Sarkozy pisses off China together with a host of EU leaders by meeting the Dalai Lama

mr. bean of french edition has every right not to sell 150 airbus to 'commies yellowman'. i'd love to have a glass of Moet too.

Pirx, don't you understand that Tibet and the DL is an internal issue which means you are not allowed to mention it. Ever. None of your business.

It is high time to teach Sarkozy a lesson that China means business! Strike where it hurts.

Looks like i will have a shorter queue in Carre 4.

Foie Gras with sauternes for me. Moet is good; Ruinart is better.

I have already stop buying French made stuff. No big deal!

I live in North America and I always buy made in China stuff to support my homeland, yeah!

For me these days, I stop caring Western criticisms of China on the Tibet issue. First its already too cliche and all too expected. Second is criticism doesn't achieve anything. And in many ways only achieve a worse outcome. Everything in one way or another boils down to power, and I think the Chinese government, and certainly with the majority of support of domestic public on the Tibet issue, has nothing to worry about. Sometimes I think the Chinese government cares too much about international opinion. More drastic measures should be taken. Seal off Tibet, so what? Its my territory. Transfer as many as Han Chinese there, so what? what can you do about it? Haha. Dalai will die. You can certainly fight a rebellion with weapons and all that, but we have lots of PLA soldiers, as if we are afraid? Childish!

You can certainly call me pariah or rouge or whatever, as if I care? Tibet and Chinese territorial integrity should be defended with whatever means possible. As long as you are willing to have a fight, bring it along. Otherwise whining and name-calling has nil effect.

I think some people are just too naive to think that China will budge on the Tibet issue. So much wishful thinking! And if people think a democratic China will be different is even more naive. Just look at the democratized Russia and its war on Chechnya. Democratizing countries are the most dangerous for warfare. Suggest to read Jack Snyder From Voting to Violence. So honey don't push too hard, the alternative is even worse!

Thanks for proving my point eastman.

ayaadizai I honestly don't know what you are on about. Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your forté, but no one has advocated for an independent Tibet nor a democratized China. This thread is about China throwing it's toys out of the pram everytime anyone has an audience with one of the globe's spiritual leaders, making the incorrect and disingenuous assertion that doing so somehow is giving Western legitimacy to further unrest in Tibet. So honey, if you can't follow along, kindly remove yourself from the discourse.

to nanheyangrouchuan,

--"Tibet is the perfect wedge to pour in resources and drain the PLA and PAP ...then ETLF forces launch full on strikes against PLA bases...with CCPee in a panic and the PLgay torn ...the southern Mongolian ethnic Koreans could finally mount their independence."

look look, you are the most honest one who speak from bottom of your narrow heart. pirx and taihanasie and moneyinabox are never uncomparatable. with usa full of smart people like you, no wonder bush was voted in for a second term. but bravo, i guess boen in seattle got the deal after a long 3-year hard panda-licking!

Once again, ayaadizai, this is not about telling China how to resolve the Tibet issue. If you wish to contiune along these lines, then show me where Sarkozy has used this particular meeting with the Dalai Lama to tell China how to handle Tibet. France has dictated nothing to China this time. Sarko 1) expressed his wishes for continued dialogue (which the Chinese government says it supports) 2) Expressed concern about events in Tibet (which anyone is free to have) 3) SAID HE THINKS TIBET IS A PART OF CHINA (gee, you have let that one slide).

The one doing the dictating are the Chinese authorities by telling Sarko who he can and can't meet. Prove me wrong. So no, it doesn't boil down to the "fact" you cited, no matter how long you want to keep the pot on the fire.

"doesn't cover the fact that he worked for the CIA and his self-claimed "non-violence" approach only came when the guerrilla warfare he led failed miserably!"

Which doesn't change the fact that he now advocates non-violence and is keeping many who are advocating violence in check at the moment. The Tibetan Government in Exile recently voted to maintain his Middle Way out of deference to his opinion. This also doesn't change the fact that the man has shown some flexibility in the past, which is an important quality in a person who is in a position to negotiate.

Back to the point for the French, if not exactly of this thread: Sarko doesn't have to agree with China that the Dalai Lama is a bad guy just because China wants to portray him as such, or to rule out meeting the religious leader. Nor does Bush, or Merkel or anyone else for that matter.

Moreover, nobody has said that the Chinese have no right to protest. However, some here have questioned the feverish pitch of the protest and what it says about China. Because believe it or not, many people don't accept your comment that "the Chinese way of treating others is always reciprocity." Believe it or not, because opinions of what fair treatment is differ, my fair treatment may be your deep insult. And you can tell me you have been offended over something small in order to justify a retaliation.

I would add a little bit to what you said. The truth is that "the Chinese way of treating others is always reciprocity as the Chinese define it."

Actually, my addition simply represents human nature, and is expected in the world of politics. Every government (US, French, Iranian, Russian, etc.) mostly acts in its own interests. But when you personally leave out the part that indicates that the perception of unfair treatment is a Chinese construction, instead presenting the polished statement as an expression of unequivocal Chinese fairness, you put China on a higher plane that frankly, it does not occupy.

As for "retaliation", "anger" is a well-known policy CHOICE of the Chinese government. When, for example, the Taiwanese president makes a transit stop in the US, the Chinese government puts out a statement of "offense to the Chinese people" and threatens retaliation. The idea is that if China shows the Americans that the Chinese are "angry" or "offended", they will be able to sway action the next time. It is the same tactic that a crying child uses to get the toy he or she covets. And often, such displays are simply in poor taste. The fact that this is a recognised ploy is evident in the "psychodrama" comment of Rama Yade.

So yes, while China occupies Tibet, I guess you are right that the Chinese government has the right to raise the pitch to mouth-frothing levels over a disagreement that is really not a huge issue anyways (it is not like one meeting with the Dalai Lama will make a difference in the long run anyways). But the French have every right to note the excessiveness of this approach without being accused of "dictating policy".

Your argument is still coming from your self claimed "moral high ground" that "the French have every right to note the excessiveness of this approach". Who gave the french such rights? seems that the west white people still believe they have all authority to dictate on all the rest people in the world. That is called imperialism! And when their authority is declining and suddenly people like you freak out that how an "inferior oriental" can dictate on us? Think twice before you make those statements of how much of your mindset has been shaped by these preconstructed perceptions.