|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:40 pm Post subject: Will Obama meet with the Dalai Lama? |
 |
|
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPX1hfvgN0UVga9X1o5aTj-ALb2wD97MN1RG0
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) � A closely watched visit is set to take place in October, when a frail, 74-year-old Buddhist monk seeks an audience with President Barack Obama.
Obama must make a delicate calculation as he considers a meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet's Buddhists, seen by his supporters as a symbol of peace but vilified by China as a "wolf in monk's robes" who seeks to split Tibet from the rest of China. |
A better question is 'why would Obama meet with the Dalai Lama?'. The Chinese government rules over Tibet, and will for the foreseeable future. Why go out of ones way to upset them?
Should he also meet with Matthew Coon Come?
I suppose this is just part of the international field of hoops western leaders find themselves obliged to jump through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Something might (might) have been done in 1950 to help Tibet (if the West had been willing to wage a full-scale war, which it wasn't). Nothing at all can be done now. Why stir up the Chinese in a losing cause when you might gain something on another issue where there is a chance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Something might (might) have been done in 1950 to help Tibet (if the West had been willing to wage a full-scale war, which it wasn't). Nothing at all can be done now. Why stir up the Chinese in a losing cause when you might gain something on another issue where there is a chance |
The Chinese are not to be trusted.
Meeting with the Dali Lama would surely stir something up but perhaps it would raise concerns amongst those who follow the buddah, in China. That is the last thing China wants.
It would be slap at China but I'm all for that.
But more importantly, of all the religions in the world........Buddhists are the ones who really are not out to start shit, conquer the world, blow up planes, etc.
I'm fall for helping them out.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But more importantly, of all the religions in the world........Buddhists are the ones who really are not out to start shit, conquer the world, blow up planes, etc.
|
Well, I don't know all the ethical ins and outs of the Sri Lankan civil war, but it usually takes two to tango, as the saying goes.
| Quote: |
Athuraliye Rathana
Religion: Theravada Buddhism
Who is he?: Monk and member of parliament
Country: Sri Lanka
Quote: �Peace negotiations simply made the LTTE [Tamil Tigers] stronger. We mustn�t talk to them; we can crush the LTTE. It is like surgery.�
Why he matters: Most people didn�t take the Chinese government too seriously when it accused the Dalai Lama of inciting violence in Tibet, but it�s actually not unheard of for Buddhist monks to forgo their traditional pacifism. Sri Lanka�s Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) party is comprised entirely of Buddhist monks from the dominant Sinhalese ethnic group, and its seven members of parliament advocate a militant, ethnonationalist agenda. The party�s leader, Athuraliye Rathana, has been nicknamed the �war monk� for his staunch advocacy of military force against the Tamil Tiger rebels who have fought a 25-year insurgency against the state. (For what it�s worth, the Tigers exhibit some cultlike characteristics as well.) Athuraliye has worked to scuttle a Norwegian-brokered peace settlement, saying that the Tamils should be crushed militarily and that Sri Lanka has always been a Sinhalese kingdom. The JHU has also sponsored legislation in the Parliament that would ban Sri Lankan Buddhists from converting to Christianity.
|
Plus, there were heavy Buddhist overtones to Japanese militarism in the 1930s and 40s.
And, while the current Dalai Lama himself seems to be a pretty likable guy, I think it's generally accepted, even among the Free Tibet crowd, that the social system in pre-1950 Tibet was far from utopian.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
compared to Christianity and Islam?
I'd take these guys over those two any day of the week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Something might (might) have been done in 1950 to help Tibet (if the West had been willing to wage a full-scale war, which it wasn't). Nothing at all can be done now. Why stir up the Chinese in a losing cause when you might gain something on another issue where there is a chance? |
For the ethically and morally challenged, maybe because it is the right thing to do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Something might (might) have been done in 1950 to help Tibet (if the West had been willing to wage a full-scale war, which it wasn't). Nothing at all can be done now. Why stir up the Chinese in a losing cause when you might gain something on another issue where there is a chance? |
For the ethically and morally challenged, maybe because it is the right thing to do? |
Well sure, if you're a Free Tibet supporter. But if you're a president or prime minister, you have to keep in mind that, by meeting the leader of a seccessionist movement(yes, I know the DL is not technically a seccessionist anymore, but let's be honest, he is the de facto leader of the Tibet seccessionist movement) that's claiming a piece of another country's territory, you are pretty much inviting other countries to meet with(and thus confer legitimacy upon) the leaders of groups that want to divide up your own country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Something might (might) have been done in 1950 to help Tibet (if the West had been willing to wage a full-scale war, which it wasn't). Nothing at all can be done now. Why stir up the Chinese in a losing cause when you might gain something on another issue where there is a chance? |
For the ethically and morally challenged, maybe because it is the right thing to do? |
Well sure, if you're a Free Tibet supporter. But if you're a president or prime minister, you have to keep in mind that, by meeting the leader of a seccessionist movement(yes, I know the DL is not technically a seccessionist anymore, but let's be honest, he is the de facto leader of the Tibet seccessionist movement) that's claiming a piece of another country's territory, you are pretty much inviting other countries to meet with(and thus confer legitimacy upon) the leaders of groups that want to divide up your own country. |
But must everything come down to a utilitarian calculation?
Can't we, at least on this relatively low-risk item, take a principled stance and let the chips fall where they may? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Can't we, at least on this relatively low-risk item, take a principled stance and let the chips fall where they may? |
Well, if you accept that "the chips falling where they may" could very well include the Chinese retaliating by meeting with every western Canadian, Quebec, First Nations, Newfoundland, etc separatist movement, thus providing those movements with recognition from the world's largest country, one that also happens to be an up-and-coming economic powerhouse, then yes, I guess you could just "let the chips fall where they may". I don't think a responsible Canadian prime minister would want to do that, though.
Don't get me wrong. If the Tibetans manage to launch an intifada-style uprising against Chinese rule, thus making their demands for autonomy a fact on the ground, I'd be the first to say that China has to deal with the new reality. Doesn't mean that the rest of the world has any business speeding the process up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Can't we, at least on this relatively low-risk item, take a principled stance and let the chips fall where they may? |
Well, if you accept that "the chips falling where they may" could very well include the Chinese retaliating by meeting with every western Canadian, Quebec, First Nations, Newfoundland, etc separatist movement |
Exactly. We act as if we have no colonial baggage or territorial issues. Tibet is as Chinese as the land of Canada is Canadian. Or Britain is (so to be) dar el islam.
The Chinese could meet with and stir up La Raza et al. Or Black Nationalists. Or any other currently marginal group. Chinese celebs can shout "FREE AZTLAN" at appearances in LA.
That'd go over well, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Something might (might) have been done in 1950 to help Tibet (if the West had been willing to wage a full-scale war, which it wasn't). Nothing at all can be done now. Why stir up the Chinese in a losing cause when you might gain something on another issue where there is a chance? |
For the ethically and morally challenged, maybe because it is the right thing to do? |
Well sure, if you're a Free Tibet supporter. But if you're a president or prime minister, you have to keep in mind that, by meeting the leader of a seccessionist movement(yes, I know the DL is not technically a seccessionist anymore, but let's be honest, he is the de facto leader of the Tibet seccessionist movement) that's claiming a piece of another country's territory, you are pretty much inviting other countries to meet with(and thus confer legitimacy upon) the leaders of groups that want to divide up your own country. |
But must everything come down to a utilitarian calculation?
Can't we, at least on this relatively low-risk item, take a principled stance and let the chips fall where they may? |
Sometimes you have to do the right thing.
Obama should meet the Dalai Lama ........ maybe somewhere in Alabama .....
........ plus, with all that rhymin thang going on, there's gotta be enough entertainment value alone to make it worthwhile .....
maybe a new TV show .... Tibet your life ....
where's Groucho when you really need him .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
