News Olympic torch relay disruptions

[mjsd]

Who is "we?"
Who said "we" were?
They aren't. It just happens that the Tibetans are the ones currently being gunned down and summarily imprisoned when they agitate for their rights.

you may be interested to know that there were anit-govt protests in neighbouring provinces: Xinjiang (Uyghur region), Qinghai (mix of Han, Tibetan, Hui and others), and Sichuan (mix of Han, Yi and others) soon after the Tibet incident... but as one would expect those were crushed pretty quickly... so is it not "just Tibet" to say the least. But let's not emphasize on that point alone for human abuses no matter where they happen are bad. I was concerning about the media over-playing the issue of "Free Tibet" without real consideration as to what is good for the Tibetans or Chinese in those regions general.

The right to self-determination flows from the status as nation, which is a self-identified unit. The historical interpretations of outsiders have no bearing on nationhood, and you seem to be conflating the ideas of "country", "state" and "nation." If Tibetans believe they are a nation, and act accordingly, then they are a nation.

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Is Tibet part of or not part of China? before we can talking about "self-determination", we must first define what is "self" here. I know there is a huge dispute over whether Tibet is indeed part of China or not, but until we can resolve that there is no sense in talking about "self-determination" simply because we run into difficult definitions as to what constitute a legitimate independent nation, county or state.

Nobody is being offered, or requesting, that choice. Cheap shots at American foreign policy aren't relevant.

No mention of American foreign policy whatsoever... Iraq under Sadddam has nothing to do with America (at least after the 80s)... just comparing the situation face by the ppl in those countries. If you don't like that comparsion, fine, I have no problems with that. everyone is entitle to their opinion.

Tibetans aren't asking for improved material welfare; they're asking for an end to the suppression of their culture and religion.

For many years Tibetans are living under horrific conditions, that's a fact. But is it better now than in the 1920s when it was run by warlords and high ranking monks, subjecting ordinary ppl to slavery and all that?... I would say so. But is it good enough today? NO. Is "Free Tibet" the best solution for better quality of life? Most certainly not. because China is keeping it afloat to, some extend, economically and in other aspects. If Tibetans just want the Chinese to leave them alone, then that's very easy to achieve. They can just walk out and create a power vacuum for thugs and warlords to turn Tibet back to the early 1920s... we don't want that do we? But is there a better solution? Hard to tell at this point.

Somehow I find it hard to comprehend what the "free Tibet" movement is really trying to achieve for the ordinary Tibetans.

 

[quadraphonics]

you may be interested to know that there were anit-govt protests in neighbouring provinces: Xinjiang (Uyghur region), Qinghai (mix of Han, Tibetan, Hui and others), and Sichuan (mix of Han, Yi and others) soon after the Tibet incident... but as one would expect those were crushed pretty quickly... so is it not "just Tibet" to say the least. But let's not emphasize on that point alone for human abuses no matter where they happen are bad. I was concerning about the media over-playing the issue of "Free Tibet" without real consideration as to what is good for the Tibetans or Chinese in those regions general.

Actually, I did know about that stuff, and it's definitely the case that the international media machine the Dalai Lama has built over the decades draws most of the limelight onto Tibet. Nevertheless, the Tibet issue is very similar to the issues in those other provinces, and so the same debate is largely applicable. Indeed, I think that a big reason why China takes such a strong stand on Tibet is exactly because any perceived weakness there would set uncomfortable precedents in the other western provinces, and eventually in the Han heartland itself.

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Is Tibet part of or not part of China? before we can talking about "self-determination", we must first define what is "self" here. I know there is a huge dispute over whether Tibet is indeed part of China or not, but until we can resolve that there is no sense in talking about "self-determination" simply because we run into difficult definitions as to what constitute a legitimate independent nation, county or state.

The questions are only difficult if you confuse nations, states and contries. The issues about whether "Tibet is part of China" relate to whether the Tibetan *state* is/was a part of the Chinese *state*. Self-determination is a *national* right, and nations are self-identified units. While the issue of what degree of independence the state of Tibet has enjoyed may be complex, I don't see anything controversial about the observation that Tibet is a nation. Tibetans believe that they are a nation, and act accordingly. Moreover, even official Chinese documents refer to Tibetans as a "national minority;" the Chinese state, at least on paper, is supposed to be composed of multiple nations. The issue comes down to the fact that the Chinese state does not respect the self-determination of the various nations within it (including, some would argue, the Han nation). What they're disputing is not the status of Tibet as a nation, but rather what rights nations are entitled to.

Also, it seems perverse to insist that an entity must already have a clear, undisputed claim to independence before we can define its right to self-determination. If we adopt such an approach, then the only people who have the right to self-determination are those whose self-determination is unchallenged.

For many years Tibetans are living under horrific conditions, that's a fact. But is it better now than in the 1920s when it was run by warlords and high ranking monks, subjecting ordinary ppl to slavery and all that?... I would say so. But is it good enough today? NO. Is "Free Tibet" the best solution for better quality of life? Most certainly not. because China is keeping it afloat to, some extend, economically and in other aspects. If Tibetans just want the Chinese to leave them alone, then that's very easy to achieve. They can just walk out and create a power vacuum for thugs and warlords to turn Tibet back to the early 1920s... we don't want that do we? But is there a better solution? Hard to tell at this point.

The supposition (mostly forwarded by CCP apologists) that Tibet will necessarily revert back to its conditions of decades ago strikes me as ridiculous. Infrastructure has been built, society has progressed. The assumption seems to be that Tibetans lack the capacity for effective self-government, which I think is very paternalistic, if not outright racist. The biggest impediment facing an independent Tibetan state would be a revanchist China working to undermine it. Anyway, this is all beside the point, as nobody is promoting the idea of an independent Tibetan state. What is desired is for China to stop interfering in their culture and religion, and grant them meaningful autonomy. The idea is that China would still run foreign relations and national security, while Tibet would be left free to govern its own internal affairs.

Also, I think you mean early 1950's, not early 1920's, as that is when Mao invaded and coopted the Tibetan government. It wasn't until almost 1960 that they kicked out the Dalai Lama.

Somehow I find it hard to comprehend what the "free Tibet" movement is really trying to achieve for the ordinary Tibetans.

I am given to believe that it has something to do with "freedom."

 

[mgb_phys]

The supposition (mostly forwarded by CCP apologists) that Tibet will necessarily revert back to its conditions of decades ago strikes me as ridiculous. Infrastructure has been built, society has progressed. The assumption seems to be that Tibetans lack the capacity for effective self-government, which I think is very paternalistic, if not outright racist.

Sure - the idea that a central asian country would revert to the medieval when a commie invader is kicked out, just because it becomes a theocracy under an all powerfull religious leader is completely without precedence.

 

[quadraphonics]

Sure - the idea that a central asian country would revert to the medieval when a commie invader is kicked out, just because it becomes a theocracy under an all powerfull religious leader is completely without precedence.

That precedent involved the commie invader more-or-less reducing the place to rubble before they left, so the implied chain of causality in your description seems off to me. Anyway, last time I checked, the Dalai Lama had embraced a lot of democratic ideals (including the election of his "reincarnation"), and nobody is asking for China to withdraw and so create a power vacuum. There's also the issue that the religion in question is famous for non-violence. So I think the parallel is pretty far off.

It's striking that so many people are willing to forward an argument that depends on the Dalai Lama/Free Tibet movement having goals that explicitly contradict their stated aims.

 

[mgb_phys]

There's also the issue that the religion in question is famous for non-violence. So I think the parallel is pretty far off.

I suspect the Chinese have a very different idea of Buddhist non-violence, especially in it's Japanese form.

It's striking that so many people are willing to forward an argument that depends on the Dalai Lama/Free Tibet movement having goals that explicitly contradict their stated aims.

He's a politician - of course his goals contradict their stated aims.
There is another religous leader currently visiting washington who's religion is based on peace, love and the meek inheriting the Earth - but you'd have a hard job determinign that from it's history.

 

[quadraphonics]

I suspect the Chinese have a very different idea of Buddhist non-violence, especially in it's Japanese form.

Well, given that Japan is as Shinto as it is Buddhist, has an explicitly pacifist constitution, and has nothing to do with the Tibet issue, I don't really see the relevance...

He's a politician - of course his goals contradict their stated aims.

Not sure who "they" is in that sentence.

There is another religous leader currently visiting washington who's religion is based on peace, love and the meek inheriting the Earth - but you'd have a hard job determinign that from it's history.

Yeah, and just look what a backwards, impoverished place the state run by that guy is. Oh, wait...

 

[mgb_phys]

Well, given that Japan is as Shinto as it is Buddhist, has an explicitly pacifist constitution, and has nothing to do with the Tibet issue, I don't really see the relevance...

Buddhism has better PR. Buddhist=peaceful is as accurate as Islam=terrorist.

Not sure who "they" is in that sentence.

Sorry typo - I meant just because a political leader is religous doesn't stop him being a politician.

Yeah, and just look what a backwards, impoverished place the state run by that guy is. Oh, wait...

Not sure that Tibet becoming a theocracy will immediately transform it into Vatican city.

 

[quadraphonics]

Buddhism has better PR. Buddhist=peaceful is as accurate as Islam=terrorist.

Look, the Tibetan movement, and the Dalai Lama in particular, explicitly disclaim violence, and have refrained from using violence against the Chinese states for decades now, so I don't see the relevance of this line of argument.

Sorry typo - I meant just because a political leader is religous doesn't stop him being a politician.

And just because a religious leader is political doesn't stop him being a religious leader. So what? We're supposed to accept one politician's (conveniently self-serving) characterization of another politician's goals because... politician #2 is a politician?

Not sure that Tibet becoming a theocracy will immediately transform it into Vatican city.

But you ARE sure that Tibet becoming a theocracy will immediately transform it into a humanitarian disaster? And, again, since nobody here is advocating a return to theocracy (and even the former theocrats aren't aiming to reimpose the old system as it was), I still don't see the relevance of this line of argument either.

 

[mjsd]

But you ARE sure that Tibet becoming a theocracy will immediately transform it into a humanitarian disaster? And, again, since nobody here is advocating a return to theocracy (and even the former theocrats aren't aiming to reimpose the old system as it was), I still don't see the relevance of this line of argument either.

No, I can't imagine anyone would want to see or advocating a return to any form of totalitarianism, pre-Mao theocratic slavery... it is just too politically incorrect to say these stuffs in the modern era! anwyay, no one can be SURE of what would happen... if we are so sure about things in life, making decisions would be much much easier.

However, it would be naive to believe that a destabilised region (as the result of CCP pulling out), can in a few years be stabilized, become economically viable and above all gives a good life to the masses. Suggesting this is not being paternalistic, this is what any strategist would predict.. regardless of the race of the ppl. Well, perhaps, that's why they don't want true independence (too much to lose for not enough gain) but prefer instead an autonomous region. Officially, Tibet is an autonomous region in the People's Republic of China presently. What ppl is not happy with is not this fact, but that they want more. Unfortunately, this is when it interferes with Chinese national security (in the CCP opinion). You mentioned that

The idea is that China would still run foreign relations and national security, while Tibet would be left free to govern its own internal affairs.

to many this is exactly what is the current status of Tibet, however, it is when it comes to national security, ppl feel that they have lost some rights.

Frankly, I feel very strongly that my govt. can monitor all my internet, phone usage, raid my place etc, without a court warrant, arrest and detain me without charge for up to 36 hours and in some cases 72 hours, stop me from catching a plane if I wear a T-Shirt says "Bush is the real terrorist", all in the name of national security and War on Terror. And don't forget the infamous US Patriot Act. If one doesn't feel one's "freedom" is under threat in this situation, I don't know what is.

Ok what this got to do with religious and cultural freedom in Tibet? Let me say this, although I do not agree with those actions of the CCP, just as I don't agree with how my govt. can do all that stuffs, it is clear that religion and politics are inseparable. Religion has the power to rally ppl to topple govt. , and too much freedom there can always be seen as a threat to national security especially under foreign influences. Given the huge influence of the religious entity in Tibet on politics and eveything else, it is not surprise that China needs it to be under "his control". In your words, it is probably called "suppression". But how to draw the line?

You mention also about "self-determination". No one is telling the Tibetans that you can't sell your tomatoes at 99c per kilo or you must not own a car or something... again, it only becomes an issue when it is in conflict with any anti-sedition policies. So if you want to own guns, you may not; if you rally a group of ppl to beat other groups up, you may not; if you plan a "terrorist attack", you may not. When would self-determination not interfere with national security and or laws of central govt? Where to draw the line? Why is his defintion of the line is any better or worse than hers?

But if one believes that Tibet should not be part of China anyway (as the "free Tibet" movement seems to advocate, and the western media seems to imply), then this line can be drawn. But as I said before this is debatable. There is only one way to gain a better perspective on this debate: study the full Chinese/Tibetan history. It won't give you the answer, but it will make you understand why there is even a debate.

The issue of Tibet is far from black and white: the CCP is evil so we need to save Tibet from the harshship. Or the west knows best what is right and wrong and so we knows what's best for the Tibetans. At the end of day, can the "free Tibet" movement really make lives better for the ordinary ppl? Should we encourage them to start a revolution when we may not be willing to give them substantial financial support afterwards and for a long term? It is a bit like if a friend of yours is having a dispute with his parents, you encourage him to stand firm and move out of the family house, but would you go as far as supporting him (financially etc.) for the long term after he breaks away?

 

[adrenaline]

This is my take on Tibet


China needs to defend its frontiers efficiently and maintian contol over the country, preventing regionalism and factionalism. ( In fact it is it's talent at doing so is why I believe it is the oldest surviving great empire capable of controlling its 56 ethnic minorities better than most other great empires that have fallen before it.)


The problems I see in Tibet are somewhat related to china's problem with Xinjiang which harbors a large muslim ethnic group, and there is a strong muslim seccessionist group there who want to declare independance but you don't see any protestors jumping up to defend the Xinjiang Secessionists!


This means at one point Xinjiang was invaded by Islamic forces. It is thus a barrier of defense against invasion of the heart land. ( As quadraphonics already mentioned) So long as Xinjiang is Chinese, Beijing will enjoy a 1,500-mile, inhospitable buffer between Lanzhou — the westernmost major Chinese city and its oil center — and the border of Kazakhstan. Thus, it will do everything in its power to keep Xinjiang.



Now look at Tibet . Running from the Hindu Kush on the border with Pakistan to the Myanmar border, small groups can traverse this terrain, but no major army is going to thrust across this border in either direction. Supplying a major force through these mountains is impossible. From a military point of view, it is a solid wall.


Directly south of this tibetan border is one of the largest population concentrations in the world. If China were to withdraw from Tibet, then what is to prevent the Indian migration north? ( Now I am presenting their mentality ok?) Tibet could turn into an extension of India and, over time, become a potential beachhead for Indian power. If that were to happen, India’s strategic frontier would directly abut the Chinese heartland. ( So it does not help that the Dali lama has been residing in India for a while and the Chinese regard him as an Indian puppet.)


If Tibet or if Xinjiang became independent, the vast buffers between China and the rest of Eurasia would break down!


(The Chinese can’t predict the evolution of Indian, Islamic or Russian power in such a circumstance, and they certainly don’t intend to find out.)

It is critical to understand that whatever the issues might be to the West, the Chinese see Tibet as a matter of fundamental national security. The Chinese are therefore trapped. They are staging the Olympics in order to demonstrate Chinese cohesion and progress. But they must hold on to Tibet for national security reasons.. and thus their public policy is collapsing.

 

[quadraphonics]

Actually, Adreneline, that's George Friedman at Strategic Forecasting's take on Tibet. Here is the link to the article you copied that text from:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/chinese_geopolitics_and_significance_tibet

It's fine if you agree with him, but you should cite the source when you copy-and-paste, and not pass it off as your own writing. Unless of course you are George Friedman, although then it would be strange that you wouldn't just link to the original article.

 

[adrenaline]

Actually, Adreneline, that's George Friedman at Strategic Forecasting's take on Tibet. Here is the link to the article you copied that text from:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/chinese_geopolitics_and_significance_tibet

It's fine if you agree with him, but you should cite the source when you copy-and-paste, and not pass it off as your own writing. Unless of course you are George Friedman, although then it would be strange that you wouldn't just link to the original article.

Well, now I know where my brother got his info! I don't know what this stratfor is but now I see where he got most of his material! We have both been talking about this for a long time. Honestly, I asked if i could paste and copy his words and add my own and I did not realize he was using anyone elses words! Thank you for pointing that out. I will humbley apologize for myself and my brother.

 

[FunkyDwarf]

But they must hold on to Tibet for national security reasons.. and thus their public policy is collapsing.

Exactly. Chinese xenophobia and militaristic nature means the rest of the world don't like them so they respond by continuing their abysmal human rights records and kepp re-arming to 'show strength'. Be nice for a country to show a bit of wisdom for once; those chinese generals aren't going to be sitting meekly on those weapons stockpiles forever.

 

[quadraphonics]

Honestly, I asked if i could paste and copy his words and add my own and I did not realize he was using anyone elses words! Thank you for pointing that out. I will humbley apologize for myself and my brother.

No worries; it can happen to anyone. Although the next time your brother starts talking like a PhD in Political Science, perhaps you will be more skeptical of his authorship :]