Chinese Foreign Policy and Other International Things

[hlat]

Wu Wei Wu, I think you would save your energy by not attempting to communicate with Niall and Joe about China. They are not interested in learning; they are only interested in defending their opinions and they do not allow for the possibility that their opinions are wrong. Trying to communicate with them about China is just an energy sink for you and anyone else who does not agree with them.

The only goal that Niall and Joe are interested in is the complete destruction of the American Israeli Empire. In service of that goal, they do not care how many people the Chinese Communist Party kills. If tomorrow the CCP nuked Washington, Jerusalem, London, Taipei, and Tokyo, they would support the CCP because that advances their macro cosmic goal.

 

[Mal7]

Wu Wei Wu, I think you would save your energy by not attempting to communicate with Niall and Joe about China.

I appreciated Wu Wei Wu's post anyway Hlat. . . I wouldn't want Wu Wei Wu to think they had wasted their time. I think one general idea that emerged in the "Pro-China Bias?" thread is that the China of today is a very different place to China under Mao, and that on balance the China of today is having a net positive effect in the world.

On the historical questions about China and its neighbours, I think these questions become more complicated the more one looks into them. Personally I think it would be easy to be misled by taking the official Chinese government's version of the history of Tibet as correct in all its particulars, and anything issued by British or American authors or by the Tibetan Government-in-Exile as propaganda. For the period of Tibet's several decades of "de facto independence" in the first half of the 20th century referred to by Wu Wei Wu, Melvyn Goldstein's book A History of Modern Tibet 1913-1951, the decline of the Lamaist State is OSIT a key text. Goldstein was fluent in English, Tibetan, and Chinese and looked at sources from all sides. I think this is a balanced book in a polarized debate - his limited claim that Tibet had a period of de facto independence probably pleases neither the Chinese government nor those who think Tibet had always been completely independent.

After the Manchu empire fell in 1912, Tibet expelled the Chinese representative ("Amban") from Lhasa, and all Chinese troops were made to leave Tibet. The case for de facto independence in the following years rests on things like: Tibet having its own government cabinet (this was called the "kashag", and made up of half monks, half laity, with ultimate authority going to the theocratic rule by the Dalai Lama), having its own currency, its own postage stamps, conducting treaties with other countries independently of China, e.g. the Tibet-Mongolia treaty of 1913, Tibetans paid taxes to the Tibetan government in Lhasa, and not to the Chinese government, Tibet issued its own visas for international travel.

In the centuries prior to 1912, the Tibetan government cabinet and rule by the Dalai Lama was also in existence. There were also one or two Chinese representatives "Ambans" stationed in Lhasa, accompanied by a small number of other Chinese. The case for Tibet being part of China in these centuries rests on these Ambans being seen as having the ultimate authority of overseeing the provincial, semi-autonomous district of Tibet.

In these earlier centuries, the modern concept of a nation state with clearly defined (if disputed) borders was also still in development. It was more a situation of having centers of political power, such as the Dalai Lama's center in Lhasa, and then declining levels of influence as one travels further away from this centre. So in the Tibetan border areas, it might be hard for the Lhasa government to extract taxes from the Tibetans living there. Near Tashilhumpo, the head of the local theocratic government would be seen as the Panchen Lama, not the Dalai Lama.

 

[Scottie]

I just want to say something general here.

It is very easy to get caught up in "Country X is Satan, Country Y is not". That's totally not the point.

Let's take the current world situation. Let's say WW3 starts, and it's Russia + China against The Whole World. Russia + China win. In the grand scheme of things, this might be a "good thing" for the simple reason that the Western powers' ruling of the world has not been a good thing for anyone. More specifically, there would be an opportunity for more balance.

But, Russia has its own interests, and so does China. Russia may seem awesome, but Putin won't live forever. What happens when the next round of leaders moves in? Would Russia and/or China turn into the "new Western PTB"? Most likely, yes!

That's the whole point of psychopathy, ponerization, etc. Nobody is immune.

In the aftermath of WWII, the Allies did a whole lot of raping and pillaging after their "victory". This cannot be ignored. At the same time, it's not instantly forgotten simply because somebody says, "Wow, I'm glad those Allies crushed those evil Nazis!" I mean, I know in most people's minds it DOES work this way, but for us it does not. Right?

That's the first thing. Second thing is that no country that has achieved any kind of "status" is without its faults. Everyone knows this.

Third, none of this political stuff is happening in a vacuum. There are epic Earth changes afoot, fireballs raining from the skies, sinkholes, crazy weather, and the planet is really, really upset. The politics of any particular nation will rapidly become irrelevant when the globe starts destroying everyone and everything. Nevertheless, we try to see what's going on, keep ourselves informed, and keep others informed...

That's the point of SOTT. It's not to have The Big Absolute Picture, but to see what is happening, show it to everyone, see the unseen, note the patterns, the shifts, etc. Certain "memes" or "trains of thought" are used, but generally this is because they are intended to be like a course correction for everyone when driving down the highway. Just because you veer to the right on the road at this moment does not mean that veering to the right is always correct, all the time. Always in motion is the future (and maybe even the past).

Right now, Russia for example is pretty awesome. That could change on a dime. People even say, "Oh, SOTT, you love Russia! You're evil!" That misses the bigger picture, which is that FINALLY, somebody is standing up to the West and this BS of endless wars and terrorism and so on. Nobody thinks Putin is god.

In short, reality is WAAAAAAAY more complex than it appears, and we all need to keep this in mind.

So, hopefully we can all make super efforts to minimize any black and white thinking. And if our first reaction to that statement is, "Yeah So-And-So, stop with the B&W thinking!" then that especially means we need to look inside ourselves and at our own thought patterns first.

 

[Joe]

Wu Wei Wu, I think you would save your energy by not attempting to communicate with Niall and Joe about China. They are not interested in learning; they are only interested in defending their opinions and they do not allow for the possibility that their opinions are wrong. Trying to communicate with them about China is just an energy sink for you and anyone else who does not agree with them.

The only goal that Niall and Joe are interested in is the complete destruction of the American Israeli Empire. In service of that goal, they do not care how many people the Chinese Communist Party kills. If tomorrow the CCP nuked Washington, Jerusalem, London, Taipei, and Tokyo, they would support the CCP because that advances their macro cosmic goal.

hlat, it seems to me that we're trying to have a reasonable discussion here, and we're doing well so far. So it would be appreciated if you would not attempt to 'sour the milk' for others because of your own bias. Maybe something else is bothering you, causing you to act out in this way? If so, maybe you could bring it up and ask for feedback on a separate topic. Thanks.

 

[Niall]

Which came first; the military tech, or some predisposition to develop and use military tech (and on a whole other level)?

My suggestion is I think that the predisposition to conquest may be there in humanity in general. The predisposition for conquest was exhibited by the Mongols in the 13th century, who were the dominant military power at the time, and subjugated China and Tibet. If the Mongols had had aircraft carriers instead of horses, they might have extended their empire building to the tip of South America?

It's an interesting question.

The Mongols are a bit of an open question for me: they have little written history, so we don't at least know their rationale - their 'civilizing mission' - for why they did what they did. They've come down to us as Evil with a capital E, based almost exclusively on what others said about them.

I'm aware that Soviet Eurasianists like George Vernadsky put out a 'revisionist' history of the Mongols, but I haven't yet found much about it in English. The Eurasianist thing goes something like this: an army on horseback from Mongolia could only have conquered the entire world island - including regional powers that were far more advanced than they - if they had at least some positive qualities that other peoples acquiesced to. Look at the world map today: the reason why there are vast (size-wise) nation-states in Eurasia, say the Eurasianists, is because of Mongol success in uniting many ethnicities under one centralized state. Physical force alone would not have sufficed to bind them together. The overall Mongol Empire didn't last long, but - say the Eurasianists - the vast sizes of Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China today are a legacy of that empire.

It's curious to me that it again seems to come down to the uniting influence of one man: Ghengis Khan. Think Caesar, Putin, etc.

Separately, I read elsewhere that once central Asia was unified under Mongol rule, east-west trade expanded to a whole other level because banditry was kept in check for the first time in a long time, so that is possibly evidence of a 'civilizing influence', in conflict with the notion of a marauding 'horde' (a term that was not always pejorative).

But then came the mid-14th century Black Death and that was all she wrote. It's almost as if, right on the cusp of major east-west trade, integration, and stability, something intervened to wreck the chessboard (again?).

 

[luc]

I just want to say something general here.
It is very easy to get caught up in "Country X is Satan, Country Y is not". That's totally not the point.

I agree Scottie. I think one of the reasons for this heated discussion is that there has been an ongoing meme in the Western discourse about China, going on for years: that the Chinese, as a people, are obsessed with being at the center of the world, and thus are planning to conquer the whole world. This meme is spread not in the form of a historical study, but instead makes us think that there's something wrong with the Chinese psyche as such. As in: these strange people, with their strange culture, are obsessed with Chinese grandiosity and will one day totally invade us and force us to accept their leadership and culture. I remember having picked up and believed in this meme in the past, even though I never was much interested in China. Interesting.

Of course, this meme is an example of extreme black and white thinking, plays with our fears, and totally ignores the complexity of human life on earth. And it is an example of ponerized thinking and the spreading of absurd, anti-common-sense ideas that infect our minds, osit.

For example, even though it's a fact that today, the US/West is the worst and most evil empire on earth, we are not talking about the American people as such being evil or driven to dominate the world. We don't say "oh, the US is evil incarnate and always has been, the people there see the quest for building an evil empire as their prime motivation" or something like that. Instead, we acknowledge the fact that they are the most evil and brutal empire in the world now (by far), but we also analyze how this came about, how there were different policies involved that led to this mess, how there were good people and forces at work who tried to prevent this, how the different factions and clans interact and compete, how the different systems are set up (financial, military, secret services etc.), and most importantly how this relates to psychopathy and the process described in Political Ponerology.

So why not do the same for China? Then the question is not - are the Chinese evil conquerors by definition or not, or who has the most horrible history, but rather - what's going on there exactly? If Mao was bad, what about those in charge now? How do they deal with their chilling history/heritage of the "Cultural Revolution"? What factions are competing? Who has shown signs of being a psychopath, who has shown signs of empathy and a desire to ameliorate the situation for the people? What are the ideologies of the different groups? What do the common people think and want - the middle class, the business men, the factory workers, the farmers...? Etc.

My 2 cents, fwiw

 

[sitting]

I think one general idea that emerged in the "Pro-China Bias?" thread is that the China of today is a very different place to China under Mao, and that on balance the China of today is having a net positive effect in the world.

Thank you!

I believe that in a nutshell describes the reality of today.

Rather then diverting attention to The Art of War (and other ancient classics,) it might be more productive to look into the writings of John Naisbitt instead. It's an incisive, comprehensive, running assessment of China's rise in the world. Both positive & negative aspects.

Interesting to note that the C's indicated early on in the sessions -- that they were in direct contact with Naisbitt. I take that to mean he received inspired "guidance" ... from the very beginning of his investigative journey.

That counts for something -- in my opinion. And is indicative of the C's early interest, in the emergence of the still water that runs deep.

I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Niall]
I'm aware that Soviet Eurasianists like George Vernadsky put out a 'revisionist' history of the Mongols, but I haven't yet found much about it in English. The Eurasianist thing goes something like this: an army on horseback from Mongolia could only have conquered the entire world island - including regional powers that were far more advanced than they - if they had at least some positive qualities that other peoples acquiesced to. Look at the world map today: the reason why there are vast (size-wise) nation-states in Eurasia, say the Eurasianists, is because of Mongol success in uniting many ethnicities under one centralized state. Physical force alone would not have sufficed to bind them together. The overall Mongol Empire didn't last long, but - say the Eurasianists - the vast sizes of Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China today are a legacy of that empire.

It's curious to me that it again seems to come down to the uniting influence of one man: Ghengis Khan. Think Caesar, Putin, etc.

Separately, I read elsewhere that once central Asia was unified under Mongol rule, east-west trade expanded to a whole other level because banditry was kept in check for the first time in a long time, so that is possibly evidence of a 'civilizing influence', in conflict with the notion of a marauding 'horde' (a term that was not always pejorative).
[/quote]

When any imperialistic expansion or conquest takes place, there is huge amounts of blood spilled. At the same time existing status quos are disturbed or even destroyed. Vacuums are created which are filled up by new actors. In the long run, things change. People are resilient and at times creative and find ways to adjust to the new status quo. And some times, some things improve compared to the pre-invasion past. The post-conquest policies do play a role in what happens in the aftermath.

History studies the big events like conquests for obvious reasons - they have more available data. And then, it may seem that the conquest is the the event that acted as the agent of "civilizing influence". The credit goes to the conqueror. But I doubt whether the conquerors in the past or present have collective and inclusive social improvements in mind when they launch their blood soaked expeditions. It is more likely about greed and blood lust.

For the countless people, including innocent civilians whose blood gets spilled in a conquest, it does not feel civilizing. Nor does it feel that way for those that survive, no matter how righteous the cause and how benevolent the conqueror. At the individual/family level, death and destruction does not feel different if it is for a global conquest or for regional expansion. One could argue that we are not talking about the moral dimension of war or conquests here and that is true. So this whole post is But sometimes listening to these discussions about who projected power more responsibly, in the past and present, it seems that the focus is more on the ends rather than the means. It becomes about choosing the lesser of the evils and then justifying the choice with preferred sources of data. OSIT

 

[Joe]

This topic is almost a 'redo' or a 2nd attempt at the 'Pro China Bias on Sott' topic, although it has, for the most part, involved much less black and white thinking. A similar problem has arisen however, in that the stance that Sott editors like myself and Niall take and why we take is, is not understood by some.

Sott.net primarily offers a look at the world and the forces that govern it from a broad, global or macrocosmic perspective. From that perspective, we hold that the Chinese government, in its recent alliance with Russia and other BRICS nations, is a positive development, and our articles and analysis generally promote that idea.

China, like Russia, is useful to those who seek to expose the main aggressor on the planet today - the anglo-American Empire - because Russian and Chinese interests run counter to the interests of the anglo-Americans and Russia and China are therefore engaged in efforts to expose the truth of the nature of the anglo-American empire builders.

In that respect our interests converge with those of Russia and China. In fighting that fight, we are not therefore going to publicly focus on Russian or Chinese abuses because it would, in effect, be aiding the primary enemy of humanity. More to the point, qualitatively and quantitatively, the historical (modern era) abuses and nefarious influence of the anglo-American empire significantly outweigh those of any other nation state or empire, past of present.

Note however, that this does not mean that we condone any specific abuses of any Russian or Chinese government, past or present. But recognition of those abuses cannot reasonably be parlayed into a characterization of the current Chinese or Russian governments as pretenders to the throne of global domination, "just like the anglo-Americans". At this point in history, that does not seem to be on the cards because there is not enough time before Western powers (along with the environment) destroy the entire system. What might happen if there WERE time, we will probably never know.

What we can say is that, in this 'go around' of the wheel of planetary fortune (i.e. the era of modern history) there is more than enough objective evidence to show that the anglo-American contingent should be awarded the top prize for having the most far-reaching destructive effects on the planet and its people. Anyone who does not know this does not know British and US history in nearly enough detail. Although a good general idea of their historical track record can be obtained from simply looking at what those two countries have done over the course of the past 15 years in the name of "freedom and democracy".

 

[Chu]

Wu Wei Wu, I think you would save your energy by not attempting to communicate with Niall and Joe about China. They are not interested in learning; they are only interested in defending their opinions and they do not allow for the possibility that their opinions are wrong. Trying to communicate with them about China is just an energy sink for you and anyone else who does not agree with them.

When we have such strong opinions about someone, it is always good to ask ourselves why. Some people may feel the same you wrote, but about you. In the end, we want to reach a level of communication that is NOT what you described (and actually displayed yourself). Maybe you could make an effort, as others are trying? Wouldn't you think it worth it a try at least?

There are many examples of the exact opposite of what you wrote, if you are ok with looking at them and not seeing everything so black. In the same token, I personally refuse to judge you and say something about you as drastic as what you wrote about others. I think it would be unfair to "label" you like that, even though I could pick on some instances where that judgement would seem to apply, and ignore all the other times where you did seem to want to learn. It's sad to be so "strict" in one's head. You miss out on a lot of nuances, and on the richness of each person, each interaction.

The only goal that Niall and Joe are interested in is the complete destruction of the American Israeli Empire. In service of that goal, they do not care how many people the Chinese Communist Party kills. If tomorrow the CCP nuked Washington, Jerusalem, London, Taipei, and Tokyo, they would support the CCP because that advances their macro cosmic goal.

That's paramoralistic. How can you come to the conclusion that Joe, Niall or anyone here would NOT care?

I understand that you are originally from Taiwan, hlat. And I cannot begin to imagine what you or people you cared about might have gone through. That has to be very tough. I have a very good Taiwanese friend who is in his early fourties, and who told me horrible stories about his youth. For him it's very hard to see anything good in the Chinese government too, even though once in a while he sees that what happened in the past doesn't need to color his perception of the present anymore.

What I'm trying to say is that whether you want it or not, your experiences probably created a big biais. Understandably so. But instead of accusing others, maybe you would benefit from sharing exactly how it felt for you, or what you went through. Or, if you don't want to share it, acknowledge it. Because in the end, any trauma such as that follows us through life until it's processed. It is only then that you can say, for example: "Well, I know I'm biased because [what happened to you], but I am trying to see your point too, and I understand what you're saying about the global picture". Or whatever. But you accusing someone of being biased when you yourself obviously are, is having double standards. And in the end, it makes for a sour and unproductive discussion. I am guessing that THAT is where the "energy sink" is. You have to meet other people half way. Instead of being all aggressive and resentful about it, it would be much more productive if you were direct, and honest, but taking into account your own hurts. People understand that. We would! Geez, many of us had things like what happened in Taiwan or worse happen to them. We even carry trauma from previous generations. So, you're not alone. But you're going about it the wrong way if you want to Work on yourself, and built real connections.

I hope this helps and that you don't do the usual when something is pointed out directly to you, i.e. go silent and stop interacting in that thread. I really hope you can take a step toward being more honest with yourself. Your "desperation" comes across often, and I think you mean to help, but your frustration spills over. It's a sad way to interact with a network that cares about you, and that you seem to care about, you know? I hope you think about it before writing more emotionally charged accusations like the above. It could be helpful to you and others! It is very likely that we would all learn something. And people here always want to learn. That's what brings us together. Otherwise, we would probably have left this forum. Some things are harder than others to acknowledge and be open about it, but maybe this is your chance? We'll be here if you want help along the process.

 

[Laura]

As far as I can see from a "bird's eye view", the only reason Taiwan is separate from China is because the psychopaths in power at the time of the Chinese communist revolution were determined to hang onto power and retreated to the island where they established a military dictatorship for a long time. Their main goal was to "re-capture" mainland China. So, you have a small group of elites on Taiwan pissing in the wind toward China and what do you expect to happen?

In the 80s and 90s, after losing UN recognition etc, Taiwan elites must have decided they needed to have good press, so they transformed themselves into a democracy. Their subsequent high tech development made them good players of the West's usual games.

Back in the early 90s I did some contract work for a Taiwanese shipping/airline company that was really trying to break into the global, i.e. Western market. Strange experience, to say the least; they had a real handle on the double-cross.

Anyway, Wikipedia tells us:

The complications of Taiwan's history since 1945 have bequeathed a number of unresolved issues to its citizens. Outstanding among these are the exact nature of Taiwanese national identity, the ambiguous international status of Taiwan, and the difficulty of maintaining relations with the PRC across the Taiwan Strait. Within Taiwanese society these issues generate debate among political parties and candidates. Though the ROC renounced in 1992 the conquest of PRC-controlled territories as a national goal,[13] the constitution still gives legal support to a claim of sovereignty over all of China's pre-1949 territories, including Outer Mongolia and the entirety of the present PRC.[14] In practical terms, settlement of questions such as whether the ROC identifies more as "Taiwan" or "China", and what the exact nature of its identity is relative to the PRC (whether international or domestic), rests with the political coalition most recently elected. Meanwhile, the PRC continues to assert that it represents the sole legal government of "China" and that Taiwan represents China's 23rd province. The stance denies Taiwan recognition as a sovereign state. The PRC has threatened the use of military force as a response to any formal declaration by Taiwan of national independence or to any decision by PRC leaders that peaceful annexation of Taiwan is no longer possible.

I think the Taiwanese elite really know how to keep their seats by manipulating and controlling their population and the sympathies of same. All the fighting that was done, killing so many innocent (or no-so-innocent) people was, as always, between the elites using the masses as their pawns. So people ought not to forget that, or that those elites have a vested interest in making everything look like the other guy's fault (and that goes for both sides.)

Probably the smartest thing the Taiwanese people could do right now would be to kick out their local elites and re-join China. When things start getting wild, they are gonna need somebody to take them in.

Same thing with Japan. They should be mending bridges in a big way.

 

[Eulenspiegel]

I think the Taiwanese elite really know how to keep their seats by manipulating and controlling their population and the sympathies of same. All the fighting that was done, killing so many innocent (or no-so-innocent) people was, as always, between the elites using the masses as their pawns. So people ought not to forget that, or that those elites have a vested interest in making everything look like the other guy's fault (and that goes for both sides.)

Probably the smartest thing the Taiwanese people could do right now would be to kick out their local elites and re-join China. When things start getting wild, they are gonna need somebody to take them in.

Same thing with Japan. They should be mending bridges in a big way.

I am half Taiwanese and mostly agree with your sentiments. Although both the CCP as well as the KMT in Taiwan were/are particularly bad at keeping up a good image among the population. Ma Yingjiu, the last president(KMT) said what was needed to get elected(no reunification, no independence, and no war, i.e. status quo) and then mostly focused on reunification efforts. Along with economic issues, that made him unpopular. The current president, Cai Yingwen will probably steer away from unification efforts.

My impression from living in Taiwan is that they have been heavily influenced by the US, the media is likely controlled by the US and they're basically in the same camp as Japan now(i.e. part of the Empire). I assume the same to be true for South Korea.

That just leaves China as a major player. I just hope that they won't sell out so easily as the other states did.

 

[Voyageur]

...In citing the Mongols, Caliphates and Ottomans, you're conflating regional dominance with what we have today - global hegemony, one center of power. As far as we know, there hasn't been anything like this since Atlantis.

When first reading the conversation (going backwards at first), immediately I thought of the Atlantis empire (as it has been discussed elsewhere and rightly mentioned in passing here above). In this respect, regional/nation atrocities in history and the now are well etched, and must be commensurate with higher degrees of psychopathy at the helm of these places. There is virtually no place in the world with immunity to periodic (or constant) badness delivered upon their people; China, Canada, France, Switzerland, it matters not. Without much problem, these conditions can pour forth by people researching and retelling, and are important and should be remembered.

This topic is almost a 'redo' or a 2nd attempt at the 'Pro China Bias on Sott' topic, although it has, for the most part, involved much less black and white thinking. A similar problem has arisen however, in that the stance that Sott editors like myself and Niall take and why we take is, is not understood by some.

Although this goes on to further describe the stance, going back to the Atlantis analogy, this seems to me the most serious (and "not understood by some") condition facing humanity; it's a historical repeating condition and is ripe with not only pathological leaders in politics, business and the military, it is an attractant for the masses that live under the empire's spell.

As such, hopefully this is not lost and it is why, at least for me, I see the focus as it is on SoTT to this patho-empire more than the nation/regional issues, although still of importance. The empire is the head of the body that is trying to engulf the world, the body is of importance, yet the head is ruinous for all of us trying to exist on this BBM, osit.

 

[Laura]

My impression from living in Taiwan is that they have been heavily influenced by the US, the media is likely controlled by the US and they're basically in the same camp as Japan now(i.e. part of the Empire). I assume the same to be true for South Korea.

Yup, all minions of the Beast.

US propaganda has been in place for a very long time, witness the selling of the genocide of the Native Americans. Same for Canada. People from elsewhere live there now because they almost virtually exterminated the original inhabitants.

 

[Mal7]

The Mongols are a bit of an open question for me: they have little written history, so we don't at least know their rationale - their 'civilizing mission' - for why they did what they did.

Perhaps this is a bit of a digression, but I find the following account of the meeting of the third Dalai Lama with the Mongolian ruler Altan Khan (1507-1582) interesting. The Altan Khan took on Buddhism as the kind of official state religion for Mongolia.

The title Dalai Lama was first used in the 16th century, and it was given by Altan Khan to the Tibetan lama Sonam Gyatso (1543-1588). "Dalai" is a Mongolian word meaning "Ocean", so Dalai Lama is a kind of honorific title meaning "Ocean of Wisdom" or "Ocean of Learning". Sonam Gyatso was actually the third Dalai Lama, but the previous two were given the same title retrospectively.

Altan Khan of the Tumat Mongols invited Sonam Gyatso to visit Mongolia; but the lama declined. A few years later, Altan Khan sent a large delegation with camels, horses, and provisions to Tibet, again asking Sonam Gyatso to visit him. This time the lama agreed. He left Drepung on the twenty-seventh day of the eleventh month of the Fire-Ox year (1577). He was escorted to the Dam region some ninety miles north of Lhasa by monks of the three great monasteries, representatives of the Nedong Gongma, and various nobles, who gave him a great farewell there.

As the party was about to leave the Dam region, one of the nobles, Sakyong Tashi Rapten, grasped the stirrup of Sonam Gyatso's horse and recited a verse, wishing long life to him. This verse, addressed to the lama as "The Holder of the Faith," became popular and important because of that incident.

Soon after leaving Dam, the party was caught in a blinding snow-storm, which reduced visibility to a few feet. Buffeted by icy winds, they were soon lost on a plateau, which showed no signs of human habitation. Water and grass were scarce and had to be stored on the backs of the camels and used sparingly. Frequently, they were deceived by mirages. Alll in all, it was one hundred and seventy days before Sonam Hyatso and his party saw civilization again.

In the summer of 1578, the party finally arrived at a Mongolian settlement at the outpost of Chahar. They found the Mongols living in felt tents and keeping cattle, goats, sheep, and horses. These tent-dwellers lived as nomads, eating meat, butter, milk and cheese, and drinking fermented mare's milk (kumiss), the national beverage. A reception party from Altan Khan met Sonam Gyatso at Chahar, and after a few more days of travel, he was welcomed by Altan Khan himself, along with a thousand cavalrymen. Together they journeyed on to the Mongol's capital. The Khan, like his subjects, lived in a tent, albeit a very sumptuous one.

Sonam Gyatso began a program of religion instruction for the Khan and his people and on one occasion preached in the open to the entire population. Altan Khan was converted to Buddhism. According to the Dngos-grub shing-rta, a biography of Sonam Gyatso, the Khan made the following proclamation sponsoring Buddhism:

We, Mongols, are powerful because our ancestral race originally descended from the sky, and [Ghenghis Khan] extended its empire even to China and Tibet.

The Buddhist religion first came to our country in earlier times, when we gave our patronage to Sakya Pandita. Later, we had an Emperor named Temur, during whose reign our people had no religion and our country degenerated; so that it seemed as though an ocean of blood had flooded the land.

Your visit to us has now helped the Buddhist religion to revive. Our relationship of patron and lama can be likened to that of the sun and the moon. The ocean of blood has become an ocean of milk.

The Tibetans, Chinese, and Mongols now living in this country should practice the Ten Principles of the Lord Buddha. Moreover, I am establishing, from this day forth, certain rules of behavior for the people of Mongolia.

Previously, when a Mongol died, his wife, personal servant, horses and livestock were also sacrificed. In the future, this is forbidden! The horses and animals of the deceased may be given by mutual consent to the lamas and monks in the monasteries; and the family, in return, may request the lamas to pray for the deceased. In the future, it is not permitted to sacrifice animals, wives, or servants for the benefit of the deceased. Those responsible for human sacrifices will be executed under the law, or will have their property confiscated. If a horse or any other animal is sacrificed, ten times the number of animals killed will be confiscated.

Any person who injures a monk or a lama will be severely punished. The practice of blood sacrifice to the onkon [image] of the deceased is forbidden in the future and such statues already in existence must be burned or destroyed. If we hear that such statues are being kept secretly, we will destroy the houses of those who have concealed them.

The people may instead keep the image of Yeshe Gonpo, a Tibetan deity, in their homes and may offer him milk and butter, instead of blood.

Every person should benefit his neighbors and not steal from his fellow men.

In short, those laws already existing in U-Tsang [central Tibet] will also be practiced in this country.

In return for his teachings, Sonam Gyatso received a number of presents, together with the title, "Dalai Lama." "Dalai" is Mongolian for "ocean" and connotes that the Lama's learning was as deep and as broad as an ocean. He was also given a seal inscribed with the title: Dorje Chang ("Holder of the Thunderbolt"). Sonam Gyatso then gave Altan Khan the title of "Religious King, Brahma of the Gods" and prophesied that within eighty years the descendants of the Khan would become the rulers of all Mongolia and China.

The open site where the Dalai Lama had preached and where titles and presents were exchanged now acquired a certain sanctity. The Dalai Lama proposed establishing a monastery there, and Altan Khan agreed to finance the project. The monastery was named Thegchen Chonkhor. Many Mongol tribal leaders and even some Chinese notables, hearing of the Dalai Lama's spiritual powers, invited him to their own regions. He visited some of these, including Lan-chou on the Chinese border. The Chinese asked him to use his influence with the Khan to prevent the Chahar tribes from invading Chinese territory and the Dalai Lama succeeded in bringing about a lessening of the conflict.

Tibetan sources relate that the Dalai Lama also accepted an invitation from the governor of the Chinese province of Ning-hsia. There, he began to preach to large numbers of people coming from eastern Turkestan, Mongolia, and neighbouring areas in China. At first, it was difficult for the people to follow him, as he spoke in Tibetan only; but the governor solved this problem by providing him with three interpreters. While at Ning-hsia, Sonam Gyatso received an envoy from the Chinese Emperor of the Ming court, who brought presents and an invitation to visit the Chinese capital; but Sonam Gyatso had to decline, as he had already agreed to visit the region of Kham in eastern Tibet.

In order to maintain the close relationship already established between the Dalai Lama and the Altan Khan, it was decided to set up a diplomatic office at Tongkhor, also known as Lusar, where representatives of both the Lama and the Khan would remain to channel intercourse. Tongkhor was about halfway between Lhasa and the outpost of Chahar in Mongolia.

- from Tibet: A Political History, by Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967. pp. 93-96.