Does anybody here care about Tibet?

Tomas_V

Just finished watching 'dialogue'. The interview with the very pro-China former editor of 'Japan Times' showed signs of editing. He did well though, earning a handshake from the Chinese government newsreader, who gave him plenty of encouragement, especially when he conjured up connections between Nazism and the Dalai Lama.

It was followed by an attack on the casualty claims emanating from pro-Tibetan sources. The number of times 'Dalai Clique' was repeated left me with a headache. It was nice of the Tibetan nun who was interviewed to mention how China had given money to her monastery.

Also shown was an item on many Chinese people having internet access and how, following the riots in Tibet, the Chinese Government has made sure that they have full access to information, written for them by government journalists.:rolleyes:

The next item was about the recovery of Chinese historical artifacts in Denmark. Any hopes of light relief from Chinese anger were dashed by references to other artifacts, yet to be recovered, held around Europe. I suppose we earned this riposte for criticising China on software and DVD piracy, and counterfeiting.

But if this news service is a diluted version of China's views, designed to be palatable to Western ears, I'd say that the original Chinese service must be quite ferocious & have the whole population pumped up right now. I think I'll defer my vacation in China for a while....

OK-Cancel-Apply

SeanW wrote: »

And I suggest you stop readin Xinhua and watching CCTV.

Oops, I forgot, our media is "free" at least from government interference, if you don't like CNN, Fox, Sky News, BBC, RTE or whoever, there's always The Guardian, Indymedia, Google News, France 24, Euronews, Wikipedia/Wikinews and thousands of smaller independent tv/radio stations and publications etc. etc. etc. There are numerous independent sources and you have choice.

In (Red) China, the media is under the Commie's Iron grip, Internet censorship is extreme and severe, this alone should weigh heavily against any "Chinese" view since they don't have anything resembling a free media or communications of any kind, full stop.

So, you accept that over here, the truth is filtered through an agenda, right? It seems that you are implying that the Chinese 'view' is not historically accurate, because of the type of government and media they have. That's illogical.

I should point out too, that the people protesting today have full, unrestricted access to the internet.

SeanW wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right, but by all means boycott London 2012 if that would float your boat.

I don't generally go around telling people to boycott Olympics. Something tells me though, that you don't think Britain's war crimes in the last few years measure up to anything in comparison to what China has done, right?

SeanW wrote: »

Hmmm ... Native Darfurians being wiped out by the genocidal marauders of the "Janjaweed" all with China's blessing, Myanmar, a military junta which enslaves it's own people, again with Red China's blessing (see yawtin's closed thread). And we have an alleged "Lebensraum" policy in Tibet which is much like the "Planters" during British rule in Ireland especially in what is now Northen Ireland.

We should ignore all this ... why exactly?

Seems over here we hate all the major oil-rich countries, don't we? They're all evil Muslims, terrorists and boogymen.

There seems to be lots of double standards flying around the anti-Chinese camp.

So your problem with China is that they haven't been interfering enough with other countries. Instead of sending their armed forces in the other people's countries, they actually do business with them.

SeanW wrote: »

Stealing it/Paying genocidal religious fruitloops to supply it, doesn't make much difference.

'Genocide' is a dangerous word to throw around, especially given the track record of those claiming it to be taking place. It's a great way of slandering Sudan though.

As for the 'Lebensraum' policies of China, please don't insult me. It's always a sign that a debate is sliding downhill fast, when somebody starts referring directly or indirectly to Hilter or the Nazis.

It's really quite simple - Tibet belongs to China, regardless of what Britain or America want you to believe.

Tomas_V

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

It's always a sign that a debate is sliding downhill fast, when somebody starts referring directly or indirectly to Hilter or the Nazis.

As CCTV9 did tonight by connecting the Dalai Lama to the Nazis?:rolleyes:

lonesome

Tomas_V wrote: »

It didn't sound that way & it's language like this that is alienating people in the west from sympathy for China.

You've quoted CNN. I asked you to quote from BBC or RTE. How about today's 'Irish Times', the article on the 'Great Firewall of China'? Do you have a copy?

There was a demonstration about pro-Olympic, pro-China campaign with thousand of Chinese in Dublin city centre this afternoon. I didn't see it on either 6' News or 9' News.
oh, yes, maybe it was not worth to put it on Media comparing to the interruption of Olympic torch rally by hundreds of anti-China protesters in London and Paris.
well, "Free Media" has right to determine what to broadcast to the public.

Tomas_V

lonesome wrote: »

There was a demonstration about pro-Olympic, pro-China campaign with thousand of Chinese in Dublin city centre this afternoon. I didn't see it on either 6' News or 9' News.

This does not prove hatred or bias against China as you originally claimed. But yes, it can be hard to have your voice heard.

You're quite lucky that the demonstration outside of the GPO was not broadcast. The location is so inappropriate to your position in the context of Tibet/China, people would have been laughing at your ignorance of Irish history.

Given the poorly-considered choice of venue, maybe the organiser didn't contact the media and invite them to come see? That's the usual thing.

Grudaire

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

So, you accept that over here, the truth is filtered through an agenda, right? It seems that you are implying that the Chinese 'view' is not historically accurate, because of the type of government and media they have. That's illogical.

People agree on the facts of WW2 for example, while there is very little agreement on Tiananmen Square (and surrounding areas)

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I should point out too, that the people protesting today have full, unrestricted access to the internet.

I've been sent to links that are propaganda (by both sides):rolleyes: I'm yet to be convinced either way- but you guys send a bigger chill up my spine

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I don't generally go around telling people to boycott Olympics. Something tells me though, that you don't think Britain's war crimes in the last few years measure up to anything in comparison to what China has done, right?

They do measure up???? do explain(and while you're at it explain why we are shifting the conversation from China)

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Seems over here we hate all the major oil-rich countries, don't we? They're all evil Muslims, terrorists and boogymen.

Yes (America included(Damn Muslims there!))

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

So your problem with China is that they haven't been interfering enough with other countries. Instead of sending their armed forces in the other people's countries, they actually do business with them.

Aye the problem is what you do business in(America is absolutely no better in this regard.)

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

'Genocide' is a dangerous word to throw around, especially given the track record of those claiming it to be taking place. It's a great way of slandering Sudan though.

right in terms of what the debate is, shouldn't we focus on the here and now- how is this not genocide?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

As for the 'Lebensraum' policies of China, please don't insult me. It's always a sign that a debate is sliding downhill fast, when somebody starts referring directly or indirectly to Hilter or the Nazis.

It's really quite simple - Tibet belongs to China, regardless of what Britain or America want you to believe.

Right I agree on keeping it clean however You REALLY REALLY RIDICULOUSLY STUPIDLY ABSOLUTELY lost me on that point,
(1) You're talking to the Irish here- so really you want to be an underdog to be liked
(2) You sound like a spoiled brat- it's mine, MINE MINE MINE.
(3) It belongs to, but the question we are discussing is SHOULD it, answer that one, not who owns the title deeds (ps I still think Pat Kenny is a tool despite any apparent similarities)

OK-Cancel-Apply

Cliste, I am Irish, not Chinese. Your post has confused me somewhat. Tibet belongs to China in the same way Mayo belongs to Ireland (ok, the situation is not identical, but my point is that yes, they own it, and have done for thousands of years).

Are the Lebanese 'spoilt brats' for claiming they own the south of Lebanon? Is Britain spoilt (as in wah wah it's mine) for claiming they own Cornwall?

Tomas_V

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Tibet belongs to China

Britain claimed to own Ireland for hundreds of years.

We decided otherwise.

lonesome

Tomas_V wrote: »

This does not prove hatred or bias against China as you originally claimed. But yes, it can be hard to have your voice heard.

You're quite lucky that the demonstration outside of the GPO was not broadcast. The location is so inappropriate to your position in the context of Tibet/China, people would have been laughing at your ignorance of Irish history.

Given the poorly-considered choice of venue, maybe the organiser didn't contact the media and invite them to come see? That's the usual thing.

Certainly, we don't have the knowledge as much as you do. but we know a little bit Irish history and respect it.

however the fact does proof that it is dangerous if Media has specific inclination.

Grudaire

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

(ok, the situation is not identical, but my point is that yes, they own it, and have done for thousands of years).

Are the Lebanese 'spoilt brats' for claiming they own the south of Lebanon? Is Britain spoilt (as in wah wah it's mine) for claiming they own Cornwall?

Firstly not even China claims thousands of years(since 13th century) Less by my catculation then Northern Ireland (but lets not drag that in)

Secondly if they're not identical (or even similar) then why compare them? (Sally got 80% in CSPE, joe got 70% in Maths therefore Joe is thicker then Sally)

OK-Cancel-Apply

Tomas_V wrote: »

This does not prove hatred or bias against China as you originally claimed. But yes, it can be hard to have your voice heard.

You're quite lucky that the demonstration outside of the GPO was not broadcast. The location is so inappropriate to your position in the context of Tibet/China, people would have been laughing at your ignorance of Irish history.

Given the poorly-considered choice of venue, maybe the organiser didn't contact the media and invite them to come see? That's the usual thing.

It's shameful that we're treating our Chinese community like this, and pretending that there's some kind of 'problem' with going to the GPO, or that people would have been 'laughing' at them, and that it's for the best that the media DIDN'T come.

Why try to make them feel as if they were wrong to do what they did today? Aren't you supposed to be for 'free speech'?

The mainstream isn't listening to them, and you are going on a thinly-veiled rant about how they should not have protested at all.

Grudaire

Who gives a sh*t where the fook it was held- focus on the other stuff, and Thomas, just please stop dragging it back to this.

However Ok-Cancel-Reply, you didn't answer any of my questions, I'll take that to mean you know less then anyone else here on the issue....

OK-Cancel-Apply

Cliste wrote: »

Firstly not even China claims thousands of years(since 13th century) Less by my catculation then Northern Ireland (but lets not drag that in)

Hundreds. 'My bad'. It's past my bedtime.

Secondly if they're not identical (or even similar) then why compare them? [/quote]

I did not say that. I've taken out the irrelevant and redundant part of your message. Please stop doing it - it makes for unneseccary reading

OK-Cancel-Apply

Cliste wrote: »

Who gives a sh*t where the fook it was held- focus on the other stuff, and Thomas, just please stop dragging it back to this.

However Ok-Cancel-Reply, you didn't answer any of my questions, I'll take that to mean you know less then anyone else here on the issue....

What are you talking about?? You are one of the weirdest posters I've ever come across.

Grudaire

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

What are you talking about??

I'm giving out about the fact that we are discussing the historical significance of a minor protest in a very small country, while we don't actually discuss the thread, or address any facts on whats going on in Tibet

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

You are one of the weirdest posters I've ever come across.

Thank you

SeanW

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

So, you accept that over here

Yes. Since all journalists, editors and owners are human, "The Truth" will inevitably become slanted in some way. But the recipient of the news media has choice in the democratic world - the Neo-cons love Fox News, but if you dislike it because you think it's full of right-wing nonsense and demagogue commentators, choose some other stations. Think the Telegraph is a right-wing tabloid? Buy the Guardian. If you are more of a radical, anarchist type, Indymedia FTW! Indeed, Russia Today, CCTV, Al Jazeera all have Western operations to present another perspective to our system.

In China there is nothing like that. Chinese people have access only to State controlled media, where anything they say is taken as fact.

I should point out too, that the people protesting today have full, unrestricted access to the internet.

Yes, but growing up in China they all had an unrestricted diet of Red Chinese propoganda during their formative and teenage years. Why do you think that Hamas, for example, treats the children of Palestine to TV shows like "Martyrdom Mouse" and "The Jew-Eating Bunny?"

I don't generally go around telling people to boycott Olympics. Something tells me though, that you don't think Britain's war crimes in the last few years measure up to anything in comparison to what China has done, right?

Hmm ... you mention Britain's war crimes when it is convenient as a distraction, but ignore it elsewhere ...

Seems over here we hate all the major oil-rich countries, don't we? They're all evil Muslims, terrorists and boogymen.

Ah, yes, becasue the Sudanese, the Saudi Arabians are such nice people. I must remember that next time someone is beaten there for not going to prayers or is stoned for being a homosexual, practicing another religion, or a refugee camp is burned to the ground.

So your problem with China is that they haven't been interfering enough with other countries. Instead of sending their armed forces in the other people's countries, they actually do business with them.

WRONG. We placed trade embargos and sanctions on the Apartheid government of South Africa for a lot less than what is going on in Sudan, including workers in Dunnes who went on strike over Dunnes SA imports - this at a time when there were not many jobs around.

Yet the Chinese have no problem doing business with the worst kind of scum on Earth, and our friend Yawtin even had the balls to complain about alleged American opposition to the slave taking military junta in Myanmar!

As for the 'Lebensraum' policies of China, please don't insult me.

Note, I used the phrase "alleged lebensraum" policies. I have heard in the media and elsewhere, that China is moving large numbers of Han Chinese people into Tibet to assert its control of the region. This is similar to the Nazi Lebensraum policy and the British Planters in Ireland. For balance, the Israelis are doing something similar in the West Bank.

I used the word alleged because as I have no first hand information, I might well be wrong. If you can prove that the Chinese, AREN'T moving millions of Han Chinese into the area, my argument collapses on this basis. I await your documentation that I am wrong. If, on the other hand, my information is correct, then te Chinese should expect little sympathy.

It's always a sign that a debate is sliding downhill fast, when somebody starts referring directly or indirectly to Hilter or the Nazis.

As has been said, the Chinese are doing plenty of that by painting the Dalai Lama as a violent, former slave-owning, Nazi supporter.

It's really quite simple - Tibet belongs to China, regardless of what Britain or America want you to believe.

I'm sure the framers of the Act of Union in the UK had similar ideas about Ireland.

We had different ideas though, and it looks like the Tibetans may too.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

As has been said, the Chinese are doing plenty of that by painting the Dalai Lama as a violent, former slave-owning, Nazi supporter.

to be fair, the llama's were a right shower of bastards when they ruled tibet. Torture and slavery weren't all that uncommon. Just reinstating the llama's would be a terrible idea, democratic republic all the way.

Unpossible

Without repeating the usual rethoric, could somebody explain in more detail the tibeten automony?
I know its one of three regions (not including HK) that has autonomy. Is it the same as Taiwan where there are different parties and people can vote on their local government? Or is it just a miniture version of china's government structure?
I think if this were explained then it would help people understand the situation there right now.

OK-Cancel-Apply

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. Since all journalists, editors and owners are human, "The Truth" will inevitably become slanted in some way. But the recipient of the news media has choice in the democratic world - the Neo-cons love Fox News, but if you dislike it because you think it's full of right-wing nonsense and demagogue commentators, choose some other stations. Think the Telegraph is a right-wing tabloid? Buy the Telegraph. If you are more of a radical, anarchist type, Indymedia FTW! Indeed, Russia Today, CCTV, Al Jazeera all have Western operations to present another perspective to our system.

In China there is nothing like that. Chinese people have access only to State controlled media, where anything they say is taken as fact.

I've been to China, and the people aren't brainwashed. They love their country and their government...big deal.

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, but growing up in China they all had an unrestricted diet of Red Chinese propoganda during their formative and teenage years. Why do you think that Hamas, for example, treats the children of Palestine to TV shows like "Martyrdom Mouse" and "The Jew-Eating Bunny?"

Right..because Hamas are a part of a huge global corporate news network, owned by just a few people. And what, are you trying to accuse China of racist propaganda? Not sure how one Palestinian group has anything to do with China.

SeanW wrote: »

Hmm ... you mention Britain's war crimes when it is convenient as a distraction, but ignore it elsewhere ...

Trying to provide some perspective. I just hope that all those calling for a Beijing 2008 boycott do the same for London 2012.

SeanW wrote: »

Ah, yes, becasue the Sudanese, the Saudi Arabians are such nice people.

Now that you mention Saudi Arabia, maybe it would be a good time to bring up the fact that the Queen had them over for tea a few months ago. And the British constantly try to demonise countries like Iran! Everyone knows that S.A. is the most oppressive Islamic fundamentalist country on earth, but that doesn't mean all Muslim countries are the same. A claim like that would defy logic.

I've never met anybody from Sudan, so I can't confirm or deny that they are nice people. Still though, I don't tend to make such blanket statements.

SeanW wrote: »

I must remember that next time someone is beaten there for not going to prayers or is stoned for being a homosexual, practicing another religion, or a refugee camp is burned to the ground.

Yeah, so boycott London 2012 for being best friends with Saudia Arabia.

SeanW wrote: »

WRONG. We placed trade embargos and sanctions on the Apartheid government of South Africa for a lot less than what is going on in Sudan, including workers in Dunnes who went on strike over Dunnes SA imports - this at a time when there were not many jobs around.

Yet the Chinese have no problem doing business with the worst kind of scum on Earth, and our friend Yawtin even had the balls to complain about alleged American opposition to the slave taking military junta in Myanmar!

Just because a country doesn't demonise one of America's enemies, it doesn't mean they are evil.

It's no coincidence that everyone over here knows about the alleged genocide in Darfur (and probably couldn't find it on a map), and that the United States has a LOT of interest in their oil.

Neither is it a coincidence that China is buying Sudan's oil, and that now the American-led media is going all out to try and slander them. China isn't an economic superpower yet, but they will be, and Uncle Sam doesn't like it. I personally think it would be healthier if the world had more than just one.

SeanW wrote: »

Note, I used the phrase "alleged lebensraum" policies. I have heard in the media and elsewhere, that China is moving large numbers of Han Chinese people into Tibet to assert its control of the region. This is similar to the Nazi Lebensraum policy and the British Planters in Ireland. For balance, the Israelis are doing something similar in the West Bank.

I used the word alleged because as I have no first hand information, I might well be wrong. If you can prove that the Chinese, AREN'T moving millions of Han Chinese into the area, my argument collapses on this basis. I await your documentation that I am wrong. If, on the other hand, my information is correct, then te Chinese should expect little sympathy.

So they're 'moving' people to Tibet.

It's not up to me to disprove what you said. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

In any case, it depends on who Tibet belongs to. And this classification of races really p*sses me well off - the Han Chinese are moving to Tibet..? As another poster said, everybody is equal in the eyes of the government. It's like saying the Celts are 'moving' to Dublin and displacing the Vikings. It's nonsense, because we don't distinguish here between Celts, Vikings or Anglo-Saxons. We are all just 'Irish'.

SeanW wrote: »

I'm sure the framers of the Act of Union in the UK had similar ideas about Ireland.

We had different ideas though, and it looks like the Tibetans may too.

Yes, but would the world have been complaining about China if they had 'invaded' Hong Kong before the hand-over?

Tomas_V

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

In any case, it depends on who Tibet belongs to.

This is a recurring plank in the Chinese arguments. Surely a country belongs to the people who live there and if they decide that they don't want to to be ruled or colonised by a powerful neighbour, this should be respected. This is in our proclamation of Independence, a copy of which can be seen at the GPO.

Britain claimed for hundreds of years that Ireland belonged to it and that Irish people were loyal happy subjects. During this time, economic resources were exploited for British gain and Irish culture and religion was ruthlessly suppressed. Dissenters were arrested, jailed and executed. The UK protested when foreign powers such as the USA showed an interest in what the they regarded as an 'internal matter'.

The reason Irish people care about Tibet is because its experience under Chinese occupation resembles that of Ireland.

lonesome

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I've been to China, and the people aren't brainwashed. They love their country and their government...big deal.

Trying to provide some perspective. I just hope that all those calling for a Beijing 2008 boycott do the same for London 2012.

QUOTE]

They WON'T dare to do that as Britain and USA will beat them up if that happened.
back to my point: in this world only Economic Power Talks

Tomas_V

lonesome wrote: »

back to my point: in this world only Economic Power Talks

How unfortunate for those who don't have it. e.g. Tibetans.

lonesome

Tomas_V wrote: »

How unfortunate for those who don't have it. e.g. Tibetans.

How fortunate Tibet is part of China

SeanW

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I've been to China, and the people aren't brainwashed. They love their country and their government...big deal.

They grew up, and live with, Red propoganda, day in, day out. I love Ireland, but I don't like it's present government too much and I hate the P/C/R IRA.

Right..because Hamas are a part of a huge global corporate news network, owned by just a few people. And what, are you trying to accuse China of racist propaganda? Not sure how one Palestinian group has anything to do with China.

Hamas was the only example I could think of off hand. Hamas uses its media to turn the young people of Palestine into future suicide bombers, and they know that a controlled media can be very powerful.

The point is, if you control the media, you will control people's - especially children's mentalities. Because the Chinese people have only ever had State run media to influence them, it should come as no surprise that you have more Chinese people singing off the Commie's hymn sheet, much more so than in the West. Because here, all voices are heard and at least you get to choose who you want to listen to. You can compare individual free media outlets to each other, as I said, if you don't like the Telegraph, you can read the Guardian, if you believe the media in general is "Too Liberal" you watch Hannity & Colmes on Fox or tune into whatever radio station Rush Limbaugh etc have their show on, so you can hear them "tell it like it is." In China, you just have the Red Communist PR machine, with its position always taken as Gospel.

Trying to provide some perspective. I just hope that all those calling for a Beijing 2008 boycott do the same for London 2012.

Like I said, if that's what floats your boat, go for it.

Now that you mention Saudi Arabia, maybe it would be a good time to bring up the fact that the Queen had them over for tea a few months ago.

Again, you mention the British only when it is convenient to do so ...

Everyone knows that S.A. is the most oppressive Islamic fundamentalist country on earth

True, and I hope that we in the West can wean ourselves off fossil fuels by embracing a multi-pronged non-fossil strategy of renewables, biofuels, nuclear energy and reasonable conservation measures, so that (among other things) we can tell the Saudis to take a running jump. But I digresss.

I personally think it would be healthier if the world had more than just one.

Nope. Healthiest thing would be if we didn't have any. The present situation is just multiple sides of the same coin.

So they're 'moving' people to Tibet.

It's not up to me to disprove what you said. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

But I never made any claims. I merely said that if this were true, then the Chinese should expect no sympathy.

But a quick Google search for "Tibet" and "Han Chinese," will produce some interesting results. Like:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/07/01/westerners_protest_beijing_tibet_rail/
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/2008/04/01/Opinion/Pavela.On.Tibet-3294494.shtml
http://origin.denverpost.com/news/ci_8743398

In any case, it depends on who Tibet belongs to. And this classification of races really p*sses me well off - the Han Chinese are moving to Tibet..? As another poster said, everybody is equal in the eyes of the government. It's like saying the Celts are 'moving' to Dublin and displacing the Vikings. It's nonsense, because we don't distinguish here between Celts, Vikings or Anglo-Saxons. We are all just 'Irish'.

Again, I'm quite sure the British Empire had similar thoughts about Ireland and the island's inhabitants.

The question therefore must be, how strong is the identity of the indiginous Tibetans, and what role to the migrating Han play?

Tomas_V

lonesome wrote: »

How fortunate Tibet is part of China

The Tibetans don't agree.

lonesome

Tomas_V wrote: »

The Tibetans don't agree.

don't be fooled by ur media, go there to get some idea.
Have u been there before? I have been there 3 times.

Tomas_V

lonesome wrote: »

don't be fooled by ur media, go there to get some

Why not hold a referendum, supervised by international observers?

lonesome

Tomas_V wrote: »

Why not hold a referendum, supervised by international observers?

let's hold a referendum in Cork and China will follow.
The Chinese Ambassador walked out of the convention in Dundalk as Gormley referred to Tibet as a country.

however RTE 9' only partially braodcasted Gormley condemned human rights abuses in Tibet.
look at the media
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0413/green.html

Grudaire

lonesome wrote: »

let's hold a referendum in Cork and China will follow.

Ok, deal.

lonesome wrote: »

however RTE 9' only partially braodcasted Gormley condemned human rights abuses in Tibet.
look at the media
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0413/green.html

Explain how thats a partial broadcast?

lonesome

Cliste wrote: »

Ok, deal.



Explain how thats a partial broadcast?

The Chinese Ambassador walked out of the convention in Dundalk as Gormley referred to Tibet as a country.

however RTE 9' didn't mention that and only partially braodcasted Gormley condemned human rights abuses in Tibet.

the whole story you could find from http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0413/green.html