Why doesn't Dalai Lama just DIE?
前不久写了这篇博文咒骂Dalai 其中翻译了五点要求 发在facebook上
很成功的是 没过两天 一个原来很支持Tibet的希腊同学跟我说 她看了我的文
问我能否把那文翻译成希腊文 发到她母亲的报纸上。。。Why doesn't Dalai Lama just DIE? 11:59pmTo be frank, this world-famous monk named Dalai Lama has always been disgusting me, like he always disgusts most of the people in China. In my life I have literally never met any person in the country that feels comfortable about him.
And once again, he disgusted me when I was visiting the Nobel Museum this afternoon, where they had this video of the monk's accepting the Peace Prize going on and on. As I was feeling really bad in the stomach at the sight of the video, I asked the guide at the museum: “Has the foundation ever withdrawn any prize that has been announced, since sometimes the formerly known good person can turn out to be really bad?” I knew the answer but I just wanted to ask.
A lot of things are happening recently related to the monk, which inevitably and constantly bring him into my sight, since I have the habit to read news. And these things have convinced myself more than ever of my natural and profound feeling of disgust about him.
One thing I had always been wondering came clear after the recent breakdown of talks between Chinese officials and envoys of the Dalai Lama. Since the monk claimed that he didn’t request the independence of Tibet, then what does he want? What can the country offer him? How can we satisfy him? This was what I’d been always wondering. Yesterday the senior official, Zhu Weiqun, concluded the 5 points from the monk at a conference in Paris, which are:
No.1 Do not recognize that Tibet has always been part of China from the ancient times. (However, from the beginning of the Yuan Dynasty, the central government has already started the administrative jurisdiction of Tibet, which has been 700 years of history. Read any report on Tibet from western media, the description is and will be always like this: Tibet, which was occupied by the Chinese troops in 1950...which is rather viciously distorted.)
No.2 Adhere to the so-called "Great Tibetan Region”. That is, to claim an area that covers not only the present Tibet but also the whole Qinghai Province, parts of Gansu Province, Sichuan Province and Yunnan Province, where there’re few Tibetans. That’s an area of about 2,400,000 square kilometers, more than twice the current Tibet and about four times the size of France. That’s exactly one fourth of the country's territory.
No.3 In the so-called "Great Tibetan Region" he seeks a high degree of autonomy. That is autonomy of everything except for defense and diplomatic affairs, over one fourth of China's territory.
No.4 Call for the withdrawal of all national troops from the whole region, so that Tibet will become a so-called "international zone of peace." (I thought the monk just mentioned that the “high degree autonomy” didn’t include defense.)
No.5 Implement “Tibetanization” in the whole region, that is, to drive away tens of millions of other non-Tibetan people from one fourth of the Chinese territory, imposing ethnic discrimination, ethnic cleansing and ethnic segregation.
Now I understand how we can satisfy him, clearly. We just sacrifice our whole country. We just sacrifice the hopeful and happy perspectives of all the lives of the 1.3 billion people. We just sacrifice the whole Chinese society that has been developing over the past 3,000 years. And that’s, all.
And what if we can’t?
Then this monk instantly reveals his true intent. He had always claimed that he was taking this "middle way" attitude and just wanted Tibetan autonomy within China but not outright independence. However, as is also reported in the newly published news on NY Times, " Tibetan Exiles Meet to Ponder a New Strategy", this most famous monk in the world finally revealed his real intent: The independence of Tibet, or should I say, “the Great Tibetan Region”.
I have always tried to understand how the western world thinks of him. For example, I noticed these words in the same report of the NY Times: "The Chinese government has tried to bolster the economy of the area it calls the Tibet Autonomous Region, whose gross domestic product of $5 billion in 2007 was the lowest of any region in China." These words totally show the ill will of the writer with an ill mind. Because it just doesn’t make any sense. To mention the LOWEST GDP regardless of the population of the area, it just doesn’t make any sense. How come the report doesn’t mention the more than 12% of annual GDP growth of the past 7 years in Tibet, which exceeds the average developing pace of the whole country, which will really make sense?
As I was trying to understand those people, I went to a main website (http://phayul.com) that supports the independence of Tibet. I randomly read some articles. And I was just shocked by all the nonsense, which reaches the most ridiculous, most non-logical and most indecent level I’d ever seen. One of the articles posted on the website, “TIBET: A democratic state without a territory” by Kate Heartfield from The Ottawa Citizen reads: It's funny that apologists for China are always saying that it takes a long time for an Asian country to develop into a mature modern democracy. Isolated and impoverished Tibet did it in less than half a century, despite the fact that it had to do so in exile, in a little complex of plain concrete buildings on a remote hillside in India. China, which is infinitely richer, more stable and better-connected, ought to be able to develop even faster. China's government resents Taiwan and Tibet because they have shown just how possible democratization is. Since it’s just happening in some buildings in some remote area in India, since it has never actually practiced upon a real society, since it is just some dream of somebody, how can you at the same time declare it as a mature modern democracy, which China may take a long time to develop? How can you just say these words? How can it possibly tell this nonsense, shamelessly? And by the way, the most basic knowledge, Chinese sometimes don’t like Taiwan NOT because of its democratic society but its independent act, which is exactly the same in the case of Tibet.
Although, I do think I understand that for many western people, sometimes when they think about something, some place that is really, really far away from their own lives, that they have never been to, that they always have to depend on imagination of, they can be not understanding that just one simple thought in their mind can mean the total different living conditions of thousands in Tibet, whether living in slums or in good apartments; or the peace and struggle of thousands, with smile or blood; or even a war that means the life and death of thousands, that they don’t even know, that they never meet, that they can just totally forget the next day if they get some little trouble in their own everyday lives, like a bad haircut. And these thousands, include both the Tibetans and all other Chinese people.
Just like the British government announced very recently that it was dropping its formal recognition of Tibet’s suzerainty relationship with China, a status that indicates real autonomy. The recognition dated back 94 years but can be suddenly forgotten just because the finacial crisis is here and UK wants China to be on its side dealing with the crisis. It turns out that the money in their own pockets is so much more important than some stupid monk anyway.
And a Nobel Prize, in the name of peace, that must have always been greatly encouraging the monk, can mean MUCH, MUCH more than that. If there’s this possibility, that after the monk's declaration of seeking formal independence of Tibet, things get much more worse than the RIOTS that happened this spring; If then it gets even worse that China splits into several parts and there’re civil wars all over China, then the simplest question will be like this: Is it in the name of peace, or in the name of war and practice of death?