http://www.geocities.com/catalyticfog/XZ.htm

A Critical Analysis of the Political and Historical Aspects of the Tibet Question

The region of Xizang, known in the West as Tibet has long been an object of fantasy and imagination for many Westerners. Before the 19th century, few Europeans had ever heard of the region. Even when more detailed explorations of the region began, much of Tibet remained, in the minds of the explorers, an uncharted region lying between China and the Himalayas. A popular image of Tibet was promulgated by James Hilton’s 1933 novel, Lost Horizon, which associated Tibet with the Buddhist ideal of Shangri-La, a place of earthly perfection according to Buddhist texts.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, there arose an important question regarding the political status of Tibet, and its relationship to its larger neighbor, the People’s Republic of China. This dilemma, often called the “Tibet Question,” cast doubt on the People’s Republic of China’s right to rule in Tibet, in the face of Mao’s harsh ruling policies. In a few words, it became “the long-standing conflict over the political status of Tibet in relation to China…a conflict about nationalism – an emotion-laden debate over whether political units should be directly parallel units” (Goldstein, ix).

Today, the Tibet Question has grown to occupy a place of great significance and importance of today’s politics. The topic is regularly addressed in parliaments and congresses around the world, as well as in the UN, and by many ordinary people. According to Goldstein, it now “resonates through the American political landscape, and has become a significant irritant in Sino-American relations” (ix).

Needless to say, the whole world has long anticipated a territorially and politically safe solution to the Tibet Question. Another important factor in the study of this question is that of the historical relationship between China and Tibet, which as we shall see in the following pages, plays an important view in the perspectives of both sides. Equally important is the issue of human rights in the region. However, considering the overall political and historical status of what is currently known as the “Tibetan Autonomous Region,” the interests of both the ethnic Tibetans living in China as well as the Chinese nation as a whole will be best served if the Tibetan Autonomous Region maintains its status quo as an autonomous part of the People’s Republic of China.

There has been much insistence by both those Tibetans and Chinese that support unification that Tibetans are part of the greater “Chinese family,” and there may be some truth to this. Linguistically, the several dialects of the Tibetan spoken language share a genetic relationship with the Chinese dialects under the Sino-Tibetan family. Furthermore, anthropologists have proven that that modern Tibetans are “descendants of Mongoloid people,” signifying that the Tibetans developed from the same roots as did the Han Chinese. Genetic analyses through mitochondrial-DNA testing and haplotype frequency testing also confirm the results of these physical anthropological studies. Therefore, in prehistoric times, it can safely be said that Tibetans were definitely relatives of the Chinese.

Culturally, too, Tibetans initially possessed many links to the Han Chinese. The Neolithic Era witnessed a hitherto unrivaled growth of a mainstream Chinese culture. During the time from 5000 B.C. to 3000 B.C., the Yellow River valley became the epicenter of China's cultural explosion, and the Chinese witnessed a Renaissance unrivaled by past cultural developments. Minority groups across China eventually assimilated into the culture of the Yellow River valley. Later excavations relating to the early culture of Tibet show a strong coincidence with the Yellow Valley culture. Evidence has shown that the first signs of cultural divergence began around 2000 BC, when Tibetic peoples first came into contact with Central Asian peoples, from whom they adopted a semi-nomadic lifestyle, as well as aspects of an animistic religion. This animism, which eventually came to be known as Bon, would occupy the Tibetan way of life for over 18 centuries, until the importation of Buddhism from China.

The first records of contact between the Han and Tibetans occurred during the Han date to the time of the Han dynasty, when people of the two ethnicities met via trade routes with India and Rome. However, the political histories mention little of these people except for their physical appearance, and the fact that, because of their religion, which involved frequent human sacrifices, that they seemed “barbaric.” Also, records from the Han dynasty show that the Tibetans had nearly no government, as they were a nomadic people. In fact, there was much tribal warfare which was waged between rival clans of Tibetans. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the Tibetan people were ruled by any foreign power during this time.

During China’s Tang Dynasty, (617-907 A.D.) however, Tibet had become a rather large nation in the western part of East Asia. For the first time, all of Tibet had been unified under King Songsten Gampo. Another important event in the course of Sino-Tibetan relations took place during this time. In order to solidify relationships between the China and Tibet, the Tang emperor Taizong gave daughter, Princess Wenzheng to him in marriage. As Wenzheng was a Buddhist, as many of the Tang royal family were, Buddhism entered Tibet mainly through her influence. Even today, there are many statues of Princess Wenzheng all over Tibet, reminding people of the Chinese origins of Buddhism. Eventually, Buddhism would replace the old animistic religion of Bon, lead to the creation of a theocratic elite known as the lamas, and pave the road for further relations between the two countries.

During the Yuan dynasty, Tibet became incorporated into China, under the leadership of Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan showed a tremendous interest in learning Buddhism, and the Tibetan lamas were willing to instruct the Mongols. Because of this, the priest-patron relationship (known in Tibetan as yon-bdag ) was born. The basis of this relationship was that the Chinese emperors would offer Tibetans military protection, as well as sponsor monasteries, and by doing so, would become a “meritorious patron” (Tibetan: yon-bdag bsod-nams can) In return, the lamas would perform certain Buddhist rites for the Chinese emperors, and also grant Chinese officials authority in Tibet, including the right to tax Tibetans and conscript them for the Chinese army. This system would continue to be used until the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911. As one can clearly see the priest-patron ideology may have been the source of the dispute over the Tibet question. While the Chinese emperors did possess a de jure authority over Tibet, and the ruling lamas recognized this fact, some ordinary Tibetans, as well as some of the more conservative clergy within the Buddhist monasteries did not. Furthermore, the priest-patron relationship created a Chinese presence in Tibet, which resembled, at most, an autonomous or colonial government.

The next critical phase of Sino-Tibetan relations stretches from the late the 19th century, and extends over a fifty years, into the middle of the 20th. This time period is of importance to our study because for the first time, there was a mediator, British India, between Chinese and Tibetan authorities. With the presence of the British, there would be a number of treaties signed involving the three parties, which should play an important role in deciding the fate of Tibet. Also, as we shall see, because of the decline of the Qing dynasty, it was the first time since the Yuan dynasty that Chinese authority (in the context of the priest-patron relationship) had been questioned.

In 1899 Lord Curzon took the position of the Viceroy of India. Due to China’s weakened political status at the time, Curzon saw the opportunity to use Tibet as a buffer state between his British India and Imperial China. However, Tibetan officials refused to negotiate directly with the British, and the Chinese officials also refused to allow the British to enter Tibet. Although the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1904 was ultimately drawn in favor o British trade interests, and was not approved by either Tibetans or Chinese, the convention of 1904 eventually recognized Tibet as a part of Chinese territory. As Goldstein explains, “when China was unable to exercise real power in Tibet, Britain unilaterally reaffirmed Tibet’s political subordination to China” (Goldstein, 26). The next year, an Anglo-Russian agreement further confirmed the status of Tibet as a province of China, clearly stating “In conformity with the admitted principle of the suzerainity of China over Thibet [Tibet], Great Brittan and Russia engage not to enter into negotiations with Thibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese government.” (Goldstein, 26).

On February 12, 1912, the Qing dynasty fell and was replaced by the Republic of China, controlled by the Chinese Republicans, also known as the Guomingdang (Kuomingtang, or KMT). Under the presidency of Yuan Shikai, the Republic of China participated in the Simla Conference of 1913. By this time, there had been increasing pressure from London to separate Tibet from China. The Simla Conference, which like its predecessor, the Anglo-Chinese convention of 1904, had little acceptance from either Tibetans or Chinese, making it null and void.

The Republican Chinese government was again uprooted in 1948, when the Communists defeated them in the Civil War. Shortly following the establishment of the Communist Party in China, Chairman Mao Zedong included, among the top priorities for the People’s Republic of China, to liberate Tibet. However, Mao realized the uniqueness of the Tibet situation. In Xinjiang, another minority region of China, there were a considerable number of Han Chinese. Moreover, Xinjiang had been under the direct rule of China since the 100s A.D., and was legally considered to be a part of China under the Republicans. Tibet, however, had enjoyed a relative state of autonomy during the last years of the Qing dynasty. Also, there were few Han Chinese in Tibet, aside from government officials whose job it was to mediate with Western politicians on behalf of the Tibetan government. Because of Tibet’s unique situation, Mao opted for a more what came to be known as a “gradualist” approach. He realized that in order for Tibet to be “liberated,” the Tibetans first had to gain trust in the Communist Chinese presence there. At the 5th Plenary Session of the Committee on Minority Welfare, the policy on Tibet was enumerated as follows:



With specific regard to Tibet, the policy states that the “socialist modernization will be carried out with as little effect on the Tibetan culture and customs as possible”. When Chinese officials later entered Tibet, they were ordered to respect the Tibetan lifestyle.

Perhaps the most important document of the Tibet Question is the 17-Point Agreement that was signed on the 23rd of May, 1951. Representing the People's Republic of China were Li Weihan, Zhang Jinwu, Zhang Guohua and Sun Zhiyuan. Representing Tibet were Ngabo Ngawang Jigme, Khame Sonam Wangdu, Lhawutara Thubpten Tenther, Thupten Lekmon and Sampho Tenzin Duhundup. This agreement stated that although Tibet would be under the government of China, that the "central authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet". The Seventeen-Point Agreement also contained clauses which ensured that "the religious belies, customs, and habits of the Tibetan people shall be respected". Thus, the most recent, as well as most valid document detailing the relationship between China and Tibet supports the union of China and Tibet.

Of a particular concern to many politicians is the condition of human rights in Tibet. While it is impossible to deny that huge transgressions against the Tibetans were committed in the early years under the Communist leadership, it should also be noted that many improvements have taken place since that time. For example, the rights of the common man have improved greatly since 1950. Before 1950, the social system in Tibet was very similar to that of the feudalist theocracy that existed in Europe during the medieval times. As with Europe, the majority of people were serfs, bound to the land, which was controlled by the Lamaist monasteries. Because of the nature of Lamaism, social mobility for serfs was very limited. One Tibetan, Dawa Norbu recalls that up until 1950, the laws of Tibet were often very harsh:



Ever since the PRC has been involved in modernization efforts in Tibet, there has been an increase in the quality of life for all Tibetans. According to recent statistics, "in recent years, the regional government accelerated programs to eliminate illiteracy and support the poor with science and technology. The illiteracy rate has dropped below 30 percent from 95 percent in 1951”. Furthermore, the Chinese government is now taking steps to assist the Tibetans in rebuilding what was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. According to information provided by the Chinese Embassy,



There has also been a concerted effort on the part of the Chinese government to promote secular and contemporary culture. In the past, Tibetan art and was highly linked with archaic forms of temple art. Literature, except for manuscripts relating to the Buddhist faith and some historical records, were almost non-existent. Today, Tibetan culture has not died out, but is flourishing as never before, and has earned a place of prestige in the world:



It is clear that although the PRC at times has been overly harsh with enforcing its policies in Tibet, the overall effect has been positive. Although some traditional culture has been lost due to moderation, this has been a small sacrifice compared to the more modern society, which the Chinese presence has brought. It is the hope of the Chinese government that Tibetans will become more comfortable with modernization in the future, and eventually take a place in the world community.

Thus far, we have concluded that it is historically as well as economically sound for Tibetans to maintain their status quo in relationship to China. Presently, we shall discuss the political issues relating to the Tibet Question.

Throughout Chinese history, historians have realized that there were many types of peoples living throughout China. Many famous figures of Chinese history were of “minority” descent. Zheng He, a famous naval admiral of the 13th century, for example, was a Muslim who supposedly had Persian blood. By the 20th century, Sun Yixian (Sun Yat-Sen) had proposed a policy for greater unity within China, called the “Unity of the Five Races.” These five races included the Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, and Tibetan peoples. Thus, a historical as well as modern perspective of being “Chinese” is roughly similar to the designation of one being a “Roman” during Roman times. For the most part, being “Chinese” is a cultural or political designation, rather than one defined by racial characterisitic. One author writes, “Sinicized foreigners serve to reflect the Middle Kingdom’s cultural supremacy, Thus “Chineseness” is an inclusive identity based upon acculturation to orthodox ideals”. The People’s Republic of China’s policy towards minorities reflects this idea.

Drawing from the ideal of political unity, the secession of Tibet could prompt other splittist movements elsewhere in China. Conversely, the area known as “ethnographic Tibet” is not simply limited to Chinese borders. Tibetan populations exist in India, Nepal, Bhutan, and other countries bordering the Himalayan Mountains. A splittist movement in Tibet may lead to similar movements among Tibetans in other countries. Furthermore, their secession could prompt other minority groups, such as the Uighurs to secede from China as well. With so many political upheavals, the current balance of power in that region would be very difficult to keep.

Another problem with the idea of Tibetan independence is the fact that there are regions in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, which China is disputing with India. Should Tibet become independent, it will be impossible for the Tibetan nation to cope with an armed attack against their territory. Furthermore, as China and India become increasingly powerful nations, with an increasing importance in the world’s economy, the India-China border will be an important border to maintain.

Perhaps the most important issue of the Tibet question is that it will set a precedent on the balance of self-determination and national integrity. Goldstein explains that:



Only by recognizing Chinese sovereignty with Tibetan autonomy can both articles of the UN charter be fulfilled adequately.

In conclusion, Chinese sovereignty with Tibetan autonomy is most likely the best way that Chinese and Tibetans can enjoy a prosperous and happy future. This is based upon two letters which the Dalai Lama had sent: one to Deng Xiaoping in 1983, and one to Jiang Zemin in 1992. In the former, the Dalai Lama indicates:



The Dalai Lama has clearly indicated here that he has an outspoken

admiration to work within the system of the People’s Republic of China. In return, it is only appropriate that the Chinese need to recognize the Dalai Lama’s historical authority in Tibet. The Dalai Lama has also indicated in a letter to Jiang Zemin that he does not wish to secede:



I believe that the Tibetan-Chinese relationship that the Dalai Lama refers to in his letter is one of mutual trust and understanding based upon the traditional priest-patron ideology. Because of this China should be more concerned about the welfare of Tibetans and their culture. Lastly, I believe that the United States, as a world power, should act in their capacity as a world power to conduct negotiations between China and the Dalai Lama’s envoys, and serve as a neutral moderator in such negotiations. As Bush stated in a report to Congress on Tibet Negotiations delivered May 7, 2003:



If the US, Tibet, and China are willing to cooperate to negotiate the terms for the well-being of Tibetans and Chinese, there will be no obstacle in obtaining a bright and prosperous future that is entitled to all parties involved.

excellent my comrade

Pan Sinoism:1
anti-Sino zionism:0

Tibet deserves self-determination and self-rule. The Chinese are hypocrites for complaining about Japanese warcrimes when they are currently committing one of the biggest atrocities known to mankind in the genocide of Tibetans, Uighurs, and Inner Mongolians.

Outstanding observation.

I find really ironic that some Viets (Notice I say some) particularly the the Anti-China bashers love to criticize China on the Tibet, Inner Mongolia, issue yet when mentioning the Vietnamese annexation of Cham territory they respond with something like this as posted by DaiNamViet:

"The Chams attacked us constantly so we had to eliminate them once and for all"

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the same hold for China with Tibet, Mongolia, and Eastern Turkestan? All of these peoples attacked China when they were their own country so logically you can argue the same for us right? Or perhaps they're too hypocritical to realize this? The Chams attacked Viets, therefore it is their right to annex them solving the problem once and for all. Since the Tibetans, Uighurs, and Mongols used to attack us Chinese, therefore the same holds true solving our problems with them once and for all.

LOL biggest atrocities known to mankind? where did you get this from. yes, China's renovations of mosques in Xinjiang and temples in Tibet as well as preservation of Mongolian culture in China is pure evil 2

Yes and I suppose that erases the fact that the Chinese government are trying to make Tibetans, Mongolians, and Uighurs extinct in their own homeland. Preservation of what culture? Han Chinese studying of an extinct race?

What? We're genociding them? I see...yet even the Dalai Lama himself said that he is no longer in support of Tibet Independence. He understands that Tibet would descend into chaos if China was not there to help it along. For reference read the Time interview with the Dalai Lama that Duzi posted.

Nice Essay Lin. I may borrow some points for my own, although the essay I'm writing will focus on something a little different.

You guys are missing the point, why doesn't Tibet, Mongolia, or Xinjiang have the right to self-determination? They're not a part of China culturally or politically. The only reason you have them is because the Manchus decided to add them to your territory during the height of their imperial conquests. Now you guys are trying to make them extinct by sending massive hordes of your own people there to try and assimilate them and unfortunately it's working as they are slowly becoming minorities in their own homelands. Imperialism at it's worst.

Please, the "Tibetan holocaust" is a complete hoax. If Chinese really murdered 1.2 million plus Tibetans, where are the mass graves? Besides, it was known that the population of Xizang at 1959 was probably only 1.6 million, if that. If so, how did 400 thousand tibetans become over 2 million in 30 years? The numbers speak for themselves, and the only people that can feel 'morally correct' about it or those leftist anti-sinoists who only care to spread anti-sinoist propaganda.

As for Uigurs and Mongols, I have yet to see anyone of these ethnicities decry the CCP. In fact, most Xinjiang minorities welcomed the Communist order after the 70's because the reforms gave them more material wealth.


Fair enough, once the US gives those landes back to Mexico that they stole, I'll petition the CCP to release their hold over Tibet. Xinjiang, however, had been a part of China since the Han dynasty, and Mongolia was made indepndent due to some political problems; today it's a buffer state between China and Russia.

And your implication that Manchus != Chinese is absurd. Please refer to another article posted by LTY for more on this.

listen nippon man, we don't deny citizenship to our country based on ethnicity unlike japan which has almost a million koreans who have been there 4 generations and have not recieved citizenship

the CCP government pours millions of dollars to renovate mosques and temples in the autonomous regions as well as holds minority culture festivals.

if we evil Hans are trying to wipe out their culture, why is there huge festivals celebrating various minority cultures

did you ever wonder why Inner Mongolia has more mongolians than Outer Mongolia? of course, its because we evil Hans prevent them from leaving the country 2 2 2

why japan can't independent from USA??

The j@p lecturing US about IMPERIALISM? Didn't your nation Rape every Asian women in Asia? Don't even get me started on Japanese Atrocities. Your nation lost to America, under American occupation.

Japan was like Germany after WW2, US occupied Japan like it did in West Germany.

They even used Japan as a friggin Military Base for Korean War.

Even GERMANY now has a Military, but Japan is still America's control, EVen entirely rewritten Consttitution of Japan.

America made Emperor Hirohito admit that he is Not of DIVINE GOD!! ULTIMATE OWN3D!

Bull$hit. Inner Mongolia preserves Mongolian culture far more than Mongolia does. Mongolia was a puppet of the Soviet Union, and as a result, they forced everyone to abandon their traditional last names in the name of equality, and forced them to shut down Buddhist temples. Cyrillic (Russian) script was imposed upon them, while in China, Mongolians still write using the traditional Mongolian alphabet.

And as for Inner Mongolia being a traditional Mongolian homeland, if that's true, then WHY THE fu-k does the Great Wall of CHINA run right through the MIDDLE of Inner Mongolia, then? I constantly see you repeating "Chinese imperialism" like it's a mantra, and then running and shoving your head in the sand everyone someone responds back with facts.

Question back at you, buddy. How many people in Japan still speak Ainu?

Edit: Since you didn't know jack about Manchuria, or about China in general, I don't trust you to know the answer. 15 people still speak Ainu. 6 million people speak Mongolian in China, and 6 million people speak Tibetan in China.

i thought we went over this already, theres no such thing as "Manchuria". Manchus do NOT call that territory Man Ju Gurruni(thats manchu language)" and NEVER have

Japan has full sovereignty to develope its own military. However, many of the Japanese people are wary of their militaristic past so they accept their pacifist constitution. The US has even recently urged Japan to revise its constitution to allow for some military mobilization to make a Japan a more potent partner in dealing with 21st century threats; even this has been met with resistance by the Japanese populace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3744376.stm

There's no Manchuria in Chinese, but Manchuria is just the English name for 東北. It doesn't have the same political or negative connotations that 滿洲國 has in Chinese.

Manzhouguo was the name of the puppet state that the Japanese set up during WW2, when they went on their imperialistic conquests against the Chinese people. That is the only reason why there is every anything called "Manchuria".

I know my Chinese history. That's where the name comes from, but in English, "Manchuria" doesn't bring up connotations of a seperate country, it's just a name for the region.

In English:
東北 = Manchuria
滿州國 = Manchuko

Ok, this is not the Manchuri thread. And self determination is bullcrap, its not human nature. I'd like to see the USA self determine themselves. I wonder what i can do as a Chinese American, the Chinese American Republic of Chinatown..? LOL, I always wanted to say that.

There are some (foriegn) idiots who say that it is. In contrast, lots of Manchu are very proud of being Chinese!

^ Yeah well its been a while since the Qing dynasty collapsed. Give China about 50 years to fully assimilate Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. The worst part is over I guess (Mao's rule), now that life is getting better, I doubt they would want independance.

Honestly its a dog eat dog world out there, if Inner Mongolia wasnt Chinese, it would most likely have been a Russian puppet State, ditto for Xinjiang and Tibet would have most likely have fallen into Indian hands.

Of course, nobody here realises how small America (or should I say British America was prior to the Louisiana Purchase or conquering of large swathes of Texas and California (which was Spanish territory).

I believe in Darwinism, whereby the strongest win and survive.

if you really knew Chinese history, jackass, you'd know "Manchuria" doesn't exist and has gone by the names 遼東,東三省, 東北 but NEVER "Manchuria", by the way, the first two names listed were named created by MANCHUS, not Hans.

I'm more than positive that if Tibet, Xinjiang, or Inner Mongolia had a chance to be independent of Chinese rule, they would more than take it. I guess this won't sit well with some of the Chinese nationalists here.

You are horribly mistaken. Not even the Monk Dalai can deny that Chinese rule has been good for the Tibetan people (I'm not talking about the theocratic feudal lords here).

As for Xinjiang and Neimenggu, there's not even any talk of any rebellion there, except for those who lived abroad and were influenced by Westerners.

what proof of that do you have? have you interviewed ethnic Mongolians living in China?

why don't you ask AF member Kang Xi, hes an ethnic Mongolian from China and hes without a doubt one of the most patriotic CHINESE i have ever encountered.

what's up with some of you chinese hating on jews? i don't see the connection.

ignorance is bliss, isn't it

oww this coming from mr. smarty pants...it's an honor sir.

anyway why not just anwer the question?

put simply, America = Z.O.G (Zionist owned government). 'Nuff said.

oh okay that explains not only that but also why some of y'all think you are nazis and $hit. alright. thank you much bra.

We don't think we're Nazis. Just because the Jews were a pain in the Nazis side and American Jews are a pain in the Chinese people's side (they manipulate western opinion against our nation), it doesn't mean there's a connection.

and when i said nazis i don't mean all of you, remember i'm not a generalizer like some

really am jews don't like you guys give me example? isn't kissinger a jew, but he perpertrated the new chinese-am detente in the 70's

I'm afraid Kissinger may be the exception rather than the rule. For the most part, I've only heard Am Jews in high places hurt China. Sen. Arlen Specter, for example is a supporter of the crook Chen Shui Bian. And Jewish lobbies in the media have a thing for ruining China's credibility on Tibet, Taiwan, Falun Gong, etc.

opium trade was controlled by the jews, brothels in shanghai were controlled by jews, the richest person in China is not Chinese but a jew.

look up the names Sassoon, Hardoon,Adolf Abramovitch Joffe,Grigorii N. Voitinsky

sadly so, I don't think its really china but the pseudo communist government that they're after. and i do believe that mr. chen is still popular among taiwanese, so backing from them is not really a matter of a bad thing since he is still bestowed upon by his own people, but then again opinions of him differ drastically depending on which side of the south china sea you are in. and to say the least i think there are some truth in what they show in tibet and others.

which is why 50% of Taiwan didn't vote for him

negrito, stay out of our bussiness

thanks for your offtopic racist uneducated comment, that just shows you desperation for words.

and he wouldn't be president would he be if he was so unpopular?

and our business? ohh, i don't think taiwanese think that others have a say on their business but themselves

most of the "Chinazis" are from Taiwan. huaxia wu chan, DuZi, and Sun Weining so yes, its their bussiness and i'm sure they would say the same thing

negrito, stay out of our bussiness

desperation the tool that always shows the truth; in this case uneducation. once again let's keep the offtopic stupid remarks on ourselves it don't make you sound smarter rather more brutish and stupid.

but i'd rather hear it from their mouths, and if it is all of your's business then why is taiwan still doing their own thing?

You asked for it. Seriously, mind your own bloody business. I never criticize flip politics, nor do I care to.

I'm from Taiwan, and I HATE Chen. He's a half j@p-loving thug who doesn't deserve my respect. Taiwan is edging slowly towards "independence" because Chen was elected by a fraudulent election, and because the Mainland doesn't want to risk a conflict with the Americans (and I'm not kidding, Jewish politicians were behind this deal), who just sold them billions in weapons (and just for comparison, see what happens when the PRC buys a box of bullets).

but we all are citizens of the world and china and taiwan is my home country's neighbor what goes on in the region will affect us. and this was put on a public posting started by americans so why the heck not i'm an american resident? and i'm not criticizing my friend, i just state the fact shui bien wouldn't be a pres if he's outstandingly hate would he? and there are taiwanese that would rather, till the end of their swords wouldn't want no "communist" taint am i right. take shui bien and his supporters in fact.

communist? listen brown man, China is a full member of the WTO, that pretty much annihilates any true relation to communist ideology. the US and China trade equals to billions every year, does that sound communist to you?

Chen Shui Bian was elected fradulently as HuaXia Wu chan already mentioned, over 50% of Taiwan didn't vote for him.

you're just too dense to actually read anything from non-jewish sources.

When the candidate that was supposed to lose wins by such a small amount, there's bound to be some kind of trick going on (think: FLORIDA).

And I don't think that what's happening in Taiwan and China will affect the Filipines. Maybe your countrymen won't have anywhere to migrate to (my uncle has a Filipino driver back at home) for cheap labor after China implements new laws, or maybe some trade is affected, but that's it.

BTW, i'm not talking about Communist vs. non-communist. That's one of the oldest tricks of rhetoric in the book. I'm talking about China vs. anti-China. Only an ANTI-CHINESE TRAITOR would want the heimland to be torn apart.

let's keep it civilized okay, stop the racism mr. yellow mellow cuz i can get racist too otay. otay.

my friend you did not get what i meant by communism quote on quote and when i said above pseudo-communism. i was being sarcastic of your "communism" which was laughable because it probably came so away from "communism" that was promised to people of china.

but i got to give it to you guys about shui bien though, i mean people wouldn't want him dead if he was popular but still he is the president right?

How many times do I have to state: CHEN WAS ELECTED FRAUDENTLY.

People do want him dead, but don't want to assasinate the "Taiwanese President".

thats typical logic displayed by those who have maldeveloped frontal lobes. How many American elected officials have been hated by millions of Americans? millions hate Bush but hes in power, millions hated Clinton, he was president for two terms, millions hated Nixon, Regean,etc,etc while they were in power

really? frontal lobes wow, these people are actually thought science and anatomy thank goodness. but please my friends again let us keep it civilized and educated and let's lessen the calling of names because it may fill your paragraphs but it don't really make your writing really educational.

milllions my friend millions, but does that mean they are majority? millions there are millions of african americans and millions of other individual races yet there are still called minority. and like i said he is still the president is he not?

read that again^

which part? half of that was stupidly racist