Dad: “If you promise not to beat others up in the school, I’ll buy you a PS3.”
Son: “That’s blunt blackmailing!”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that 1, the son probably behaved violently in the school in the past; and 2, the son is not likely or willing to behave in the future.
Now look at the following conversation:
The French owner of the two pieces of Chinese treasure from the Forbidden City: “If China promise to respect the freedom and human rights of the Tibetans, I would consider giving them back to China.”
Some Chinese media (and probably the government): “This is blunt blackmailing!”
I have no idea why the Chinese government is ignoring logic recently, such as the Obama speech censorship issue. This reaction seems very much like a tacit admission to me. If China really strongly believes that it liberated Tibet and never violated or has no future intention to violate human rights and freedom in that so-called self-autonomous region, why does it call this blackmailing? If China did nothing wrong, then it has already met the requirement in this “contract.” China can happily say: “Deal! We have already met your requirement. Now hand them over.”
Calling it blackmailing simply proves that China did not or will not guarantee the freedom and human rights of the Tibetans.