|
|  |
Actie voor Tibet´s Panchen Lama
(bron) Tibet Support Groep - 16.04.2002 15:22
25 april willen we 13.000 handtekeningen aanbieden aan minister Van Aartsen. Om dit aantal te realiseren, vragen we ook uw medewerking.
Wereldwijd wordt er campagne gevoerd voor de vrijlating van Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, Tibet´s Panchen Lama. Hij werd in 1995 op zesjarige leeftijd door de Chinese autoriteiten ontvoerd. Sindsdien is er niets meer van hem vernomen. Zijn 13e verjaardag op 25 april 2002 wordt een belangrijke actiedag. Op die dag wil de Tibet Support Groep onder meer 13.000 handtekeningen aanbieden aan minister van Aartsen met het dringende verzoek om zijn invloed aan te wenden voor de onmiddellijke vrijlating van de Panchen Lama.
Al ruim 50 jaar wordt Tibet door China bezet. Voor de Tibetanen betekent de bezetting dat hun fundamentele rechten systematisch worden geschonden, waaronder de schending van de vrijheid van religie. Voorbeeld van de religieuze onderdrukking is de gevangenschap van Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Hij werd in 1995 op zesjarige leeftijd door de Dalai Lama erkend als de 11e Panchen Lama, één van de belangrijkste religieuze leiders van Tibet. Een bijzondere spirituele opvoeding zou hem moeten opleiden voor deze hoge positie binnen het Tibetaanse boeddhisme. Echter, de Chinese autoriteiten ontvoerden hem en zijn familie en wezen een eigen Panchen Lama aan. Ondanks herhaalde verzoeken om contact met Gedhun Choekyi Nyima te krijgen, heeft tot nu toe geen enkele internationale instantie of mensenrechten-organisatie toestemming gekregen om hem te ontmoeten.
Kom in actie!
Op 25 april willen we 13.000 handtekeningen aanbieden aan minister Van Aartsen. Om dit aantal te realiseren, vragen we ook uw medewerking.
Kom in actie door:
-het sturen van jouw Panchen Lama actie e-card naar de Tibet Support Groep Nederland;
-het sturen van een Panchen Lama actie e-card naar vrienden en bekenden zodat ook zij kunnen meedoen;
-een handtekeningenkaart aan te vragen bij de Tibet Support Groep Nederland (020 6237699 of  tibetsg@xs4all.nl)
Dit kan op website:  http://www.beleef.nl/tibet/card.php?cat=8
----------------------
Meer info?
Mocht u nog vragen hebben, aarzel dan niet om contact met ons op te nemen.
Tel: 020-6237699
E-mail: Tibet Support Groep: tibetsg@xs4all.nl
(Tibet Support Groep )
http://www.beleef.nl/tibet/card.php?cat=8
|
| aanvullingen | | | WAARHEID OMTRENT TIBET | Verite - 17.04.2002 11:56
Introduction
China is a unified country with 56 nationalities. As a major member of this big family, the Tibetans are found in large numbers throughout the Tibet Autonomous Region, most parts of Qinghai Province, southern Gansu Province, northwest Sichuan Province and northwest Yunnan Province.
At the time of the unification of the Tibetan race, its various tribes maintained close ties with the Han and several other nationalities in western and northwestern China. During the first part of the 7th century, Tubo King Songtsan Gambo unified the various Tibetan tribes on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and formed the Tubo Kingdom, which later maintained frequent contact with the Central Government of the Tang Dynasty (618-907). The marriages of Songtsan Gambo to Princess Wen Cheng and Tride Zhotsan to Princess Jin Cheng indicate that the Tibetan and the Han nationalities had gradually formed close political, economic and cultural ties. In the mid-9th century, the unified Tubo Kingdom collapsed. This was followed by the rise of many local warring factions in the Tibetan areas of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. When the Song Dynasty (960-1279) was founded in the Han-dominated areas of China, some of these local Tibetan forces (Tibetan tribes formerly subject to rule by the Tubo Kingdom) pledged allegiance to the Song court. The relations between the Tibetans and the Han became even closer during this period.
When the Mongolians founded the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368), a dynasty that featured unprecedented national unity, Tibet was officially incorporated into the Chinese nation. Kublai Khan, the founding emperor of the Yuan Dynasty, granted the Sagya regime the power to administer Tibet under the rule of the Yuan government, and introduced many rules and regulations to be applied to Tibet. The Mongolian, Han, Tibetan and various other nationalities joined hands to form a political entity featuring economic and cultural prosperity. The Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) basically followed various systems introduced during the Yuan Dynasty for rule over Tibet. In carrying out a policy of pacification, the Ming Dynasty granted the title"Prince of Dharma" or"Prince" to eight government and religious leaders in the Tibetan areas. During this period of time, the Tibetan areas and the Central Plains maintained frequent economic and cultural exchanges; the relations between the Tibetan race and the other nationalities in the Chinese family developed further. After the 17th century, the Manchurians unified China and founded the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). The Qing government granted the honorary title"Dalai Lama" to the Dalai and the honorary title"Panchen Erdeni" to the Panchen; it also appointed local government officials, dispatched high commissioners to Tibet, and enacted laws concerning the Tibetan government system and regulations for the more effective governing of Tibet. This helped strengthen Qing government administration over Tibet and led to closer ties between Tibet and the motherland. In the 19th century, when the Qing entered its late period, the British coupled its invasion of China´s coastal areas with an invasion of Tibet. The British sowed bad blood between the Tibetan and the Han and other nationalities. The Qing court, corrupt and impotent as it was, adopted many domestic and foreign policies that proved the undoing of the Qing Dynasty. The relations between the Tibetan local government and the Central Government worsened. Nonetheless, no change took place to the Chinese nation, the unified political entity composed of the Han, Manchurian, Mongolian, Hui, Tibetan and various other nationalities. Soldiers and civilians of the Han and the Tibetan, Manchurian and Mongolian ethnic groups jointly fought against imperialist invasions, writing a brilliant page in the history of defending the motherland. In the late years of the Qing and the early days of the Republic of China (1912-49), the British left no stone unturned in their attempts to cultivate pro-British elements in the upper echelon of the ruling class in Tibet, and masterminded the Simla Conference aimed at tearing Tibet away from the motherland. All these failed to become true in the face of a boycott staged by the patriotic forces in Tibet and the resolute opposition of people throughout China. During this period, Tibet maintained ties with the central government of China. China continued to exercise sovereignty over Tibet, as it had since the Yuan Dynasty.
In 1949, the liberation struggle waged by the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was crowned with a sweeping victory. At the time of the founding of the People´sRepublic of China (PRC) in 1949, foreign imperialist and expansionist forces incited Tibetan separatists to speed up efforts towards bringing about"Tibetan independence" in an attempt to make impossible the liberation of Tibet. The CPC Central Committee and Chairman Mao Zedong decided to send the Chinese People´s Liberation Army (PLA) into Tibet"early rather than late," and worked out principles and policies for the peaceful liberation of Tibet. The PLA troops and working team members, sent into Tibet, followed the principles and policies of the CPC Central Committee and Chairman Mao Zedong to the letter and with great success. Tibet was peacefully liberated in 1951. Foreign imperialist and expansionist forces, who had been riding roughshod over the Tibetan people for more than half a century, were driven out of Tibet. The Central People´sgovernment followed a new policy for minority affairs. Various ethnic groups in Tibet began, for the first time in history, to enjoy political, economic, and social equality. The big Chinese family, composed of Tibetans and members of other nationalities, was formed on the principle of equality, unity, fraternity and cooperation. Following the revolution in Tibet, characterized by the overthrow of feudal serfdom and the emancipation of the serfs and slaves and their becoming masters of their own fate, Tibet enjoyed rapid development in the political, economic and cultural fields. Tibet became an autonomous region established in the People´sRepublic of China in 1965. Although Tibet also experienced the chaotic"cultural revolution" (1966-76) and mistakes were made, progress made in construction has outstripped these setbacks. Tibet experienced unprecedented development of the productive forces and improvements in living standards. All the 56 nationalities in the big Chinese family, Tibetans included, have cemented a politically, economically and culturally united entity that no outside force can tear apart.
This 1,000-year-long written history between the Tibetans and various other nationalities in the big Chinese family is an inalterable fact.
Marco Polo, an Italian who came to China and visited Emperor Kublai Khan of the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th century, described Tibet as"the Province of Tibet" in his travelogue. References to Tibet as a province can be found in the editions of The Travelogue of Marco Polo by the Macmillan Company in 1927 and also by the John Company of New York in 1948. Obviously, Marco Polo stated in explicit term some 700 years ago that Tibet was a province of China. In the 18th volume of The Encyclopedia Britannica for 1973 and 1974, Webster´s Atlas published in the United States in 1978, and The International Atlas published in the 1960s, maps are marked with China in larger letters and Tibet in smaller letters. This is also the case with maps published by various other countries. All these show that these publications recognize Tibet as a part of China.
As an overwhelming majority of the Chinese are the Hans, the word"Chinese" was used in English to mean both the Chinese people and the Han people in specific. Although it is not a rigorously followed approach to adopt the name of the majority ethnic group of a nation as the reference for that nation, other examples do exist in the world today. In India, for example, the Indianstans make up more than 46 percent of the Indian population, constituting the country´s ethnic majority. But the population also includes sizable numbers of Bengalis, Tamils, and Sikhs. The term"Indian" has been used in English to refer to all the various ethnic groups in India, not only the Indianstan ethnic majority. (Strictly speaking, however, the term should not encompass those from other ethnic groups) In the United Kingdom, the English account for some 80 percent of the national population. Other ethnic groups include the Scots, Welsh, and Irish. In various countries around the world, including the United Kingdom itself, the term"Englishmen" or"Englander" is used to refer to members of all of the various ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, not only the English, but also the Scots, Welsh, and Irish. (Again, strictly speaking, it does not include these peoples) Very few people in the United Kingdom use the proper term"British" to refer to the citizens of the United Kingdom, although it correctly means the English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish and any other ethnic minorities of the nation. This situation, which has been going on for more than 1,000 years, is one of the major reasons that many terms in English (and other languages as well) contain meanings in both broad and narrow senses. For example,"Chinese" means the"Chinese people" in a broad sense and the"Han people" in a narrow sense, while"Englander" means the people of the United Kingdom in a broad sense and the"Englander" in a narrow sense.
Because of past confusion, the use of the term"Chinese" in English translations can not correctly reflect the relations between the various nationalities within the larger Chinese family. Therefore, the Chinese government, after the founding of New China, stipulated the use of"Han nationality,""Hans" or"Han people." Such rigorous use of the English terms has been accepted by foreign scholars holding just and rigorous approaches. For example, the New Webster International English Dictionary (third edition) published in 1961 cites the term"Han" or"Hans," expounding it as: 1) the ethnic group that moved from Central Asia to the Weishui River Valley in ancient times, members of this ethnic group expanded eastward and southward and resided in the bulk areas in eastern China, becoming the primitive Chinese nation and forming the cultural mass that holds predominance in China; 2) the people of the Han nationality.
In accordance with the international practice of names being derived from their masters, terms used to mean a nationality, a place and a people of that nationality -- written in the country´s own language and foreign languages---should be confirmed by the government and peoples of that nation. Foreigners should respect the stipulations of that country. Therefore, from the angle of ethnicity, the Tibetans are not part of the Han but from the angle of the Chinese population as a whole, the Tibetans are undoubtedly part of the Chinese. This fairly and accurately tells the historical reality that has existed for more than 700 years, since the Yuan Dynasty.
The historical status of China´s Tibet is clear as clean water and the blue sky---a fact known to the world.
In the last few decades, however, certain forces in Europe and the United States have supported a small number of people led by the 14th Dalai Lama to concoct a theory of"Tibetan independence," blurring the vision of many people who are not clear about the facts. This theory of"Tibetan independence" finds concise expression in Tibet: A Political History written in the 1960-70s by Xagabba Wangqug Dedain, a Tibetan noble, and in The Status of Tibet written by Michael C. van Walt van Praag, an American Hollander, in the 1980s. The theory, as laid out in the two books, is that:
(1) Tibet does not belong to China; (2) the relations between the Tang Dynasty and the Tubo Kingdom featured struggles mainly; (3) the weight of the Tibetan foreign relations during the Song Dynasty shifted away from China; (4) the relations between the two regions was one of Cho-yon only; (5) the Ming Dynasty had no interest in Tibet; (6) Tibet is a political entity; (7) there was no need to liberate Tibet; (8) the CPC invaded Tibet; (9) the CPC violates human rights in Tibet; (10) Tibet should experience national self-determination; and (11) the"government-in-exile" is the legitimate and legal government of Tibet. These are the major elements of the theory of Tibetan independence, which are meant to make trouble and tamper with history.
One loves clean water and a clear, blue sky. This book has been compiled to allow readers to clearly witness the historical status of China´s sovereignty over Tibet through settling the muddied waters and sweeping the mist from the sky.
| | Onzin | Phreakmeister - 20.04.2002 23:58
En de complete onderdrukking van de Tibetaanse bevolking door de Chinese autoriteiten, daar moeten we maar aan voorbijgaan? En de invasie van Tibet door China moeten we ook maar aan voorbijgaan?
Dat Marco Polo Tibet een provincie van het Chinese keizerrijk noemt, maakt dat de bezetting ook maar iets legitiemer? Dat Groot-Brittannie ooit bij het Romeinse Rijk heeft gehoord, betekent dat dat Berlusconi zn soldaten naar Londen kan sturen? Dat Nederland bij Spanje heeft gehoord, betekent dat dat Aznar zn soldaten naar de Lage Landen kan sturen? Dat Hitler naar Sudetenland verwees als Heimland, maakt dat de bezetting van Sudetenland door Nazi-Duitsland ook maar iets legitiemer?
Het argumentatieniveau van een aantal mensen op Indymedia heeft werkelijk een diepbedroevend niveau bereikt. Alles wat door iets of iemand van de linkerzijde van het politieke spectrum wordt gedaan wordt verheerlijkt, zonder oog te hebben voor menselijk falen, negatieve menselijke eigenschappen, onhebbelijkheden, kille machtspolitiek of wat dan ook, waardoor ook de "linksen" door geteisterd worden. Slechte eigenschappen zijn niet het monopolie van "rechts". En heiligheid is niet het monopolie van "links".
| |
| aanvullingen | |
