| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Kofi Annan Prevents the UN From Saying a Word About Tibet |
| 2004-09-29 |
| From the Harvard Asia Quarterly (Summer 2000), an article titled "An Uncertain Ally: The US Government and Tibet" by John Kenneth Knaus, the author of Orphans of the Cold War, a history of the US government's role in supporting the Tibetan resistance. He is currently an associate at the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University. .... Doctor Henry Kissinger ... began crafting a policy course on China that would eventually foreclose any role for the Tibetans. His strategy culminated in President Nixon's dramatic and historic trip to China in February 1972 to meet with Chairman Mao and Premier Zhou Enlai. American policy had come full circle since the days when encouraging Tibetan resistance was part of an overall of the effort to do "anything we could to get in the way of the Chinese Communists." After their journey to Beijing Dr. Kissinger told his chief that "We are now in the extraordinary situation that, with the exception of the United Kingdom, the People's Republic of China might well be closest to us in its global perceptions." These global perceptions did not include the Tibetans. The participants in President Nixon's talks with Mao and Zhou and Dr. Kissinger's follow-up conversations with the Chinese leaders agree that the subject of Tibet or the support that the US was providing to the resistance did not come up in these discussions. By this time the CIA was in the process of phasing out its support for the guerrilla groups that it had maintained in the Mustang peninsula of Nepal since 1960. .... It was Gerald Ford who made the final disavowal of support to the Tibetans. When Ford made his prescribed visit to Beijing in December 1975 Deng Xiaoping, after laying down his dictum that "we do not believe in peaceful transition" in regard to Taiwan, also took a shot at the US relationship with the Tibetans. He raised the "small issue" of the Dalai Lama's "small office" in New York. Although Deng belittled it as a matter like "chicken feathers and onion skin," Ford solemnly reaffirmed that "we oppose and do not support any governmental action as far as Tibet is concerned." .... The State Department has attempted to reclaim its prerogative to define the US position on the legal status of Tibet, inserting into the 1994 Congressionally mandated annual report on Relations of the United States with Tibet the declaration that "since at least 1966, US policy has explicitly recognized the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the People's Republic of China." .... Similarly the President [Clinton], who had come into office after charging his predecessor of "coddling tyrants," among them "the butchers of Beijing," responded to Congressional pressure and made an improvement in Beijing's relationship with Tibet a condition for renewal of its most favored nation status. This condition became a casualty of the pressure for trade the next year. .... |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #7 SH: ZF, is my idea for resolution and the reason that resolution cannot currently take place accurate in the slightest? The North Korean situation isn't being helped along by China. China has North Korea by the short hairs in a way that the US did not have over any of its Cold War allies. Without Chinese funding, the North Korean economy would collapse, and millions would starve to death. China could topple Kim Jong Il tomorrow, and have him replaced by one of his generals. But China will not, because they're not interested in shutting him down. Their primary interest in NK is as a conduit for ballistic missile and nuclear weapons proliferation. Neither China nor the Chinese are interested in giving Tibet up. The only way Tibet will gain its independence is by either defeating the Chinese on the battlefield or through the lucky happenstance of a Chinese civil war. Since the Dalai Lama is more of a dreamer than a practical statesman, the first will never happen. What Tibet needs and doesn't have are the kinds of military men that the Chechens have in excess. The second scenario could come about, but only if the Chinese economy really falls apart, upon which a post-Communist China might break up into regions controlled by different generals. If this happens, there is a strong possibility that China could remain permanently fragmented, given the wealth of knowledge about good government available in the public domain. And that would work to Tibet's advantage. Unless Tibet can fight its way towards independence, a unitary Chinese state is incompatible with a free Tibet. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-29 10:48:41 PM |
| #6 Tibet is not our problem. It's not like they went out of their way to help Uncle Sam. John Knaus appears to think that the US is obligated to provide military welfare to Tibet, but it works both ways. It would have helped if the Tibetans had actually made real progress towards ousting the Chinese. Knaus is implying that the US used the Tibetans and then discarded them. The reality is that the Tibetans used the US but couldn't win it for themselves. It was a mutually beneficial relationship that foundered because the Tibetans couldn't make headway against the Chinese. The US takes a lot of flak from China for hosting Tibetan exiles and letting them hold their conferences here. Every year, we put up various resolutions in their behalf. We're not going to use military force to wrest Tibet away from China, but we have definitely done a great deal more than Kofi Annan. Mike Sylwester is saying that the US did not do enough. Kofi Annan has done *nothing*. We went some of the way, but had to give up on Tibet in favor of establishing an alliance with China against the Soviet Union. Kofi Annan won't even let a Tibet resolution show up on the agenda. Uncle Sam spent tens of millions of dollars on the Tibetan resistance movement (hundreds of millions in current dollars). Kofi Annan has given them the cold shoulder. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-29 10:33:21 PM |
| #5 ZF, is my idea for resolution and the reason that resolution cannot currently take place accurate in the slightest? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-29 10:30:00 PM |
| #4 Mike is taking time away from promoting jihadi propaganda to indulge in his "Uncle Sam is the root of all evil" schtick. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-29 10:16:21 PM |
| #3 What about Nukes for Nepal....just kidding. Tibet won't be free until China becomes free. That's the story. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-09-29 9:29:12 PM |
| #2 Mike, based on the natural resources available in Tibet and it position as a buffer between India and China, (i.e. Tibet serves as a forward operating base for the Chinese military) I can't see American soft power making much of a difference in with respect to getting China to leave Tibet. Are you suggesting a particular policy action by the US? Why is Kofi Anan in the title? My opinion is that the Tibet occupation should be resolved with the regional players along with the Taiwan in a manner similar to what is being done with regard to the NK nukes. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-29 8:39:37 PM |
| #1 China pays well, I see... Addicted to Oil for Bribes. Ignore genocide for bribes, _____ for bribes... Kofi Listens... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-29 7:05:02 PM |