[Disclaimer: I am no expert on Tibet and claim no special knowledge. I am posting this because I’m hoping readers will offer their opinions and maybe start a dialogue that will help people like me to straighten out what Tibet is really all about. Thanks.]
Way, way back in the old days, a reader emailed me her thoughts on Tibet and the (allegedly) false and closed-minded perception most Westerners have of it. After that, I came to learn her perceptions were similar to the way Chinese people view other controversial issues, such as One China/Taiwan (“Taiwan must reunite with its mother country”), Japanese war guilt (“they never truly apologized”) and Tiananmen Square (“it is terrible the students died, but in the end it was good that the CCP ended it as they did, as it was suffocating the country – and things soon got much better”).
The unanimity of their opinions on these issues is striking to a Westerner, because in our own countries there are so many verions of history and so many schools of thought interpreting these events. Just look at the current bloodbath in Iraq and the arguments raging about what it means, even about what is actually happening there!
Anyway, back to Tibet and the email I received. Here is what the reader wrote:
How much you know of that region? Have you ever been there? I met many Americans or westerners who have strong opinion on this topic. But once we started discussion, I found they barely know anything about the issue except Dalai Lama and a general impression of how much tibetan people are suffering from suppression. They don’t know before 1956 (?), tibet had slavery system. Most tibetans were slaves or peasants, owned by monks and aristocrats. They don’t realize that dalai lama was indeed an emperor living in a huge palace, serving as both political and religious leader, enjoying all the luxuries (he had a car disassembled into parts in order to get into Lahsa.) I believe if Dalai never left tibet, he might not allow girls to go to school even up to today.
Fewer people know that as early as 400 yrs ago, then 5th dalai came to beijing to see the mandarin empiror to receive an official title and subsede to central government… I figured it’s getting nowhere to argue with people without these basic knowledge. I’ve been to tibet myself. I’m sure the freedom of religious pratice is limited there. But I also saw the tremendous change the area has embraced. Ask an ordinary tibetan, would he/she choose modernity or primative living condition, you may have very dispersed answers.
This post got some of the hottest comments my site had seen to date, but unfortunately they were wiped out when I ported the site off of blogspot. Chinese readers mainly agreed. Expats commented that this was the usual word-for-word party line you’d hear from just about every Chinese citizen.
There’s certainly some truth to the email. Far from being a Shangri-La, Tibet was a rather primitive serfdom and a mighty nasty place for many of its citizens. The Chinese did bring development and modernization with their “liberation,” but for me, the jury is out on whether the people of Tibet see it as a good thing or a crime.
A new article on this subject from the Independent, however, moves me to think the invasion is more resented than appreciated (as most invasions are).
China is showing a smiling face to the world while brutally crushing Tibet – a police state where supporters of the Dalai Lama can be beaten to death.
“Look here, here is where they shot at His Holiness.” The Tibetan monk, pointed to two bullet holes in the ornate brass hinges on the front door of the exiled Dalai Lama’s summer palace.
On Chairman Mao’s orders, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army stormed the place 46 years ago. With bombs and bullets flying, the youthful Dalai Lama disguised himself as a Tibetan soldier, slipped outside and headed over the Himalayas into a life of peripatetic exile. His path was cleared by Mao, who ordered his army “not to obstruct the way”.
“The holes are a secret they don’t know about,” added the monk, pointing in the direction of a cluster of CCTV cameras behind which the Chinese State Security Bureau police were watching and listening.
Hidden from view by the heavy wooden door, the monk pulled out a pair of scapular medals. One contained the banned image of the Dalai Lama, the other the equally seditious photo of the Panchen Lama, the 16-year-old boy who most Tibetans see as second in line to the Dalai Lama. Today he is the world’s youngest political prisoner.
“If you see His Holiness,” he said, “tell him all Tibetans support him and the Panchen Lama. And tell the world how we hate the black hand of the Chinese.”
Then he was gone. Despite carefully financed restoration, the bullet holes remain, silent witnesses to the harsh reality of China’s rule over Tibet. Hopes that political freedom would blossom alongside China’s new affluence have proven illusory. Dissidents are still clubbed to death, executed or given long prison sentences.
When a European Union delegation visited the notorious prison of Drabchi some years ago, they encountered a demonstration by inmates. A group of Buddhist nuns shouted “Free Tibet” and “Long live the Dalai Lama” instead of the required patriotic songs at a flag-raising ceremony convened by the prison. The police beat the prisoners so severely afterwards that in the words of a survivor, “it looked like an abattoir. They beat us with their belts until their belts broke. Then they used electric batons.” After more torture including electric shocks, and sexual humiliation, four nuns died, reportedly after stuffing their mouths with their Buddhist katak scarves.
The four, Choekyi Wangmo and Tashi Lhamo, both aged 24, Dekyi Yangzom, 21, and Khedron Yonten, all died on the same day, more than a month after the demonstrations. Another nun reportedly hanged herself.
Although many Chinese and Tibetans now own mobile phones, three months passed before information about the protests reached the outside world. Prison officers and released prisoners were threatened with severe reprisals if they spoke about it. Today, the Chinese authorities still deny that anything happened.
….
It is starting to win the international respectability it craves. But during a five-day visit to the “Roof of the World” I found ample evidence that, if anything, China’s iron grip on Tibet is tightening. China is becoming a consumer paradise, but as the Communist ideology falls away, the Tibetans find themselves confronted by equally blind and aggressive Chinese nationalism. It is a creed that views Tibet’s dream of self-rule as a deadly threat to China’s integrity.In reality, with its tiny population of some 2.6 million native Tibetans, Tibet poses no threat to China’s one billion people. But the vast Tibetan Plateau, an eighth of China’s land mass, is seen by Beijing as a strategic buffer to the West and as a potential El Dorado in terms of unexploited mineral and energy resources.
The propaganda machine relentlessly pumps out the message that the Tibetan people are delighted to be part of the greater Chinese family. It is a sinister but successful policy, so much so that a series of man-in-the-street interviews produces nothing but platitudes in praise of China.
Man-in-the-street interviews on CCTV, full of platitudes and canned phrases? Who would have guessed?
It’s an immense article, and it offers a lot of surprising information, none of it very flattering to the CCP. 85 percent of Tibetans, it says, are worse off than they were, and have reaped none of the benefits of the great economic miracle.
I hope you can read it all, and let readers know whether you believe it’s on-target or off the wall, and why.
So interesting, how Westerners view Tibet one way, and Chinese see it as something altogether different. Like they are in two separate universes. I have always been suspicious of the Richard Gere-style “Free Tibet” movements, with their idolization of the Dalai Lama, who has certainly been romanticized ad absurdum. But I’m equally skeptical of the CCP’s claims that it was a liberation for which the Tibetans are eternally grateful.
So which is it?
1
By richard
Hating to comment on my own post, but looking over my site I just discovered another comment from a Chinese reader that was far different from the one cited in the post above:
Well said.
August 8, 2005 @ 7:42 pm | Comment
2
By Gordon
I posted the full article last night around 1:30am before going to bed, but moved it into the draft folder when I woke up around 4am to the sound of some moron blaring his horn below my window.
Anyway, I’m surprised this article is still accessible from behind the Great Firewall. I’ve always found it rather ironic that China uses the term “liberated” when referring to the founding of the PRC on Oct. 1 1949 and the invasion of Tibet.
Is this how they plan to liberate Taiwan too?
August 8, 2005 @ 7:52 pm | Comment
3
By steve
FYI. Believe what you will in Tibet. Another article from EU parliament member.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?eo20050731a1.htm
August 8, 2005 @ 7:52 pm | Comment
4
By richard
Steve, thanks, I am willing to consider all the evidence. I honestly don’t know. So is the description in the Indepentend article of the repression of the Buddhists false? It may be, I can’t say (yet).
August 8, 2005 @ 7:56 pm | Comment
5
By richard
And Steve, please use tinyurl.com for those long links. When you don’t, it means more work for me, and screwed-up margins for the other readers. Thanks.
August 8, 2005 @ 7:57 pm | Comment
6
By Conrad
So, as I understand it, China is entitled to control Tibet and repress Tibetan Bhuddism because:
Chairman Mao was also an “emperor”, who condemned all religion and had thousands of temples destroyed. He lived in palatial surroundings, tended to by cooks, attendants and physicians 24 hours a day, with a haram of young women always available for his sexual pleasure and was chauffered by luxuery car wherever he wanted to go.
Girls can go to school in China . . . provided that they have not being abandoned or aborted under China’s one-child policy.
As early a 600 years ago the Chinese emperor came to the Portugese and granted them possession of Macau in exchange for protection from pirates. Later Chinese emperors granted Westerners foreign possession of Hong Kong and Shanghai in exchange for various other advantages.
By the Richard’s writer’s logic, the CCP should be suppressed and Hong Kong, Macau and Shanghai still governed by Westerners.
Sounds good to me.
August 8, 2005 @ 8:22 pm | Comment
7
By richard
Conrad, just one word: Ouch!
Damn, I wish you were blogging again, even if you were always (always!) abysmally wrong about domestic US issues.
August 8, 2005 @ 8:27 pm | Comment
8
By James
Well, theocratic Tibet was not a nice place; it was monk-ridden (one-third of the population!), underdeveloped, and violent. It was not, however, a part of China. Its status as a tributary state derived from having been included in the Mongol conquests – eventually, of course, Mongolia converted to Tibetan Buddhism. The Qing reasserted a degree of authority, and attempted to control the selection of the Dalai Lama at points, but Tibet always had its own adminstration and government. Between 1720 and 1912 the Qing exerted a loose kind of control over Tibetan affairs, but by the twentieth century even the symbolic aspect of Chinese control had disappeared. (In fact, like Mongolia and Manchuria, it was more a property of the Manchu noble families than anything to do with ‘China’ as a nation-concept; always worth remembering that the Yuan and the Qing, on whose conquests most of the more dubious Chinese claims are based, weren’t Chinese.) China is no more entitled to Tibet than Britain is to India.
As for development, the Chinese destroyed over two-thirds of Tibet’s temples and monasteries in the Cultural Revolution, and starved a million Tibetans to death during the Great Leap Forward (by forcing them to switch away from their traditional crops.) They attemped to systematically wipe out Tibetan culture and religion, a policy now dropped, but hugely destructive in its effects. The economic growth fostered in the 1970s and 80s does not compensate for this, especially since accompanying it has been massive waves of Han settlement designed to outnumber the Tibetans and ensure that any chance of independence is destroyed.
I’ve found, in practice, that most Chinese – with the exception of the normal internet apologists – are a little embarassed about Tibet; the culture and the people are so blatantly un-Chinese (and there’s plenty of Chinese mystification about secret Tibet, like in the West) that the claims are obviously ridiculous. Certainly people aren’t as kneejerk about it as Taiwan.
For further reading, DRAGON IN THE LAND OF SNOWS is the standard historical work, but it’s very dry and not terribly well written. I would read Maraini’s wonderful, humane SECRET TIBET (about a visit made in the 1930s) and Patrick French’s TIBET, TIBET (not as good as his other books, but strong on the relationship with China). Gouillart’s FORGOTTEN KINGDOM, about running microfinance programs for the Guomingdang in the 1940s on the Yunnan-Tibet border, is one of the best books about normal, pre-Communist life in the region.
August 8, 2005 @ 8:42 pm | Comment
9
By LW
Why nobody raised the issue whether Tibet is part of China or an independent country before 1950. It was shown on the maps (including maps published in US) as a province of China even then.
August 8, 2005 @ 8:43 pm | Comment
10
By steve
“So is the description in the Indepentend article of the repression of the Buddhists false? It may be, I can’t say (yet).”
The key question is whether a religion has to have a political goal. If people just want to worship God, no matter what religion, CCP tolerate most religion.
However, if the political goal of a religion is to threaten CCP power, CCP does suppress the religion.
If a muslin’s religion calls for jihad against US government, will FBI respond? US will crush that movement for sure. In that sense, US is really not much different from CCP.
I guess you will argue US government is elected and question the legitimacy of CCP power. You can argue that away. But the essence of the issue is the same.
August 8, 2005 @ 8:43 pm | Comment
11
By richard
Thanks James, great comment.
August 8, 2005 @ 8:47 pm | Comment
12
By richard
Steve, I think you are on ver shaky ground. Do the Tibetan Buddhists really compare to Moslem priests threatening jihad against the US? The CCP definitely represses and controls Christianity, althought the Catholics have never sworn a jihad against the CCP — have they?
August 8, 2005 @ 8:52 pm | Comment
13
By richard
LW, on whose maps?
August 8, 2005 @ 8:53 pm | Comment
14
By LW
Here is again a map published in 1901 foe sale on eBay. see link.
It is published by either Britain or America. If you checked all the maps published by repectable map publishers in US in 1930s, 1940s or earlier, ypu will find that Tibet was treated as province of China.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:02 pm | Comment
15
By LW
Sorry for the typos above. I hit the Post button before any checking.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:05 pm | Comment
16
By richard
Don’t worry about typos.
Interesting, about the maps, but I’m not sure that settles anything.
Today’s maps show Taiwan as totally separate from China, so I guess they must be separate countries, forever. No?
August 8, 2005 @ 9:07 pm | Comment
17
By LW
In fact the Tibet issue was not much an issue even in 1960s to 1980s. It became very hot issue only after the cold war.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:07 pm | Comment
18
By richard
The cold war started in the late 40’s or early 50s, and ended in the very late 80s (or in 1991, depending on how you see it).
August 8, 2005 @ 9:09 pm | Comment
19
By dylan
Forgive me for questioning your historical accuracy LW, but as a CPC shill you of all people would know that the CIA funded and directed Tibetan separatists fighting against Chinese rule during these years. Could it be that the US did not accept Chinese occupation of Tibet?
August 8, 2005 @ 9:11 pm | Comment
20
By LW
Tibet issue became hot only since early 1990s.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:12 pm | Comment
21
By richard
Bullshit LW. We’ve been hearing about Tibet as a hot issue for decades.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:13 pm | Comment
22
By LW
I am sorry, Dylan. What is your question got to the statement I made about the maps published in 1930s. and 1904s? I don’t see any problem with historical accuracy here regarding the old maps. If you want to know if my statement had anything to do with Tibet seperatists or CIA. the answer is NO.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:18 pm | Comment
23
By Conrad
blockquote>“CCP tolerate most religion”According to the official Rules for Monks and Nuns issued by the municipal government in Lhasa and included in the report, “implanting religious ideas in the heads of minors younger than 16 must be stringently prevented.”
Another included item, a translated Communist Party document from 2002, said Tibetans could not legally begin religious education before they turn 18.
This point is especially important to Buddhists, Ackerly said, because the earlier a monk begins his education, the more knowledge is passed down from generation to generation. “There’s no way for a Tibetan to really start a religious education at 18 and achieve the higher level of religious training,”
And:
And, the following Roman Catholic Bishops are in prison or labor camps:
The following Roman Catholic Bishops are under house arrest:
I won’t clutter up Richard’s comments with the names of the hundreds of mere priests who are in Chinese prisions and labor camps.
But let’s not forget the Protestants:
And:
One can fill pages with this stuff.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:22 pm | Comment
24
By kevin
The question “How much you know of that region? Have you ever been there?” usually really gets on my nerves on the Tibet topic. Because I’ve never met a Chinese person who asked me that who had actually been to Tibet themselves! So next time somebody says that, just respond “and you?”
Maybe not many of us have been there, but I’ve at least heard both sides of the stories (unlike some Chinese counterparts), and I tend to lean towards the fact that Chinese interference is not greatly appreciated amongst the Tibetan people. If it was appreciated, then what’s with all the caution and suppression that goes on?
August 8, 2005 @ 9:22 pm | Comment
25
By LW
Richard, could you find any article published in US before 1950 questioning whether Tibet is part of China or not. Any in 1960s or 1970s? But look at now? it is everywhere. It is pet issue of China related blogs, forums. It is a TV documentary on PBS. And so on.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:27 pm | Comment
26
By Keir
China controls Tibet through fear and repression while forcing them to be taught in Mandarin only as the state adds yet more incentives for Han to overrun the place. Oh, and the people they are cracking down are Buddhists. Hard to think of an easier target. Does that answer your question about the morality of the Chinese occupation?
I spent two months last year making a movie in Tibet about the British Invasion of 1904 (which is finally coming out this month or September on CCTV-6 first I think). Funnily enough,it was during this period the Tibetans signed ther first international treaty as the Dalai Llama fled not to the Chinese but Mongolia, points the Chinese omit. We were laughing because the message the movie had about us evil Brits could be placed on the imperialist Chinese to a T. I’m writing a book about the experience (well, trying). The morale? After my best pal refuses to respond to my letters since that day we slaughtered all his people, we meet up 40 year later. He tells me “War is sometimes a good thing. Before it made us enemies. Now we are allies against the Japs.” It’s the same message I see in the military museum here in Beijing when parents take their children to play around the antiaircraft gun.
By the way, I have an appeal: I collect flags and can’t seem to find any anywhere here. I paid 30 RMB for a huge communist youth flag and an old colonial Hong Kong flag (both hanging in my classroom) but does anyone know where I can get others such as Tibetan, Taiwanese (neither will go up in my class), Japanese occupation, etc.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:28 pm | Comment
27
By richard
LW, what about my point about the maps that show Taiwan is NOT part of China?
Conrad, you go, lawyer!
Kevin, you’re being way too reasonable.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:28 pm | Comment
28
By lirelou
Actually, wasn’t the “we only invade and take them over for their own good” argument the very foundation of colonialism? Without walking the streets of Lhasa, I’ll never really know, but I would be willing to bet that there are at least three trains of thought among Tibetans today. Those who support Tibet as a part of China. Those who would like to see an autonomous Tibet which maintains some form of relationship with China, and those who want complete independence. In any event, we can expect that future Tibetans will look back upon the halcyon days of their tutelage by China with the same nostalgia that Koreans reserve for the Japanese colonial period.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:32 pm | Comment
29
By LW
You are right. Taiwan was part of Japan then. But that did make my statement “Tibet was shown as part of China in maps published before 1950 and nobody raised an issue then” false.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:36 pm | Comment
30
By richard
Dylan was right, LW – you are a shill for the CCP.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:36 pm | Comment
31
By steve
“”implanting religious ideas in the heads of minors younger than 16 must be stringently prevented.” ”
Please remember religion is essentially a type of brainwash.
Religion is mostly against science, from early day’s earth as universe center to today’s debate on God’s creation of human.
You can argue the education of science is also a brainwash. But one key difference between science and religion is that, science can make prediction and verify. Religion can’t.
After people grow up, if they still choose to seek comfort from religion, so be it. But it is not fair for children to get brainwashed beofre they even have a chance to decide.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:39 pm | Comment
32
By LW
Well, if you choose to response like this, what I can say.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:39 pm | Comment
33
By Fat Cat
I’m adding to James’s list of readings on Tibet a book called “A Poisoned Arrow: the Secret Report of the 10th Panchen Lama” published by TIN in 1998. The book contains an English translation of the famous 70,000-Character Petition by the 10th Panchen Lama. The petition was presented to Zhou Enlai in 1962. It was a testimony of how Tibetans negotiated their ethnic identity and religious rights through direct dialogue with the Chinese leadership. In his desperate attempt to maintain a delicate balance between negotiation and confrontation, the 10th Panchen Lama argued strongly against wrong policies imposed by the Chinese government on Tibetans. He also openly criticised several CCP campaigns and their devastating impact on religious freedom and culture heritage of Tibetan people. The circulation of the petition eventually led to the arrest and 10-year house arrest of the Panchen Lama. The Panchen Lama died in 1989 at the age of 50. There were controversies over the circumstances of his death. But apparently no public investigation had been conducted. I believe that you can access both Chinese and English versions of the book on the web.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:39 pm | Comment
34
By kevin
Sorry steve, but if you wanna see brainwash, I would recommend attending a Chinese school or reading the Chinese media. Now that’s what I call brainwashing! I would highly recommend that such activities be avoided until one is at least 21 years old.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:45 pm | Comment
35
By Keir
Sorry, but did anyone mention yesterday’s Independent article “Fear on the roof of the world: How China haunts Tibet” at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article304415.ece?
August 8, 2005 @ 9:47 pm | Comment
36
By richard
LW, I said it because of this comment of yours:
You are either shilling or a birdbrain. It’s only “everywhere” now because there was no “everywhere” until the advent of the Internet. Of course I can come up with zillions of blog posts and commentaries from trhe 1990s and none from the 1950s — because there wasn’t an Internet and there were no blogs in the 1950s. Almost definitely a shill.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:51 pm | Comment
37
By richard
Steve:
Are you saying parents who teach their children religion are guilty of brainwashing? What about teaching them basic morals (like not killing the family puppy)? Is that brainwashing?
I was taught religion as a child and was never brainwashed.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:55 pm | Comment
38
By JFS
I usually prefer not to comment on such political issues because of the partisan nature of the debate, but I will add some of my own thoughts. When I see historical comments about Tibet, I think that the commenter is using the history for some type of legal justification for either the incorporation of Tibet into China or the disincorporation of Tibet, the specific direction depending what events one considers significant and what events one dismisses as not relevant. (See your first post and Jame’s post above). I do not disparage the history, I think it helps put into context what is and how it came about; but it neither justifies nor nullifies the current situation.
The comment about 85% of the Tibetans being worse off poses some difficulty for me. If the comment was that 85% of the Tibetans living today are worse off than their forbears before 1952, then I would question that assertion. Traditional Tibetan society was very harsh and difficult for most people. If it means that 85% of Tibetans today are worse off than the mean of Han Chinese (that is, those Han living in Tibet), then I think may very well be true. That would be true on several counts, bias and prejudice for one, the inability of the Tibetans to modify their skill sets to changing dynamics of division of labor (in other words, the Tibetans would tend to retain skill sets that are no longer demanded in the new social-economic conditions of today.
I recall seeing in the USA a television program about Tibet and the program interviewed some Tibetan youths. They were not pro-Tibetan at all. They spoke Chinese, so I suspect that Tibetan society, as all societies, is rather complex and the same individuals will be for one thing and against another think, making it difficult to pigeonhole everyone into a specific category.
With the recent agreement between India and China, it appears that any opportunity a changed political condition for Tibet is no longer in the cards. The world can change, but right now I think the practical aspects of the situation is just that, Tibet is a part of China and will remain as such.
August 8, 2005 @ 9:55 pm | Comment
39
By Conrad
So which is it Steve?
Does China “tolerate religious freedom” or does China prohibit religious instruction as a form of brainwashing?
Actually, if the CCP wants to protect young people from indoctrination with ideas that are demonstrably false and unscientific, they should ban the teaching of communism.
Believe me, its not religious institutions that are currently filling the minds of China’s youth with stupid nonsense.
BTW, speaking of religious freedom in China WHERE IS GEDHUN CHOEKYI NYIMA?
August 8, 2005 @ 10:00 pm | Comment
40
By richard
Keir, the Independent article is featured midway down in my post. It’s the main topic of the post.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:02 pm | Comment
41
By richard
Fear not, Conrad; the CCP assures us the Panchen Lama is living in great comfort with his family in an ideal though secret setting. He has all his wants taken care of and is deliriously happy!
They also assured us SARS had been eradicated from China in January 2003.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:07 pm | Comment
42
By steve
Are you saying parents who teach their children religion are guilty of brainwashing? What about teaching them basic morals (like not killing the family puppy)? Is that brainwashing?
Morals is not against science. But religion is mostly against science. Therefore there is no comparison.
I have dated a girl who is very religious. I have attended several Bible study. I can tell you this. The ritual of Bible study is almost identical to the old days of studying Mao’s work. It is a total brainwashing.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:08 pm | Comment
43
By richard
Steve, it depends on how it’s taught. It was taught to me as a lesson in morality, and not to be taken literally. I despise fundementalism of any sort, where blind belief is placed above science and fact. But most Christians are not brought up this way, and the greatest minds of the enlightenment were all Christians, as were our founding fathers, all of whom were strong believers in science. You cannot make blanket statements about Christianity, because there is more than one “Christianity.”
August 8, 2005 @ 10:14 pm | Comment
44
By steve
“if the CCP wants to protect young people from indoctrination with ideas that are demonstrably false and unscientific, they should ban the teaching of communism.”
Well, I can tell you this. After studying Marx’s theory, I conclude it is flawed. But it is based on logic. Marx does present a reasonable argument in a logic approach. I can argue against it in a logic way.
Keep this in mind. Today, Marx is still ranked as top 10 thinker in Britain. Marx does not reject science. Instead, he wholeheartedly embrace science.
Religion is not based on logic, from Virgin birth to creation. It has been against science until today.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:18 pm | Comment
45
By Fat Cat
Steve, I find your reaction to Tibet very typical of most of my friends from China, particularly when we talk about the religious belief of national minorities in China. So are you also going to suggest that the Tibetans are backward, lazy and superstitious, and that the presence of Han Chinese (in huge number) in Tibet as well as the Chinese government’s economic development policies saved Tibetans from poverty and ignorance? Haleluja! What a religious person you are…..completely brainwashed by communist doctrines.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:20 pm | Comment
46
By richard
Steve, again you are talking as though there is only one Religion. Most churches acknowledge evolution and science. It is actually a minority that espouse Creationism and lack of belief in science. Unfortunately, they have a lot of clout in America under Bush, and the fact that he would favor teaching the blatant lie of Intelligent Design makes me sick. But again, most religions reject such a philosophy, which is embraced by Evangelicals and fundamentalists only.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:23 pm | Comment
47
By Conrad
Steve, shagging a Christian girl and pitching up at a couple of Bible studies in order to get in her knickers no more makes you an authority on Christianity than the fact that I’ve screwed several dozen Muslim lasses and attended Mosque a few times makes me a Wahabbi.
But I will return to my central question does China allow religious freedom or does it ban teaching religion to prevent undesirable brainwashing? You can’t have it both ways. Only one can be true. So, where you talking out of your ass the first time or the second?
August 8, 2005 @ 10:40 pm | Comment
48
By LW
JFS said: “When I see historical comments about Tibet, I think that the commenter is using the history for some type of legal justification for either the incorporation of Tibet into China or the disincorporation of Tibet…”
I would just like to point out that when I made the statement “Tibet was shown as part of China in the maps published before 1950 and it was not an issue then”, I have no intention to justify anything, either Tibet should be independent now or not.
I was just pointing out a fact that I felt curious about. Based on my studies on this subject, for the maps published (ncluding the ones in US) before 1950, Tibet was shown as part of China. Also I found that there weren’t any activists or politician fighting for Tibet independence then, not even in 60s and 70s. But now, there are plenty activists. You can see fro participates here.
It my statement regarding maps an argument that Tibet should be independent or not? Not necessarily so. It is just some curious facts about some people’s behaviors that I observed. It is also very funny to see what kind of response that I got from all the righteous people here too.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:44 pm | Comment
49
By Ivan
Dear TPD,
I just wanted to take a moment off from spinning in my grave, and say hello. AGGHH! I can’t stop spinning!
Sincerely yours,
Karl Marx
August 8, 2005 @ 10:46 pm | Comment
50
By David Mercer
I’d like to first address jfs’ comment above:
Well golly gee, what do you think they’d be speaking when Chinese is all that’s been taught at school for decades? No ordinary person in Tibet spoke Chinese before the ‘liberation’!
I have known quite a few llamas in the US who had fled Tibet. Anyone else here know any? If you did, you’d realize that they are the most peaceful people you are likely to meet.
And as for the level of ‘brainwashing’ involved in Vajrayana Buddhism (the form practiced in Tibet), know what the inscription over the main entrance to the Potala, the ‘palace’ the Dalai Llama used to live in is? It’s literal English translation is “A thousand monks, a thousand different religions.”
Doesn’t sound very much like something that’d come out of a brainwashing heavy tradition, like the CCP or fundie Christianity, does it?
August 8, 2005 @ 10:47 pm | Comment
51
By richard
LW, sorry if we jumped on you, but the way you expressed it sure made it sound like yoiu were saying, “Look, maps show Tibet was part of China, so the case is closed.”
August 8, 2005 @ 10:47 pm | Comment
52
By steve
Conrad,
I am not claiming to be any authority. I am simply telling you my observation.
“I will return to my central question does China allow religious freedom or does it ban teaching religion to prevent undesirable brainwashing?”
Conrad, please visit Beijing and many other cities. Lots of Chinese are attending churches. No harrassment. Are you denying that?
You will probably pull out your long list of jailed christian. I do not know the details. But in China countryside, many people use religion to indoctrinate people. CCP local officials may indeed wrongly jailed someone. But at least in big city, religious freedom is there to be verified.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:48 pm | Comment
53
By richard
Yes, there are churches in China, and there’s been some improvement (and also a lot of setbacks). But the government is so schizoid, it has to be certain the churches owe their ultimate allegiance to the partry, not to some other organization like the Vatican. I guess we can call it religious freedom with Chinese characteristics.
Hell, you can’t even start a fishing club without having the CCP involved, let alone run a religion. Ask the Falun Gong.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:52 pm | Comment
54
By JFS
Ben, you have me puzzled. I am not sure what was snide, nor what was all knowing, nor what was condescending. For instance, James is well read, I am impressed. But I do not think he is more all knowing than I nor I more all knowing than he. The value, in my opinion, of this discourse is that we can make our own imput not being required to march to the same beat as everyone else or anyone else.
To change the topic, I think Steve is correct in that the indoctrination of Chrisitans is analogous to that of Mao Zedong study. It is, but they did not get it from Mao, nor did Mao get it from them. It is an ancient means of teaching. Nothing partiuclarly wrong with it. The secret here in America is that one can change his doctrinal beliefs to fit his own thinking, no matter what his indoctrination was when he (or she) was young.
I also find nothing harmful in people choosing what they wish to believe, even if it is fundamentalism of one sort or another. One can believe in full, in part; one can disbelieve in full or in part; one can choose any doctrinal belief one wishes, there is no harm at all to others unless there is a concerted effort to forcefully make all others join the same collectiviation of society.
August 8, 2005 @ 10:58 pm | Comment
55
By James
As it happens, I possess British maps from the 1920s and the 1890s, both of which clearly show Tibet as a seperate country. They were also, of course, making their own foreign policy deals with the British and the Japanese during the interwar period and had their own (British-armed and trained, sometimes) army.
There weren’t any articles questioning whether Tibet was part of China BECAUSE CHINA HADN’T TAKEN IT OVER BEFORE THAT PERIOD. It’s like saying ‘The Chinese are always complaining about the Japanese invasion, but can you find any complaints about it in the 19th century?’ (And, as I mentioned before, even the largely symbolic control exerted by the Qing had gone by 1912) Every interwar traveller’s, commentator’s, or politician’s book I’ve read treats it as a seperate country, and it was widely regarded as a seperate country from the first times it came to international attention.
J.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:02 pm | Comment
56
By GWBH
A quick question: In Chinese Tibet is called Xi Zang. Xi means West and Zang refers to the region, people, etc. My question is, and experts I know ( I.e., people in my line of sight that I thought to ask) couldn’t answer is: Where is Dong Zang?
Just a question.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:07 pm | Comment
57
By steve
“the churches owe their ultimate allegiance to the partry,”
Well, that does not mean it has to toe CCP line. It is just mean, the church should not provoke political action against CCP.
The key question is still whether church has to have a political goal.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:08 pm | Comment
58
By LW
James,
How does you explain the old maps for sale on eBay? They show Tibet as part of China.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:11 pm | Comment
59
By James
Steve, your comments on ‘threatening CCP power’ are bollocks on several levels.
First of all, does calling for resistance against an invading power justify widespread oppression and murder? If so, were the Japanese justified in killing Chinese intellectuals who called for anti-Japan resistance?
Secondly, oppression went far beyond any political role; monks who had nothing to do with politics were murdered and their monasteries closed. This is common under Communist regimes; the same thing happened in Mongolia and in Tibet. The same thing was happening to Daoist and Buddhist temples in China, of course.
Thirdly, your view on religion is so childish and simplistic as to be laughable. Yes, in a strict sense religion is irrational – but so are love and laughter. Religion has also given the world most (historically speaking) of its great art, music, and poetry, as well as inspired critical ethical thinking and acted as one of the most potent critiques of oppressive societies from Roman times till now. (It’s also been used to justify oppression, mind.) You look to Marx – religion may be the opium of the people, but do you know that Marx – a great journalist and writer if a critically flawed analyst – also had the wit to see that it was ‘the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.’ (And if we’re judging on practical results, religion beats Marxism every time.)
I’m sorry you’ve seen the worst side of religious indoctrination, but to claim that that’s all there is to it speaks only to your blindness. For one thing, many traditions of critical thinking and analysis have been nurtured by religion; the Jewish study of the Talmud, for instance. I’m an atheist, but I would never deny the great good (mixed with a hearty helping of evil at various points, mind) that religion has brought to the world. Consider, too, how ‘reason’ and ‘science’ have been abused as often as ‘religion’ in the last two centuries; blacks with ‘smaller cranial capacities,’ the Jew as a poison of the national body, the Russian peasant as ‘holding back the course of history.’
Gouillart is very good on how, in the name of Marxist ‘reason’ the CCP shattered the community in which he was living, destroying the social and religious binds that had built over generations, smashing art, and leaving it a sad, lifeless place – and, of course, murdering those who wouldn’t bend to ‘reason.’
August 8, 2005 @ 11:16 pm | Comment
60
By Conrad
Steve:
I’ve visited Beijing many times. Shanghai too. Even attended Church there. Unfortunately, it was impossible for me to practice my religion, Roman Catholicism, while I was there. Catholic practice requires that I take the Eucharist. Because China bans real Roman Catholic churches and only properly consecrated priests can offer the eucharist, I was unable to practice this essential part of my faith while in China, unless I was willing to break the law by going to an illegal underground church.
So, yes, I’ve been to China’s cities and it was impossible for me to practice my religion, without breaking the law, while I was there.
I have traveled over most of the world and the only other country where I have ever had this experience is in Saudi Arabia.
As for your assertion that religious persecution is limited to the Chinese countryside, that is yet another demonstrable lie:
Pei Zhongxun a 76-year-old Protestant leader from Shanghai was arrested for counter-r evolutionary activities. Accused of distributing Bibles and other Christian literature, he was charged with “counter-revolutionary crimes,” and sentenced to 15 years of imprison-ment. He is reportedly imprisoned in Shanghai Prison No. 2. His family is permit-ted to visit him for half an hour each month.
Again, the examples are nearly endless.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:21 pm | Comment
61
By James
Incidentally, claiming that religion has always been ‘against science’ – well, let’s consider St. Augustine of Hippo, mainstay of the Catholic church, who wrote in the early 5th century that God had created the seeds of living things in the Creation, but that they evolved over time to their present forms, that the six days of creation were not to be considered as literal units of time, etc, etc. Also, of course, the pivotal role of Christian and Muslim institutions in nurturing and preserving the infant sciences during the Dark Ages (the myth of religious oppression of science largely comes from the projection of 17th-19th century Catholic attitudes – a disgrace in themselves – back in time)
August 8, 2005 @ 11:21 pm | Comment
62
By kevin
I’ve got a feeling LW is a promoter for eBay. He sure likes them maps!
August 8, 2005 @ 11:26 pm | Comment
63
By Ivan
Dear TPD,
You’ll all have to excuse me for a few years. I’ve been arrested by the PSB and taken to a re-education camp.
Sincerely yours,
God
August 8, 2005 @ 11:26 pm | Comment
64
By James
Well, LW, not all mapmakers were particularly well informed about the state of political affairs in the region. Before 1912, there was something of a case for depicting Tibet as a Chinese province – although, as I mentioned before, it was never administered as one, but as a tributary state owing allegiance to the Qing rather than ‘China.’ The maps I own were produced for the benefit of British diplomats and travellers, and so were, perhaps, somewhat more up-to-date than the ones you saw on E-Bay.
And, of course, what does it matter? Tibet administered her own domestic affairs – with some Chinese interference – and after 1912 was a completely independent state. Maps also show Outer Mongolia as a part of the Chinese Empire, which it kind of was (again, a tributary state) – does that give China the right to invade it nowadays? (Hell, even the claim to Inner Mongolia is pretty historically dubious.) Tibet had her own army, her own foreign policy, and was recognised diplomatically by the world’s major powers – America, Germany, Great Britain, and Japan all ran seperate diplomatic missions there. Indeed, the Japanese made a bargain with the Tibetan government to come in to the war on the Japanese side if certain conditions were met. Consult Hisao Kimura’s JAPANESE AGENT IN TIBET for the Japanese side, Christopher Hale’s HIMMLER’S CRUSADE for the Germans, or Patrick French’s YOUNGHUSBAND for the British.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:27 pm | Comment
65
By Imagethief
The Endless Debate Over Tibet
August 8, 2005 @ 11:27 pm | Comment
66
By LW
Kevin, if you don’t like eBay. Libraries may be other place to check out old maps. it is just there is no link to show them.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:30 pm | Comment
67
By shulan
Steve said:
“Well, I can tell you this. After studying Marx’s theory, I conclude it is flawed. But it is based on logic. Marx does present a reasonable argument in a logic approach. I can argue against it in a logic way.
Keep this in mind. Today, Marx is still ranked as top 10 thinker in Britain. Marx does not reject science. Instead, he wholeheartedly embrace science.”
That’s wrong. Though the teaching of Marx may be logical consitant in itself that doesn’t say it is scientific as a lot of philosophical works are based on a logical argumentation but have nothing to do with science. The teaching that there is a plan in nature which eventualy will lead to communism is metaphysics. It is not scientific as you neither can verify or falsify this, as much as it is impossible to proof god’s existence or disprof it.
So teaching Marx at school as the number one authority in social, historical and economical issues has a lot more to do with religion than with an education based on the scientific principles of critical thought.
Metaphysics and religion play in the same league.
Science is a totaly different game.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:37 pm | Comment
68
By James
I like to ask Chinese who claim that China ‘owned’ Tibet whether Britain ‘owns’ Canada. After all, Canada recognises the Queen as head of state, and has a diplomatic representative of Britain who plays a strong symbolic part in Canadian affairs – much as the ambans did in Tibet, for the most part.
Of course, China sometimes interfered more substantially in Tibetan affairs, as in the kidnapping and murder of the 6th Dalai Lama. But they never *ran* it.
J.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:41 pm | Comment
69
By Incognito
Who on this thread has been to the city Lhasa recently for any period of time? Who has been there beyond the two day visit of sight seeing or using the city as a launching point to get somewhere else?
Correct me if I’m wrong Richard, but are you asking about Westerners views vs. Chinese views on Tibet? If so, the question is flawed. Why would anyone ask about Tibet from a Westerner or a Chinese?
Richard Said:
So interesting, how Westerners view Tibet one way, and Chinese see it as something altogether different. Like they are in two separate universes. I have always been suspicious of the Richard Gere-style “Free Tibet” movements, with their idolization of the Dalai Lama, who has certainly been romanticized ad absurdum. But I’m equally skeptical of the CCP’s claims that it was a liberation for which the Tibetans are eternally grateful.
So which is it?
——————————
I don’t clam to be an expert on the subject either and just because I was stuck in Lhasa in August of 2003 for 15 days doesn’t mean I know Tibet or Tibetans. I can only identify with the writer of the Independent.
Go there!!! Find out for yourself what it’s like there today and don’t forget to ask any Tibetan of any age.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:42 pm | Comment
70
By James
Incidentally, Xinran’s (GOOD WOMEN OF CHINA) new book, SKY BURIAL, deals with Chinese-Tibetan relations. I saw her talk in Beijing about how she was brought up to believe the ‘liberation’ story, and how much of a shock talking to Tibetans was for her.
The whole issue of Western romanticisation of Tibet is something else, of course, and goes back a very long way. What I find interesting is that I’ve heard the same mystical romanticisation among Chinese, especially those interested in Buddhist, kung-fu (which never existed in Tibet!), qi powers and so forth.
J.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:46 pm | Comment
71
By JFS
GBWH:
You are correct, Zang refers to the people and to their region. The “Dongzang” are those Zang who live in Qinghai, Szezhuan, Yunnan. They do not get a Dongzang area named for themselves. I am not even certain they get named as Dongzang people.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:47 pm | Comment
72
By GWBH
JFS,
Thanks. So if I read correctly the area delineated on maps as Tibet is really only about one third of what constitutes the are over which the Tibetan people, language and culture are spread over?
Just a thought.
August 8, 2005 @ 11:56 pm | Comment
73
By JFS
Shulan, I am not saying you are wrong, I tend to think in your direction here. But, such a classification does have some limitations. The soft sciences, history for example, cannot prove by experment. And then the A Priori sciences, such as mathematics and economics, are built on logic and not expermentalism (I tend to think along Popper lines about the hard sciences). After all, who went around the world collecting data on how people added 2+2 to see if there was an expermental conscensus as to that.
In other words, I would tend to think of Marxism in two different roles using the same name. First it is an analytical study of man and his environment (within an economic framework, very flawed, principally becasue it does not take into consideration the time variability of wealth and value, and it places an intrinsic value to wealth that is invariable tied to labor). The other aspect of Marxism is a means of organizing society. This aspect is what is metaphysics. The first is just flawed analysis. The second is bad metaphysics, bad because it is based on flawed analysis.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:02 am | Comment
74
By alfred
Tibet has always been part of China since ancient times. You even don’t know this, so stupid and ignorant.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:23 am | Comment
75
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Three things.
When I was attending a Chinese studies conference in Canberra, I ran into a guy who had spent quite some time in Tibet, and he told me two things that stuck in my mind.
1) Han Chinese don’t wander around Lhasa on their own at night, because if they do, there’s a high chance they’ll get beaten up by disgruntled Tibetan youths.
2) The Ewoks in Return of the Jedi speak Tibetan.
The third item concerns a student from China who took my modern Chinese history course in a previous year. He chose to write an essay that asked about the different sides of the debate concerning Tibet. The question was phrased in a neutral way, that did not dictate that the students take any particular stance of their own, and they were warned that it had to be an academic assignment, based on historical evidence etc.
Anyway, after the course was over, I ran into him, and we spoke briefly about the topic of Tibet. He said that now that he had been reading all about the VERY different view-points, he wasn’t at all sure which side was right. However, on balance, he thought that the “free-Tibet” side seemed to be stronger than the “Tibet is China’s” side. I have to say, I was quite surprised that he said this, and I don’t think that anything in my conduct led him to believe that was what I wanted to hear (and anyway, his essay was already marked.)
August 9, 2005 @ 12:27 am | Comment
76
By steve
“Catholic practice requires that I take the Eucharist. Because China bans real Roman Catholic churches and only properly consecrated priests can offer the eucharist, I was unable to practice this essential part of my faith while in China, ”
I agree. But this issue is more political than religious.
Check here,
http://tinyurl.com/dft5k
I think Vatican and CCP will work out a solution acceptable to both. My take is that, as long as a religion does not call for political action, it will be tolerated.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:28 am | Comment
77
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Alfred says “I’m right because I say I’m right, and anyone who denies I am right is stupid and wrong.”
Hmmm … perhaps you need to take a course in debating?
August 9, 2005 @ 12:29 am | Comment
78
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Conrad: there are bishops in China who have managed to get themselves consecrated by both sides … so it would have been possible for you to partake in your ritual in an state Catholic church, provided you knew which one.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:31 am | Comment
79
By Conrad
FSN:
You are absolutely right. But, in practice, if it’s being kept hush-hush from the Chinese authorities, how in the world is a layman (especially a visiting yangguizi) supposed to know which Catholic is kosher?
August 9, 2005 @ 12:47 am | Comment
80
By Sean
Steve says “But this issue is more political than religious.”
Steve, you do realize that in most countries, the choice of religious leader is NOT political. The reason it IS political here is because of the Party’s restrictions.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:53 am | Comment
81
By JFS
Ben: You may be correct, I may be a pompous ass, but so what.
GWBH: Actually, the Zang people are spread over more area than that, they are in India, in Europe, in the United States, etc. Where they spread to or inhabit does not carry all that much weight. In the Ningxia area they had a small state of their own untill the Mongols eliminated it.
In ancient times, the Qin went down and conquered the Shu and Ba people and incorporated them into their state. This was a few generations before the unification of China (under Qin Shihuangdi). At that time those people were not considered what one would call the Chinese people. Today they are one element that constitutes the Han people. One does not know what the future has in store, but right now a similar fate appears to be happening to the Zang people.
August 9, 2005 @ 1:11 am | Comment
82
By Laowai 19790204
I like FS9’s comment because I think it delineates how the US side and Chinese side ARE in two different universes. China, and the Chinese ethos has always seemed to me to be concerned with “who has the right to rule”, as in “how do I claim that I have the right to rule bit of land X (insert Inner mongolia, Xinjiang, Taiwan, ,Tibet… soon maybe mongolia? Maybe Malaysia? Vietnam? Japan?)”
The US has been concerned with this question too, but our historical ethos has had more to do with “who has the right to rule” in a more negative sense – “NO, you pommies can’t rule us anymore because we don’t have representation” to “States rights!” to “Live Free or Die” etc. – this can be phrased as “why you can’t tell me what to do”
So it’s only natural that in this situation, the Chinese would say – We have the right to rule! and the Americans (myself included) would say – Like Hell! They should be allowed to choose!
Anyway, I don’t see the issue as complex at all (this is more or less for devil’s advocacy) – If China gives Tibetans enough advantages then they’ll favor being part of China. Otherwise they won’t like being part of China. I don’t see Tibet being freed anytime soon, but maybe eventually the CCP will relax a bit and people can practise their religions.
I think China may have missed a key factor in Governance – people won’t form pro-secession groups if they like what they’re given. China needs to give more to its people. More to xinjiang, more to tibet. Once they do that people won’t want to leave as much. give them freedom of religion and tremendous economic opportunity and assistance and everything will be fine.
August 9, 2005 @ 2:21 am | Comment
83
By Conrad
Which might be relevant if China gave a rat’s ass how Tibet felt about being part of China.
August 9, 2005 @ 2:27 am | Comment
84
By shulan
JFS:
My point was that Marxism has more to do with religion than with science. That said one asking to ban religion from school should also ask to ban Marxism from school. That from my point of view would be a consistent arumentation (I for myself don’t have any problem with each of them tought at school as long as there is a critical aproach to put it in perspective).
You are right that human science can’t have this strict approach as natural science but to be called science the humanities have to try their best to be as scientific as they can. That means to present data that is verifiable and to show why specific data is interpreted in this and not another way -by the way I would say that economics are human science.
I wonder what was first in Marxes thoughts; the metaphysical framework (comming from Hegel)
or the anylsis of the social conditions.
But that is not important, I think, because how Marxism is thought in reality matters and there the dogmas are the important part. A Marxist historian is bound to the dogma of classstruggles in history. He by definition can’t consider data relevant that contradicts this dogma and there he becomes unscientific. He analyses the society on the basis of the metaphysics and not vis versa. His analysis will never result in a rejection of the Marxist metaphysics or he won’t be a Marxist anymore.
August 9, 2005 @ 2:31 am | Comment
85
By James
Actually, the Ewoks speak a medley of languages, including Filipino.
It worries me that I know that.
August 9, 2005 @ 2:48 am | Comment
86
By Ckrisz
When will Chinese nationalists realize that China would be better off without marginal areas like Tibet and Xinjiang? Pretty much all these areas do is suck up government aid and skilled workers who’d be better employed in comparatively underdeveloped parts of China where the people actually want them there.
If I was a Chinese nationalist, I’d be demonstrating to cut these two welfare cases loose today.
August 9, 2005 @ 2:53 am | Comment
87
By CKrisz
Oops, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a very good book on Tibet I read once in a public library, all in one sitting, written by a disillusioned Western supporter of the Free Tibet movement:
http://tinyurl.com/bmm6l
Pretty fair-minded to all sides, I think.
August 9, 2005 @ 3:08 am | Comment
88
By Imagethief
The Endless Debate Over Tibet
August 9, 2005 @ 3:32 am | Comment
89
By Laowai 19790204
CKrisz, fair point, except Tibet has lots of minerals, and Xinjiang has lots of water and maybe some oil.
Believe me, the Chinese CCP isn’t keeping those areas because of the minorities!
Shulan, I should add that science is about testing a hypothesis. That is, you try to show that your hypothesis is wrong. This is the critical method that you mean. Religion doesn’t do that (because it’s pretty easy to prove that something else besides an all-mighty could account for phenomena…) nor does Marxism, at least not the static Chinese kind.
August 9, 2005 @ 3:42 am | Comment
90
By JFS
I agree with you Shulan.
August 9, 2005 @ 3:54 am | Comment
91
By Keir
By the way, when I stayed in Lhasa a noticed that there was no English-Tibetan dictionary or phrasebook in any bookstore. Ask a Tibetan of any age what they think?! In which language? How? The fact they are persecuted and unable to use their own language in their own land is disgusting. I agree with James- Tibet is as much a part of China as Canada or Australia is to Britain. We fought alongside China to dismantle imperialist systems, not foster them.
August 9, 2005 @ 3:55 am | Comment
92
By shulan
Laowai,
Yeah, I think that’s what I tried to say.
August 9, 2005 @ 3:57 am | Comment
93
By Raj
I’m with Conrad, because I’m a Roman Catholic as well. In China you have to practice in a “State-authorised” church, with priests appointed by the CCP. Now, stop me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the CCP supposed to be a SECULAR organisation? So why is it getting involved in religious issues? You’re not allowed to have relations with the Vatican and priests cannot swear loyalty to the Pope.
The CCP has meddled with Catholic policy – officially in China Catholics can abort their children, which I think is unacceptable. Personally I’m undecided on the issue, but the CCP should not be changing Catholic beliefs to suit itself. Catholicism doesn’t “interfere” in politics and hasn’t done for decades. It preaches a way of life that people can follow if they wish. It is the CCP that is interfering with religion, because it is paranoid. It has to understand that religious loyalty to the Vatican does not equate to political control. Indeed it’s arguable that Catholics always listen to the Vatican on non-political issues anyway.
August 9, 2005 @ 5:15 am | Comment
94
By Raj
About Tibet:
Well as I see it, not only did Tibet have control of its own affairs from the 1910s onwards, but many people argue it did even before then. It’s all very well declaring a province part of your empire, but exerting control over it is a different matter. It seems that usually Chinese-appointed officials were either:
a) Ignored/sidelined
OR
b) Kicked out of Tibet
It was only really when the Mongols swept over Asia that Tibet was formally incorporated into “China”. And given that they were a foreign power, if anyone has a right to Tibet its Mongolia and not China. It’s also worth noting that Tibet has vast mineral resources and the PRC’s invasion was not just a “liberation”.
What also bugs me is that China is somehow allowed to keep hold of these territories, when they were clearly part of an empire. Just because they had land borders with inner Chinese provinces doesn’t mean it wasn’t an empire. If you followed that line of logic, China could have absorbed every country from Tibet to France and they would still have no right to self-determination today.
And if you’re following the right by conquest argument, well we took Hong Kong and obtained trade concessions from China by force – and yet many Chinese scream and rant about that all the time. So which is it? Does “right by conquest” apply to China or not?
August 9, 2005 @ 5:26 am | Comment
95
By steve
“well we took Hong Kong and obtained trade concessions from China by force”
Raj, part of Hongkong was ceded permanently, and part of Hongkong was leased. Theoretically, Britain can still keep the former par. But Britain returned the whole Hongkong.
August 9, 2005 @ 6:10 am | Comment
96
By steve
“I think China may have missed a key factor in Governance – people won’t form pro-secession groups if they like what they’re given.”
I agree.
Today’s Tibet and China are integreted greatly both in population and economy. Fighting for Tibet independence is simply a losing cause. It will only make Tibet people more miserable because CCP will become paranoid about unstability.
If you go outside of Tibet, it is ok to have Dala’s picture at private home because CCP is not concerned about independence. But Dala’s picture is not allowed in Tibet.
US is proud of being a melting pot for different race. Han is also a product of race melting pot. JFS’s comment about the assimilation of Sichuan is along the same line.
August 9, 2005 @ 6:22 am | Comment
97
By phs
Thought I would toss my two fen worth of ideas toward the state’s religious freedom policy, as it regards Protestant churches in Shanghai.
Before my schedule changed I attended the Sunday service at the interdenominational Protestant church on Hengshan road in Xuhui, Shanghai. We went every Sunday for almost a year, and attended both the services with English translation and the Chinese language only service. Firstly, the services were different, in terms of tone and subject matter. No biggie, as the Chinese language one was more of a liturgical-song-service.
However, the translated service was a horrible one. The translator tended to gloss over most of the material, and I do not recall hearing about Moses (let my people go!) once.
We never attended the foreigner service because PRC citizens are not allowed!
Oddly enough, the balcony of the translated service is reserved for foreigners only. However, HKers and Taiwanese are allowed. I asked the amah-old woman in charge of seating-what gives once and she turned and walked away…
August 9, 2005 @ 6:59 am | Comment
98
By Jing
Regarding Tibet, irrespective of historical claims of sovereignty, I doubt it’s political status will be changing anytime soon. To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the Dalai Lama have? Tibet is a non-entity as far as the world is concerned and no one of signifigance is going to risk trouble agitating for a separate independant state. Likewise the Communist Party, already contemptuous of it’s own citizenry is unlikely to hold anymore stock in the opinions of foreigners regarding this issue. This is going to hold true no matter how many concerts Bono holds, besides in a few decades the question will be moot, as Han Chinese will likely outnumber Tibetans by then and the issue will be settled. The conclusion at this point in my mind is already foregone, independent Tibet is dead, the corpse just hasn’t stopped twitching yet.
August 9, 2005 @ 7:48 am | Comment
99
By Ckrisz
From a realpolitik standpoint, Jing is right, unfortunately.
Laowai — Sure, Tibet and Xinjiang have SOME resources, but they’re both difficult to extract and not at all worth the expenditures that the PRC is spending to create viable industrial cities in both places. Far cheaper to trade for resources. And water? Who cares when it’s in the agricultural paradise that is Xinjiang?
August 9, 2005 @ 7:56 am | Comment
100
By richard
I don’t think anyone here is an advocate of the “Free Tibet” movement, which is as dreamy as they come. It would be nice if the “liberators” packed up and left, or if they started showing deep concern for the people and thier religious rights. But hey, this is the CCP we’re talking about.
One thing I’ll say about our failed invasion of Iraq – at least we are allowing them to make some choices, even though their choices will directly hurt American interests (like aligning themselves with Iran and becoming a fundamentalist theocracy). These twists of fate make the war even more absurd and the deaths of our soldiers even more inexplicable, but it’s to our credit that we aren’t banning their religion, murdering Al Sistani or persecuting those speaking out.
August 9, 2005 @ 8:00 am | Comment
101
By Laowai 19790204
Hey, if Hu Jintao came to me and said – Laowai – it’s up to you! If you say so, we’ll let Tibet go – I’d say “Let them go!”
so in that sense maybe I”m a Free Tibet-er.
The thing is this – the CCP say that they’re modernising. But that’s not a good reason to accept their argument that they should therefore be in control. If the Dalai Lama came back to power, can you imagine how much money they’d rake in from “Religious-Tourism”? Westerners would all go there and pay ass loads of money (the donkey I mean, of course). Equally well there would be an unbelievable amount of money streaming in, in the form of “rebuilding” efforts, and the critical eye would be on Tibet to enrich the lives of the Tibetans – which would provide a measure of criticism that would hold the government internationally accountable – something that the Chinese don’t have to deal with.
I say let them go, straight out. it’s cultural subjugation on the scale of the British, US, Spanish, French, Egyptian and Roman Empires, and shouldn’t be tolerated internationally.
Although it will be, and practically minded, I agree with Jing as to what will happen. But ideally? Tibet could be the next Costa Rica.
August 9, 2005 @ 8:16 am | Comment
102
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Time for a statement to get someone worked up.
Usually, when I talk with Chinese people about Tibet / Taiwan as general concepts I avoid ideological debates, and concentrate on the reality on the ground. Basically, Tibet is China’s, because she’s got it. Taiwan isn’t, because she doesn’t. Really, does anything else matter in the real world? Was it right for the Romans to slaughter lots of Gauls and take over France? In the end, whe cares? They did it, and no one could stop them.
You see, it’s midnight in the middle of winter here, and I need a good roasting.
August 9, 2005 @ 8:42 am | Comment
103
By LW
James,
I have to no intention to augue that if Tibet should be independent or not. But I would like point out an factual erroe in your statement:”Before 1912, there was something of a case for depicting Tibet as a Chinese province”. In fact, most maps published in US (if not all) in 1930s and 1940s shown Tibet as a province of China.
August 9, 2005 @ 8:50 am | Comment
104
By richard
Oh no, the map argument again….
August 9, 2005 @ 8:55 am | Comment
105
By richard
Actually, FSN9, I don’t think you’ll get much argument on this. It might not be right or moral or admirable, but Tibet’s now a part of China and that ain’t changing.
August 9, 2005 @ 9:13 am | Comment
106
By Dong
‘the corpse just hasn’t stopped twitching yet.’….how apt….Bravo!
August 9, 2005 @ 9:53 am | Comment
107
By James
LW, do you have any other arguments than that one? Seriously. It’s pretty pathetic.
J.
August 9, 2005 @ 10:30 am | Comment
108
By LW
I have no other interest except to point out a simple fact. But responses from some of the noble democracy promoters here are real eye opener. Are these people also often righteously pointing out the bullying behavors here or there?
August 9, 2005 @ 10:48 am | Comment
109
By richard
LW, resident shill: Please cut the crap. You have mentioned here multiple times that Tibet must be part of China because you have seen maps that show this. And we asked you, just becuase it says that on a map does it make it true? And you keep saying, well, I’ve seen the map and you can find it on ebay. If you see this as valid evidence in determing China’s legal claims to Tibet, we just think you’re either crazy or shilling. So out with it — which is it?
Look, you can disagree here – there’s a lot of intelligent disagreement in this thread. But you’re not doing that, you’re just quacking.
August 9, 2005 @ 10:53 am | Comment
110
By James
I don’t think Tibet will ever be ‘free’ in the sense of independence from China, at least for the foreseeable future. The simple facts of Han settlement on the ground make that impossible, for one thing. I hope that, in the long run, the Chinese in Tibet will come to respect and perhaps even adopt parts of the local culture. The best we can hope for is a government that respects Tibetans’ rights and culture, allows true freedom of religion, accountability, democracy, etc. Freedom for the Tibetans, in this sense, is a part of the wider issue of freedom for the Chinese – you can’t seperate them off as the Free Tibet movement does. This is a point French makes very well in TIBET, TIBET – and also whatisname in PRISONERS OF SHANGRI-LA.
J.
August 9, 2005 @ 11:24 am | Comment
111
By shulan
I have seen a map on which the earth is flat.
What do you say about that LW. Is it flat?
August 9, 2005 @ 11:32 am | Comment
112
By LW
Richard,
Please point out when and where I said “You have mentioned here multiple times that Tibet must be part of China because you have seen maps that show this”.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:26 pm | Comment
113
By Martyn
Many exceptionally good comments here. I won’t try to compete with what’s already been said apart from to say that one of China’s justifications for the occupation of Tibet, i.e. China are ‘modernising’ and ‘civilising’ the country of Tibet, literally echoes the justifications of British and French colonialsts several centuries ago word for word.
The hypocracy is outrageous.
China with her massive, bordering on obsessive, victim mentality complex about the colonial escapades of the much-hated Europpeans (please see Conrad’s 8:22pm post for a bit of context) uses the SAME ARGUMENTS and JUSTIFICATIONS?
“Tibet was feudal before we came!”
“Tibet was poor, now it’s getting rich!”
“We’re helping them!”
“We’re moderninsing Tibet”
“They’ve never had it so good!”
Even by CCP standards, that’s damn fine hypocracy. I’m just surprised they can keep a straight face when they say those things.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:27 pm | Comment
114
By LW
Richard,
Please point out when and where I said “Tibet must be part of China because you have seen maps that show this”. Beside the fact about old maps. I said nothing.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:28 pm | Comment
115
By Douglas
My own perspective on this is as someone who’s been to Tibet (Lhasa, Shigatse, a number of other towns and mountain ranges) and spent a fair bit of time there.
I would agree that the theocratic regime prior to 1950 left a very great deal to be desired and was often brutal in the extreme. That said, if you go to Lhasa now you will know exactly what an occupied country feels like – whether it’s when you hear the People’s Liberation Army singing ‘The East is Red’ in the morning (wherever you are in the city) or when you see the contrast between Chinese houses and the Tibetan quarter. You can go out into the most rural parts of Tibet and you’ll find that often nomads will ask you not to take photographs inside their tent, as they’re worried that if the film is ever taken by the Chinese authorities they’ll find themselves in trouble. It is a genuine police state, as oppressive as anything you’ll find.
It’s all very well to point to economic development and justify the occupation on that basis, but who benefits from that growth? You might, for instance, call the Gormo-Lhasa Railway an example of development and of Sino-Tibetan integration; but have a look at what the Chinese authorities say about it themselves. Jiang Zemin himself said to the New York Times: “Some people advised me not to ahead with this project because it is not commercially viable. I said this is a political decision.” The aim is to tighten Beijing’s grip on the province further (and to facilitate the inward migration of Han Chinese settlers).
You can see the gap in wealth between Han Chinese in Tibet and the Tibetans themselves very clearly if you just look at the quality of housing in Lhasa. The conditions of the Tibetan quarter are vastly inferior to the Chinese housing elsewhere – the Lhasa ghetto, to which the Independent refers, is real enough. Economic growth may be happening, but it essentially represents prosperity for Han Chinese in Tibet – the Tibetans themselves are being left behind.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Free Tibet campaign in that I think Tibet has every moral right to its independence and that China’s actions in Tibet have included some of the most appalling political crimes in history. I recognise, though, that in the real world Beijing isn’t going anywhere and that the best hope for Tibet is genuine autonomy, within the boundaries of the TAR – China does want respectability, and it might be willing to build on the ‘one country, two (many?) systems’ approach. Regardless of what you think of Free Tibet and co, you don’t need to take their word for it – have a look at what Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have to say.
Incidentally, since the issue of Tibet’s legal status has come up … there is certainly plenty of evidence of international recognition of Tibet in the first half of the twentieth century. In 1904, for instance, the UK signed the Lhasa convention with Tibet independently of China, and informed China that ‘Tibet is not one of the 18 provinces of the Chinese empire’. In 1942, the British Government were equally unequivocal.
In any case, the Sino-Tibetan relationship was never one in which Tibet was simply incorporated into China outright. At most, it was a cho-yon (priest-patron) relationship, where Tibetans provided religious teachings and similar activities in return for China’s political protection. The amount of real control China wielded, up until 1912 when the Dalai Lama expelled Chinese officials, varied depending on the relative strength of Tibet vis-à-vis China and China vis-à-vis the outside world, but at most this made Tibet a form of protectorate. The weaker party in a protectorate has a perfect right to terminate the agreement and take responsibility for its own security (e.g. Kuwait terminating its treaty with the UK in 1961), which in effect Tibet did in 1911.
It’s surely worth asking – if the CCP are so damn popular in Tibet, if the Tibetans really are grateful for the past 55 years, then why is there such a developed apparatus of repression? What’s the need, when surely the Tibetans must really be desperate to rally to Beijing of their own free will? So why do the CCP’s actions fly in the face of the claims they make about Tibet’s prosperity?
August 9, 2005 @ 12:29 pm | Comment
116
By richard
Thanks Martyn – we were wondering where you’ve been.
LW, will you please cut the crap already? Everyone’s tired of it, and you’re just quacking to yourself. Let the maps issue go. If that’s your key argument, we now know all about it, and appreciate that you feel the map you once saw on ebay represents some kind of evidence showing Tibet belongs to China. Thanks for sharing.
Next topic.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:30 pm | Comment
117
By LW
Richard,
Please provide link regarding “You have mentioned here multiple times that Tibet must be part of China because you have seen maps that show this”.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:31 pm | Comment
118
By richard
LW, I said to cut the crap. Once more and you’re out. Express whatever opinion you’d like, but after saying the same thing over and over again I request you stop it.
Oh, and here’s your link. You can find the dumb comments yourself.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:36 pm | Comment
119
By richard
Douglas, that is exactly the kind of comment I was hoping to see, from someone who understands the history and has been there multiple times. I can’t thank you enough.
I have strong sympathy with the Free Tibet movement in terms of the plight of the Tibetan people. What bothers me is the way they turned the Dalai Lama into a rock star, and used celebrities (ineffectively) in a way that seemed to trivialize the issues and make them overly simplistic. And I love the questions you raise at the end of your comment. Thanks again.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:40 pm | Comment
120
By Martyn
I agree, re Douglas’s comment. I thuoght it was impossible to surpass the coments already made here but I was wrong I see.
The final paragraph should be made into a t-shirt or something. Let the CCP argue against that. Still, there are many “warped realities” within China and Tibet is not only warped, but also turned inside-out and upside down.
August 9, 2005 @ 12:48 pm | Comment
121
By Douglas
Richard, I do take your point about oversimplifying the situation – especially since Tibet’s only realistic chance of meaningful autonomy will involve quite a lot of political and diplomatic fudge!
On the other hand, I would say that the Tibet lobby’s aim isn’t so much to convince Beijing as to convince western governments that it’s worth their while, politically, to put more effort into convincing Beijing to come to some sort of compromise or agreement in regard of Tibet. To do that they have to grab attention somehow – and it’s hard to do that without having graphic stats to hand (eg. 1.2m Tibetans dead since 1950 during the occupation). At any rate, I think real internal autonomy for the TAR (not historic Tibet) within China is as much as will realistically be secured.
Out of curiosity, any thoughts on how the Tibet issue should be raised (both domestically in western countries and with Beijing) if the aim is to secure a workable degree of autonomy for the TAR?
Martyn, you’ll gather I don’t have very much time for the present regime in Beijing or in Lhasa!
August 9, 2005 @ 1:07 pm | Comment
122
By Martyn
Yes, I see that mate. Please keep posting.
August 9, 2005 @ 1:11 pm | Comment
123
By richard
Out of curiosity, any thoughts on how the Tibet issue should be raised (both domestically in western countries and with Beijing) if the aim is to secure a workable degree of autonomy for the TAR?
I have to confess the answer is no. I think public relations could play a key role if used effectively. But most of the Free Tibet ads and articles I’ve read to date are sensationalistic and in many ways resemble the FLG’s Epoch Times in tone. I mean, the CCP has done some awful things here, but there has to be an appearance of impartiality and reasonableness to the articles if people outside of the movement are going to take them seriously. I’m a “PR professional” (nothing to be too proud of nowadays, I fear) and former journalist so I wince when I see some of the articles in Lhasa Times — too strident and blatantly propagandistic. If they ever want to hire me to help with their international PR, I am available. There is a story to tell here, but I think they’ve been doing it the wrong way. Just my superficial at-a-glance assessment.
August 9, 2005 @ 1:21 pm | Comment
124
By Raj
Douglas,
Fascinating information. I was always told Han Chinese had it better than Tibetans, but you have put the point across very suscinctly.
Of course your last point doesn’t need to be answered, because the reason is so blatantly obvious. It’s no different from their attitude in China proper. The CCP says everyone loves them, but they won’t let them show this at the ballot box.
To be honest I don’t know how the Tibet issue could be raised, except privately to begin with. Perhaps a united front would help, but I think most countries are too greedy and not nearly principled enough to act co-ordinatedly or sacrifice trade with China. It will require incredible international solidarity, a change of leadership in Beijing or the removal of the CCP from power to change matters.
August 9, 2005 @ 1:21 pm | Comment
125
By Bing
“tiny population of some 2.6 million native Tibetans, … an eighth of China’s land mass”
You should understand 1) it’s impossible for any Chinese government of either dictatorship or democracy to watch Tibet go out of China. 2) it’s impossible for Tibet to have a slight chance to get independence with any outside help.
The only viable way for Tibetans is to learn from the other ethnic groups in China and be assimilated as much as possible but keeping their own culture and tradition.
August 9, 2005 @ 2:16 pm | Comment
126
By Bing
I’m sorry for Tibetans. They might have a chance for independence in history, like Mongolia.
They lost that chance and Tibet will remain in China forever. No change in China can ever change this reality.
The independent movement will only isolate Tibetans from the rest of China and only make the Chinese government determined to migrate more and more Chinese to Tibet.
August 9, 2005 @ 2:45 pm | Comment
127
By Douglas
Bing, in essence I assume you’re taking a position based on realpolitik – ‘regardless of the ethics, there’s no way Beijing will ever agree to move out’.
I suspect you’re correct that China will never move out (though that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t move out!), but then even the Dalai Lama himself has made it clear that he would be prepared to accept a continuing connection with China; the practical issue is internal autonomy – real Tibetan control of issues specific to themselves (especially religious and cultural matters) while Beijing continues to control foreign policy and defence.
If things carry on the way they are, Tibet will in the quite easily foreseeable future cease to even be majority-Tibetan. When that happens, the cultural distinctiveness of Tibet as a whole will go too – it’ll be a case of (de facto) reservations in the TAR, and a few enclaves in the neighbouring provinces.
I don’t see that a let-up of pressure on Beijing will stop that – it’ll just be perceived as license to continue on the present path. But from Beijing’s point of view, might there not be quite a strong argument for allowing Tibetans a (substantial) degree of domestic autonomy? It would do the PRC’s image no end of good internationally and could well reconcile Tibetans (who realise the realities of power politics) to Beijing’s control of foreign policy and defence – and if they can share in China’s economic growth themselves, as opposed to watching other people in their midst benefit, then they might even be reconciled with a degree of enthusiasm.
August 9, 2005 @ 3:07 pm | Comment
128
By Bing
“might there not be quite a strong argument for allowing Tibetans a (substantial) degree of domestic autonomy? It would do the PRC’s image no end of good internationally and could well reconcile Tibetans (who realise the realities of power politics) to Beijing’s control of foreign policy and defence – and if they can share in China’s economic growth themselves, as opposed to watching other people in their midst benefit, then they might even be reconciled with a degree of enthusiasm.”
This won’t happen.
A substantial degree of domestic autonomy in such an area where people speak different language and have different culture and religion will inevitablely instigate the independence movement, fuel the tension between Tibetans and local Chinese and bring up more problems.
With social tensions in different classes / groups of China building up and economic development as the top priority for the foreseeable future, Beijing will not risk destabilizing this part of China and can not afford wasting effort and resources in appeasing the autonomous government.
There is no way that Beijing could grant “real” autonomy to Tibet until China as a whole becomes a democratic, stable and wealthy country.
It looks unlikely for China to concede the independence of Taiwan.
It is inconceivable for China to allow Tibet such an autonomy destined for separation.
BTW, Tibet is not only part of the territory of PRC, but ROC.
August 9, 2005 @ 4:37 pm | Comment
129
By Laowai 19790204
Well, at least when they assimilate they’ll still have their “colourful clothing, unique cuisine and folk dances”
I hate how all ethnic minorities are boiled down to these three essential categories when being described by the government….
August 9, 2005 @ 4:42 pm | Comment
130
By Bing
Laowai
As Globalization, something is gonna flourish while something die.
August 9, 2005 @ 5:21 pm | Comment
131
By James
I’ve actually met some Chinese who harbour revanchist attitudes about Outer Mongolia, which only escaped being absorbed into China through, in retrospect, the fortunate historical accident of Ungern-Sternberg’s invasion and the subsequent Red Army intervention and absorption into the Russian sphere. (Though when Stalin was shooting the monks and melting the statues, it must not have seemed that lucky …) The Mongolians are still pretty paranoid about the prospect of the Chinese invading.
August 9, 2005 @ 7:20 pm | Comment
132
By kevin
“Well, at least when they assimilate they’ll still have their “colourful clothing, unique cuisine and folk dances””
That’s so true. The one thing I can’t stand is when they have those celebrations, like New Year’s celebrations, and they always have every single minority come out and sing a song with a title like “We’re so Happy You Invaded Us” or something, and then everyone comments “oh look at their colorful clothes. wow, those minorities really can dance.”
August 9, 2005 @ 7:37 pm | Comment
133
By Gordon
Ditto that!
I have a good friend here in Chengdu that belongs to the Yi minority and you’ve pretty much summed up some of the statements she has made in our conversations about how the Chinese government has marginalized the minority populations.
August 9, 2005 @ 8:06 pm | Comment
134
By Fat Cat
I think you’ll find that the Tibetan leaders such as the Dalai Lama and the 10th Panchen Lama had always been very diplomatic in their plead for autonomy. They never openly challanged PRC’s claim of Tibet as a part of China. They were only consistantly asking for rights to practise their religion, and to preserve their culture and language. But so far, this kind of dialogue has not been getting them very far. Tibetan people are still being killed in government crack downs. Their religion, culture and language are being marginalized at the expense of economic development.
I believe that many of the publicity materials for the Free Tibet Movement are originally designed to appeal to a Chinese-speaking population or even the Chinese government. That’s why they have been compiled in a particular style. But Richard is right in pointing out that it needs to be changed for a western audience.
August 9, 2005 @ 8:52 pm | Comment
135
By JD
Conrad, Raj,
As regards CCP-affiliated clergy, one only has to join the CPA (the hilariously euphemistic Catholic Patriotic Association) when ordained as a bishop, so most of the parish priests you meet are ok. Most of the priests I know in China have been properly ordained by non-CPA bishops, too.
Some of the CPA bishops have effected a rapprochement with the Vatican (as joining the CPA is a voluntary and automatic excommunication) but we don’t know which ones. I’m pretty sure Michael Fu of Beijing isn’t one of them, though, so steer clear of him.
There’s an in pectore cardinal floating around out there somewhere too, though it’s now possible we’ll never find out who. John Paul II took that name to his grave.
So, to sum up, in canon law you are OK to receive the Eucharist in a CPA-authorised church. That sometimes feels like a bit of a technicality, though, so it might be easier simply to ask the priest if he’s a CPA member. If not, you’re golden.
August 9, 2005 @ 10:01 pm | Comment
136
By Keir
As a map afficianado myself, let me offer a caveat: While I start by saying I condemn China’s imperialist occupation of Tibet and that Tibet in 1904 was writing its own treaties with countries, check your old maps that show it as an autonomous state and see where they originate. Just like I only display maps in my classroom that give Taiwan a different colour, a jagged line to denote the McMahon line and, unlike fascist Chinese maps, UNAMBIGUOUS DECLARATION THAT THE FALKLANDS ARE BRITISH (why do the Chinese demand such unambiguity when it comes to Taiwan but none to others?) British map companies hoping to justify keeping out the Russian bear and Chinese dragon from Britain’s sphere of influence in the turn of the century would do what they could to play up Tibet’s sovereignity.
As an aside, I was using a book for my geo class showing various trends in the developing world (can’t remember its name offhand, sorry) and it shows Tibet separated from China by a broken line.
August 9, 2005 @ 10:04 pm | Comment
137
By Jing
I second Bing, giving Tibet more autonomy is a bad idea, its a sure fire recipe for disaster. Give people an inch and they will take the whole yard, genuine autonomy will not dissaude any of the social pressures in Tibet, in fact the inverse is true and they would probably get worse. Neither the Dalai Lama nor any of the separatists are in any position to negotiate. Why should China give on this issue and accept nothing in return? Altriusm? Ha! China will not gain any brownie points in the West for such a course of action as those predisposed to oppose China will do so irregardless of the Tibet issue. Furthermore autonomy for Tibet will set a poor precedent for negotiations with Taiwan, it will be interpreted as a surrender of the one China principal.
August 9, 2005 @ 11:10 pm | Comment
138
By richard
Jing, there is no such word as “irregardless.” (Just kidding you, though it’s true. Try “irrespective.”)
I would give the CCP huge props if they increased autonomy for Tibet. Also if they memorialized Zhao Ziyang as he deserves, and took down the posters of Mao. Jing, I’m just waiting!
This reminded me of the common argument that if there were elections held today, the CCP would certainly win. Maybe. Probably (I mean, who is there left to run against them?) So then why don’t they just humor us and hold the elections? If they did so, I promise I will praise them to the skies! But under your logic they might as well not bother reforming in any way, since their critics will keep going after them anyway. Well, how about giving it a try? Come on, show us some real, tangible reform and see how we react. I promise we can be very reasonable if we are shown the evidence.
August 9, 2005 @ 11:27 pm | Comment
139
By Ivan
Kevin, you wrote:
A song with a title like “We’re So Happy You Invaded US”…..
HAHAHAHA! Oh God, I’m having visions of black-faced banjo players on a Mississippi riverboat show… “We all loves de Massa!”….
August 9, 2005 @ 11:56 pm | Comment
140
By Bing
Webster:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: “ir-i-‘gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
August 10, 2005 @ 1:48 am | Comment
141
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Jing and Bing … I don’t know if you realise the logical conclusion of your statements. If you’re a Tibetan, and you accept whole-heartedly what you say, and yet you still yearn for independence or a substantial degree of autonomy, you are left with only one path: sedition. I’m not talking minor levels of opposition, but rather revolutionary plotting that intends to lead to widespread chaos and collapse of the Chinese state … otherwise, there is no way to hope for change.
This is the problem by maintaining the “zero-tolerance” policy towards these kind of issues. If you have a pressure-cooker, and you never allow it any way to release pressure, you are guaranteeing that eventually it will explode. The stronger the containment, and the longer you manage to keep it in place, the more severe the consequent explosion. One thing guarantees the next.
August 10, 2005 @ 2:02 am | Comment
142
By Conrad
Yes, give those Tibetan’s an inch and they’ll take a mile. The next thing you know they’ll be asking not to be tortured and not to be discriminated against in their own country. Demanding bastards.
August 10, 2005 @ 2:13 am | Comment
143
By Ivan
Hm, I just thought of something: Let’s take the CCP’s logic about why Tibet is historically part of China, and extrapolate the logic to its final conclusion:
1. Tibet became “part of China” when the Mongols invaded China and Tibet and annexed Tibet.
2. The Yuan (Mongol) dynasty fell in the 1300s, but all successor governments of China have inherited the right to rule Tibet, due to the Mongol invasion of China and Tibet
3. However, the Mongols ALSO conquered all of Russia, and gradually lost power in Russia – and now Russia is the successor state of the Golden Horde (the Mongol Empire in Russia and Central Asia)
4. Therefore, by the same reasoning China uses as being the successor state to rule Tibet (ie, as part of the old Mongol Empire), Russia has an equal claim to rule all of Siberia AND Central Asia AND Mongolia AND Manchuria
5. Well, if you consider the competing claims of Russia and China (to be the successor state of the Mongol Empire) in terms of geographical size, then Russia has the better claim.
6. China is historically part of Russia. The central government of China should be in Moscow.
7. And of course, all good Communists should condemn Chairman Mao for being a “splittist”, for splitting the Communist Movement. Come on, China, come back under the wing of your Russian Big Brothers! 🙂
August 10, 2005 @ 2:58 am | Comment
144
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Ivan, the analogy isn’t appropriate. Don’t ask me why. I just know that that is what any advocate of the Chinese line will tell you.
August 10, 2005 @ 3:12 am | Comment
145
By Bing
Ivan
Who really cares those arguments you gave above? This is no justice or fairness when it comes to national interest.
If arguements could sovle problems there would not be wars.
Face the reality and get the best out of reality.
In the end, the only real loser of Tibet Independence movement is Tibetans. I’m sorry for them, but for their best they have to adapt themselves to be a constituent member of pan-Chinese society.
August 10, 2005 @ 3:16 am | Comment
146
By Bing
“This is the problem by maintaining the “zero-tolerance” policy towards these kind of issues. If you have a pressure-cooker, and you never allow it any way to release pressure, you are guaranteeing that eventually it will explode. The stronger the containment, and the longer you manage to keep it in place, the more severe the consequent explosion. One thing guarantees the next.”
Don’t underestimate the power of assimilation. Who knows what would happen after another 20 years Chinese migration to Tibet?
There are all kinds of pressures everywhere in China. Tibet is not an issue that could produce enough pressure for Chinese government to make concession. And it’s not gonna be, no matter how much other countries interefere.
There are 56 ethnic groups in China. There are many other ethnic minority groups that have much more population than Tibetans and have same distinctive culture and tradition.
How many of them campaign for independenc?
You might hear of a few of them complaining of “Han Chinese” marginizing them. But even for these few people, try asking them if they think they are Chinese.
As a minority, people can easily feel isolated in a muticultural society. Just like many Chinese in other countries.
If you are reluctant to reach out to others, don’t complain of being marginized.
Tibet is gonna remain in China forever. It doesn’t matter what people live on it, be it Tibetans or Chinese.
August 10, 2005 @ 3:37 am | Comment
147
By Bing
“Yes, give those Tibetan’s an inch and they’ll take a mile. The next thing you know they’ll be asking not to be tortured and not to be discriminated against in their own country. Demanding bastards. ”
You are right. All of us are Demanding bastards.
August 10, 2005 @ 3:40 am | Comment
148
By Bing
“Come on, China, come back under the wing of your Russian Big Brothers! :-)”
Russian Big Brothers?
Maybe still be somehow for now. In 20 years, you guess.
August 10, 2005 @ 3:45 am | Comment
149
By Bing
I like what Blair has done to NI. He is a true leader in many aspects.
We have a lot to learn from the way British government handle NI.
In contrast, G Bush is just a monkey puppet.
August 10, 2005 @ 3:51 am | Comment
150
By Bing
It’s such a sarcasm for the allegedly greatest democracy to elect such a mediocre sometimes idiotic president.
August 10, 2005 @ 3:55 am | Comment
151
By Ivan
Bing, what do you mean Bush is “sometimes idiotic?”
Bush is ALWAYS idiotic! Please be more accurate.
August 10, 2005 @ 4:15 am | Comment
152
By Bing
Ivan, he’s not always idiotic. Actually sometimes he’s quite entertaining which I, and sure many others, do enjoy.
Regan might be a better president than an actor.
G Bush is probably a better comedian than a president.
August 10, 2005 @ 4:21 am | Comment
153
By JFS
Concerning the maps, I think there may be some confusion as to value. The maps that are useful in this debate are not maps in general, but those maps appended to treaties and protocols. Each side can pick their candidates and find support, both sides.
For the historical aspects of this debate, James and others have produced some good events, but one can also choose The Qian Long Emperor’s sole sponsorship of the Dalai Lama when he destroyed the Dzungars and the Yellow Sect (of Tibetan Buddhism) or the Qing’s military operations against the Ghurkas (implying the Chinese state had the right to protect their own territory, etc.). Again, one can pick his own events to document the justification of incorporation or dis-incorporation.
I think FSN does have a reasonable view, and that the Chinese government would be better off trying to incorporate the Zang people into the social and economic structure more effectively than they have so far done.
Part of the problem with the religious freedom for the Lama religion is its cultural baggage. Buddhism was the glue for traditional Tibetan society, but that glue was maintained at a high cost. The religous leaders were the political leaders were the owner’s of wealth. Traditional Tibetan society was a poster child for “feudal society” (Marxist definition, not the historical sense of the term). It was corrupt. In order for it to be acceptable (even in the West), it needs to be decoupled from the political sphere and from monopolizing the economic sphere.
Do not misinterpret my meaning. I do not think the Chinese government’s religious policy is very useful nor efficient nor effective. I understand (or so I think) their motive, but it will not work, too costly for one thing. The Western method is much more effective, decoupling religion from political power and allowing all religions to practice. The multipicity of religions generally keeps them in line and from gaining too much power.
All in all, I think there have been a lot of good comments and much written worth thinking about. I do tend to think Bing and Jing are rational than many others, though; but then, maybe I misunderstood what Cervantes was saying.
August 10, 2005 @ 5:00 am | Comment
154
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Bing, you don’t know your Chinese history very well, do you? While some groups have indeed been assimilated in the Han majority over the course of thousands (usually not hundreds) of years, Chinese precedent in fact says that it is almost inevitable that groups on the outer limits, like the Tibetans, will indeed break away from the Chinese state at some point in the future. Of course, they’ll likely be re-absorbed later down the track, and then break way again … but history doesn’t doom the Tibetans at all. Far from it. The free Tibet movement likes to say so to make the situation seem more urgent than it is, and try to build support for their case, and the Chinese like to say so, because it makes their victory look inevitable … but if you leave aside their agendas for a moment, it’s hardly a done deal. Chinese attempts at assimilation by migration to a region like Tibet are in fact doomed to failure … because few Han actually want to live there. Most have to be bribed to go there by one means or another, and many of those pack up and go back at the first opportunity. Many of the officials who go there only do so because they are promised improved promotion prospects when they return to “civilisation”, or special exemptions on entry to Masters courses at university, etc. The Qin, the Han, and god only knows how many other dynasties have tried the policy of forced / incentive migration to unpopular regions … and all that happens is that the people leave once the government enforcing the policy collapses.
And, just to stir the pot, If we want to play the “precedent of history” game, then you’d have to say that you could see a period where large sections of what is considered the Chinese mainland today will be ruled by non-Han. The Manchu managed it, despite being only about 3% the numbers of the Chinese they conquered and ruled successfully for 300 years. If there is a dynastic collapse in China, who knows who could walk in and take over? Maybe the Japanese would like to have another go? (Roasting time for FSN9???)
August 10, 2005 @ 5:02 am | Comment
155
By Ivan
FSN,
About the “precedent of history” see my comment a few places above, arguing for China to be ruled by Moscow.
Or at least they should return all of Manchuria to Russia. And all of Xinjiang.
But no Chinese immigrants to Russia, please. The Chinese don’t handle their drink as well as Russians do…..
August 10, 2005 @ 5:13 am | Comment
156
By Ivan
Also, I suspect that if you took a referendum among all Uighurs in East Turkestan, the majority of them would opt to be annexed to Russia rather than to China. That would bring them closer to their neighbors in the CIS, in the Stans which are still closely aligned with Russia. And even in Soviet times the Russians allowed their Turkic provinces far more freedom of religion than the CCP has ever allowed in East Turkestan.
An even better solution would be for an independent East Turkestan to become part of the CIS (the successor commonwealth of the USSR states).
I mean, in the end, which country would the Uighurs rather be closer to? A new and very damaged, but yet authentic, democracy such as Russia, which has SOME freedom of the press (and now entire freedom of religion)? Or China, a dictatorship which has none of the above?
Aside from the effects of the Chechnyan war (which I think is scandalous on both sides), I can tell you that today, throughout Russia, Muslims are left alone by the Russian government. Quite unlike in China.
And there are more Muslims throughout the Russian interior than most people realize – something like 5 percent or more of Russia’s population, many of them descended from the Tatars, scattered throughout Russia. (Houses painted green are frequently Muslim, especially Tatar – you can find them all throughout Russia.)
And none of them are controlled by the central government. And most of them are deeply assimilated into Russian society – I have met some blonde and blue eyed “Tatars”.
Yes I’m stirring the pot a bit here,
🙂 but I’m largely serious. If the Uighurs were given the chance to choose remaining part of China, versus independence and alliance with Russia, I’m sure they’d choose the latter. At any rate it will be a cold day in Hell before the Uighurs sing songs in praise of how China liberated them.
August 10, 2005 @ 5:34 am | Comment
157
By JFS
FSN: The ability of marginalized peoples escaping from assimiliation is a function of many elements, two of which will be the technological level of transportation and communication. That is why the area that is considered Chinese by culture and race has expanded considerably even to now. What constitutes the Han race has added new elements, the latest being the Man people, whom in significant numbers have assimilated.
The two main marginal areas that are being contested or are in the midst of incorporation are Tibet and Xinjiang. Hindu culture is the contesting form in Tibet and Islamic culture in Xinjiang. In Xinjiang large numbers of Chinese are migrating, many of them Christian (greater religious freedom). Your comments about the Chinese immgrants into Tibet appear to be partisan inspired. There are many that go there to make a better life, and stay.
Geopolitics will tell you that as long as China as the capacity, it will not allow these two areas fall into hands that will be unfriendly.
August 10, 2005 @ 6:21 am | Comment
158
By Bing
Filthy Stinking No.9
As I said, Tibet will remain in China forever, no matter what people live on it, be it Tibetans or Chinese.
If Tibetans don’t want to be part of pan-Chinese society. let them go. India must be over the moon to have them.
It doesn’t matter if Han Chinese want to live there or not. Few Russian want to live in Far east, where Chinese stowaways have a great interest, but that doesn’t mean one day Russia would let its Far east go to China.
They must acknowledge the reality that no outside power can free Tibet from China. Tibetans, like other ethinic minorities, have already got more priviliges than Han Chinese. They could have more, but only if they adapt themselves as a member of pan-Chinese society.
I’m sure Chinese government can control the situation, just like the British does in NI. Independence is Non-negotiable. Substantial autonomy is not impossible in foreseeable future. There is room for discussion of culture, religion and tradition protection, but that’s all.
Do we fear the Independence movement turns to violence due to the “crack down” (the content of crack down is not specific to this part of China)? That’s the last thing CCP government fears to happen. Again, just like the IRA and British government.
The only way out for Tibetans, again, face the reality, be part of us, we are compatriots and we develop together.
August 10, 2005 @ 6:30 am | Comment
159
By James
You know, it is possible for people to exist within a wider culture and yet maintain a cultural heritage and identity of their own. I don’t think Tibet stands a chance at real independence, but that doesn’t mean that the people have to roll over and see their religion and traditions disappear beneath a wave of Sinification – or become another pretty-dancing minority. The Dalai Lama, in particular, has actually adopted a much more conciliatory policy towards Beijing than has been made out on this thread, calling for a recognition of Tibetan cultural uniqueness and a degree of political autonomy rather than outright seperation. (He has terrible handlers, mind, and the Tibetan court politics at Dharamsala are something else.)
J.
August 10, 2005 @ 6:36 am | Comment
160
By JFS
I would tend to agree with you, James. But I do not think it is political possible for some form of political autonomy is possible right now, especially in view of Dharamsala politics. As far as cultures maintaining their identity, that will be a function of how that culture (meaning the people of that culture) adapt to changing economic and social conditions. If they attempt to freeze that culture, then it will dissapear.
August 10, 2005 @ 6:43 am | Comment
161
By Jing
I would disagree with you James, the reason that the Dalai Lama is concilliatory isn’t because he is magnaminious, it is because he has no other options but to attempt to engage with Beijing as a supplicant. Looking back on the history of post-liberation Tibet, the position of the Lamaists have gradually evolved from open warfare to its present “hippy-like” state. The reasons for the 1959 rebellion are numerous, but the most significant is the fear on the part of the Tibetans that the communists were going to destroy the religious institutions within Tibet. The destruction of the monasteries would have had a profound impact on Tibetan society, I believe then that nearly 30% of the population of Tibet were involved in monastic life. The original insurrection began in the areas where political and land reforms (shooting monks, seizing monastery land) had taken root a decade earlier, Kham and Amdo which today are not part of the TAR. The lamaists then were not opposed to the use of force to drive home their point, nor was it the last instance of it. Even after the quelling of unrest, the exiles made another attempt at organized resistance in the form of mustang force, a guerilla army trained and financed by the US. Ultimately nothing came as a result, as the force was too small, internal politics among the exiles, and American reticance had foreordained its failure. Yet nonetheless the Lamaists cherished the dream, even hoping of Indian assistance in the event of open hostilities (This was after the SI war). That “his holiness” is amicable today is part of a cunning soft propaganda campaign because he realizes that he has no available military means available.
To the filthy stinker, regarding the Manchus, they are a special case. This comment was left at Andres Gentry’s blog years ago by someone named Nathan, but it bears repeating.
August 10, 2005 @ 9:56 am | Comment
162
By Shanghai Slim
I really appreciate the efforts of all involved, I learned a lot in this thread!
August 10, 2005 @ 10:27 am | Comment
163
By Douglas
Jing an Bing, just a brief point about the NI analogy (as a Brit myself): the difference is that Blair (and every recent British PM, even the Thatcher woman) has made it crystal clear that, should a majority of people in NI wish to join the Republic of Ireland, the UK wouldn’t stand in the way and would give effect to their wishes. (Actually, most of us can’t quite believe our luck that the RoI would actually want the place and would be delighted if they’d take on the responsibility, and preferably pay for it too.) If Scotland or Wales ever wish to leave the UK (unlikely), the same applies; the wishes of the people of any of the countries of the UK will be respected.
The contrast between that, whatever our (undoubtedly many and grave) faults and crimes in the past in Ireland, and the position of ‘might makes right’ which Bing, Jing and the Chinese authorities are essentially holding to, is fairly self-evident. Rest assured that if China were to drop this kind of attitude to Tibet (and for that matter to Taiwan), I would join Richard in praising it for doing so. The reason I take a harshly critical line of the CCP and the Chinese state (not the Chinese people) isn’t because I’d oppose no matter what, it’s because of the record of human rights violations above all else – and what has been and is being done to Tibet ranks as one of the worst elements of that record.
James, I agree that the Dalai Lama made a number of concessions to the reality of the position of Tibet, and the position remains that they support dialogue without preconditions. I think that a ‘one country, two systems’ solution would be accepted by the Tibetan side – I wouldn’t deny that this is largely due to the fact that there’s no realistic prospect of Tibetan independence, and I do think it would be helpful if the Gov’t in exile indicated that they would be prepared to consider a solution based on the territory of the Tibetan Autonomous Region rather than ‘historic Tibet’ – after all, the TAR approximated the territory actually controlled by Tibet in 1950.
August 10, 2005 @ 5:56 pm | Comment
164
By Douglas
Apologies for following up on this when it had gone quiet!
August 10, 2005 @ 5:57 pm | Comment
165
By Fat Cat
James and Douglas, I concur with your views about the conciliatory policy of the Tibetan political leaders (please see my postings above). I also agree with Douglas that the nature of the dialogue has to be changed for it to move forward. Extreme arguments to and against political independence will only lead to undesirable results.
Jing, the Dalai Lama adopts a conciliatory policy not because of Beijing. My understanding is that he is also trying to deter extreme and aggressive rhetoric coming from within his Tibetan followers in order to prevent unnecessary conflicts and bloodshed. From my point of view, this is exercising leadership. Wen Jiabao has also built up a reputation as a caring leader. It is my wish that he and other Chinese political leaders will exercise similar kind of leadership on the Tibetan issue.
August 10, 2005 @ 9:10 pm | Comment
166
By LW
I would like to make another post to make my point clear.
For the activists on the Tibetan issue, there are different types of people. There are people who are sincerely concerned the plight of other human being and trying to do something to improve it, and there are also another type of people who just jump on this issue because they smell trouble and blood, would love to see more blood and human suffering. The first type of people will address the problem as it is and try to find out the best solutions. The second type of people can’t wait to see Tibet and Xingjiang turn into another Chechenia, and so they can watch with a perverse pleasure on the TVs. They have no real concerns for the any human suffering. Also in the discussion the second type is more likely to distort and sensationalize the situation, they will sneer, insult, calling name and shut up the people with different opinions.
As for Tibet independence, there are two different issues. One is “Should Tibet exists as independent country in the future”, another one is “Was Tibet independent country in recent history”. If some want argue that for the best interest of Tibetan people Tibet should be independent in the future, he has the right to make his point. If someone said that Tibet was an independent country before 1950, then I would have to say that it is not true. Under both Qing dynasty and KMT government, Tibet was considered part of China, although it was totally run by Tibetan themselves without any interference from the central government. The view of KMT government on this issue was accepted and respected by its western allies, such as US.
When I point out that Tibet was shown on the maps as part of China before 1950, I have no intention to justify anything regarding Tibet now or future. Just if I pointed out Mongolia was part of China then, I had no intension to suggest Mongolia should be part of China in the future. I also agree ideally that the issue whether Tibet should independent should be decided by Tibetan people, but is not realistic option now.
There are people who deliberately dishonest about Tibet and China history, just because they want to justify the independent of Tibet in the future. I consider them just the same as the second type of people mentioned above. No wonder when I present my opinion I got insults instead a discussion with mutual respects.
August 11, 2005 @ 9:53 am | Comment
167
By richard
Nearly everyone on this thread has acknowledged that Tibet will not be independent, and the most we can hope for is greater autonomy and less repression, though that doesn’t seem to be likely anytime soon — even if someone draws a map and puts it on eBay showing Tibet to be a separate and independent country.
August 11, 2005 @ 10:10 am | Comment
168
By Douglas
LW, here’s a quote from the British government in 1942:
“The Tibetans have every moral right to their independence for which they have fought successfully in the past, and we are committed to support them in maintaining it.”
In 1904:
“Tibet is not one of the 18 provinces of the Chinese Empire.”
To claim that the US and its allies recognised China’s claim to Tibet before 1950 is at best questionable. Even now, the UK Government’s position is carefully-hedged – regarding Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of China there.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Tibet was incorporated into China, as opposed to being in a protectorate-type relationship. It’s long accepted in international law that a protectorate is entitled to assume responsibility for its own security and foreign policy (and indeed the protector can terminate its own responsibility) – it happened in the Gulf States in 1961 and 1971 when treaties with the UK came to an end. As said previously, this would be what Tibet effectively did in 1911.
You can disagree with that analysis, by all means, but I don’t think those of us who don’t accept Beijing’s position are simply looking for Chechnya Mark II. As has been said, though, independence is sadly off the agenda. To that extent China has totally won the battle for Tibet.
August 11, 2005 @ 10:24 am | Comment
169
By Bing
Douglas
Announcement of Britain at the time should not be given credit due to its own involvement in Tibet.
Many nowadays international or national problems can be certainly attributed to The then Britan.
August 11, 2005 @ 11:40 am | Comment
170
By LW
Suppose US and Britain did not include Tibet as part of China in 1940s. When did they start to include Tibet into China in their maps after 1949? During Korean War just because CCP take control of Tibet? For the China – US Shanghai (agreement?) signed in1972 during Nixon first visit to China, there is big statement about Taiwan, but no mention of Tibet at all. Why, because Tibet is not even an issue then. There is no noticeable Tibet independent movement then.
August 11, 2005 @ 12:09 pm | Comment
171
By Douglas
I wasn’t planning to defend the British record worldwide – a pretty hard thing to do, and as a leftish liberal not something I’m inclined to try anyway. But I don’t think the rights and wrongs of the British Empire are relevant to the legal status of Tibet – aside from anything else, I think China had just as much of an interest in Tibet at the time as Britain did! Saying ‘well, Britain can be blamed for half the wrongs of the world’ is just a diversion. It has no relevance to Tibet’s position before 1950.
The reason Western governments haven’t pressed Tibet very hard as an issue is simple; it has no relationship to Western self-interest and it involves antagonising Beijing for no clear Western gain. It’s a sad comment on our commitment to human rights, but not much of an indicator of the rights and wrongs.
OK, that’s my last shot on this one.
August 11, 2005 @ 12:22 pm | Comment
172
By wawa
People tend to think that minorities in China are being depressed or unfairly treated.
Grew up in China myself, I actually felt that minorities are being unfairly favored. Things like lower score for entrance to college and no need to worry about “One child policy” are totally unfair!!!
P.S I actually think it is fair to let minorities to have as many children as then can, but I used it as an argument anyway.
August 11, 2005 @ 3:35 pm | Comment
173
By Bing
“P.S I actually think it is fair to let minorities to have as many children as then can, but I used it as an argument anyway.”
Don’t humiliate yourself. This is not something for you to show your understanding.
Forceful One Child policy is simply inhumane and makes Chinese like cattles.
The discrimination to Han on enforcing this policy shows how stupid, filthy and masochistic this government is.
August 11, 2005 @ 4:34 pm | Comment
174
By wawa
Bing, I don’t know what I said touched your nerve because I surely didn’t say I’m supportive of forced abortion, did I?
If this is a “one child policy” discussion, your response probably would make more sense. But personal attack on me is still unwarranted, don’t you think.
August 11, 2005 @ 5:43 pm | Comment
175
By Bing
Where was the personal attack?
But tell me why it is fair to let minorities have as many children as then can, since you don’t know what’s wrong with what you said.
Is Han Chinese born lowly? This policy will not be possible in any normal countres. Many countries have population problem and none of others dare put some a discriminative policy targeting a specific group, especially the majority group.
If you are a Han Chinese, believe me you are definitely brainwashed by CCP’s masochistic propaganda on this issue. Very sad, but this is humiliating yourself.
August 12, 2005 @ 12:23 am | Comment
176
By Ivan
Dear Tibetans,
Sorry, now I realize I should have made the Himalayas higher.
Sincerely yours,
God
(presently in a Chinese prison, being forced to study Mao-thought – oh, Me, Mao never wrote like I did…ah well, I know my Lucifer is forcing Mao to study MY “Book of Chronicles”:
“…and Zabad begat Ephlal, and Ephlal begat Obed”….etc etc…. hey, a few more centuries of THAT and Mao will ask to trade places with me…..and THAT’s how My Divine Providence really works….. 🙂
PS, please tell George Bush that yes I DO speak to him but he never listens. First of all I NEVER told him “Blessed are the boorish spirits”…..
August 12, 2005 @ 4:08 am | Comment
177
By wawa
Bing, maybe you don’t, but I read “Don’t humiliate yourself. This is not something for you to show your understanding” as a personal attack, put your name before the sentence and see how you feel.
The downfall and merit of “One child policy” probably is well debated either here or somewhere else on the web and again this thread is not debating the issue.
There are generally 2 sides to every story, so think about that before branding another person as being “brainwashed”, you might want to look at the mirror yourself.
August 12, 2005 @ 5:56 am | Comment
178
By fucker
comment removed
August 12, 2005 @ 9:12 am | Comment
179
By shulan
Ups a troll.
August 12, 2005 @ 9:20 am | Comment
180
By weefz
Tashi Dalek-
I believe in secularism. While I think HH is great, I do not and never have liked the idea of him being a political leader. He certainly would be a better leader than a Jerry Falwell, but I think it best if HH sticks to being a monk.
All is impermanence. Things will pass. However, China will never let go of Tibet in our time. It is wise to make the best of things until China sees the error of it’s ways. But as for a free Tibet…Tibet has never been liberated. The outside world never used to be able to visit Tibet until China took control. I can now visit Tibet! That would not be possible if HH was still in control.
I just discovered pekingduck.org today. What an awesome site!
August 12, 2005 @ 1:05 pm | Comment
181
By Anonymous
Conrad,
You said,
So, as I understand it, China is entitled to control Tibet and repress Tibetan Bhuddism because:
Chairman Mao was also an “emperor”, who condemned all religion and had thousands of temples destroyed. He lived in palatial surroundings, tended to by cooks, attendants and physicians 24 hours a day, with a haram of young women always available for his sexual pleasure and was chauffered by luxuery car wherever he wanted to go.
Girls can go to school in China . . . provided that they have not being abandoned or aborted under China’s one-child policy.
As early a 600 years ago the Chinese emperor came to the Portugese and granted them possession of Macau in exchange for protection from pirates. Later Chinese emperors granted Westerners foreign possession of Hong Kong and Shanghai in exchange for various other advantages.
By the Richard’s writer’s logic, the CCP should be suppressed and Hong Kong, Macau and Shanghai still governed by Westerners.
Good points.
So, you agree that
1. Dalai Lama should be free to return to Tibet and continue to be a slave master and dictator.
2. Tibetan girls shall not be granted the rights to go to school for the price of them not being abadoned or aborted.
3. A government shall disregard the time factor written in the treaty fo as long as it pleases.
Sounds good to me:)
I’m not trying to imply that things are all fine and dandy in Tibet. But this kind of knee jerk reaction to any possible positive changes were made in Tibet isn’t too far from the canned phrases you hear all around the place.
Don’t you think?
August 12, 2005 @ 3:04 pm | Comment
182
By Tetsuaki
Richard,
I apologize if the I quote too mcuh of Conrad’s post.
And yet again, I forgot to sign my post.
Regards
August 12, 2005 @ 3:06 pm | Comment
183
By wawa
We could argue our heart out about whether Tibet should be part of China, but that ain’t gonna change the fact that Tibet is part of China and that will NOT change.
In my opinion, anyone could go visist Tibet speaks volumns as to whether Tibet is a brutal police state or not. Are there problems in Tibet for ordinary people? Yes, just as there are problems everywhere in China.
I also think the railroad project connecting Tibet to outside will be beneficial to people in Tibet. It does have political and military purpose, but more trade will mean better lifes. The government is all for protection of buddist temple everywhere so people worried about destruction of Tibetan culture probably are just over worried.
I think Tibet has been isolated for a long period time, newer generation of Tibetans should be given a chance to do something else if they don’t want to be a monk or raise sheeps etc.
August 12, 2005 @ 3:50 pm | Comment
184
By Luke
I become more and more regret that China hasn’t had a tradition of colonism. If we do as what British or other westeners had done, i.e., moving a dozen people to a “NEW” place and then gained legitimate right of occupying it, Tibet won’t be a pain of xxx as today.
I’d agree with other typical Chinese here, China should never let Tibet go whatssoever. Of course, both sides must reach out to understand each other and make a better relationship. But China should never let it go.
Luke
August 12, 2005 @ 5:28 pm | Comment
185
By Inst
???
Luke said:
“I become more and more regret that China hasn’t had a tradition of colonism. If we do as what British or other westeners had done, i.e., moving a dozen people to a “NEW” place and then gained legitimate right of occupying it, Tibet won’t be a pain of xxx as today.”
China is inherently an expansionistic and colonialist country. You know that around 1AD, Chinese civilization only held a middling region around the Yellow River with some control of the Yangtze? Yet look at it today; it’s grown at least twofold. Where did all this expansion come from? What happened to the displaced peoples?
June 5, 2006 @ 1:54 am | Comment