Article

2004-09-29 International-UN-NGOs

Kofi Annan Prevents the UN From Saying a Word About Tibet

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-09-29 6:37:32 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2004-09-29 7:05:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-09-29 8:39:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-09-29 9:29:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-29 10:16:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-09-29 10:30:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-29 10:33:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-29 10:48:41 PM|| Front Page Top

20:24 JJ
10:52 JINSA
09:53 Heartless Bastard
13:03 Heartless Bastard
23:33 Heartless Bastard
23:31 Heartless Bastard
23:01 Heartless Bastard
20:16 Heartless Bastard
00:28 007
00:20 007
00:24 007
00:24 007
00:22 007
00:22 007
00:16 Anymoose
00:16 Anymoose
00:08 Anymoose
00:08 Anymoose
10:25 Floting Clanter5218
19:28 Flagum Whagum2319
00:24 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
21:33 Super Hose
13:36 lex
10:41 lex