9 responses

  1. avatar
    Carlo Buldrini
    Thursday, May 16, 2013

    While the last words of Phangmo Dhondup, who self immolated in Tibet last February, were: “Without independence Tibet will be annihilated”; while the Chinese bulldozers are razing to the ground the entire area of the Barkhor in Lhasa; the Sikyong Lobsang Sangay continues in his delirium in favour of Chinese Communism.
    I hope that TNC will identify soon a candidate pro-Rangzen for the next general elections that are going to see a crucial battle between the “Two Lines” now irreconciliable.

  2. avatar
    Roscoe Brooks
    Friday, May 17, 2013

    A quarter century of rigid and increasingly desperate attachment to the categorically failed “Middle Way” policy has led to this absurd but ultimately predictable dead end. As the function of a policy that was the ever more fevered symptom of a government in negotiation against itself, it was almost inevitable that the rhetoric of the CTA would increasingly ratchet toward the extreme position of the CCP, the constant in this dismal equation. When the Sikyong publicized “We are not asking that democracy be implemented or be allowed inside Tibet” it hardly need be said that this was neither the “Middle” nor the “Way”. Rather, it was the death throes of a policy that could no longer even lay claim to its own name.

  3. avatar
    Friday, May 17, 2013

    At the ‘COUNCIL on FOREIGN RELATIONS’, the ‘Obvious’ setting & statement made by Mr. Sangay is no mistake, but an agenda unfolding it’s self. Y’all please watch this short video for an insight.

    • avatar
      Friday, May 17, 2013

      FYI; “Quigley reveals that these men aim “to create a world system of financial control, in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country, and the economy of the world as a whole.” In short, they seek total and quiet control of the entire world and the CFR is the most visible conduit for carrying out that agenda. (Excerpt from the film).”

  4. avatar
    ajo Che
    Saturday, May 18, 2013

    Well, our Sikyong has said what he had said in line with the CTA’s objective which is to always leave the possibility of fluid dialogue with Uncle Chin open and receptive. That’s why I also say MWA is the best proposal in the long run because it is mutually beneficial to both entities.

    What’s the point of making a lot of noise against an entity who holds the STICK. We want chopsticks instead. Today the world’s sole-superpower has its hands full with the bellicose Kim Jong Un, let alone Iran. So, what’s the point of Dharamshala making making some temerarious noise against Uncle Chin who has lifted over 680 million Chinese from depths of poverty in the last three decades, according to statistics compiled by some US firms as reported by Fareed Zakaria on CNN. That’s a fact.

    As far as I am concerned, Sikyong couldn’t have said it any better in light of the current political status quo we are in; sounding like a seasoned diplomat rather beating a drum without much gumption, to say the least. To me his words resonate with a high degree of acumen and sagacity in pledging for leniency consistent with per Chinese constitution. As for demolition of Bhakor area, I believe, it is our own making in a way, with self-immolations, etc. Some of the twenty thousand Uyghurs (10k in Sinkiang and 10k in exile)made a lot of noise and the result was similar to the Bhakor demolition a few years back in the capital of Xinjiang. Baba Phuntsog Namgyal learned the hard way as to how vocal he should have been in the past. When Hu Yao Bing had approached him during their three hour discussion in his kitchen over tea to be the man in charge of the TAR, he deftly but politely declined the invitation, cause age and intuition had taught him to tread very carefully. My guesstimate is that the 10th Panchen Lama wasn’t careful enough buoyed by his intense love of his land and people and the Dharma.

    In the ’60s a leader of a superpower made a lot of raucous noise in the UN’s General Assembly. Taking off his shoe and banking it at the podium Nikita Khrushchev roared of the West, “We will bury you!” The point I’m trying to make here is that making a lot of empty words can be toxically counter productive.

    Ajo Che

    • avatar
      ajo Che
      Saturday, May 18, 2013

      Pardon me. A slight error in regard to the population of Xinjiang which should have been in millions not thousands.

      Ajo Che

  5. avatar
    Sunday, May 19, 2013

    @ajo che: Ah! The Sikyong & Uncle Chin, now it makes sense. In our previous history we had Ngawang Jigme, & the history repeats again. Yo, CTA might as well reveal it’s true intention as the Chinese Tibetan Association or the Communist Tibetan Association = C.T.A.
    I don’t see how the MWA is any beneficial to Tibetans since the current “peaceful 17 point agreements” is a complete hoax, in real time & real life. “6 million” Tibetan Bosses want to be ‘Independent’ of draconian communist rule, yet exiled CTA promote & propagate WMA. Who’s the real Boss?! Y’all are all fired! Lol! We(?) all know who the ‘real boss’ is by now don’t we? It should be very obvious to everyone. Read the symbols & signs behind Mr.Sangay, in plain sight & most are clueless. Do your re-search & homework because this is much, much bigger than Tibet & Tibetans, it impact everyone Globally. We’re part in this agenda. To me MWA has two covert purposes. 1. To harvest all Tibetans under the guise of freedom via MWA. 2. To pacify or shut-up Tibetans to appease the communist Chinese regime as not to damage their image Globally. It’ll greatly impact all concerned people like the Democratic minded Chinese citizens,Uyghurs, Inner-Mongolians, etc… MWA is a very dangerous propaganda in the bigger picture but nevertheless very cleaver & this Tibetan ain’t buying it. Know that, we too are very precious Souls & re-incarnates, not anyone’s doormat or commodity. Gandhi said:

    “You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.”

  6. avatar
    Sunday, May 26, 2013

    No Maura,

    The Sikyong does not so much “embrace Communist rule” in China as he feels compelled to acknowledge its existence as a currently unalterable reality. He knows that to stand in direct opposition to a bully of China’s stature invites deeper persecution on Tibetans. He also knows that China can’t wait for such opposition.

    While saying that “Beijing’s cadres are unwilling, or unable, to relinquish one party rule” is certainly true, it misses the deeper point. It’s not about relinquishing anything, its about enhancing one party rule. This is done most effectively every time any pontificating Westerner or activist,or Sikyong for that matter, makes any attempt at a “repudiation of Chinese Communist rule.”

    Put simply, every time any authority figure outside of China tells China what it MUST do on anything, the Chinese Communist Party smiles with glee and issues it’s usual shrill rebuttal. When it comes to Tibetans, this rebuttal is generally followed by increased repression on the ground. China is looking for every opportunity to tell the world that it’s a new day and that they are fully prepared to follow no advice but their own. Our direct challenges repeatedly give them the platform they need to re-affirm their beliefs to the world through their rebuttals.

    We saw this in Nepal. The ill-conceived attempt by the International Campaign for Tibet to draw attention to Nepal’s failure to live up to the “Gentleman’s agreement” which allegedly guaranteed Tibetan safe passage through Nepal and on to India, provoked China into pressuring Nepalese authorities to clamp down hard on the Tibetan community. Chinese ambassador Yang Houlan even went so far as to blame “outside, Free Tibet” groups for the brutal crackdown.

    Get it? Everything we say, can and will be used as a pretext for Chinese repression, so we must ask ourselves an important question:
    Do we want to trumpet our political ideology as being superior to that of the Chinese, or do we want to save Tibetans?

    We’ve been prioritizing the former for the last two decades and it hasn’t been working.

Leave a Reply

You must be to post a comment.

Back to top
mobile desktop