Valid Protest?

[Geoffrey S]

Not protesting what the Chinese are doing in Tibet is one thing. Understandably there are plenty of opinions on the matter, so disagreement is not surprising.

But allowing the Chinese to abuse the Olympic Games as spectacle, and not drawing a line when they do things like this? It's beyond their sovereignty and jurisdiction and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm all for keeping politics out of the Olympics, but if the Chinese can't resist the gloves should come off.

[Pannonian]

Not protesting what the Chinese are doing in Tibet is one thing. Understandably there are plenty of opinions on the matter, so disagreement is not surprising.

But allowing the Chinese to abuse the Olympic Games as spectacle, and not drawing a line when they do things like this? It's beyond their sovereignty and jurisdiction and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm all for keeping politics out of the Olympics, but if the Chinese can't resist the gloves should come off.

I personally think the Olympics are inconsequential, but if the Chinese want to make much of it, then smart politicans will extract some concessions for it. If people really wanted to help Tibet, they'd have agreed to let the Chinese parade their flame in a blaze of glory, in return for movement towards the cultural autonomy and Beijing government political position the Dalai Lama is pushing for. Instead, people have protected the purity of the Olympic ideal, which is a load of nonsense anyway, while ensuring that no concessions will be made for Tibet, and the Tibetans will suffer Beijing's anger once the games are over. And after all this is over, people will preen themselves on how they stood up for the forces of good against the forces of evil, oblivious to the opportunity they had ignored to actually do some practical good.

Shakes head at the idiocy of it all.

[Adrian II]

If people really wanted to help Tibet, they'd have agreed to let the Chinese parade their flame in a blaze of glory, in return for movement towards the cultural autonomy and Beijing government political position the Dalai Lama is pushing for.

You are confusing cause and effect. If it were not for these (and previous, similar) international protests the Chinese wouldn't even acknowledge that the Dalai Lama exists.

Apart from that, the protests show the Chinese government that we may have diplomatic relations, trade ties and other exchanges with them, but that we are no dupes to their dictatorial propaganda.

[Pannonian]

You are confusing cause and effect. If it were not for these (and previous, similar) international protests the Chinese wouldn't even acknowledge that the Dalai Lama exists.

Apart from that, the protests show the Chinese government that we may have diplomatic relations, trade ties and other exchanges with them, but that we are no dupes to their dictatorial propaganda.

The Dalai Lama doesn't exist, he is an imposter rather than the real Dalai Lama whom Beijing backs, and his legitimacy threatens the integration of Tibet into China, all at the same time. Do you really think that you've decisively undermined the strength of the Chinese position by forcing them into a position that shows up the contradictions in their case? The fact is, there is no contradiction at all, in all of these arguments. The Chinese are in possession of Tibet, they have the strength and willingness to do whatever they like with it, and there is nothing any outsiders can do to force them to do otherwise. Those are the bare facts that arguments about the Dalai Lama's legitimacy and the abuse of democratic principles and human rights cannot disguise.

The Dalai Lama recognises this, which is why he's attempting to push for an arrangement that is good for Beijing as well as for Tibet, independent of whether or not he is the legitimate Dalai Lama. Unlike the protestors, he's actually attempting to achieve some practical good for Tibet. If Beijing can agree to some kind of solution that is acceptable in practice to both sides (and they don't actually need to recognise the Dalai Lama to do so), then all these arguments about legitimacy can be waived away in a wash of doubletalk. Diplomacy can begin with workable arrangements, through to more permanent structures, before ending in formal recognition. Recognition without substance means nothing.

[Adrian II]

The Dalai Lama doesn't exist [..]

Ancient ancestor say: 'Words can not cook rice.'

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wonder if the Chinese think they're really getting to host the greatest spectacle on earth.

That is obviously the (football) World Cup. Nobody I know has even mentioned the Olympics, at least not the sporting side. But when the World Cup comes around....

[Pannonian]

Ancient ancestor say: 'Words can not cook rice.'

Explain? Preferably with reference to my post or yours.

[Adrian II]

Explain? Preferably with reference to my post or yours.

Dear God, isn't that obvious? Look at your post (#22).

First you say that the DL doesn't exist, next you say that he is an imposter, and finally you say that he is on the right track.

I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel such confusion. You'll probably do a better job yourself.