The political successor to the Dalai Lama discusses Tibet. Speaker: Sikyong Lobsang Sangay, Prime Minister, Central Tibetan Administration Presider: Jerome A. Cohen, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
nice clear conversation about tibet which our prime minister lobsang sangay had mentioned .... i wish we vl soon go to our fatherland tibet ... free tibet , free china...
The Dalai Lama should be allowed to return home. All the World would rejoice and the Tibetan People would be ecstatic. There are already said to be many millions of tourists - imagine how many more there would be if the Dalai Lama was there to give his wonderful teachings! I think the Chinese would probably be hugely relieved to have him home. I have heard that the monasteries are flourishing. I think the CFR and Soros and such people are doing nothing for the Tibetan peace and security. They want constant tension and nervousness. If the West go in ther instead of the Chinese, do you really think that the minerals of Tibet would be safe from the depradations of the Corporations? Like Afghansitan? That is all they want - and WAR because they make money out of WAR.
with him Tibet and Tibet has no future. let me make clear i very loyal to his hollyness but the CTA is full of people who dont know how to lead just making themselves look like their doing something great but the truth is they are only there for the salary. lobsang sangay has light connections with high level chinese officials, why do you think he has done nothing in the last 3 yrs.
+twenlil so what? he's still full Tibetan. if we had the choice of being born in Tibet, we would but the Chinese government took choice way from us. before you started hating why don"t you think about what you'll do if your country was invaded like ours. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be taking shit then.
Ideology and geographic politic bias aside, what's the legal ground for the independence of Tibet? This guy is def a good story teller citing so many sensational negativities to his western audience. But he's a law doctoral graduate why didn't he mention anything from the public international law perspective? Cos there's none. Even his middle way policy comparing Tibet with HK doesn't make sense. HK and Macau's issues are very different from Tibet. HK was the formal colony forced apart from China under unequal treaty resulted from unjust war. Meanwhile Tibet has never been a colony except remaining a primitive slavery society oppressing its own ppl from the bottom until was "peacefully liberalized" by PLA in 1950s. Of course there will be dissatisfaction everywhere since China, including Tibet is not a developed country. Tibetans will probably feel that more as an ethnic minority group. But how does this entitle you to seek independence? This guy has never been to Tibet how does speak for its ppl when they don't know him? Not a politician but some policies or pressure from communist party to Tibet politics is exactly the result of those types of separatist overseas, utilizing the ideaologic difference aboard to seek support and make friends with China haters. With that said, this guy's theory doesn't stand on its own from pure international law perspective. What equally funny is how that Vienanese lady dare to speak for all Vienamese ppl. That's the biggest joke of my day
Tibet for thousands of years remained an independent state living side by side with various Chinese dynasties, at times Tibetans fought wars with Chinese and during Tibetan empire its army invaded Chinese capital Xi'an. Tibetan problem is political not economical as assumed by Chinese leaders. By pouring billions of dollars in Tibet will not necessarily solve the problem in fact as suggested by Sikyong Lobsang sangey economic benefits mainly goes to migrant Chinese. International communities have sympathized with then Chinese republic when Imperial Japan bombed Shanghai and raped Nanjing, occupation of China by Imperial Japanese army was unacceptable to Chinese people at the same time illegal occupation of Tibet by Communist China is also unacceptable to Tibetans the biggest difference is Japan occupied and raped China 80 years ago and China still occupies Tibet with iron fist.
naranhan2010 Historians outside China agree both China and Tibet were part of Mongol empire, Yuan ruled Tibet as se separate entity from that of Chinese provinces, Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs administered Tibet as an autonomous territory of the empire, so when Yuan power weakened Tibet reestablished its independence in 1354. As for the Qing rule of Tibet majority of Historians agree Qing had nominal authority over Tibetan affairs, in modern political sense Tibet was no more than a protectorate of the empire, so when Qing collapse in 1912 Tibet and Mongolia proclaimed their independence from Beijing in 1913 and remained independent states until PRC occupied the region military. You cannot change history by respecting CCP propaganda truth remains trun
naranhan2010 Correction: 13th Dalai Lama didn’t declare independence, he proclaimed it, ( en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Independence_of_Tibet ) Mongolia recognized Tibet’s independence in 1913 during mutual recognition of their sovereignty. Kublai Khan was saw himself to be a Mongol Khan and he also proclaimed himself to be a Chinese emperor to rule China. Kublai Khan placed his grandfather Genghis Khan on the imperial records as the official founder of the dynasty making his empire cross cultural states between Mongols and Chinese. So to say Yuan was a Chinese dynasty is untrue. Tibet became a part of Mongol empire in 1244 before Yuan dynasty was even proclaimed in Beijing in 1271, and Tibet was not administered as part of China. Example India cannot claim Burman just because It was once part of British Raj it would be silly to justify such actions. And for Qing I already told you Tibet was a protectorate state of Qing dynasty just like Mongolia with Qing exercising nominal authority over Tibet so when Qing collapsed in 1912 Tibet and Mongolia proclaimed their independence from Beijing in 1913
