Dalai Lama: Not Allowed Into Thailand

[churchill]

from http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/thailan...balled-thailand

"The Thai foreign minister, Kasit Piromya, has indirectly acknowledged that a Dalai Lama invite would be an unwarranted insult to China.

Last year, he drew an oddly flattering parallel between the Dalai Lama and the fugitive billionaire and ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is sought for arrest by the Thai government. Thaksin is currently hopping the globe while organizing a movement to oust the ruling party.

Other countries shouldn’t shelter Thaksin, Kasit said, just as Thailand shouldn’t allow the Dalai Lama to criticize China from Thai soil."

[GuestHouse]

So much for Thai independence - Nothing more than a Puppet State.

[Changian]

The Dalai Lama visited thailand in 2005 and relations with China survived intact.. this is just Kasit doing what he does best , talking crap and embarassing the govt

[givenall]

So much for Thai independence - Nothing more than a Puppet State.

Wake up it is all about the economy. China is becoming the biggest economy partner of Thailand surpassing US and Europe, etc

[geriatrickid]

So much for Thai independence - Nothing more than a Puppet State.

Wake up it is all about the economy. China is becoming the biggest economy partner of Thailand surpassing US and Europe, etc

Rubbish. Please take the time to review the data. Thailand is export driven. China doesn't need what Thailand sells. On the contrary, China poses a threat to Thailand's export economy, particularly in textiles and now electronics. The Chinese aren't accused of dumping for nothing. When China needs to adjust its economy it ramps up export production and that means undercutting its competitors as a glut of products drives down prices.

The Dalai decision is all about kissing Chinese ass to hedge bets as the USA and EU shake their fingers in disapproval. If the political situation worsens, and the historical funders of large infrastructure projects pull back, Thailand will look to China to pay for the development projects. The downside is that China unlike other countries sends in its own workers, insists on the projects using Chinese made goods and will intervene if the receipient state doesn't do as told. Just ask Papua New Guinea or some of the African countries how they like their Chinese masters now.

[NADTATIDA1]

So much for Thai independence - Nothing more than a Puppet State.

Wake up it is all about the economy. China is becoming the biggest economy partner of Thailand surpassing US and Europe, etc

It has a lot to do with politics yes! but your statement of China becoming Thailands biggest economy partner is well....outdated.

[mauGR1]

So much for Thai independence - Nothing more than a Puppet State.

Wake up it is all about the economy. China is becoming the biggest economy partner of Thailand surpassing US and Europe, etc

Exactly.

At the moment U.S. is facing open threats from China because the Dalai Lama is going to visit the President Obama soon.

I'm really curious to know what will happen.

[DP25]

According to the article he hasn't been allowed to visit since 1993, so this is hardly a new policy. Hopefully it will be changed, but doubtful given China's importance.

[luangtom]

Most definitely an expected response. China has pulled strings in Thai commerce and banking for so many years that no one can tell a definitive date when it started. Why do you think a supposedly independent country caters to the demands of the string-puller to the North? It will not ever likely change.

[Brucenkhamen]

The fact that China acts the bully whenever the Dalai Lama travels is just a sign of China's weakness and insecurity, I wouldn't like to be around if China ever decided to throw all it's toys out of the cot.

[phetaroi]

I think the situation is more complex than most of you acknowledge.

If the Dali Lama were just the Dali Lama, living a totally religious life, I imagine he would be just as welcome in Thailand as any other religious figure.

However, the Dali Lama is not just a religious figure. He lives his life as a world political figure, as well. And that is the complicating factor.

Personally, I'm glad he does what he does...because I agree with his position. If I didn't agree with his position(s), then I'm sure I'd be saying religious figures should stay out of politics.

Many of us often say, "You can't have it both ways." To a large extent, the Dali Lama does have it both ways...but not always...and this is one.

[slapout]

Well put phataroi. Will be interesting to see the outcome of planned visits to those countries that China puts on notice. I am reminded of the warning, be very careful about approaching the cubs of a predator.

[Xangsamhua]

I think Phetaroi's response is spot-on; however it's worth noting that HH has tried to separate himself from the political leadership of the Tibetan state-in-exile, but the Tibetan community and government in exile in Dharamsala would not accept this. The book's in my office, so I can't check it now, but the details are in Pico Iyer's The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (2008).

[CaptHaddock]

I think Phetaroi's response is spot-on; however it's worth noting that HH has tried to separate himself from the political leadership of the Tibetan state-in-exile, but the Tibetan community and government in exile in Dharamsala would not accept this. The book's in my office, so I can't check it now, but the details are in Pico Iyer's The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (2008).

There is a great deal of uninformed hagiography out there about the Dalai Lama. He was the young head of an anti-democratic theocracy before he was evacuated from Tibet by the American CIA to whom he has ever after been beholden. Consequently, he supported the US position in the Viet Nam war. He supported a violent opposition to the Chinese presence in Tibet until Nixon cut him loose at the behest of his new friend, Mao, at which point he became a spokesman for peace. He declined to criticize Bush's war in Iraq when even the Pope called for peace.

None of this is by way of condoning Chinese policy toward Tibet. The DL is a political figure pursuing his agenda. How much better public discourse would be if people simply gave the dubious notion that somehow, somewhere saints walk the earth, even if we never actually get to meet any.

[fnprop]

At the moment U.S. is facing open threats from China because the Dalai Lama is going to visit the President Obama soon.

I'm really curious to know what will happen.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing of any signifigance. Typical PRC bluster. They can get away with it in client states like Burma, Laos, and apparently, Thailand. But the US is not going to cancel a visit that offends Beijing's political sensitivities. Neither would VietNam for that matter.

[mauGR1]

At the moment U.S. is facing open threats from China because the Dalai Lama is going to visit the President Obama soon.

I'm really curious to know what will happen.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing of any signifigance. Typical PRC bluster. They can get away with it in client states like Burma, Laos, and apparently, Thailand. But the US is not going to cancel a visit that offends Beijing's political sensitivities. Neither would VietNam for that matter.

It seems you are right,in fact i would have been surprised of the contrary.

BTW, HH the Dalai Lama used to be received by Italian Gvt. until few years ago,but now not anymore.

It seems PRC has become bigger lately

[cdnvic]

I wouldn't like to be around if China ever decided to throw all it's toys out of the cot.

Not to worry, if they were made domestically they'd probably not survive the impact.

[Xangsamhua]

I think Phetaroi's response is spot-on; however it's worth noting that HH has tried to separate himself from the political leadership of the Tibetan state-in-exile, but the Tibetan community and government in exile in Dharamsala would not accept this. The book's in my office, so I can't check it now, but the details are in Pico Iyer's The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (2008).

There is a great deal of uninformed hagiography out there about the Dalai Lama. He was the young head of an anti-democratic theocracy before he was evacuated from Tibet by the American CIA to whom he has ever after been beholden. Consequently, he supported the US position in the Viet Nam war. He supported a violent opposition to the Chinese presence in Tibet until Nixon cut him loose at the behest of his new friend, Mao, at which point he became a spokesman for peace. He declined to criticize Bush's war in Iraq when even the Pope called for peace.

None of this is by way of condoning Chinese policy toward Tibet. The DL is a political figure pursuing his agenda. How much better public discourse would be if people simply gave the dubious notion that somehow, somewhere saints walk the earth, even if we never actually get to meet any.

Yes, let's avoid uninformed hagiography, and let's assume that readers and contributors to the Buddhism forum are not uninformed or given to uncritical hero-worship. If we accept that, then we can have a discussion.

No one, including the Dalai Lama, denies that Tibet was a pre-modern state when he was a child and young man. It was a hierocracy and one in which human rights were not respected. That is not the whole picture of pre-invasion Tibet, but a part that is generally acknowledged, I believe. We'll never know how much it may have changed under the maturing Dalai Lama's, because that chance was aborted by the Chinese invasion.

The Dalai Lama's relationship to the US and, especially, the CIA is one that others can discuss. My reading of books by him and about him and his recorded lectures does not reveal a man absorbed in power games, though he can't avoid being engaged in political discourse. (I gather many young Tibetans see him as a political naif for accepting China's suzerainty and discouraging liberationist propaganda and action. Of course, he protests against the Chinese government's cultural and religious oppression in Tibet and he has not forgotten the cruelty visited upon the Tibetan people, not just monks and nuns, by the Chinese authorities since 1950.)

Very little of the literature I have read by the Dalai Lama (in contrast to that about him) is focussed on the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Of course he makes frequent passing reference to it, mostly in reference to his early life or the experience of friends and the Tibetan refugees; however, the overwhelming bulk of the material is about Dharma, his commentaries on various sutras and the commentaries he has been taught himself, and meditation practices. Straightforward Dharma teaching, as you would expect from a lifelong monk and religious leader, and nothing auto-hagiographic there. In fact, he's quite self-critical and open about his failings in dharma practice (frequently referring to his impatience, for example, and sometimes to his uncertainty about the meaning of passages in the texts).

Having said that, although the DL and people like Thich Nhat Hanh do not present themselves as saints (TNH gets irritable also), I'm inclined to believe that saints do walk the earth. However, not in the form of the plaster saints and impossibly perfect figures of popular hagiography, but as real men and women who, while maybe having very clear and sometimes quite significant weaknesses, nevertheless stand out for their compassion and their selflessness. We each have our lists and they may not agree; in some ways we are all probably affected by legends and media representation. And some, e.g. the Buddha, do not seem to be saintly in the same sense as others, e.g. Fr Joe Maier, Dr Catherine Hamlin, Colonel "Weary Dunlop", Teresa of Avila, Abraham Lincoln or Nelson Mandela. But there is something special about these people that even exposes (e.g. of Gandhi or Martin Luther King) can't diminish.

Still, it's good to be reminded that the people we admire can be viewed from a different perspective as well. One can be admired by the world, but be no hero to our own children.

[CaptHaddock]

I think Phetaroi's response is spot-on; however it's worth noting that HH has tried to separate himself from the political leadership of the Tibetan state-in-exile, but the Tibetan community and government in exile in Dharamsala would not accept this. The book's in my office, so I can't check it now, but the details are in Pico Iyer's The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (2008).

There is a great deal of uninformed hagiography out there about the Dalai Lama. He was the young head of an anti-democratic theocracy before he was evacuated from Tibet by the American CIA to whom he has ever after been beholden. Consequently, he supported the US position in the Viet Nam war. He supported a violent opposition to the Chinese presence in Tibet until Nixon cut him loose at the behest of his new friend, Mao, at which point he became a spokesman for peace. He declined to criticize Bush's war in Iraq when even the Pope called for peace.

None of this is by way of condoning Chinese policy toward Tibet. The DL is a political figure pursuing his agenda. How much better public discourse would be if people simply gave the dubious notion that somehow, somewhere saints walk the earth, even if we never actually get to meet any.

Yes, let's avoid uninformed hagiography, and let's assume that readers and contributors to the Buddhism forum are not uninformed or given to uncritical hero-worship. If we accept that, then we can have a discussion.

No one, including the Dalai Lama, denies that Tibet was a pre-modern state when he was a child and young man. It was a hierocracy and one in which human rights were not respected. That is not the whole picture of pre-invasion Tibet, but a part that is generally acknowledged, I believe. We'll never know how much it may have changed under the maturing Dalai Lama's, because that chance was aborted by the Chinese invasion.

The Dalai Lama's relationship to the US and, especially, the CIA is one that others can discuss. My reading of books by him and about him and his recorded lectures does not reveal a man absorbed in power games, though he can't avoid being engaged in political discourse. (I gather many young Tibetans see him as a political naif for accepting China's suzerainty and discouraging liberationist propaganda and action. Of course, he protests against the Chinese government's cultural and religious oppression in Tibet and he has not forgotten the cruelty visited upon the Tibetan people, not just monks and nuns, by the Chinese authorities since 1950.)

Very little of the literature I have read by the Dalai Lama (in contrast to that about him) is focussed on the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Of course he makes frequent passing reference to it, mostly in reference to his early life or the experience of friends and the Tibetan refugees; however, the overwhelming bulk of the material is about Dharma, his commentaries on various sutras and the commentaries he has been taught himself, and meditation practices. Straightforward Dharma teaching, as you would expect from a lifelong monk and religious leader, and nothing auto-hagiographic there. In fact, he's quite self-critical and open about his failings in dharma practice (frequently referring to his impatience, for example, and sometimes to his uncertainty about the meaning of passages in the texts).

Having said that, although the DL and people like Thich Nhat Hanh do not present themselves as saints (TNH gets irritable also), I'm inclined to believe that saints do walk the earth. However, not in the form of the plaster saints and impossibly perfect figures of popular hagiography, but as real men and women who, while maybe having very clear and sometimes quite significant weaknesses, nevertheless stand out for their compassion and their selflessness. We each have our lists and they may not agree; in some ways we are all probably affected by legends and media representation. And some, e.g. the Buddha, do not seem to be saintly in the same sense as others, e.g. Fr Joe Maier, Dr Catherine Hamlin, Colonel "Weary Dunlop", Teresa of Avila, Abraham Lincoln or Nelson Mandela. But there is something special about these people that even exposes (e.g. of Gandhi or Martin Luther King) can't diminish.

Still, it's good to be reminded that the people we admire can be viewed from a different perspective as well. One can be admired by the world, but be no hero to our own children.

By refusing to consider the DL's longterm sponsorship by the CIA and, in particular, his support for the American wars in Viet Nam and Iraq, you deprive yourself of the opportunity to understand what lies beneath the public image that you find so comforting. Neither Thich Nhat Hanh nor the DL have ever expressed censure of the many American Buddhist teachers who have sexually or financially exploited their followers, scandals which have occurred in nearly every American Buddhist group. Just like the Pope, they would never say anything that even indirectly damages their organization or their authority which they derive from it because that's the business they are in.

Would you like to hear about Lincoln?

[Xangsamhua]

By refusing to consider the DL's longterm sponsorship by the CIA and, in particular, his support for the American wars in Viet Nam and Iraq, you deprive yourself of the opportunity to understand what lies beneath the public image that you find so comforting. Neither Thich Nhat Hanh nor the DL have ever expressed censure of the many American Buddhist teachers who have sexually or financially exploited their followers, scandals which have occurred in nearly every American Buddhist group. Just like the Pope, they would never say anything that even indirectly damages their organization or their authority which they derive from it because that's the business they are in.

Would you like to hear about Lincoln?

I'm not sure what 'comfort' one derives from a public image unless one is into PR or is just a booster for some public figure. It seems I didn't get my point across that public images of notable people are at least in part media representations and they may be flawed (though perhaps not badly or possibly not at all in some cases). In the case of TNH I have had the opportunity to observe him and his community quite closely during a week at Plum Village.

I'm not quite sure why you're telling us about the political strategies or the insensitivities of the DL or TNH unless it's to justify the Chinese and Thai positions regarding the DL's movements (and TNH's recent support for him). If so, that is a relevant and interesting contribution that can be evaluated by readers here. I doubt the Thai authorities are thinking along those lines, but perhaps they are.

I think my original response was to your suggestion that people on this forum are dupes to uncritical hagiography and I tried to make the point that in reading or hearing the dharma teachings of the DL or TNH I was not really thinking about the political issues; nor were those issues central to the DL or TNH in the course of their teaching.

It seems we have different interests and different audiences in mind.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[sabaijai]

Neither Thich Nhat Hanh nor the DL have ever expressed censure of the many American Buddhist teachers who have sexually or financially exploited their followers, scandals which have occurred in nearly every American Buddhist group.

Perhaps because it would be hypocritical to do so, given the fact that Buddhist teachers of every nationality and culture have done the same. I'm quite sure the DL has spoken and written on this issue in general, however.

[camerata]

He was the young head of an anti-democratic theocracy before he was evacuated from Tibet by the American CIA to whom he has ever after been beholden. Consequently, he supported the US position in the Viet Nam war. He supported a violent opposition to the Chinese presence in Tibet until Nixon cut him loose at the behest of his new friend, Mao, at which point he became a spokesman for peace.

I think you're overstating the case here. According to the authoritative Orphans Of The Cold War: America And The Tibetan Struggle For Survival, there is no evidence the CIA "evacuated" the Dalai Lama. On the contrary, the book suggests it might have suited the Chinese to look the other way when he escaped. He also never supported violent opposition to the Chinese, ever. His elder brother was involved with the CIA and the resistance movement but the Dalai Lama never condoned violence. How could he? The Tibetans were abandoned by America after Nixon's visit (not that they ever achieved much with all the clan squabbling), so Tibet is hardly beholden to them. Nevertheless, the only country powerful enough to help Tibet against China is America, so it makes sense to be on friendly terms.

[juanmedin]

This kind of news really saddens me. Obama refused to receive the Dalai Lama before visiting China. Then he refused to receive him in the Oval Office.

Now Thailand refuses to receive him. I thought the Dalai Lama was a respected pacifist figure within the Buddhist world. And Thailand is deeply Buddhist...

I respect the economic point of view, but we are walking in the wrong direction...

Juan @ Bangkok

Building a blog about Thailand for the Spanish community.

Edited March 1, 2010 by camerata
Link to own web site removed as per forum rules. Put it on your profile page instead.

[camerata]

Now Thailand refuses to receive him. I thought the Dalai Lama was a respected pacifist figure within the Buddhist world. And Thailand is deeply Buddhist...

But from the Chinese point of view he's a dangerous "splittist" and the Thai government doesn't want to anger the Chinese.

[chenposeb]

I was at a public talk given by HHDL in 2004 which was very well attended and HH voiced his disapproval of the Iraq War. He even mentioned the fact that he was concerned by who had given the Iraq government the weapons in the first instance. (I think it might have been in reference to the UK, although HH just left it as an open question for us to think about)

I have also heard that HH went to Thailand in 1967 on an official visit and is said to have seen an American B52 bomber over Vietnam during his flight. It is also said he had written in his memoirs : “I was moved when I realised that the theatre of human cruelty extended even to ten thousand metres over the earth.”

Just thought I would mention it for those who might not have known

Edited March 1, 2010 by chenposeb