11/20/2015

Dispelling the myth of an expansionist China




By Chua Chin Leng (chinadaily.com.cn)Updated: 2015-11-13 17:48

The world has been misled into believing that China is an ambitious and expansionist country coveting the land of neighboring states. This myth has been hyped by the western media for several decades so that the undiscerning now accept this view uncritically without bothering to confirm if it is true.

The South China Sea territorial disputes have been used by superficial academics or those with an agenda as proof that China is indeed expansionist. Without understanding the facts, many have been gullible to accept the disputes in the South China Sea as the proof they needed that China is claiming the islands of the counter claiming parties. The truth is that these countries are claiming islands that China has claimed long before these countries were formerd and were recognized as countries.


There is historical evidence to show that modern China was and is never has been expansionist. There were 3 incidents or wars that China was involved in after 1949 where China could have seized the land of neighboring countries that it had occupied. Take the case of the Korean Peninsula. After the armistice China withdrew completely from what is now North Korea without leaving a single soldier on Korean soil.

It could have stayed on, on the same false pretenses the Americans used to continue to station troops in South Korea. More than 60 years after the Korean War, the American troops are still in South Korea and will not leave.

A similar situation existed in the Sino-Indian border conflict of 1962. Chinese troops were deep into India and could have stayed on the newly occupied land. However, China did not want any Indian territories.. They had all the excuses to stay and stake their claims. They withdrew completely out of the Indian lands it had conquered during the conflict. Why would an expansionist country with designs on its neighbor’s land voluntarily return the land it had fought for and won?

The third incident was the border war with Vietnam. The Chinese troops marched deep into Vietnam and could have sat on Vietnamese land with the Vietnamese looking lost and frustrated by the Chinese presence but unable to do anything. An expansionist country would have done just that. Again the Chinese troops withdrew back into China and allowed Vietnam to move back to the border with China.

In all three incidents, China could have taken advantage of the conflicts to seize the territories of its neighbors. Why not, since Chinese troops were occupying the disputed lands? So, is China expansionist when it could hold on to the territories the defeated neighboring states had lost? Since the end of the wars, China has not given trouble to its neighbors on their borders. Why then is China being accused of being expansionist?

Ask the North Koreans, the Indians and the Vietnamese for proof that China is coveting the land at their borders. Ask the rest of the 17 countries with borders with China if China has been attempting to seize their lands. Many of the 17 neighboring states of China were small and militarily weak and would not be able to resist a land grabbing China. No, they all live peacefully with China with no violation of their territories.
 
 
 

54 comments:

rex said...

Uh redbean, how about Tibet...

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Historically Tibet was part of China.

Why don't you ask how about USA, Australia, NZ and those countries seized from the natives and now called independent states?

Anonymous said...

/// Why don't you ask how about USA, Australia, NZ and those countries seized from the natives and now called independent states? ///
redbean

What about government property in Singapore?
Historically, did they belong to private citizens?

Anonymous said...

RB, why you do not go and live in China?

Anonymous said...

PAPig, why you do not go and live in India?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Thanks for replying Anon 10:01.

What about Falkland? What about Canada?. Guam, Diego Garcia?

Al La Ka-Bhumi ibn Ka-Lashnikov Bang Bang Bang! said...

Why is everyone living in the past? Our world today is nothing like what it used to be. We are still the same hairless, overly-emotional apes, possessing quirky brains large enough to justify our beliefs and actions---especially the bad ones.

2 out of every 7 people on this planet are from either China or India. Both have growing populations. IMO it is inevitable that either one or both will have ideas of expansionism.

However, due to recent spats over "disputed territory", China has been singled out as being "potentially" expansionist.

So what? What's "wrong" with an expansionist China? I also believe that China has the potential to break apart, like the USSR into smaller independent states.

The future is full of possibilities. ;-)

Anonymous said...

China is no expansionist.
China wants Xinjiang.
China wants Tibet.
China wants Taiwan.
China wants HK.
China wants Spratlys.
China is not expansionist.
China just believes in being one big happy family.
A big happy family that must worship mainstream Chinese culture as superior and all other dialects and ethnic minority languages and cultures subordinate to it. That includes in telling who should be the Dalai Lama and when you can or cannot fast.
China is not expansionist. Right.

Anonymous said...

RB's blog is filled with a lot of 3 season creatures.

Anonymous said...

The Vietnamese, Malaysians, Pinoys and Bruneins are also claiming islands in the South China Sea. The Pinoys also claiming part of Sabah.

Are they expansionist or not?

The Americans are not claiming any island in the South China Sea. So they are not expansionist. They only claim the whole world.

rex said...

What makes a country ? I think the language must be the same. Tibet language and writing has NO resemblemce to chinese! How is it, mr redbean, that you declare tibet historically part of china? Please fill me in on the history. Or was it the case that eons ago the tibetans acquiesced to chinese rule and so by default you say tibet is china! Whatever happened before could be an accident of history. I think tibet has good reason to be given independence, for what reason are they denied?Having said that, i would totally agree that Diayu Dao was and is part of china, and obviously hongkong and whole Taiwan. And i agree that the Americans stole the land from red indians killed terrorised millions of them in the name of God (the jesus kind) giving them "promised land" a term used in the so called good book. Every politician has some evil submotives, but the Americans beat the Chinese 10:1. I wouldnt say the chinese are angels

Anonymous said...

Todate Australians are still digging up minerals to be sold to China, & others economies. Money that gives them quality living.

The distance between Sydney, Australia and London, England, United Kingdom is 10562 miles (16997 km).

Not too long ago the english gunboats sailed 16997 km to take over a large continent by FORCE and called it an anglicised -Australia, now even share the same head of State with UK today.

Now China willing to buy and pay hundreds of millions of dollars land which in theory 'stolen estates from the indigenous people of the land now called Australia' but is met with resistance as reported in the papers.

Anonymous said...



British invasion of Tibet 1904

The British expedition to Tibet or Younghusband expedition to Tibet began in December 1903 and lasted until September 1904. The expedition was effectively a temporary invasion by British Indian forces.


The expedition fought its way to Gyantse and eventually reached Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, in August 1904. The Dalai Lama had fled to safety, first in Mongolia and later in China, but thousands of Tibetans armed with antiquated muzzle-loaders and swords had been mown down by modern rifles and Maxim machine guns while attempting to block the British advance. wiki





Anonymous said...

In Doctor Austine Waddell's account, "they poured a withering fire into the enemy, which, with the quick firing Maxims, mowed down the Tibetans in a few minutes with a terrific slaughter."[17] Second-hand accounts from the Tibetan side have asserted both that the British tricked the Tibetans into extinguishing the fuses for their matchlocks, and that the British opened fire without warning. However, no evidence exists to show such trickery took place and the likelihood is that the unwieldy weapons were of very limited use in the circumstances. Furthermore, the British, Sikh, and Gurkha soldiers closest to the Tibetans were nearly all protected by a high wall, and none were killed. wiki

the empire used people they colonized to fight their war poor Sikh

Anonymous said...

The outcome of the war or invasion of Tibet , the signing of

wiki

The Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of Lhasa (1904


The salient points of the Treaty of Lhasa of 1904 were as follows:


The British allowed to trade in Yadong, Gyantse, and Gartok.

Tibet to pay a large indemnity (7,500,000 rupees, later reduced by two-thirds; the Chumbi Valley to be ceded to Britain until paid).
Recognition of the Sikkim-Tibet border.


Tibet to have no relations with any other foreign powers (effectively converting Tibet into a British protectorate --wiki




Anonymous said...

The Tibetan Ganden Phodrang regime, which was then under administrative rule of the Qing dynasty, remained the only Himalayan regime free of British influence.

Anonymous said...

The British mission departed in late September 1904, after a ceremonial presentation of gifts. Britain had "won" and had received the agreements it desired, but without actually receiving any tangible results. The Tibetans had lost the war but had seen China humbled in its failure to defend their client state from foreign incursion, and had pacified the invader by signing an unenforceable and largely irrelevant treaty.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi rex, the history of China in the early days, similar to other regions, the borders were loose and undefined except by whoever that could rule by force. China became part of Mongolia and also became part Manchuria. There were no countries to talk of, the northern, western and southern tribes around China were part of China, broke away and some went back to China. Many parts of northern and northwestern China became part of Russia. Tibet was part of the empires that ruled China.

That was the way life was. language and religion did not mean anything to statehood. There are 58 tribes or ethnic groups in China. So, should China be broken up into 58 states? India has more than 200 ethnic groups, just my guess and so is Indonesia, the Philippines, in fact almost every country have such tribes. The Iriss, Welsh, Scots, English all spoke different.

Oh, the Manchus have their own scripts when they ruled China.

How to rationalise all these irregularities of the past that are still existing today? Ask the Okinawans what were they before annexed by the Japanese?

rex said...

Hi mr rb, But seriously, if today the tibetians dont feel any chineseness in them , whats the problem with tibet becoming a new country? You mentioned 58 ethnics in china. But they do feel being chinese, e.g hainanese and beijinger and hongkie, 普通话rules and it is a somewhat happy acquisence win win. Although hongkie are feeling different due to 99 years of somewhat democratic rule by british, the hongkie issue is a political administration issue rather than a separatist issue.
The Chinese written script is unified for all the ethnics, thanks to mr Qin S H. What is the loss to china if it lets tibet go its own way? Loss of face? Loss of oil (?) revenue, Gdp? Is that it?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The consequences of letting Tibet go will be the breaking up of China. This may not be a bad thing per se. But Tibet would become the hell hole for India or the Americans to set up bases to give trouble to China.

Then the Uyghurs in Xinjiang would want to break away, Taiwan, Hongkong, Inner Mongolia, and whatever.

The minorities in every country would want to be their own, the Muslims in southern Thailand, Myanmar, in Eastern Europe. The Irish were fighting for Independence for decades, the Scots too want to break away. There is no end to it. The Okinawans are talking about independence from Japan. The Red Indians want their country back. The Maoris too.

Myanmar has a bigger problem, other than the Rohingyas, they have the Shans, and several other major tribes that want to break away too.

Wait for Europe to break up to even smaller bits when the immigrant groups want their own states too.

There are historical developments that cannot be resolved so easily. We are just talking and exchanging views that would not matter to the people and leaders of countries having to deal with such problems.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

As for anonymous who is giving us a history of British colonialism in Tibet, the Brits too wanted to rule Tibet as their colony.

Thank you.

Hermit said...

Claiming some sort of piece of land or sea itself is not expansionist. It is when you start to unilaterally build infrastructure on that land or seaspace to claim it as yours. China did that while no other claimant did. That's the difference between expansionist China, which is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire of America, and the rest of the claimants who are more level headed.

RB, if the borders were loose then, which they were, how does that make it part of China today? Parts of Europe (Spain) was under Islamic rule centuries ago. Should it now be under an Islamic Caliphate?

Your point that if China gives way to Tibet, the rest like Xinjiang, Taiwan, HK etc may follow, is very telling. You are now saying that China has the right to colonise these peoples the way the Europeans did. Isn't that what the colonists thought of too? Let one colony go and the rest will want it as well?!

I agree with you that the main evil empire is US. Let me add that the second evil empire today is slowly emerging to be China. All the arrogance, the high handedness, as well as the military stuff show off, is being replicated by China the wanna be superpower. Even Russia is now much quieter than China!

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Hermit,

China is not the only one building structures on their islands. Vietnam and the Philippines did that, Taiwan did that, Malaysia also did that. If the islands are theirs, why can't they build and develop their islands? Why is that expansionist?

Singapore reclaimed land, Johore reclaimed land, all for economic purposes, expansionist yes, in expanding their land use but not to conquer anyone.

As for returning Tibet, why don't you ask all the colonial powers to return the land they occupied to their natives, the US to the Red Indian, Australia to the aborigines and many more countries out there? Why just Tibet?

The issue of Tibet is historical, long before the USA was robbed from the native Indians. I am in no position to explain to you why? And why are you asking just about Tibet and not the USA, Australia and the rest?

rex said...

Hi mr rb., lets say tibet and xinjiang goes independent. Your argument is that the external powers like Usa, will land into tibet , and xinjiang and cause trouble to Greater China. How could this be? I would imagine the tibetan will be so happy no need to learn chinese and they go their own peaceful way. What would the usa or india do? Put a missile in tibet aim at beijing? Then for xinjiang, the muslim there will be thankful to be more free from chinese domination. Would india or usa or russia use indepedent xinjiang to harm china? I not understand your logic sir.
As for hongkong, and taiwan definitely it is impossible for them to be indepedent. Culturally, historically, linguistically they do feel they are chinese. Not same as tibet n xinjiang.

rex said...

Concerning rb's reply to Hermit, there are reasons why the tibet should be returned to tibetans but the not usa to red indians or australia to aborigines.
1. The tibetans asked . But did the red indians or aborigines ask? Probably not. The red indians are almost extinct and so are aborigines because usa the terrorist already killed 99.9995% of them and 100% of their language. For tibetans they are far from extinct, their language still alive.
2. The red indians remnants and aborigines remnants already westernised so much after centuries so they accept their fate i think. They also enjoy western modern society amenities generally and dont get very political unlike tibet.
Is there anything wrong at all if rohinga form their own country or tibet or xinjiang? What exactly is the issue.

Anonymous said...

RB, I do oppose America's oppression. That's why I agree with you that it is the Number One Evil Empire of the world. Why I pick on China's oppression of minority is because your blog is full of China news. You mean you want me to talk about how minorities in other lands are discriminated here and spam your blog? I do it on those blogs there, not here.

China has constructed infrastructure on those islands enough for planes to land and take off there. Yeah? What for? To show off its military might? What structures have Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines or what not built? A flag pole to erect their national flag? How can you even equate that those nations are doing with what China is doing?

I am not comfortable with US interference here or any other part of the world. It is because they interfere, there is so much instability and violence. Next to that, I am also not comfortable with China trying to mimic US in showing off their stupidity by exhibiting they have big ships, planes and guns. Having one stupid terror nation is more than enough. Having two is madness.

Isn't it because China built their toys on Spratlys that gave the US excuse to put their bigger toys around this region? Like I said having one stupid superpower is already one too many. We don't need a second one.

Hermit said...

Sorry, the last anon poster was me. Forgot to log in.

rex said...

Concerning rb's reply to Hermit, there are reasons why the tibet should be returned to tibetans but the not usa to red indians or australia to aborigines.
1. The tibetans asked . But did the red indians or aborigines ask? Probably not. The red indians are almost extinct and so are aborigines because usa the terrorist already killed 99.9995% of them and 100% of their language. For tibetans they are far from extinct, their language still alive.
2. The red indians remnants and aborigines remnants already westernised so much after centuries so they accept their fate i think. They also enjoy western modern society amenities generally and dont get very political unlike tibet.
Is there anything wrong at all if rohinga form their own country or tibet or xinjiang? What exactly is the issue.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The Red Indian case is in the UN. I am not sure about the aborigines of Australia.

As for building infrastructure to develop their islands, what is wrong with them? It is their islands. They will turn them into little cities or resorts for their people. Is there any reason why they cannot build up and develop their land?

The problems in the South China Sea are caused by the countries claiming them when China already claimed them long ago. Mind you, even before Cheng Ho marked all these islands, several hundred years back the islands were already visited by the Chinese and marked in their maps.

There is nothing wrong with Malaysia, Vietnam and the Phlippines wanting to claim them. But they must be able to back up their claims or fight it out for terra nullus. But these are no longer terra nullus. They don't have a case.

China could have chase them off. Mind you, all of them have troops in the islands they are claiming. The Pinoys and Vietnamese have been gloating that their soldiers are playing football matches there. China is just bidding its time as it is militarily not strong enough and did not want to use military means to settle the issue. Its dispute at the Sino Indian border could have been settled militarily in 1962 when they defeated the Indians. But no, they withdraw and waiting for a negotiated settlement. China could chase them off their islands but this would give the US the perfect excuse to raise more tensions.

Anonymous said...

On hindsight Cheng Ho should have marked Pinoy land and Malaya as Chinese territories in his quests and travels throughout Asia when the inhabitants were little different from the monkeys in the jungles. But, true to form the Chinese had no expansionist ambition but only wanted to promote trade. Most regrettable!

Anonymous said...

Though it is good to know about
Geopolitic, Sinkies should focus and deal with their own national issues.
The House of Sin is far from orderliness. Stinkies are far from unity and living is far from equitable.

If ISIS is created becos of schemes of manipulation, exploitation and discrimination, the Causes are quite similar to the situation in Sin. Will radicalisation takes place here and results in Sinkies joining ISIS or forming their own organization?

Hermit said...

RB, you ask what is wrong with building infrastructure over there? Isn't that the reason why the US is now loggerheads with China? Isn't that's why the dispute has been escalated? Isn't that's why China is now so US-like in the sense they just bulldoze? Isn't this the start of the terrorising of other nations by China, a la America? What did I say that China is becoming the Number Two Terror Nation behind US?

So what if Zheng He marked those islands? If at all, Zheng He's mission was junked after the new emperor took over. The new emperor closed all doors to the outside world and wanted China to be inward looking. Why use Zheng He's mission as claim to Spratly's, yet ignore the Emperor's decision to junk all foreign relations and claims to lands outside China?

If there is nothing to back up other nations' claim to Spratlys, so is the same for China. Its claim is weak and to build infrastructure is nothing short of hostile and high handed. It causes tension in the region, not to mention an excuse for America to nose its way in this region. No thanks to China, East Asia is now the next hotspot for conflict. Good job, China!

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:30,

Sorry to say this, but you are really thick or pretending to be daft. If you build something in your garden, your neighbour protested. So you become the trouble maker? So you stop building what you want in your garden? What kind of stupid thinking is that?

You simply accepted that your neighbour had the right to protest about what you did in your own territory? And by doing things inside your garden you are giving problems to your neighbours and that is your fault?

What is your agenda to take this silly stand?

Zheng Ho's trip to SE Asia and Africa was a clear manifestation that the Chinese respected the rights of other nations. They did not claim anything that had legitimate owners. But the inhabitants of these stupid nations today are so thick that they wanted to claim Chinese land and accused China of expansionist? RB had repeated so many times that the westerners would claim anything even if they have owners, like what the Americans are doing though they said they are not claiming anything. In de facto they claiming everything in the S China Sea.

And the silly countries did not know that while they were having a silly quarrel with China, started by themselves, the gangsters have moved in to claim the whole Sea. And they still could not see that.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 9.02pm, you talk like as if Spratlys is China's. Who said so? Evil Republic of China?

Anonymous said...

If not belong to China then belong to who?
You talk like you decide who it shall belong to.

Anonymous said...

Belong to nobody. Let all parties fight out in International Court. Why China so special?

Anonymous said...

10:28,
You are just a daft ignoramus.

Heard of Doctrine of Christian Discovery?
Heard of Manifest Destiny?

Go and read them up and they will clear the cobwebs in between your ears.
Then you will not be seen as stupid when you open your mouth.

Anonymous said...

Wah suka suka quote anywhere ah? One time quote Cheng Ho another time quote Christian Discovery. Like that anyone can quote anything. UK quote HK belong to them why must give back HK? Taiwan quote they independent why don't give them independence? Tibet and Xinjiang quote they must be independent why cannot be independent? Vietnam, Malaysia and Philippines quote Spratlys theirs why not give them? Must always give in to the big bully China only ah? Why so special?

You never open mouth already stupid, when open lagi stupid.

Anonymous said...

You need to buy a mirror.

Anonymous said...

You need a brain.

Anonymous said...

RB
Too early to say China is not an expansionist.

Given time, money, power, China will be.
Because chinese are just human beings subject to greed.

Anonymous said...

tibetan in exile dont feel chinese

because they are born as indian national

they have never visit china , tibet.

you are spreading lies that tibetan want to be free from china or they dont see themselves as chinese national

most minority in the world want ONE THING - FULL ACCEPTANCE by NATION as part of nation

Rohingya want SUCH RECOGNITION from Burmese govt.
but they unable to get such recognition.

if those tibetan dont feel comfortable to live inside china,

why dont they leave TIBET,CHINA and seek new nation?


tibet dont belongs to them.

dalai lama dont have sovereignty over tibet.

dalai lama is a MONK
dalai lama is not A KING

how can a monk hold sovereignty over tibet.

Singaporean people dont have sovereignty right over " Christmas island"

till today, UK regime refuse to hold dialogue with argentina over Falkland island

despite UN resolution had been issued on many occasion.


Majority of British people insist that Falkland island belong to them

whole world dont recognized British sovereignty claim over Falkland island.

why cant british let go of falkland island or hold dialogue with argentina?

at least, china govt hold dialogue with Asean nation over South china sea/


there are huge difference between US native case and tibetan case.

han people and tibetan people are living on the SAME LAND - both of them are native

do they see any Chinese people blaming " mongol conquest, manchu conquest as much as they blame british aggression, japan aggression?

the answer is NO

on the other hand, white people and native american are living in two different continent.

Anonymous said...

rex,

ask yourself

40% Scottish had voted yes for independence

why cant Uk allow 40% people become independent since they dont want remain as British people?

UK regime is forcing 40% Scottish to live as British citizen

let split scotland into two part

60% Scotland should remain as part of UK nation - because they had voted for NO

40% Scottish should been allow to exit UK because they had voted for Yes


next, we should held referendum for those massive refugees in eu

if they chose to live Singapore
we should welcome them and respect " their freedom of choice"

am i right?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Dalai Lama is the head of a small religious sect in Tibet. And there are many bigger sects than Dalai Lama's sect. The West is playing it up as if Dalai Lama is the national leader of Tibet.

There are many separatist groups demanding for independence, the Muslims in the Philippines, in Southern Thailand, in Acheh, the Tamils in Sri Lanka. So there should be given independence and a part of the land.

The most obnoxious cases are the Red Indians, still demanding for the return of their land, decolonisation. The case has been in the UN for donkey years. And you also have the Palestinians wanting their land back. In these two cases, Europeans seized their land and took over their countries.

Why no compassionate human rights group would say a word for their causes?

Anonymous said...

So what if Dalai Lama is head of big group or small group. Who is Beijing to interfere? As for your cries why is there no call for support for the rest of the world, it is because you keep supporting China's atrocities against minorities that is why people here object to tyrant China. Why should we talk about Red Indians and others here when you never talk about it? You talk about China, people respond about China, you now cry why we never talk about others. Wtf. Want to talk about how Earthlings now conquered Mars and oppress Martians also?

Anonymous said...

China tyrant? Where have you parked your blain? In the toilet hole?

rex said...

Rb, scotland cannot go independent because it has oil and gas the Queen wont let them off.
Xinjiang cannot go independent because half the population are han chinese the other half uiger.
Usa cannot return land to red indian for the simple reason that 99.999955% of usa are non red indians, who do you give the land back to when there is not enuff of them to receive them....the usa terrorist had long since inundated red indian land with caucasian.
But seriously..TIBET... in Tibet 90% are tibetans and only 8% Han chinese according to Wikip. Remands me of sadam Hussein, his sunni group in iraq is actually minority yet he is able to lord over the shite, "power comes from the barrel of gun".
HAVING SAID THAT, I think those islands off china coast really do belong to china, and the usa is causing trouble by blaming chinese expandionist and giving dhip to pinoyd. The evil empire indeed is creating tensions here not china.

rex said...

Rb, scotland cannot go independent because it has oil and gas the Queen wont let them off.
Xinjiang cannot go independent because half the population are han chinese the other half uiger.
Usa cannot return land to red indian for the simple reason that 99.999955% of usa are non red indians, who do you give the land back to when there is not enuff of them to receive them....the usa terrorist had long since inundated red indian land with caucasian.
But seriously..TIBET... in Tibet 90% are tibetans and only 8% Han chinese according to Wikip. Remands me of sadam Hussein, his sunni group in iraq is actually minority yet he is able to lord over the shite, "power comes from the barrel of gun".
HAVING SAID THAT, I think those islands off china coast really do belong to china, and the usa is causing trouble by blaming chinese expandionist and giving dhip to pinoyd. The evil empire indeed is creating tensions here not china.

Anonymous said...

Just because your blain in the toilet hole you think others oso there. China is a tyrant just like America. China dowan US to interfere with them but they interfere with Tibet. LPPL.

Anonymous said...

who are dalai lama to interfere with lives of tibetan people?
who are dalai lama to interfere with Chinese political?

MONK should not interfere with political affairs.
Tibetan are Chinese national
the govt has right to interfere with their lives.

US had right to interfere with foreign national who reside in US despite they are not american , not white people ,not christian.


imagine shaolin abbot say that he had right to interfere with lives of chinese people
imagine shaolin abbot say that he had right to interfere with chinese politic

Anonymous said...

if Tibet 90% are tibetans and only 8% Han chinese

china govt should improve the situation by encouraging mass migration of han into tibet

it encourage peaceful development

look at US, Canada, Australia - it is so peaceful with white majority.

Anonymous said...

The people of Tibet chose their Dalai Lama. Who is anyone outside Tibet to object? Who says religious leader cannot be political leader? You? China? What is so great about Tyrant China? Who says Tibetans are China nationals? Tyrant China again?

So what if Abbot want to rule China? That is China's problem nobody should interfere. At the same time China should also not export there internal problem outside China. That's how Taiwan become China problem. Ownself problem cannot solve, the renegades fled to Taiwan then the communist party follow them to Taiwan. Suddenly, Taiwan become part of China. Wah lao oi. Can like that one ah?

Imagine Syrian refugees run to China instead of Europe. Then ISIS follow them. Then ISIS claim China part of the ISIS. Wah, can or not?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi rex,

Tibet is a historical problem and we can talk about it and express our views about it. That is fair comment. How to resolve it or who to resolve it, not our problem.

The best way to turn the Tibetans into a minority in Tibet is the American way. China could flood Tibet with Chinese but they are not doing it. And they did not do what the Americans did to the native Americans by terminating them to near distinction to make sure they are no longer a problem.

Who is the more humane one?

Anonymous said...

"The best way to turn the Tibetans into a minority in Tibet is the American way. China could flood Tibet with Chinese but they are not doing it."

RB, you talk as if China is an angel and kind by not doing it. That is like saying your neighbour forcefully broke into your house then say that he could get all his extended family members to live in your house if he wanted to. But he is not doing it. He is just allowing his pet dog to live there. Why can't you just accept China is oppressing Tibet? Tibetans don't want any Chinese rule there. Just like you don't want your neighbour's dog in your house.