Dalai Lama recieves Congressional Gold Medal

Jeanie

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...hp&oref=slogin

New York Times

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 17, 2007
Filed at 6:02 p.m. ET
Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, raising Beijing's ire, presented the Dalai Lama on Wednesday with the U.S. Congress' highest civilian honor and urged Chinese leaders to welcome the monk to Beijing.

The exiled spiritual head of Tibet's Buddhists by his side, Bush praised a man he called a ''universal symbol of peace and tolerance, a shepherd of the faithful and a keeper of the flame for his people.''

''Americans cannot look to the plight of the religiously oppressed and close our eyes or turn away,'' Bush said at the U.S. Capitol building, where he personally handed the Dalai Lama the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal.

The Dalai Lama, chuckling as he stumbled over his remarks in English, said the award will bring ''tremendous joy and encouragement to the Tibetan people'' and he thanked Bush for his ''firm stand on religious freedom and democracy.''

He said he supports the 2008 Beijing Olympics in the hopes China would become a more open and tolerant country. He also addressed Chinese suspicions of his advocacy for Tibet, saying, ''I have no hidden agenda.''

China reviles the 72-year-old monk as a Tibetan separatist and vehemently protested the elaborate public ceremony. But at a news conference earlier in the day, Bush said he did not think his attendance at the ceremony would damage U.S. relations with China.

''I support religious freedom; he supports religious freedom. ... I want to honor this man,'' Bush told reporters at the White House. ''I have consistently told the Chinese that religious freedom is in their nation's interest.''

Bush and the Dalai Lama listened as top U.S. lawmakers lined up to laud the Buddhist leader and criticize China.

Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, advised China that inviting the Dalai Lama for talks over Tibet's future will help make the 2008 Olympics a success.

''Let this man of peace visit Beijing,'' Lantos said as the crowd and Bush applauded. ''He is not a splittist. He merely wants the religious and cultural autonomy for his own people that they so richly deserve.''

The Dalai Lama smiled and nodded at people in the crowd throughout the ceremony in the majestic Capitol Rotunda; huge murals of important U.S. events loomed behind him. The domed room was packed with people, with a riser of news photographers that ran four rows deep.

On Tuesday, however, the Bush administration took pains to keep a private meeting with the president and the Dalai Lama from further infuriating China: no media access, not even a handout photo.

It was a delicate bit of diplomatic balancing. Bush wants to ease anger in China, a growing economic and military powerhouse that the United States needs to manage nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea. He also wants to be seen as a champion of religious freedom and human rights.

The Dalai Lama is lauded in much of the world as a figure of moral authority, but Beijing demonizes the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize laureate and claims he seeks to destroy China's sovereignty by pushing for independence for Tibet.

The Dalai Lama says he wants ''real autonomy'' for Tibet, not independence. He is immensely popular in the Himalayan region, which China has ruled with a heavy hand since its communist-led forces invaded in 1951. He has lived with followers in exile in India since fleeing Chinese soldiers in Tibet in 1959.

China had demanded that the United States cancel this week's celebrations. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Beijing said the events ''seriously wounded the feelings of the Chinese people and interfered with China's internal affairs.''

U.S. lawmakers regularly criticize Beijing for human rights abuses and a massive military buildup and claim that China ignores abuse by unsavory foreign governments in Sudan and Myanmar in its pursuit of energy and business deals.

The Bush administration also faults China but is usually more measured as it seeks to manage a booming trade relationship and a desire to enlist Chinese cooperation in world affairs.



Thank you Allie for bringing this to my attention and agreeing I should post it.

gue_barium

Ahem. There's got to be a better article out there on this political moment.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

Ahem. There's got to be a better article out there on this political moment.

Quite possibly gue, however I was so thrilled to see the US Government do something that I never thought it would, that I posted this one, the one I was sent.

I have to say that regardless of how this pans out, and what heinous self serving motives are behind it, this would have to be the SINGLE MOST AMAZING THING I've ever seen the US Government do in recent years.

I never thought I'd see the day to be honest.

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

Quite possibly gue, however I was so thrilled to see the US Government do something that I never thought it would, that I posted this one, the one I was sent.

I have to say that regardless of how this pans out, and what heinous self serving motives are behind it, this would have to be the SINGLE MOST AMAZING THING I've ever seen the US Government do in recent years.

I never thought I'd see the day to be honest.

Well, rest assured, there is no honesty to it.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

Well, rest assured, there is no honesty to it.

I'm not sure I'm following what you mean sorry gue.

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

I'm not sure I'm following what you mean sorry gue.

The gesture, at best, is a touchy-feely sort of thing that the current administration is counting on to favor points for another agenda altogether.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

The gesture, at best, is a touchy-feely sort of thing that the current administration is counting on to gain points for another agenda altogether.

Well regardless, it must be a huge agenda for them to even acknowledge he exists, wouldn't you say? If they are prepared to raise the ire of the Chinese?

I mean they've done sooo many shitty things since they were elected into power, can we not enjoy this one small good moment even if it does prove to be self serving?

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

Well regardless, it must be a huge agenda for them to even acknowledge he exists, wouldn't you say? If they are prepared to raise the ire of the Chinese?

I mean they've done sooo many shitty things since they were elected into power, can we not enjoy this one small good moment even if it does prove to be self serving?

Raising the "ire" of the Chinese is the language of the article you posted. And why I think there's got to be a better one.

jeffbr

Jeanie wrote:

Well regardless, it must be a huge agenda for them to even acknowledge he exists, wouldn't you say? If they are prepared to raise the ire of the Chinese?

I mean they've done sooo many shitty things since they were elected into power, can we not enjoy this one small good moment even if it does prove to be self serving?

I can enjoy the moment. Thanks for posting the article, Jeanie. If it isn't up to Gue's standards, perhaps he can find one that is and post it.

gue_barium

jeffbr wrote:

I can enjoy the moment. Thanks for posting the article, Jeanie. If it isn't up to Gue's standards, perhaps he can find one that is and post it.

Here's the thing. It's the assumption that democracy and freedom is a socially liberal and open-minded institution. I think this is the wrong take. For if the Chinese are "pissed off" (oh dear) as our media is telling us (and then (it appears) we should be pleased with that), then what does that say for democracy? I'll tell you what it says. It says that democracy today is based on emotional manipulation and without wisdom. Without a good reason for education other than to ultimately join the side that feels good.

boxwine_in_hell

Bush thought he was giving an award to a Llama named "Dolly".

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

Raising the "ire" of the Chinese is the language of the article you posted. And why I think there's got to be a better one.

Well I looked and frankly this article is a better one that some of the others which are just "piggy backing" on this one.

Bear with us until the ABC (Australia) runs a story on it tonight and hopefully a more suitable article will present itself for your perusal tomorrow.

In the meantime, I'm just going to be happy that FINALLY somebody acknowledged the man and his work at the risk of irritating the Chinese, which frankly I feel has been a long time coming.

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

Well I looked and frankly this article is a better one that some of the others which are just "piggy backing" on this one.

Bear with us until the ABC (Australia) runs a story on it tonight and hopefully a more suitable article will present itself for your perusal tomorrow.

It's a shit article Jeanie. I can go back and count how many times it tells us that "China" is all squirmy and pissed off, but it doesn't mean shit. Unless you're in 8th grade.

Jeanie

jeffbr wrote:

I can enjoy the moment. Thanks for posting the article, Jeanie. If it isn't up to Gue's standards, perhaps he can find one that is and post it.

I know it'll all get shitty and politicized soon enough. I'm just happy about it for what it is right now. I'm glad you're enjoying the moment too jeff.

jeffbr

gue_barium wrote:

Here's the thing. It's the assumption that democracy and freedom is a socially liberal and open-minded institution. I think this is the wrong take. For if the Chinese are "pissed off" (oh dear) as our media is telling us (and then (it appears) we should be pleased with that), then what does that say for democracy? I'll tell you what it says. It says that democracy today is based on emotional manipulation and without wisdom. Without a good reason for education other than to ultimately join the side that feels good.

I'm not really following. Not trying to be argumentative, but I will tell you that I usually try to join the side that feels good. It is better than the alternative. I'm not sure why I'd want to join the side that feels bad. I understand not wanting to rejoice in Bush's platitudes. But at least be happy for the Dalai Lama. He's looking for a little autonomy and self-determination for his people. I'm happy with any baby steps being taken to further that cause.

gue_barium

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Bush thought he was giving an award to a Llama named "Dolly".

Or a goat-sheep.

And Llama rhymes with Osama.

Huh?

catefrances

i do so enjoy when china demands something.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

It's a shit article Jeanie. I can go back and count how many times it tells us that "China" is all squirmy and pissed off, but it doesn't mean shit. Unless you're in 8th grade.

Nor does petty bullshit advance us past 8th grade gue. So I say put up or shut up. I'd be happy to read a better article or your take on it if you're not going to degenerate into petty insults and juvenile behaviour.

If you're not happy with my education on the matter then please enlighten me. Here's your big opportunity.

gue_barium

jeffbr wrote:

I'm not really following. Not trying to be argumentative, but I will tell you that I usually try to join the side that feels good. It is better than the alternative. I'm not sure why I'd want to join the side that feels bad. I understand not wanting to rejoice in Bush's platitudes. But at least be happy for the Dalai Lama. He's looking for a little autonomy and self-determination for his people. I'm happy with any baby steps being taken to further that cause.

Sure you are.

What cause, exactly, are you talking about anyway? Ahem:

In Tibetan Buddhism, the successive Dalai Lamas form a lineage of allegedly reborn (tulku) magistrates which traces back to 1391. They are of the Gelug sect of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama to be one of innumerable incarnations of Avalokiteśvara ("Chenrezig" [spyan ras gzigs] in Tibetan), the bodhisattva of compassion.[1] Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lama was the head of the Tibetan government, administering a large portion of the country from the capital Lhasa. He is often styled "His Holiness" (HH) before his title.

Yeah, Jeffbr, that's you.

catefrances

here's my favourite part:

U.S. lawmakers regularly criticize Beijing for human rights abuses and a massive military buildup and claim that China ignores abuse by unsavory foreign governments in Sudan and Myanmar in its pursuit of energy and business deals.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

i do so enjoy when china demands something.

What do you mean "when" cate?

Seems to me they've been a demand feed baby suckling mother earth dry for a while now.