving Chinese authorities by playing host to the Dalai Lama, an authentic winner of a Nobel Peace Prize.
In stark contrast, India's strategy of "Ethical Reassurance" is the exact opposite of Obama's "strategic reassurance."
India's safe haven policy towards Tibetans is an example of Gandhian ethics in practice, in politics. How shrewdly ethical, reminiscent of Gandhi's game-changing nonviolent dismantling of the mighty Brit Empire.
Recently, the Indian Government allowed the Dalai Lama
to visit Arunachal Pradesh, a border state within the Republic of India,
now increasingly stridently disputed by China.
The Indian Govt did not hold the Dalai Lama back,
even at the risk of further sabre-rattling
by the expansionist Chinese.
Tibetans live in Arunachal Pradesh, as they do in every part of India.
The Dalai Lama has every ethical justification,
indeed an ethical obligation to visit with Tibetan communities
in Arunachal Pradesh.
The Chinese government finds intolerable, India's policy of offering Safe Haven to the Dalai Lama and hundreds of thousands of his fellow Tibetans, a policy that India has steadfastly followed since the late '50s, when the Dalai Lama and his followers fled Chinese oppression in their ancestral homeland.
India's Safe Haven policy towards the Dalai Lama incurred Chinese aggression on Indian territory in the Northeast in 1962, in which tens of thousands of ill-prepared Indian soldiers lost their lives.
Of course there are many un-noted geopolitical complexities in my narrative but India's strategy of "Ethical Reassurances" is the exact opposite of Obama's "strategic reassurances."
India's safe haven policy towards Tibetans is an example of Gandhian ethics in practice, in politics. How shrewdly ethical, reminiscent of Gandhi's game-changing nonviolent dismantling of the mighty Brit Empire.
Of course no one seriously expects a policy of "Ethical Reassurance" from the Chinese -- or from the US for that matter.
Obama is no different in substance (only in style and hype) from his other white male forbears in the Whites' House, with the exception of Lincoln.
Obama performs Whiteness which is a US dominance ideology, racialized of course,
in which ETHICS is consistently trumped by PROFIT -- slavery, genocide, nuclear annihilation of civilians, invasion, occupation -- you get my drift.
I guess a major difference between the Dalai Lama and Obama is that Tibet's leader earned his Nobel. So did Vaclav even though he didn't get one. Hey, neither did Gandhi.
Satyameva Jayate -- to Truth goes the Victory.
Not to you or to me, but to Truth itself.
Chithra Karunakaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
--------------
NYTimes copyright
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18dowd.html
Fie, Fatal Flaw!
By MAUREEN DOWD
President Obama’s legislative career offers cautionary tales about the toll of constant consensus building.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18dowd.html#bozoanchor
----------------------
Prague Post Copyright
http://praguepost.com/news/comments/2-dignitary-details-tibetan-objectives.html#com4304
-----------------
Reuters Copyright
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-42388820090911?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0
By Krittivas Mukherjee
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The Dalai Lama plans to visit soon Arunachal Pradesh, part of which China claims as its territory, an aide said on Friday in a trip that could again rile Beijing after it denounced his visit to Taiwan this month.
Chhime Chhoekyapa, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader's aide, told Reuters the Dalai Lama would be in Arunachal Pradesh in the second week of November.
"He is going there for teaching. This has nothing to do with politics, there is nothing political about it," Chhoekyapa said.
The intended visit has already sparked consternation in China, which claims about 90,000 sq km of Arunachal Pradesh along their border as part of its territory, and could become another irritant in ties already dogged by a border dispute.
"China expresses strong concern about this information. The visit further reveals the Dalai clique's anti-China and separatist essence," Jiang Yu, the spokeswoman for China's foreign ministry, said in a statement faxed to Reuters.
"China's stance on the so-called 'Arunachal Pradesh' is consistent. We firmly oppose Dalai visiting the so-called 'Arunachal Pradesh'," Jiang said.
The Dalai Lama's travel plan was announced a week after the completion of his visit to Taiwan, a self-ruled island claimed by Beijing. China denounced the trip.
A visit to Arunachal Pradesh could now draw further attention to China's treatment of Tibetan activists and the Dalai Lama's calls for cultural and religious freedoms and autonomy.
China considers the Dalai Lama a "splittist" who seeks to separate nearly a quarter of the land mass of the People's Republic of China.
"TIMING SIGNIFICANT"
The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, denies the charge and says he seeks greater rights for Tibetans.
"The timing of his trip (to Arunachal Pradesh) is significant. It comes while the debate over his visit to Taiwan is still hot," said Bhaskar Roy, a New Delhi-based China expert.
"Tibetans are as good at playing these games as the Chinese. They know such a visit will keep up the pressure on China."
The trip has ramifications for India-China relations as well.
India and China fought a short war in 1962 and, despite burgeoning trade in recent years, mistrust remains. Both sides jostle for resources and influence as they seek a global role.
This year, the two countries have faced off at multi-lateral forums, including Chinese objections to a $60 million Asian Development Bank loan for a project in Arunachal Pradesh.
Indian media have repeatedly reported "incursions" by Chinese soldiers patrolling the 3,500-km (2,200-mile) border, disputed at various stretches.
In response, India has begun modernising its border roads and moved a squadron of strike aircraft close to the China border. Arunachal Governor J.J. Singh said in June up to 30,000 new troops would be deployed in the area.
"From India's point of view the Dala Lama's visit will restate Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory," said Roy.
The Dalai Lama fled Tibet through Arunachal Pradesh, which has a substantial Buddhist population.
(Additional reporting by Yu Le in BEIJING)
==================================================================================
Showing posts with label Dalai Lama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dalai Lama. Show all posts
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Tibet Rising not Uprising -- Again
Dalai Lama Harshly Condemns China Over Tibet
By EDWARD WONG
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/world/asia/11tibet.html?hp
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/03/11/world/asia/11tibet.html
New York Times copyright
------------------------------
My comment #46
March 10th, 2009 9:15 am
Tibet Rising not Uprising -- again
This is a 50 year dilemma, originating in and fueled by imperial British "buffer state" Tibet policy.
The memory of the mis-named 'uprising' definitely calls for a celebration, something the Chinese government will not tolerate.
How can China possibly permit a celebration that calls attention to its own oppression?! The Beijing Govt. is on the wrong side of history.
The Dalai Lama has never asked for outright liberation and nation-state sovereignty for Tibet. The Dalai Lama has reasonably and rightly maintained that Tibetans can be part of China, while the Chinese for their part need to respect both in letter and spirit, religious, cultural freedom and economic freedoms of Tibetans.
Instead the Chinese have operated with a heavy hand, centralizing instead of devolving local power into the hands of Tibetans. China has an almost unbroken history of centralized government, the Beijing govt. simply doesn't know any better at this stage in their own development.
Note that Dharmsala is in India. The Dalai Lama and his thousands of followers have lived in India since 1959 when the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama fled to India and were given peaceful refuge here.
Dharmsala is no Darfur.
I grew up in India seeing and hearing about the Dalai Lama who was a close associate of Jawaharlal Nehru, (a co-founder of the Non-Aligned Movement), and other Indian political leaders. Tibetans over the years have been born in India in the half century that their "country" has been under occupation. They have lived and worked throughout India as well as sought refuge and economic opportunity throughout the world. However, Tibetans are entitled to their own historic homeland, which of course they can and must peacefully share with others, local ethnic Chinese especially who have also lived there historically.
The Dalai Lama has never pressed for Tibetan independence from China while residing in India, because to press for Tibetan independence would jeopardize India's rightful stand on sovereignty over Kashmir. Indian secularism and democracy are being tested in Kashmir, no less than the less visible quandary of Tibetan refugee rights to enjoy freedom while in their long unfair exile. In any event, Tibet and Kashmir are not comparable, they each follow a distinct colonial and post-colonial trajectory.
If only China can be quietly yet urgently persuaded to allow 1) full cultural religious freedoms of Tibetans, 2) unconditional right of Tibetans to return if they please to their ancient, peaceful homeland, 3) to develop their own unique notion of being a 'people.' in the world.
Idealistic pragmatism can be the ethical choice in Tibet. The loss of the ancient ways in Tibet (while Tibetans themselves, not Beijing, decide how they want to shape their own lives in a modern Tibet), would be a loss for us all.
The Arc of Justice bends slowly but it bends toward Tibet and the Tibetan people.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
Recommended by 28 Readers
===================================================================================
By EDWARD WONG
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/world/asia/11tibet.html?hp
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/03/11/world/asia/11tibet.html
New York Times copyright
------------------------------
My comment #46
March 10th, 2009 9:15 am
Tibet Rising not Uprising -- again
This is a 50 year dilemma, originating in and fueled by imperial British "buffer state" Tibet policy.
The memory of the mis-named 'uprising' definitely calls for a celebration, something the Chinese government will not tolerate.
How can China possibly permit a celebration that calls attention to its own oppression?! The Beijing Govt. is on the wrong side of history.
The Dalai Lama has never asked for outright liberation and nation-state sovereignty for Tibet. The Dalai Lama has reasonably and rightly maintained that Tibetans can be part of China, while the Chinese for their part need to respect both in letter and spirit, religious, cultural freedom and economic freedoms of Tibetans.
Instead the Chinese have operated with a heavy hand, centralizing instead of devolving local power into the hands of Tibetans. China has an almost unbroken history of centralized government, the Beijing govt. simply doesn't know any better at this stage in their own development.
Note that Dharmsala is in India. The Dalai Lama and his thousands of followers have lived in India since 1959 when the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama fled to India and were given peaceful refuge here.
Dharmsala is no Darfur.
I grew up in India seeing and hearing about the Dalai Lama who was a close associate of Jawaharlal Nehru, (a co-founder of the Non-Aligned Movement), and other Indian political leaders. Tibetans over the years have been born in India in the half century that their "country" has been under occupation. They have lived and worked throughout India as well as sought refuge and economic opportunity throughout the world. However, Tibetans are entitled to their own historic homeland, which of course they can and must peacefully share with others, local ethnic Chinese especially who have also lived there historically.
The Dalai Lama has never pressed for Tibetan independence from China while residing in India, because to press for Tibetan independence would jeopardize India's rightful stand on sovereignty over Kashmir. Indian secularism and democracy are being tested in Kashmir, no less than the less visible quandary of Tibetan refugee rights to enjoy freedom while in their long unfair exile. In any event, Tibet and Kashmir are not comparable, they each follow a distinct colonial and post-colonial trajectory.
If only China can be quietly yet urgently persuaded to allow 1) full cultural religious freedoms of Tibetans, 2) unconditional right of Tibetans to return if they please to their ancient, peaceful homeland, 3) to develop their own unique notion of being a 'people.' in the world.
Idealistic pragmatism can be the ethical choice in Tibet. The loss of the ancient ways in Tibet (while Tibetans themselves, not Beijing, decide how they want to shape their own lives in a modern Tibet), would be a loss for us all.
The Arc of Justice bends slowly but it bends toward Tibet and the Tibetan people.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
Recommended by 28 Readers
===================================================================================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)