Profil de jingyu伯伦希尔舰桥PhotosBlogListesPlus Outils Aide

Blog


16 avril

谈论 关于西藏 三

以下宏文,未经批准擅自转载自朴素的妇女之友~~

 引用

关于西藏 三

作者:朴素的妇女之友(转载请注明)

 

    历史部分的第三点,我想谈一谈所谓的“大西藏”的问题,这个问题大家可能相对不太了解。
    大家都知道以达赖为首所谓“流亡政府”所追求的目标乃是“西藏独立”或者“西藏高度自治”,但其中“西藏”所指的内容却与平常我们心中所想的“西藏”大有出入。达赖们始终坚持的“西藏”是“大西藏”的概念,不仅包括现在的西藏自治区,还包括青海全境,甘肃甘南藏族自治州,云南迪庆藏族自治州,四川甘孜藏族自治州,阿坝藏族羌族自治州,等等。简单的说,凡有藏族人聚居的地区,都在“独立”或“高度自治”范围之内。这个区域总面积大约是西藏自治区的两倍,占中华人民共和国面积的四分之一。
    根据2000年的人口普查,藏族总人口为541.60万,其中西藏自治区藏族人口为242.72万人,占藏族总人口的52.84%。从这个数字看,似乎自治区“独立”或是“高度自治”了,走上一条庄康大道,对于剩下的将近一半藏人很不公平,以全体藏民代表自居的达赖喇嘛当然不愿答应。
    然而,藏族却并非自治区以外“大西藏”地区的主要人口成分:青海省汉族占57.2%,少数民族除藏族外还有大量回族、蒙古族等,有全国56个民族中的54个;甘南藏族自治州人口藏族仅占47.64%;云南迪庆藏族自治州1990年人口藏族占33.10%;四川甘孜藏族自治州藏族人口占78.4%,但也有汉、回、彝等另外24个民族;阿坝藏族羌族自治州藏族人口占54.5%,另有汉、羌、回等民族将近一半。总和起来,算上西藏自治区的242.72万人,“大藏区”中的藏族人口不足一半。手头没有统一的人口数据,无法做精确的计算,但最后的结论却不难想象。若说“西藏独立”还有其一定根源有其一定理由,那这个“大西藏独立”就无异于天方夜谈了。达赖喇嘛的要求是恢复一千三百年前吐蕃王朝全盛时的领土,要求控制达赖喇嘛世系自诞生起就未统治过的范围,在一个藏族人口不足一半的地区建立一个藏民族的“民主”的政府。
    这个问题也是近年来达赖喇嘛代表与中国政府接触中始终无法越过的障碍。作为一个中国人,我很难相信达赖持这样一种要求前来“谈判”是一种有诚意的行为。
    这种要求在我们看来十分荒谬。当这些藏族分裂分子认为应该由藏族人全民公投决定大藏区是否“独立”时,不知他们把大藏区中的其他民族看成什么,又准备怎么处理。
    藏独分子对这个问题的观点是:这些地区自古便是藏族人纯净的居住地,其他民族都是后来进入的,汉族人的进入更是侵略的结果,自然无权对这些地区的未来发表意见。
    且不论这样的观点是否符合藏独分子据说在申张的“民主”与“人权”,这里只从历史上看看,这些大藏族地区是否真的自古以来便是藏族人的领土而其他民族的存在都是移民、侵略的结果。
    以青海为例吧。
    青海最早的居民是羌人。考古认为,青海的开发至少已有6000年。那时藏族人在哪呢?那时藏族尚未形成,藏族的先民居住在雅鲁藏布江中游两岸。
    夏商之际,部分羌人在青海东部开始定居生活。据称羌人曾参加武王伐纣的战争。羌人在春秋战国的历史中常有出现,古人既以之为西部少数民族的乏称,时常难于分辨,但羌人与秦晋关系密切,有一部分即与华夏族融合。
    西汉时,羌人初臣服于匈奴,部分要求内迁。武帝时辟河西四郡,切断匈奴与羌人联系,并在湟水流域置县,设护羌校尉。随后,汉族开始移居青海东部地区,实行屯田,霍去病筑西平亭,即今日的西宁古城。公元9年,王莽立新,在青海三角夺(今海晏县)设西海郡,继续移民屯田,但在王莽死后被废弃。东汉继续经营青海,33年复置护羌校尉,移民屯田。210年设西平郡,即今西宁。此时距松赞干布即位赞普尚有四百余年。
    羌人在十六国时期有活跃表现,位列五胡之末,缢死苻坚大帝建立后秦的姚苌正是羌人。这一时期少数民族与汉人多有融合,古羌人的血液从此也流淌在中原人的血脉之中。
    诚然后来藏人进入青海,并与羌人有密切关系,但无论从历史政治还是民族血缘上,汉族人似乎都比藏族人更有资格宣称“青海自古以来是某族的土地”。
    自西晋始,辽东鲜卑慕容部一支西迁甘肃,后统治青海,建国“吐谷浑”。对慕容大家应该很熟悉,鲜卑人成为青海第三代居民,直到唐朝初年。
    这时,藏人的吐蕃才在松赞干布统一之后强大起来,于663年攻破吐谷浑,藏族势力进入青海。吐蕃侵入吐谷浑也正是唐高宗派薛仁贵西征的起因。可惜一朝兵败,青海竟然一下子变成藏人“自古以来的土地”。而吐蕃占据西平(宁)更是在757年,亦即安史之乱暴发后的第二年。763年,亦即安史之乱结束当年,吐蕃军队在唐河北副元帅仆怀固恩引导下攻入长安,另立唐帝,不知为何藏独分子不顺便把长安也列入大西藏名单呢?
    842年吐蕃末代赞普朗达玛为佛教僧人所刺,吐蕃分裂。几位王子为争权夺利攻伐不已时,吐蕃随军奴隶在河陇地区发生大暴动,其中一支向西北移居,逐步联合而成一个强势的地方政权角嘶罗,控有青海。1099年,宋军收复河湟地区,1104年改鄯州为西宁州,是为“西宁”名号起源。
    此后进入青海地区的是蒙古人和回族人。13世纪,蒙古西征,先后征服了中亚穆斯林各国,签发被征服各国的青壮年组成“回回军”进人中土。元朝建立后,先后派蒙古宗室西平王系、安西王系、西宁王系等部驻屯青海。这三个王系从始封人开始都是蒙古族中的穆斯林。元以后西藏历史常有蒙古人的身影,忽必烈推崇藏传佛教也给人以蒙古族全部信仰藏传佛教的错觉,但元明时蒙古部族多有穆斯林,明未固始汗进入西藏击败西藏地方统治者藏巴汗所依赖的主力部队正是蒙古穆斯林和维吾尔族。清康熙时征准噶尔,雍正时平罗卜藏丹津,在青海历史舞台上的主角始终是蒙古人,达赖喇嘛正在拉萨焦头烂额,乾隆时尚为准噶尔部、廓尔喀侵入,不知何来统治青海之说。
    民国时在青海建省,主席初为冯玉祥部孙连仲,此人后来任第二集团军总司令率部在台儿庄大战浴血杀敌,青史留名。孙连仲之后,冯玉祥以回人马麟为青海省主席。1932年,十三世达赖乘国民党政府应付九一八事变派兵入侵青海玉树,为马麟回族骑兵击败。马麟死后,其子马步芳继任省主席,直至青海解放。现任十四世达赖丹增嘉措原名拉木登珠,生于青海西宁湟中县祁家川当采村。1939年,布达拉宫派出喇嘛迎请被认定为十三世达赖喇嘛转世灵童的拉木登珠回藏,却被马步芳劫了下来。马步芳倒也不想妨碍人家宗教自由,只是想乘机捞一笔,一开口十万大洋的买路钱。没想到喇嘛们有钱得很,二话没说就给了。老马一下子发现自己少要了,又加码到百万。没法子,西藏地方政府只要请中央政府出面,最后惊动了老蒋,一番协调,中央政府私下给了马步芳四十万两,小达赖才成行去了拉萨。
    这里不谈西藏和中央的关系,只说:就是这样一个青海,达赖认为它理应在自己的统治之下?
    最后列个二手的数据,多准确我无法保证,但情况着不到哪里:1949年的统计,青海人口50.29%是汉族,29.56%是藏族,其余大部是回族。不知藏独分子所谓的“中共移民”是否始自1949年以前?或者从两汉以来的汉族移民、元朝开始的回族移民都应该清零不算,唯独吐蕃攻灭吐谷浑以后藏族移民才作数?
    再来谈一下西藏地方在历史上的统辖范围,看一看大西藏地区有多少曾几何时在藏人统治之下,有多少在西藏政教合一之后由藏人管辖,又有多少曾为达赖世系统领,以至于藏独分子要划这样一块地区独立。
    西藏正史自吐蕃始,吐蕃全盛于赤松德赞时期,其版图大约有所谓“大藏区”的范围,南诏亦为其属国。提出“大藏区”来涵盖所有藏民,当然有“民族自治”的理论,大概也是吐蕃遥远辉煌给的灵感吧。但从赤松德赞到朗达玛前后不足百年,此后吐蕃分裂,从此大藏区再也无从谈起。
    西藏地方再一次谈起“统一”便是元朝了,蒙古贵族选中藏传佛教萨迦派领袖作为管理西藏地方的代表,八思巴被封为帝师,一时尊崇无比,领总制院(后改名宣政院),管理藏族地区行政与全国宗教事宜,忽必烈还将乌思藏十三万户为其供养。这里有些名词比较麻烦,我也是刚查到,大概解释一下。首先是宣政院,这是元朝掌管全国佛教事务并统辖吐蕃地区的中央机构,与中书省、御史台、枢密院平行,以帝师领院事。有元一代,帝师均为萨迦派高僧。宣政院以中央机构,迦派派高僧以帝师身份领院事而管理吐蕃,显然是元朝赋予的权力,不存在西藏地方统一“大藏区”的问题。宣政院以下分设三个宣尉司,吐蕃等处宣慰使司都元帅府、吐蕃等路宣慰使司都元帅府和乌思藏纳里速古鲁孙等三路宣慰使司都元帅府,名字很长,大约第一个包括今青海省东部和南部、甘肃省南部和四川省西北部,包括今青海省的海南、黄南、果洛藏族自治州和甘肃省的甘南藏族自治州、四川省的阿坝藏族羌族自治州的北部,第二个包括今四川省的甘孜藏族自治州,云南省的迪庆藏族自治州、青海省的玉树藏族自治州、西藏自治区的昌都地区和那曲地区的一部分,第三个包括今西藏自治区除昌都地区以外的大部分地区。只有第三个,即乌思藏,也即比现在的自治区更小的区域,因忽必烈以为之八思巴的供养之地,存在着中央统治之外的西藏地方治理情况,即所谓的西藏在元时的统一。但即便是在乌思藏,藏传佛教其它教派与萨迦派的争夺也始终存在,所谓的统一完全是在元朝力量维持之下实现的。元末萨迦派的统治地位即为帕竹噶举派所取代。
    明朝对藏地分封众建,除三大法王外另封有阐教王、辅教王、护教王和赞善王等,并在西藏建立指挥使司、宣慰司、元帅府、招讨司、万户府、千户所等军政机构,任命上层僧侣和各寨寨官为长官,赐予印信,其基本政策与元朝相似。在这种情况下,西藏地方再次进入一个纷乱的情况,贵族世俗势力、宗教势力错综复杂。明末,黄教格鲁派与噶玛噶举派成为两大宗教势力,后者有藏巴第悉(藏王)的支持,格鲁派一度到了十分危急的境地,达赖世系被禁止转世。后来,格鲁派获得来自青海的和硕特部首领固始汗的支持,后者先击败青海支持藏巴第悉的蒙古势力,又进军西藏与藏巴第悉作战。五世达赖翻出老本,让各大寺僧众也参与战斗,才最终击败藏王与噶玛噶举派的势力。随后固始汗将西藏地方政教交给五世达赖阿旺罗桑嘉措,一般认为这便是甘丹颇章政权的开始。但这里所谓的“西藏地方”是指哪里呢?书上说得很清楚,乃是“藏地十三万户”,亦即忽必烈献给八思巴的乌思藏地区。想来也是,固始汗要是把青海也奉献了,自己到哪过日子去?
    到清朝事情就好办些了,因为清朝对藏地的行政区划大约就是今天中华人民共和国的样子,甘丹颇章政权所统领的区域从未超越过今日西藏自治区的范围。
    最后说一点,这是我挺感兴趣的问题。藏独分子如此想建立一个全体藏人的区域,不知他们对于锡金、不丹,还有今日被印度控制的麦克马洪线以南的西藏地区如何考虑?
    锡金古称孟哲雄,是吐蕃一部,读西藏历史的话孟哲雄绝对比青海四川这些地方的地名出镜率高得多,锡金居民可称是相当纯种的藏人。信奉红教,境内寺庙隶属于西藏各大寺。1814年英国入侵锡金,1947年,翻身得解放的印度人继承英国人的地位进入锡金,1950年锡金成为印度“保护国”,1974年锡金成为印度的一个邦。
    不丹,7世纪为吐蕃王朝属地,后逐渐成为独立部落,以藏传佛教噶举派为国教。
    麦克马洪线大家应该比较熟悉,以南地区至今仍被中国地图画在西藏自治区范围之内,但实际为印度控制。
    我承认这么说有些搅和,但锡金和不丹都在元乌思藏宣慰司、明乌思藏都司管辖之下,自治区麦克马洪线以南更是绝对的“藏区”。达赖先生你认为印度人是否对麦克马洪线以南的藏地进行了移民?为谋求“大西藏独立”你是否准备向印度要回麦克马洪线以南的藏地?如果印度政府不答应你是否准备和你的手下策划一些以打砸抢为形式间或死一些人的和平行动呼吁世界的关注以对印度政府施加压力?
 
 
眼睛花得睁不开了...错字也不查了...先放上来吧...呵呵,最后一段算我八卦吧...

谈论 关于西藏 二

  以下宏文,未经批准擅自转载自朴素的妇女之友~~

引用

关于西藏 二

作者:朴素的妇女之友(转载请注明)

    草草先到第二个问题吧,即西方国家对西藏问题的产生和发展的影响。
    西藏因其地理的特殊一直是一个相对闭塞的地区,与外界的交流很困难,藏传佛教的保守更使西藏对与外界的接触保持一种非常谨慎的态度。但很可惜,与中国的闭关锁国政策一样,西藏地方的这种态度无法阻止世界的发展,推开西方国家伸出的手。
    对西藏表示出兴趣的西方国家主要是两个,即英国和俄国,而主导的还是英国。
    印度自1757年开始沦为英殖民地,1849年全境被英占领,1858年英国政府直接统治印度。对印度以北的藏传佛教地区的兴趣也许起自英国人探险的习惯与贸易的需求,就像对从海上携带鸦片在中国沿海所做的事情一样。但渐渐他们发现西藏作为中国与印度缓冲地带的地位,希望西藏脱离中国的控制,成为印度一个中立的安全与防御屏障。
    英国人进入西藏的过程很耐人寻味。
    早在1814年东印度公司即开始侵入锡金和尼泊尔,后来英锡之间的条约规定锡金应为英国与西藏的交通提供方便。但西藏地方政府并不买帐,拒绝英国人从锡金进入西藏。英国人没办法,只能回头找上清朝政府。时值英国驻华公使所派的翻译员马嘉理在云南持枪逞凶与几名随行一起被当地景颇人打死,著名冤大头李鸿章同志于1876年与英代表在山东签订《烟台条约》,其中一条便是英人可由青海甘肃或四川入藏前往印度,若英人从印度入藏驻藏大臣也须照顾。然而对于这一条约,西藏地方还是不买帐,得知真有英国人要来了,赶快开了个高层会议,最后由达赖喇嘛和班禅额尔德尼领头给驻藏大臣写了份公文,让呈教皇帝。文章写得很豪迈,“惟查洋人之性,实非善良之辈,侮灭佛教,欺哄愚人,实为冰炭,断难相处。兹据阖藏僧俗共立誓词,不准入藏,出具切结,从此世世不顾生死,永远不准入境。如有来者,各路派兵阻挡,善言劝阻,相当无事,如或逞强,即以唐古忒之众,拚命相敌。”结果搞得驻藏大臣也没办法,禀报上去,清政府只得令四川总督设法阻止已在路上的英国人。但英国人还是不甘心,准备从巴塘入藏,结果发现藏人真的武装起来准备迎敌,只能作罢。
    探路不果,但英国人也无需为此担心,因为他们已将西藏南边的不丹、锡金、尼泊尔控制在手中,进入西藏只是时间问题。这几个小国与西藏关系密切,种族很相近,更有相同的宗教信仰。英国对几国的入侵使西藏人感觉十分紧张,对局势的危急有了清醒的认识。但清朝政府却无此意识,还一味地回避与英国的冲突,甚至因为英国人一纸恐吓就主动让西藏地方政府拆除边境上建起不久的哨所。
    1888年,英军拒绝和谈建议,以约五百人的兵力突袭隆吐山哨所,守军以各种武器反击,并得到了锡金群众的配合,但仍然节节败退。西藏继续备战,十三世达赖亲自接见援军部队,赐予护身符等物。当时的驻藏大臣文硕对地方政府和民众的抗英行动十分支持,反对清朝妥协的政策。结果文硕被革职,顶替他的升泰当然是坚持执行清朝政策,强令藏军后撤。英国人也是毫不客气,步步进逼。1890年,全权大臣升泰与英人在加尔各达签订了《中英会议藏印条约》八款,划定西藏与锡金边界,清政府承认锡金由英国保护。1893年的条约又规定亚东为市,与英人通商。这些条约都受到了西藏地方政府的强烈反对,反对开放亚东更是坚决,因为他们认为“凡英人通商之地即变为英人之地”。
    英国人对此结果并不满足,这时出现了一个叫做荣赫鹏(Younghusband)的人物。这位手腕高超的英国上校主导了英军对西藏的第二次进犯。首先,师出须有名。这当然难不倒荣上校,因为藏人对英国人随意立起来的界碑当然会十分愤慨,砸碑之事肯定会发生。第二,打仗也须有策略,荣上校对此也是得心应手。看过电影《红河谷》的话应该对其中一段记忆犹新,英国军队到达藏人驻守的山口,藏人提出谈判,英国军官同意了,并且说既然要谈判大家应该有诚意,藏人火枪应该熄火,英军武器要退膛。然后藏军纷纷把枪熄了火,英国士兵也退了膛,但随手又都上了膛,藏人不懂,没有看出玄机。于是谈判就变成了屠杀。这个段子不是冯小宁导演的创作,而是荣赫鹏真实的杰作。
    面对这样一个人物率领的近万英军,西藏虽然全民动员英勇奋战,仍然不敌,拉萨沦陷,十三世达赖出逃外蒙古。1942年,荣赫鹏以79高龄死去,棺材上放着一尊西藏佛像,墓志铭“清心的人有福了,因为他们将见到上帝。”
    此次荣赫鹏与西藏嘎厦签定的《拉萨条约》清政府拒绝承认,但其内容在后来的《北京条约》中基本实现。主要内容除了赔款与英国权利外,英国允不占并藏境及不干涉西藏一切政治,中国应允不准其他外国干涉藏境及其一切内治。这一过程看来很无厘头,不承认一个条约,然后另订一个内容基本相同的,清政府吃饱了没事干,其实却大有玄机。关键在于订约双方,《拉萨条约》是英国代表与西藏地方代表签定(且不论这代表是否能代表西藏),如果这样的条约被承认,则西藏便有了单独订约的资格,中国在西藏的地位最高也只是宗主权而已,主权即被否认。清政府费九牛二虎之力再谈《北京条约》,虽然没有挽回任何物质损失,却维护了在西藏的主权。对在不利局面下疲于奔波的唐绍仪我们应该给予相当的尊重,而这位外交家若非是留学美国归来大概也难有此眼界。
    啰里啰嗦写了这么多,我想从中提出几点:
    第一是英国人的态度。英国人并没有占领西藏的目的,或者他们逐渐发现这一目的是难于实现的。以贸易为先行的势力渗透我们习以为常,在对方拒绝开放以后的武力进犯我们也非常熟悉,最近的问题又落在宗主权和主权的把戏上,至今仍争论不休。什么是主权?什么是宗主权?二十世纪初的西藏有没有人懂得?二十世纪初的中国除了唐绍仪又有多少人懂得?
    打个比方,这半个世纪发生的事情就好像一伙扛枪人偶然发现一座僻静的庄园,觉得进去看看大概会有收获,于是敲门,但被严拒了,因为庄园主人知道那伙人已经抢了自己隔壁的亲戚。一伙人此时还没聚全,其中的一个只好找上了庄园真正的地主,一个名声很响的留辫子老人,刚刚被那伙人海揍过一顿。地主见了那人的枪就发抖,只好写信让庄园主人开门放那伙人进去看看。但那伙人名声实在太臭,庄园主人说什么也不开门,地主也没办法。扛枪的终于火了,聚起人手,砸门就进去了,把庄园主人当然也是一顿揍。最后发现庄园里宝贝不少,但气候实在不好,吃好喝好睡好以后决定拍屁股走人。临走却发现了一个大秘密,原来那个地主竟然没有这块园子十足的地契。于是扛枪人打了个嗝,对鼻青脸肿的庄园主人说,跟你说啊,按我们的法律,地主其实不能算是你们这里真正的主人,你看,老头那么没用,你被揍也帮不了你,跟他混没前途,你还不如自立门户,跟着我们混得了。庄园主便真对老头忿忿了。老头一看不对,园子让你看看无所谓,抢点东西也就抢了,但要把园子盘走我可不答应。对扛枪那伙人又没办法,只能奋起余勇对庄园主严加管教起来,要抓纪律抓忠诚,一时间园子里鸡犬不宁,庄园主对地主更加不服,时常想起地主没有十足的地契来!
    这里面到底是什么?我只看到力量而已。 
    现在的英国学者并不否认当年的两次入藏是侵略,但他们并不会去谈自己的国家对此事的后果应该负有什么责任,他们直接谈现在西藏应该独立。换言之,西方人似乎以承袭西方国家所创造的历史为当然,无论这历史是他们的先人是如何创造的。这和大英博物馆、卢浮宫安然展览来自世界各地的珍宝一样。现在他们说,他们“拿”来这些文物是因为当地人不懂或者无力保护,他们支持西藏独立是因为人权或者民主,但一百年前他们真的是这么想的吗?这种事情总是让我很有情绪,虽然对事情的解决全无帮助。
    第二是清政府的态度。
    在这半个世纪的西藏问题上,清政府都很软弱,读着让人很来气。但如果联想到八国联军1900年洗劫北京,联想到那幅时局图,我们也只能再叹一口气。清政府的无力让十三世达赖非常失望,转而寻找俄国的帮助来对抗英国,最后更不得不接受了英国的势力,转而寻找在英国与中国之间的平衡,这我们无法否认。我只是想从清政府在西藏问题上的态度上从情理分析一下所谓的主权与宗主权之争。
    在中国内陆开放以后,清政府并不抑制英国人对西藏的渗入(当然,也是无力为之),反而百般妥协,阻止西藏地方对英国的抵抗。这其中有对双方实力的现实评估,也有对西藏特殊性的估计不足。清政府大概已经习惯了通商,甚至习惯了势力范围,觉得挨一顿打再从了对方还不如先大概齐从了,总是省了一回鼻青脸肿,于是对英国关于商业和特权的要求一概允许。但事情一旦涉及西藏地方的主权问题,清政府却一下子强硬起来,至少坚持起来。这种坚持大概已经是清政府的最后底线了吧。黑龙江以北的满族老宅可以割让给俄国,但西藏的主权却不可以丢。这种坚持在现在的法律看来一文不值,但是否可以作为西藏是清朝领土不可分割一部分的旁证呢?说西藏不是中国领土,应该也是清朝举国不同意吧。
    清政府在西藏的政府多有失误。在英国与西藏地方的冲突中两面不讨好,引起藏人反感。此后试图加强对西藏的控制,又有赵尔丰的蛮横行为激起藏人反抗,十三世达赖远逃印度,使局面更加不可收拾。冲突升级之后汉人无法在西藏立足,于1912年撤离西藏。那个时代的中国多灾多难至此,自身的原因不可回避。
    第三是西藏地方的态度。
    这一时间西藏地方上层确实发生了很大的思想变化,正像鸦片战争之后满汉各族所经历的一样。从拒绝英人入境的豪迈宣言到战败的痛苦,藏族人也感受到了一种难于抵抗的力量。但与中原文习惯的自强与高傲不同,西藏自元朝起便习惯于被外来民族军事力量保护的状态。意识到清政府力量的疲弱之后,保守的西藏上层以十分现实的态度开始寻找新的外部力量,从寄希望于俄国到安于接受英国势力,藏人确实开始了新道路的尝试。因清政府加强对西藏控制的举措远未达到效果,反而激起藏人的不满,西藏与中央的关系落到低点。1911年清朝寿终正寝,随后十三世达赖一度宣布西藏独立,并开始拒绝与新成立的中华民国发生关系。

    是非纷扰不断,手头材料也似乎都不可全信,毕竟两个片面加在一起也未必是全貌。
    总而言之,现在的所谓“西藏独立问题”始自二十世纪初,起点是英国对西藏的入侵与影响。然而无论如何,清朝对西藏的主权不可否认。

 

    恩..我觉得我应该拒绝转载了..想学术真是难啊..大家先随便看看吧..

谈论 关于西藏 一

  以下宏文,未经批准擅自转载自朴素的妇女之友~~

引用

关于西藏 一

作者:朴素的妇女之友(转载请注明)

    火炬到伦敦那天还和白哥聊西藏的事,说这火炬传递真是不让人放心,觉得非出点事不可。然后在伦敦和巴黎就真出了往祥云上冲的人。愤怒是愤怒的,不过理智的成分更多些,毕竟是可预见的,而且冲击火炬实在也是那些人没办法的办法,某种意义上来说很愚蠢。我相信,这些事情会让中国人的爱国的热情空前高涨。
    但最近各界中国人的努力却很让我振奋了。似乎免不了要涉及爱国,但我想最让大家愤怒的还是偏见与不尊重。团结与自强是赢得尊重的必须,中国太大了,中国人真要团结是件困难的事情,但奥运会特别是复杂局势和重大压力之下的奥运会似乎能让中国人团结起来,多明白些自己的处境。至于偏见就有更多的人为因素了,有些东西我们无法左右,能做的主要有两件,一是做好自己的事情,比如办好奥运会,二是多武装些知识,直面偏见时不至于除了愤怒别的都说不清楚。
    很感谢在海外与偏见战斗的勇士们,最近高举红旗的游行者是,在极孤立的情况下与之论战者是。有些东西无关政治,无关政治理念,却是中国人应该坚持的。
    我做不了什么,但也很想做点什么,于是整理了一些有关的西藏历史、宗教、政治的材料,也想多少谈些现状。不敢说所知颇多观点正确,只是和大家分享一下最近所学,希望在面对藏独问题时多些激昂情绪之外的理性认识,也能多说点东西。
    申明的一点是,所写的完全只代表个人观点而已。

一. 西藏问题
    按照中国政府的说法,现在的所谓“西藏问题”是帝国主义一手挑起而遗留至今的。这样的说法没什么大问题,但仅仅着眼于些也无太大益处,毕竟那个年代的“帝国主义”问题是个全球问题,也是一个历史问题,当年的“帝国主义”已经全部摇身变成了自由民主的卫士,在这些国家依然主导世界的当代,此事无从说理。
    简单的说,现在的西藏问题是一个源于晚清的要求西藏地区独立或者高度自治的问题。
    有清一代,西藏都在中央政治统治之下,但因其特殊的宗教与历史,西藏始终维持了一个很特殊的地位。清朝的最后半个多世纪风雨飘摇,中央政府内忧外患,无力维持对西藏的有力统治。英国殖民者有意在印中之间建立一个缓冲区,有着无止境领土欲望的俄国殖民者也有意染指西藏。1888年和1903年,英国两次入侵西藏。战争结果不难想象,第二次入侵时,英军闯入拉萨,十三世达赖远逃外蒙古。但英国人无法维持对西藏的占领,在签订的《拉萨条约》也肯定了中国在西藏的主权。此外,英国改变了对西藏的策略,转而拉拢西藏地方势力,试图使其主动脱离中国,收获了比直接入侵更好的成效。从清王朝到北洋政府到国民党政府都无力给予西藏地方足够的支持与保护,在二十世纪上半叶,西藏只能努力维持英国势力与中国势力的平衡。但中央政府对西藏的主权从未被否认。新中国建立以后,解放西藏势在必行,西藏地方亲英势力试图抵抗,但战斗结果同样不难想象。在解放昌都以后,中央政府与西藏地方政府签定和平协议,西藏和平解放。但西藏问题仍然存在,因为西藏确实有很独特的历史与宗教问题。1959年,十四世达赖喇嘛外逃印度,并在印度达兰萨拉建立所谓“流亡政府”,谋求所谓的西藏独立或者“高度自治”。无论冷战时代还是中国高速发展的时代,西藏都是西方国家遏制中国的一张牌。我不想说这都是政治上的原因,一些外国人对藏传佛教对西藏对达赖喇嘛的热衷也有其理由。现在的西藏问题,主要是政治问题,其次是民族与宗教问题,而历史问题作为前几个问题的成因也不可忽视。
    但无论如何,现在的中国有能力解决自己的问题,对于分裂中国的所有企图,我个人都旗帜鲜明地反对。
    下面,先罗列一下现在西藏问题中争论的几个焦点,后面的讨论里我努力都谈谈,但更多还是请大家自己思考吧。
    第一,历史上,西藏是否是中国的一部分。
    第二,所谓的“西藏”,指的是现在的西藏自治区还是所有有藏人居住的地区,后者除了自治区之外,还包括青海全境、甘肃南部、四川西部和云南西北部,占中国领土面积的四分之一。
    第三,藏民是否享有宗教自由,中华人民共和国政府是否对藏传佛教造成了极严重的破坏。
    第四,中华人民共和国政府是否对西藏进行了大量的剥削与掠夺。综合三与四,中国政府是否对西藏的自然和文化进行了大量破坏,或者,中华人民共和国政府是否为西藏发展作出了巨大的努力与贡献。
    第五,西藏的独立与人权是否应该成为一个国际问题,就目前而言,是否应该成为一个事关奥运会的问题。这个问题涉及的就远不止西藏问题本身了,也不是与藏独人士的讨论,完全是与各种居心的外国人的话题。
 
二. 历史问题
    这里主要讨论两点,一是西藏历史上是否是中国的一部分,二是西方国家在历史上对西藏问题的产生和发展造成的影响,至于建国后的历史将放在民族与宗教的部分讨论。
 
    西藏在历史上是否是中国的一部分,事关解放军进入西藏是否是“侵略”,事关西藏是否是汉族人的殖民地。“西藏一直是一个独立的国家”是藏独人士放在嘴边的,并且列举出很多理由。达赖近期表示,西藏历史上是否独立的问题可以避而不谈,他可以接受中国的说法。但是,如果这个问题不澄清或者中国不坚持,仍会造成很大的问题。特别的,在现在的情况下,如果面对藏独人士十分肯定且“理由充足”的宣传,我们应该如何去反驳?
    西藏有其相对独立的历史,这是世界第三极独特的地理特点造成的结果,也是事实。
    西藏与中国历史进程发生密切关系始于唐朝,当时的吐蕃王朝是唐朝前期最重要的邻国之一,双方交流不断,战事也频繁。
    虽然山南雅砻的吐蕃王系由来已久,但统一的吐蕃王朝由松赞干布建立。这位一代雄主13岁即位,平叛与扩张一气呵成,建立了完备的政治的军事机构,发展经济,创制藏文,定都拉萨,开创了西藏历史上最值得骄傲的时代。松赞干布先后迎娶尼泊尔和唐朝公主,学习外来文化与技术,并接受了佛教的传入,修建大小昭寺,供养两尊释迦牟尼等身像。时间大约对应于唐太宗时期,这一时期吐蕃与唐朝关系良好。但到唐高宗御宇时,因吐蕃侵入吐谷浑而派薛仁贵征讨,结果在青海大非川大败,唐失安西四镇,两国也从此战事不断。安史之乱后,吐蕃将领率各部联军攻入长安,此时在位的赞普赤松德赞正是唐金城公主之子。821年,以弘佛著称并最后被信奉苯教的贵族勒死的赤祖德赞与唐穆宗会盟,两年后立唐蕃会盟碑,即甥舅会盟碑,“和同为一家”。赤祖德赞死后,其弟达玛即位,大力压制佛教,重兴西藏地方古老的苯教,最后又为一名佛教僧人刺杀。此后吐蕃分裂为几个王系,王朝自此结束。西藏佛教后来复兴,藏人也在达玛的名字前加了一个意为牛的“朗”字,意指此人乃是牛魔王下凡。
    吐蕃亡于843年,唐亡于907年,时间上大约可以作为对应。在中原经历五代十国、两宋辽金之争时,西藏也经历着长时间的分裂局面。
    分裂局面下,各地方势力继续崇敬佛教,藏传佛教各教派多在此期间创立,佛教与地方贵族的关系十分紧密。以萨迦派为例,创立者昆·贡却杰布是吐蕃贵族昆氏之后,教派的建立本就以家族为基础,领袖家族世袭。噶举派分支众多,更是各地方势力与佛教结合的结果。
    成吉思汗以降,蒙古铁骑横扫欧亚,蒙古贵族选中萨迦派为其统治西藏的代表。在元朝的版图上,西藏与中国本部第一次成为一体。但西藏此时仍有特殊之处,因为蒙古贵族自阔端始均信仰藏传佛教,忽必烈更以迦萨五祖八思巴为帝师,在统治关系之外建立一种施主与受施者的关系。这种关系在清朝时仍有延续,藏独分子即以此为据认为西藏从来都不属于中国,至少不属于清朝,西藏与清朝是邻国,两国首领平起平座。清朝容后再议,以施舍关系来证明独立在元朝是肯定不成立的。作为西藏地方领导人,八思巴自14岁或18岁到35岁或39岁均随从于忽必烈,回到作为其供养地的乌思藏仅六年即去世。
    明朝与西藏关系相对疏离,皇帝分封大宝、大乘、大慈法王,其中封有大宝法王噶玛巴的噶举派已经取代了萨迦派的地方领导权,萨迦领袖享有大乘法王之尊,而大慈法王则为新起的黄教格鲁派创立者宗喀巴的弟子。后来格鲁派与噶举派为争夺地方权利大相争斗,各自拉拢蒙古势力。最后,五世达赖喇嘛阿旺罗桑嘉措在青海卫拉特蒙古和硕特部首领的帮助下,消灭了支持噶玛噶举派的藏巴汗,建立西藏地方政权,以前后藏税收奉献五世达赖为寺院费用。这也标志着以达赖喇嘛为中心的甘丹颇章政权的建立。
    甘丹颇章政权建立于1642年。两年以后,清军入关。1652年,五世达赖喇嘛应顺治之邀率众浩浩荡荡访问北京。顺治皇帝授予五世达赖喇嘛“西天大善自在佛所领天下释教普通瓦赤喇旦达赖喇嘛”称号,颁以金册金印等物。在清朝皇帝的支持下,刚刚建立的甘丹颇章从名义与实质上才逐渐确立下来。在这件事情上,藏独人士也有辩论,称顺治皇帝以狩猎之名亲自在南宛以偶遇之形式迎接五世达赖,说明两者并非君臣关系。这种说法狡辩十足,不值一驳。其时外蒙古尚未臣服清朝,满族大臣认为如果皇帝亲迎藏传佛教领袖会对信奉藏传佛教的外蒙古的归顺很有好处,但汉族大臣则认为皇帝乃国家主,不当亲自迎接。最后顺治帝采取了折衷的办法。这件事情说明了清朝统治者对西藏黄教的重视,后来清朝统治者信奉藏传佛教,并以此为统治蒙藏统治的良方,乾隆皇帝有“一座喇嘛庙,胜抵十万兵”之语。鸦片战争以前,中国几千年的历史饱受来自西北游草原游牧民族的困扰,到清朝,满族统治者以其非汉族的身份优势笼络蒙藏,而各族共同信奉的藏传佛教成为民族关系的纽带,对达赖喇嘛的尊崇源于其宗教领袖的地位,而使之同时掌握西藏政治大权则是几经尝试后的选择。以宗教上的施舍关系为西藏事实独立的证据毫无道理。与梵蒂冈的比较也纯属瞎扯。如果达赖喇嘛要求的只是布达拉宫与山前广场的土地并且不保有干涉全藏政治的能力,我个人倒觉得可以谈谈,但恐怕藏独人士绝不会同意。对于个人来说,宗教可能是极崇高极纯洁的终极追求,但在政治上,宗教永远只是一种工具。
    这个问题上最后谈谈福康安入藏的事情吧,清政府与西藏的关系大家可以看得更清楚些。
    清乾隆年间,为八世达赖强白嘉措时期,班禅与噶玛噶举红帽系第十世沙玛尔巴因财产问题不合,沙玛尔巴外逃廓尔喀即今尼泊尔,两次引导廓尔喀军队入侵西藏。顺便说一句,这位沙玛尔巴和六世班禅是同父异母兄弟,与达赖也同出一门。第一次入侵战事不大,入侵者没有得到太大好处,但西藏地方也没有很强硬的对抗,是有1792年廓尔喀再次入侵,将扎什伦布寺洗掠一空后,又攻打日喀则宗城堡。乾隆帝以嘉勇公福康安为大将军率兵入藏,将入侵者赶出西藏,兵临加德满都城下。廓尔喀国王投降,将已自杀的沙玛尔巴的尸骨、妻小及所掠财物送至军前。福康安班师回朝,押抗廓不力的西藏大臣入京审问。
    此事的善后有两件可谈,一是乾隆由此感觉西藏并不和谐,为使西藏治理有法可依,制订《钦定二十九条章程》,这是清朝中央政府与西藏地方真实关系的最好证明。其中第一条就是金瓶掣签制度的规定。藏传佛教活佛转世制度可称别出心裁,很有意思,但在操作上却有极大漏洞。四世达赖为蒙古土默特部俺答汗曾孙绝非偶然,但也可算是政治上的大手笔,而到此时出现几大活佛同出一门的状态却只能引起藏地的混乱。金瓶掣签的实质在于活佛转世由中央政府认定,保证其不为地方所利用。达赖、班禅、哲布尊丹巴、章嘉四大活佛的认定更须金瓶掣签认定,所谓“免于掣签”也须中央政府认可方为实现。
    第二件便是福康安按乾隆旨意就地废止了噶玛噶举红帽系活佛转世,这个始自元朝的显赫活佛就此从历史上消失。乾隆皇帝命令把沙玛尔巴的尸骨分别挂在各大寺院,以为叛国者戒,把红帽系所属寺院、土地、牧场、农牧奴全部查抄归公,红帽系僧人一律勒令改宗黄教。
    这并不是历史上第一次发生禁止活佛转世的事情,事实上,四世达赖死后,当时西藏地方政权的领袖彭措南杰就下令禁止达赖喇嘛转世,因为当时宗教争夺激烈,而彭措南杰认为四世达赖念咒使其重病一场。若非蒙古势力入藏,彭措南杰随后病死,达赖喇嘛这一称呼今天大概只能在西藏历史书的边角里才能找到了。
    中央政府废止红帽系活佛转世,说明如果宗教要参与到政治中,政治是高于宗教的。宗教信仰自由是有前提的,以宗教为名分裂国家在历史上从未被承认,在当今世界更是没有一个国家会接受。十四世达赖喇嘛的作为比沙玛尔巴走得不知远多少了,至少从历史上来看,即使废止达赖喇嘛转世也并非毫无道理。
 
 
写得我累死了..手头没几本书,网上的也不敢乱用,有的东西只能凭记忆模糊着写..今天先写这么多吧..努力继续..最后无聊,八卦一句,福康安同志应该是还珠格格里可怕的尔康同志的原身吧..不过人家牛多了,据说还是乾隆爷私生子呢..
 

Humility and compassion, not hypocrisy and self-righteousness, is what is needed

art.wang.ucb.jpg

L. Ling-chi Wang: "Humility and compassion, not hypocrisy and self-righteousness, is what is needed."

(CNN) -- As the Olympic torch makes its way westward through London, Paris and San Francisco on its way to Beijing, it has been attracting well-financed, organized protests representing various single-issue groups that normally do not even work together.

 Among these groups are various factions of the Free Tibet movement, the groups against genocide in Darfur, global warming, Burma's military dictatorship, job loss in the U.S., and such diverse groups as the Falun Gong and Taiwan independence activists.

The Beijing Olympics is a godsend for these groups because it affords them the opportunity to disrupt the torch relay.

The media, as usual, have seized the opportunity to pour fuel onto the fire. Politicians are tripping over each other in their eagerness to condemn China, to call for boycotts, and to claim the high moral ground, even though the United States has been treated as a rogue state worldwide because of our invasion of Iraq, and our unlawful detention, torture, rendition, etc.

Sadly, most Americans know little about international issues and for that matter, China, as demonstrated by the conspicuous absence of information regarding historical context and complexity. Instead, the media, politicians and organized groups prefer to use only sound bites and, frequently, disinformation to perpetuate ignorance, instill fear, and incite racial hostility, or worse, hatred toward China.

What they do know is this: Just about everything they use and wear daily comes from China. Even the new section of the San Francisco Bay Bridge is being made in Shanghai.

What they also don't know is how Chinese in China are viewing and preparing for the Olympics in August. Not since the 10-year nightmare of the Cultural Revolution have the Chinese been more dedicated to and collectively mobilized for a national project: to host the first Olympics in China.

This project aspires to engage the world and to incentivize further reform in China. More than 200 million Chinese, for example, are learning English and the torch relay will be greeted by all China's provinces and major cities before reaching Beijing.

China, like many countries in the world, including the U.S., has problems. It has much to learn from the rest of the world. For example, China has yet to learn how to understand and treat its minorities -- such as Tibetans, Uighurs, Muslims, Hmongs -- as equals.

In this respect, they are not that different from us. We are still learning how to treat minorities such as Native Americans, African-Americans, Latinos, Chinese-Americans and others as equals.

I am not opposed to free speech and legitimate protests against China's wrongdoings. However, I am opposed to using the Olympics to demonize China and its people and disruptive, confrontational, and violent tactics. Such actions have the effect of desecrating the Olympics and humiliating and insulting the people of China. No good can come of them.

Protests and confrontations along the torch route may even incite Chinese xenophobia and nationalism and result in decisions to retreat from its increased openness to and engagement with the West.

If this should happen, it will be a major setback for the 1.3 billion people in China and for world peace and prosperity.

L. Ling-chi Wang is professor emeritus of Asian American & Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

Comments

K.Seth
updated April 9, 2008

Most people commenting here are missing the point. No one is justifying the opressive nature of the Chinese government, but I do think there's a lack of understanding between the west and China. Frankly I don't think ...more

Most people commenting here are missing the point. No one is justifying the opressive nature of the Chinese government, but I do think there's a lack of understanding between the west and China. Frankly I don't think protests like these will yield any positive results. China is on the path of becomming a great power in the world, further isolating China is not the way to bring democracy to that country, but the opposite, starting a new cold war. One of my friend was over at the Paris torch relay, she told me there are plenty, perhaps much bigger crowd of pepole there supporting the torch, and she doesn't understand why all the media focus has been focused on the protests only, with few mensioning of supporters out there. less

AJ
updated April 9, 2008

These protests are entirely reasonable. It isn't about demonizing the Chinese people. It is about highlighting the government that oppresses its own people. The Chinese government continues to ignore the international ...more

These protests are entirely reasonable. It isn't about demonizing the Chinese people. It is about highlighting the government that oppresses its own people. The Chinese government continues to ignore the international community's expectations that it respect human rights as it evolves into a super power. less

K
updated April 9, 2008

VERY WISE WORDS FROM A VERY WISE MAN.

I could not agree more with you, Mr. Wang. It's the hypocrisy and self-righteousness that made people like Richard Gere and Nancy Pelosi who know NOTHING, NOTHING AT A ...more

VERY WISE WORDS FROM A VERY WISE MAN.

I could not agree more with you, Mr. Wang. It's the hypocrisy and self-righteousness that made people like Richard Gere and Nancy Pelosi who know NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL about China and all it involves to pour fuel to the fire. Shame to them! They turn me off and they will turn vast majority of Chinese off. less

Scott
updated April 9, 2008

This has nothing to do with the Chinese people... it's the Chinese government that's being questioned. I do have Chinese xenophobia but that has more to do with lead in our toys and poison in our food. No one is sa ...more

This has nothing to do with the Chinese people... it's the Chinese government that's being questioned. I do have Chinese xenophobia but that has more to do with lead in our toys and poison in our food. No one is saying the US is perfect but we do have a free society. Tibet wants freedom in order to practice their religion. China wants to squash that religion. I think this is the perfect stage for protest as it involves ALL nations and last time I checked, most of the world disapproves of China's illegal occupation of Tibet. I agree people are jumping on a bandwagon, of sorts, but that doesn't change the fact that Tibet has been in captivity long before these Olympics were planned. If the world doesn't react, you can't possibly think that China will somehow change its view on Tibet. I suspect the protest were sparked in Tibet for the very reason that China is now fully in front on the national stage. What better time to voice your opinion than when the whole world is watching? less

Jon
updated April 9, 2008

Another China apologist. Historical contexts and complexity have their places, but cannot be used to justify repression and human rights abuses. The United States is by no means perfect, but its a far-cry from bein ...more

Another China apologist. Historical contexts and complexity have their places, but cannot be used to justify repression and human rights abuses. The United States is by no means perfect, but its a far-cry from being on par with China with these matters. These are matters that are important to me and for my elected representatives to show that they appreciate this importance through their critical comments of China isn't wrong. It's how our democracy is supposed to function.

The Olypmics are supposed to represent the very thing that the people are protesting. Human rights, freedom, and the like. I believe this makes the Olympics not just a valid forum for this kind of debate, but a good one!

Oh, I don't care how many things are made in China. Just because alot of products are made there doesn't make them right. less

Jason
updated April 9, 2008

Bashing another group of people is rarely a good option, and perhaps there is an overtone of hypocrisy because of American foreign policy, but whether or not I have any moral high ground to write it, there is a differ ...more

Bashing another group of people is rarely a good option, and perhaps there is an overtone of hypocrisy because of American foreign policy, but whether or not I have any moral high ground to write it, there is a difference between America "learning how to treat minorities" and China killing Tibetan protesters. It's called death, or murder, or violent oppression. less

Ed
updated April 9, 2008

I could not disagree more with Wang's statements. How can he compare how the U.S. deals with minorities to the way China has dealt with the Tibetans and other minorities? Being a minority myself in this United States, ...more

I could not disagree more with Wang's statements. How can he compare how the U.S. deals with minorities to the way China has dealt with the Tibetans and other minorities? Being a minority myself in this United States, I know we're far from perfect, but I'm not treated like the Tibetans are.
China seized their country by force, the Tibetans never wanted Chinese rule and don't want it now. That's the bottom line! I don't care what China says because the only thing that should matter is the will of the Tibetan people to be free.
I would imagine the Olympics are galvanizing Chinese towards a positive cause and I agree that violent protest are not the answer, but China must be protested. The international community must voice its disagreement with China's violent treament, murder, denigration, cultural humiliation and disappearance of Tibetans and their language. China has made it almost impossible for the people of Tibet to live as Tibetans in their own land.
How many have been in years for jail for speaking out against the Chinese government? How many have been forced to flee in exile? How many have been born in exile?
With that said I think China should host its Olympics, but the international community should and must voice its opinion against China now that is has the chance. I would hope Pres. Bush does not attend the Opening Ceremonies symbolically demonstrating the U.S.' discontent with China's policies, but still support our athletes there.
I would just hope Tibetans remember to be calm and patient in their righteous desire to be free and I hope China has the decency to free Tibet or at least grant them serious autonomy sometime in the near future. less

Sara
updated April 9, 2008

I couldn't agree more with this commentary. Everyone's so quick to jump on the anti-China bandwagon and completely forget that not only is Chinese culture completely different from that of the US, but the US expects C ...more

I couldn't agree more with this commentary. Everyone's so quick to jump on the anti-China bandwagon and completely forget that not only is Chinese culture completely different from that of the US, but the US expects China to do in a few Post-Cultural Revolution decades what the US had over 200 years to pull off - but certainly hasn't perfected. Economically speaking and Tibet and Xinjiang aside, I think they're doing an excellent job. less

chill
updated April 9, 2008

Let's be clear. China is a brutally repressive slave state whose sole purpose is to maintain its dictatorship. Their support for genocide in Sudan is utterly without excuse. There are plenty of people in the US, pr ...more

Let's be clear. China is a brutally repressive slave state whose sole purpose is to maintain its dictatorship. Their support for genocide in Sudan is utterly without excuse. There are plenty of people in the US, protesting US policies on everything from race to torture and Iraq. So far as I know, none have been run over by tanks. less

David
updated April 9, 2008

L. Ling-chi Wang might want to walk across his campus and take a class in American civics. Here in America one has the right to protest whatever they want. You don't get to choose which protests are legitimate and wh ...more

L. Ling-chi Wang might want to walk across his campus and take a class in American civics. Here in America one has the right to protest whatever they want. You don't get to choose which protests are legitimate and which aren't.

Considering China is using the Olympics as a propaganda tool to showcase their place in the world, the opposition has both the right and, in my opinion, the duty to protest China's oppressive government and their war of cultural genocide against the people of Tibet less

Seth
updated April 9, 2008

Professor Wang,

You draw some parallels that you don't work very hard to justify, and aren't really accurate. To say that "China has yet to learn how to understand and treat its minorities," and the same i ...more

Professor Wang,

You draw some parallels that you don't work very hard to justify, and aren't really accurate. To say that "China has yet to learn how to understand and treat its minorities," and the same is true of the United States, is to equate American bias and discrimination with brutal repression in China. Both are bad, but one is worse.

Likewise, I'm not sure where your claim that "the United States has been treated as a rogue state worldwide" comes from, or how you justify it. You must have a different definition of "rogue state" than I do; don't rogue states usually get excluded from trade and international organizations and have sanctions imposed on them?

There's no need to argue that the United States is "as bad as" China in order to suggest the olympic protests be handled differently. The United States, however woefully short it has lately fallen of its own ideals, is a very different place from the People's Republic. less

Josh
updated April 9, 2008

Unfortunately, sir, I disagree with you. I am American and I switch on the news almost daily to see citizens of other countries protesting against American policies. I completely respect their right to protest polic ...more

Unfortunately, sir, I disagree with you. I am American and I switch on the news almost daily to see citizens of other countries protesting against American policies. I completely respect their right to protest policies which they consider unjust. Furthermore, I believe they are protesting against our government more than our people. Concurrently, protesters here, I am sure, are protesting the Chinese government, and not the Chinese people. So, your argument is flawed, that you believe protestors are "demonizing" the people of China. You should know better than that, being an American, to chastise people for expressing their views. Do me a favor and read the Constitution. It's actually a good piece of literature. less

sw
updated April 9, 2008

Wish more people in america read Dr. wang's article.

Wish more people in america read Dr. wang's article. less

kurt
updated April 9, 2008

China brutally invaded Tibet in 1959 and has methodically tried to wipe out this beautiful, ancient culture.

China spreads crazy lies and obvious about the Dali Lama and his"Clique" to justify their repression.

Say the truth, "Bashing" is the answer. We need more of it.

 

(CNN)China demands apology from Cafferty

(CNN) -- The Chinese Foreign Ministry demanded Tuesday that CNN's Jack Cafferty apologize for remarks he made last week, in which he called the Chinese "goons and thugs" and said products manufactured in China are "junk."

"Cafferty used the microphone in his hands to slander China and the Chinese people (and) seriously violated professional ethics of journalism and human conscience," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Tuesday, according to China's state-run Xinhua news agency.

She said Cafferty's remarks "reflected his arrogance, ignorance and hostility towards the Chinese people, ignited indignation of Chinese (at) home and abroad and will be condemned by those who safeguard justice around the world."

CNN issued a statement saying, "It was not Mr. Cafferty's nor CNN's intent to cause offense to the Chinese people, and [CNN] would apologize to anyone who has interpreted the comments in this way."

In its statement issued Tuesday, CNN said Cafferty was offering his "strongly held" opinion of the Chinese government, not China's people, adding that he clarified the point Monday.

The network noted that "over many years, Jack Cafferty has expressed critical comments on many governments, including the U.S. government and its leaders."

Cafferty, who appears daily on CNN's "The Situation Room," made the remarks April 9 as host Wolf Blitzer was comparing today's China to that of 20 or 30 years ago.

"I don't know if China is any different, but our relationship with China is certainly different," Cafferty said. "We're in hock to the Chinese up to our eyeballs because of the war in Iraq, for one thing. They're holding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our paper. We are also running hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of trade deficits with them, as we continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out the stuff that we're buying from Wal-Mart.

"So I think our relationship with China has certainly changed," he said. "I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years."

He issued a clarification of his remarks on Monday's "Situation Room," saying that by "goons and thugs," he meant the Chinese government, not the Chinese people. It was unclear whether China's Foreign Ministry was aware of the clarification when it held the Tuesday news conference.

In the days following his remarks, however, the Legal Immigrant Association launched an online petition condemning his statements as "racist" and "despicable" and demanding that CNN discipline Cafferty and apologize to the Chinese people. Nearly 45,000 people had signed it as of Tuesday afternoon.

In the petition, the association describes itself as "a leading organization of legal immigrants mainly comprised of people from China." According to its Web site, the nonprofit group is based in Santa Clara, California, and was founded in 2007 as an organization "dedicated to the social well-being of employment-based immigrant professionals."

The state-run English-language newspaper China Daily also said in an editorial Tuesday that an apology is called for, calling Cafferty "pathetic" and noting, "it is rare for the world audience to hear such a blatant discrimination against an ethnic group of people with such a derogatory connotation."

Others angered by Cafferty's remarks were urging a boycott of CNN's advertisers.

CNN said Tuesday that it is "a network that reports the news in an objective and balanced fashion. However, as part of our coverage, we also employ commentators who provide robust opinions that generate debate." E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend