Market forces? You mean obstruct trade?Originally Posted by manicgeek
Poster
Market forces? You mean obstruct trade?
No quite the opposite, we should be trading with them big time and we should be encouraging other nations to trade with them... for a number of reasons.
Firstly - Trading economies do deliver real improvement to the lives of the people.
Secondly - Trading economies become dependent on trade, and at some point the idea of anyone stopping that trade become a major threat to the political stability of the state, when that tipping point happens with China the political regime has to adapt to ensure it prevents interference with trade less any interference brings about political unrest amongst the people... and with several billion people to keep happy you can bet they'll start to listen to other countries.
Thirdly - Trading with them will encourage an economy to grow throughout the entire country (eventually) This will leave Tibet in a much better position should they ever gain their freedom, with something of their own to provide income for the state and the people, and to provide the state with trading partners, who in turn will have an interest in that country remaining a trading partner with them.
Fourthly - The people of Tibet who currently live in exile will be much more likely to return, if their country has a trading economy, they will still be able to maintain their external associations whilst bringing the skills they have gained in other countries into the Tibetan economy, not to mention the contacts they have made who could also be used to help Tibet after independence.
China has more to lose in the long run if we trade with it... but I'm not sure they've figured that out yet... sssshhhhh!!!!!
Poster
I don't agree with much of that MG.
The tipping point has already been reached. The Chinese can't run their economy without trade. They know however, that their partners are unlikely to take that way because in the end greed is too powerful. There is very little that is so important it will get in the way of profit. The economies of the countries that trade with China rely on it as well as China's, and any government is going to be worried about the effect reducing trade has on itself. The more trade we do the farther bogged down we get and the less likely it is that anything willl happen with Tibet.
As to the issue of wealth, I'm not sure the Tibetan people would sacrifice their way of life for cash. If you made them financially comfortable they would still be an oppressed people. And you haven't proposed a way for them to gain independance once they're comfortable.....you just say it will 'leave them in a better position for independence'. Do you think one day China will just change its mind randomly? How long will that take? Will Tibet have lost all it's indivuality by then?
Regarding exiled Tibetans, what stops them going back isn't poverty. It's the risk of torture. These people are political agitators and China deals with those ruthlessly. Money isn't going to change that.
I know.
The money that has been generated in the growing economy of China is still limited to the effects it has had on the vast majority of the population, that will change over the coming years. Of course those who have benefited from the money so far have no reason to challenge the existing regime, fear alone will stop that. There are no where near enough people who have benefited yet... but there will be. Yes trade sanctions are hard on both sides of the coin, but that doesn't mean they don't happen, the entire premise of trade sanctions is that it is one country who has sanctions imposed upon them by many countries, thereby lessening the impact upon the economies of the many.
Do you think they've lost their individuality in the last 50+ years ? So why do you think they will in the future ? Their independence cannot just be gained... for them to get it lots of things have to happen inside of China, and those changes can only happen once the Chinese political system reaches critical mass, they have to become dependent on trade, they have to have gained a sense of international security from threats, they have to have improved the lives of the people to the extent that the people come to expect certain things from the state and become agitators and descentors when a threat exists to that.
There are two ways to kill Communism, one is to cause it's economy to fail at which point the people will kill it, the other is to cause it's economy to boom, at which point the people will start to perceive it's limitations as a threat to what they want... I'm discounting nukes as I'm sure you'll not consider that a valid way to make communism fail.
It will if Tibet gained it's independence and turned into a poor country with no prospects... people will return if they think there is something to return too... if all their return would bring is poverty they'll stay where they are.
Anyway got to go.
Looking for loopholes
I think the biggest single gripe the Tibetans have is the seeding of their society with Han Chinese. The Han have never lived there and their culture is quite different from that of the Tibetans. It is ethnic swamping. The Tibetans fear that at the current rate the Chinese are shipping people in or inducing loyal Party Member Chinese people to move to Tibet they will become a minority in their own country and that all the reins of power will be in Chinese hands. When that happens it may well be possible for displaced Tibetans to return as they will represent little threat to Chinese rule. They will, however, return to a Tibet that will be hard to recognise.
If the protests go even a small way to safeguarding some of the cultural aspects of Tibetan life it will be an achievement. The prospects of independence are at best unlikely.
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
Hmmm the seeding of an outside culture is a problem, but it has never been something that has prevented countries still retaining their own culture, like Georgia and Kosovo... albeit there could be bloodshed over it
If Tito failed to wipe out cultural identity the Chinese don't stand a chance.
Poster
But I thought you wanted free trade and not sanctions, because that would increase wealth and improve everyone's lives? How do you show a country you're serious unless you actually impose sanctions on them? And since that is unlikely to happen I think it's probably down to individuals to start boycotting Chinese goods. A singer at that rally I was at used the lyrics 'there is no government, there's just us...there's just us'. To a point I think he's right.
In the last 50 years there have still been a generation that remember what it's like to be Tibetan. All it takes is for a couple of generations to be opressed to start the process of wiping out an identity.
Like I said, they already are dependent on trade. The problem is, the rest of the world is dependent on trade with them too......at least the governments are. There are already agitators and dissenters, but they're being crushed. They already expect more but it makes no difference. You've seen what happened in Britain, the more comfortable people get the less they care about politics because there's less to gain from it. The more comfortable China gets financially the less likely it is to change.]
It's not going to gain its independence by us trading with China. It can either be poorer and freer or richer and more opressed as far as I can see of the situation.
Some of the people who spoke at that rally...people who had never even been on Tibetan soil but called themselves Tibetan, would go back tomorrow and rebuild the country if they could, poverty or not.
μετά
BT Rep: +6
why are you arguing with yourself Squeamous, did you fall asleep too?
Looking for loopholes
She isn't - those are MG responses to her original commentswhy are you arguing with yourself Squeamous, did you fall asleep too?
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
μετά
BT Rep: +6
so she's not replying to herself?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks