The World Stage; China/Tibet, Israel/Palestine and colonialism
The inability and contempt from China to international leaders management of the Chinese-Tibet affair, expresses a serious cultural problem. Whilst similarly evident in case and point I will draw contextual comparison for understanding this issue, and how it concerns the international societies and toward the totalitarian regime of China. Furthermore, the middle-eastern conflict is a religious division of two similar but linguistically differentiated societies, which is applicable in contemporary appreciation whereby the middle eastern conflict and the Chinese-Tibetan conflict regards homogenous cultural identification. Before the contextual appreciation of Western colonialism and the modern international human rights standards, the domination of certain sub-groups or cultural groups is the core concern. I will show that the prerogative of the Chinese government is disinterested in a global solidarity, rather fixed to engender domination via the iron claw of market power. This however is in direct subversion of cultural standards expressed even in the passive Chinese traditions of cultural exemplification, emphasising hypocrisy. A measure however condoned in the globalisation environment fixed to strictly fiscal control of order in oriented wealth.
The Arab-Israeli conflict identifies a religious difference, cultural homogeneity, and commercial sustainability scenario, so likewise the Chinese-Tibetan conflict. Differing to the Western colonial conflict with the indigenous and often times caucasian conqueror, the advent of mutual allowance in the colonial model, is perturbed by conflict. What presents the conflict scenario which differs remarkably to the alternative of colonialism, is that the conflict, and violence is used as a means of attaining, control and order by the dominant power of the state in perpetual suppression of a natural power. The Arab-Israeli leaders are transfixed, thus, and the Chinese state assumes similar dominance of the West but as it denies the right of a religious order to maintain rule in governance. By using genocide, the Chinese decidedly removed the perpetual challenge to their establishments, but in case of the Tibetan leaders in exile, they wouldn't forgive the Chinese government, who may so require it.
The case of course regards a serious matter, that is in a conflict group, the most peaceful resolution in perpetual division, is the alliance of a minority group in peaceful circumstance. This can and does happen, and given determined allowance by both side, a total peace may be brokered. For this to happen and it should in the usual scenario, one man and one women from each side attain a satisfactory treaty within their personal lives, so it will naturally become extenuated and the conditions prevailing, should naturally determine the generational consolidation of conflict issues, with the newly accorded peace. The two middle eastern cultures likewise co-exist, and the Church has until this day maintained the ethical standard to see this pact appreciate, as a peaceful co-existance, even where two cultures have decidedly fixed to a perpetual conflict.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd whom was the first PM of Australia, fluent in Mandarin delivered a Speech in Peking prior to the Olympic Games whereby the Tibetan followership demanded a Boycott. Rudd emphasised the 'true friendship' with China but addressed additionally the 'significant human rights problem in Tibet', of which he stated was a concern for Australians, and was commended domestically thereby. The Chinese however didn't appreciate this and the Chinese Press ignored the comments on Tibet by PM Rudd, and stated his questionable friendship with China itself. Followingly President Hu bluntly informed Kevin Rudd that the 'Tibet issue is entirely China's domestic affair' (Cotten & Ravenhill, 2012: p.79 from & as quoted in Wu, Liao & Ma 2008). Were it possible there wouldn't be a problem, however China's claim over Tibet was at resistance of the religious state, a homogenous power assumption. Maintaining the order of dominance, the submissive religious order was condemned, and referred to at the time as the 'poison' of society by Mao. Comparably to the middle-eastern conflict, the religious order is the root cause of the perpetual conflict, and China has attempted to remove this obstacle and in the considerable attainment of the state of Tibet, and assured it's financial capacity to meet the international standards in commercial conduct. Where the relationship of Israel to Palestine is the older brothers fighting, the relationship of China to Tibet is rather a obtuse amalgamation, of which many will infer extraneous analogous motives, in cultural context, but rather availingly out of fear of reprise, will settle on the cheap plastic goods, and clothes by the cold shoulder.
Considering that China had been very violently oppressed by Japan in WW2, and the motive of which was considerably possibly preparation for war against a German Occidental force; the motive for China's extortion of it's sub-cultural group in Tibet, seems only justified in their continued provision of desired labour for globalisation purposes, and sustainment of the mean poverty line for the benefit of the wealthy, something nearly everyone irrespective of status appreciates. In a somewhat criminal inditement of China, by paying off the global states, with the constant provision for the cheapest and most readily available goods, indefinitely, the assumption of a UN based sanction order against China, didn't emerge. However the history of activity at the UN does show vested interest by the human rights champions in world state affairs, https://www.savetibet.org/policy-center/united-nations/un-general-assembly-resolutions/ it hasn't comparative justification when considering the extent of disciplines imposed on Russia for the Ukraine occupation. Relative in the comparative justification, the cultural certainty between China and Tibet, for continuities purpose, relates to the perpetual middle-eastern conflict, just differing in substantive appreciation of religious power, and the warrant of authority therein. Consider then how does the scenario compare directly to the British colonial dominion despite the authoritative approach of Christianity and Catholicism? So in comparative analysis, the Chinese assume a similar regard, for the subcultures condemning their totalitarian motive, including todays Tibetan government in exile. Ultimately we must compare this scenario in the cultural division of black and white, the typical segregation style approach to cultural exclusivity which is what's inapplicable and indirectly subverted herein. A certainty in peaceful attribution and amendments in the ancient conflict over land, and wealth, in the appreciation of cultural exclusivity so engendered by male or female, and black or white appreciation. Whereby a homogenous Asian society benefits at large majority irrespectively of immediate deeds and determinations as human rights, how does the middle-eastern society in cultural certainty present the ongoing amalgamation? Because between the indigenous and the westerners within Australia, America and Europe, it sees to a distinctive bi-polar exclusivity. As an inherent empowerment by one faction or another for the relative certainty of domination, and all it brings in physical wealth; where, how and when one or another supersedes human rights abuses is the modern institutional problem.
addendum 10/05/02106: In as much as concerns raised by the Chinese government currently as past, the questioning of Australian cultural and governmental motive and purpose continues in tandem, amid a complete and totally stifled media abridgement, and claimant immunity. Evidently in the May 2016 ABC Media Watch case, it's the colonial establishment and Commonwealth which is the cause for concern, so affecting tycoons, and the poor alike, despite the ABC's claim 2 years ago that the cross cultural publication translation arrangement was a penultimate solution: https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/media-watch/id202043834?mt=2 and the transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4458872.htm
The Arab-Israeli conflict identifies a religious difference, cultural homogeneity, and commercial sustainability scenario, so likewise the Chinese-Tibetan conflict. Differing to the Western colonial conflict with the indigenous and often times caucasian conqueror, the advent of mutual allowance in the colonial model, is perturbed by conflict. What presents the conflict scenario which differs remarkably to the alternative of colonialism, is that the conflict, and violence is used as a means of attaining, control and order by the dominant power of the state in perpetual suppression of a natural power. The Arab-Israeli leaders are transfixed, thus, and the Chinese state assumes similar dominance of the West but as it denies the right of a religious order to maintain rule in governance. By using genocide, the Chinese decidedly removed the perpetual challenge to their establishments, but in case of the Tibetan leaders in exile, they wouldn't forgive the Chinese government, who may so require it.
The case of course regards a serious matter, that is in a conflict group, the most peaceful resolution in perpetual division, is the alliance of a minority group in peaceful circumstance. This can and does happen, and given determined allowance by both side, a total peace may be brokered. For this to happen and it should in the usual scenario, one man and one women from each side attain a satisfactory treaty within their personal lives, so it will naturally become extenuated and the conditions prevailing, should naturally determine the generational consolidation of conflict issues, with the newly accorded peace. The two middle eastern cultures likewise co-exist, and the Church has until this day maintained the ethical standard to see this pact appreciate, as a peaceful co-existance, even where two cultures have decidedly fixed to a perpetual conflict.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd whom was the first PM of Australia, fluent in Mandarin delivered a Speech in Peking prior to the Olympic Games whereby the Tibetan followership demanded a Boycott. Rudd emphasised the 'true friendship' with China but addressed additionally the 'significant human rights problem in Tibet', of which he stated was a concern for Australians, and was commended domestically thereby. The Chinese however didn't appreciate this and the Chinese Press ignored the comments on Tibet by PM Rudd, and stated his questionable friendship with China itself. Followingly President Hu bluntly informed Kevin Rudd that the 'Tibet issue is entirely China's domestic affair' (Cotten & Ravenhill, 2012: p.79 from & as quoted in Wu, Liao & Ma 2008). Were it possible there wouldn't be a problem, however China's claim over Tibet was at resistance of the religious state, a homogenous power assumption. Maintaining the order of dominance, the submissive religious order was condemned, and referred to at the time as the 'poison' of society by Mao. Comparably to the middle-eastern conflict, the religious order is the root cause of the perpetual conflict, and China has attempted to remove this obstacle and in the considerable attainment of the state of Tibet, and assured it's financial capacity to meet the international standards in commercial conduct. Where the relationship of Israel to Palestine is the older brothers fighting, the relationship of China to Tibet is rather a obtuse amalgamation, of which many will infer extraneous analogous motives, in cultural context, but rather availingly out of fear of reprise, will settle on the cheap plastic goods, and clothes by the cold shoulder.
Considering that China had been very violently oppressed by Japan in WW2, and the motive of which was considerably possibly preparation for war against a German Occidental force; the motive for China's extortion of it's sub-cultural group in Tibet, seems only justified in their continued provision of desired labour for globalisation purposes, and sustainment of the mean poverty line for the benefit of the wealthy, something nearly everyone irrespective of status appreciates. In a somewhat criminal inditement of China, by paying off the global states, with the constant provision for the cheapest and most readily available goods, indefinitely, the assumption of a UN based sanction order against China, didn't emerge. However the history of activity at the UN does show vested interest by the human rights champions in world state affairs, https://www.savetibet.org/policy-center/united-nations/un-general-assembly-resolutions/ it hasn't comparative justification when considering the extent of disciplines imposed on Russia for the Ukraine occupation. Relative in the comparative justification, the cultural certainty between China and Tibet, for continuities purpose, relates to the perpetual middle-eastern conflict, just differing in substantive appreciation of religious power, and the warrant of authority therein. Consider then how does the scenario compare directly to the British colonial dominion despite the authoritative approach of Christianity and Catholicism? So in comparative analysis, the Chinese assume a similar regard, for the subcultures condemning their totalitarian motive, including todays Tibetan government in exile. Ultimately we must compare this scenario in the cultural division of black and white, the typical segregation style approach to cultural exclusivity which is what's inapplicable and indirectly subverted herein. A certainty in peaceful attribution and amendments in the ancient conflict over land, and wealth, in the appreciation of cultural exclusivity so engendered by male or female, and black or white appreciation. Whereby a homogenous Asian society benefits at large majority irrespectively of immediate deeds and determinations as human rights, how does the middle-eastern society in cultural certainty present the ongoing amalgamation? Because between the indigenous and the westerners within Australia, America and Europe, it sees to a distinctive bi-polar exclusivity. As an inherent empowerment by one faction or another for the relative certainty of domination, and all it brings in physical wealth; where, how and when one or another supersedes human rights abuses is the modern institutional problem.
addendum 10/05/02106: In as much as concerns raised by the Chinese government currently as past, the questioning of Australian cultural and governmental motive and purpose continues in tandem, amid a complete and totally stifled media abridgement, and claimant immunity. Evidently in the May 2016 ABC Media Watch case, it's the colonial establishment and Commonwealth which is the cause for concern, so affecting tycoons, and the poor alike, despite the ABC's claim 2 years ago that the cross cultural publication translation arrangement was a penultimate solution: https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/media-watch/id202043834?mt=2 and the transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4458872.htm
- Cotton, J., 1949, Ravenhill, J. & Australian Institute of International Affairs 2012, Middle power dreaming: Australia in world affairs 2006-2010, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic.
Comments
Post a Comment