News Will Tibet Gain Greater Autonomy or Independence?

[Astronuc]

Tibet and the other central Asian nations have been of interest of mine for several decades.

Hopefully Tibet will receive greater autonomy in the future, and perhaps independence. The are has an interesting history.

China's history is also of interest. I think the Chinese government should consider two or more Chinas, although I suspect it's a matter of control. If we have multiple English-speaking countries that were once part of the British empire, why not have two or more Chinese-speaking nations?


In an interesting development, Report Says Valid Grievances at Root of Tibet Unrest
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/world/asia/06tibet.html

A group of prominent Chinese lawyers and legal scholars have released a research report arguing that the Tibetan riots and protests of March 2008 were rooted in legitimate grievances brought about by failed government policies — and not through a plot of the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.
. . . .
The authors of the report are members of a Chinese group called Gongmeng, or Open Constitution Initiative, which seeks to promote legal reform in China. Lawyers in the group also tried to file lawsuits on behalf of families whose babies suffered in the tainted milk scandal last year, and two members have defended Tibetans in court this year.

The authors of the report concluded that Chinese government policies had promoted a form of economic modernization in Tibet that left many Tibetans feeling increasingly disenfranchised over the decades. The researchers found that Tibetans had enormous difficulty finding work in their homeland, while ethnic Han Chinese migrants seemed to have a monopoly on jobs in restaurants, hotels and stores. When violent rioting broke out in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, on March 14, 2008, after four days of peaceful protests, businesses owned by Chinese were looted and burned. At least 19 people were killed, most of them Han Chinese.
. . . .

Interesting development.

 

[kyleb]

What value do you see in reverting to triablist segregation? It seems to me we would be better off promoting human rights across China rather than looking to divide it by ethnic lines. Unfourtantly, our current economic relationship with China doesn't give us much to work with here.

 

[Astronuc]

What value do you see in reverting to triablist segregation? It seems to me we would be better off promoting human rights across China rather than looking to divide it by ethnic lines. Unfourtantly, our current economic relationship with China doesn't give us much to work with here.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about segregation - nor do I see that as a necessary outcome of independence of Tibet. I do believe that people are entitled to self-determination, and that people should be allowed to engage in a democratic political system.

 

[turbo]

It's hard to see China allowing any division to occur, even to the point of allowing limited regional autonomy. They STILL claim Taiwan, and their strangle-hold on Tibet is pretty impressive. A fellow who is one of my oldest friends travels to Nepal on business several times a year, and from what he tells me, it seems that China is projecting its influence to that country as well. China's foreign-policy activities (in contrast to their tight domestic control as evidenced by the recent crack-downs on Internet communication, foreign access, etc leading up to the Tiananmen Square anniversary) are somewhat moderated by their desire to become a/the dominant economic force in the world. It's a pipe-dream, of course, but perhaps the best resolution of the problems surrounding North Korea's seemingly-constant attempts to blackmail the world into giving them more aid would be for China to say "enough is enough" and take over North Korea.

It would be a touchy move, rife with potential problems, but China has enough of a stake in the Western world to "play nice" with South Korea. In fact South Korea has industrialized quite effectively, and China could benefit from using their models in a new "North Korean Province" of China.

 

[kyleb]

I don't believe I mentioned anything about segregation - nor do I see that as a necessary outcome of independence of Tibet.

How do you figure it would be avioded?

I do believe that people are entitled to self-determination, and that people should be allowed to engage in a democratic political system.

Me too, but only on an individual level rather than a tribalistic one, in other words no more so for Tibetans separatists than those in the rest of China. Besides, were China to grant Tibetan independence, I'd be considered not only for safety of the Han minority there, but for the vast majority of Tibetans who might end up as serfs under the burial caste system which existed there prior to Chinese rule.

 

[Astronuc]

How do you figure it would be avoided?

That is an interesting theoretical question to explore. Given that Tibet is land-locked, they have to deal with neighboring nations with respect to trade, and given their aspirations, they have to treat the Han and others reasonable well.

Me too, but only on an individual level rather than a tribalistic one, in other words no more so for Tibetans separatists than those in the rest of China. Besides, were China to grant Tibetan independence, I'd be considered not only for safety of the Han minority there, but for the vast majority of Tibetans who might end up as serfs under the burial caste system which existed there prior to Chinese rule.

I'm curious about where and how westerners (outsiders) receive information on Tibetan feudalism or Tibetan history.

Here's some commentary on Tibetan feudalism. It may not have been as bad as some portray, but it certainly wasn't rosy either.

Economic Policy and Practice in Contemporary Tibet by Dawa Norbu

Tibetan feudalism, especially in its conceptual foundation, sounds so oppressive and exploitative to the Marxist. The real irony is that in all probabilty supported by personal experience, traditional commoners in pre-1950 enjoyed more freedom than their contemporary counterparts. The reason is simple. Because of difficult terrain and huge geographical space, even the most rapacious feudal lords were ineffective in exercsing the total control that feudalism in theory dictated. As a result, "serfs" enjoyed considered relative freedom that was not legislated by zhung (government) but facilitated by geography and reinforced by Buddhism since the tenth century A.D.

Finally, because the land to population ratio on the Tibetan plateau was no problem, and because Tibetans in general tended to be hard working, there is no recorded famine in pre-1950 Tibetan history. This is confirmed by British colonial officers' observations based on their visits to Tibet before the Communist takeover. They concur that the Tibetan economy was not developed in the sense they were accustomed to, but observe that the economic conditions of the average Tibetan was better than the living standard of average Asians in several premodern larger Asian economies known to the British. There was no striking gap between rich and poor in traditional Tibet. Yet, on historical balance, the Chinese Communist destruction in 1959 of Tibetan feudalism, the feudal class, and above all, the enduring feudal economic base of the Buddhist church, may be considered a positive outcome of the Communist-exported revolution in Tibet. A critical and theoretical question still remains. Can the Tibetans, freed from feudalism, imagine and build a new community based on the essence of freedom and democracy, yet in harmony with their cultural heritage and their peculiar environment? Can they still fight for a relatively modern economic system in which they might stand a chance to survive and benefit economically rather than face an unfair and unequal competition in a bulldozing economic system in the name of development, an unfair game for which most Tibetans are educationally and culturally ill-equipped?

an essay by Dawa Norbu - A STRUGGLE IN TRAVAIL
http://tibetan.review.to/dtn/dn_essay.htm

Tibetan people and society certainly deserve to find their way without the imposition of the Chinese government. The current Dalai Lama seems relatively enlightened, and he seems to promote democracy and freedom - but then one has to wonder if he is this way because was exiled from Tibet. Then the question is - had Tibet been independent for the last 60 years, would Tibetan society have evolved away from the historical feudalism?


Beyond Tibet's future, I find most interesting the Chinese group, Gongmeng, or Open Constitution Initiative, which seeks to promote legal reform in China. I am curious to see where this initiative goes.

 

[kyleb]

I'm curious about where and how westerners (outsiders) receive information on Tibetan feudalism or Tibetan history.

I got most of my understanding from a world religions course I took a bit over a decade ago, which went into considerable detail on how Buddhist teachings were put into practice by Tibetan theocracy. I don't recall the titles of any particular source material from the course, but articles and such I have seen since then have generally reinforce the understanding I expressed above. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/04/08/newatted0408.html" .

Also, I've yet to see evidence of popular support amongst Tibetans, which leaves me to wonder if those calling for such are simply members of the disposed ruling class wanting their theistically founded oligarchy back.

 

[LowlyPion]

I got most of my understanding from a world religions course I took a bit over a decade ago, which went into considerable detail on how Buddhist teachings were put into practice by Tibetan theocracy. I don't recall the titles of any particular source material from the course, but articles and such I have seen since then have generally reinforce the understanding I expressed above. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/04/08/newatted0408.html .

Also, I've yet to see evidence of popular support amongst Tibetans, which leaves me to wonder if those calling for such are simply members of the disposed ruling class wanting their theistically founded oligarchy back.

I think you may want to take care in weighing too much the opinions of Chinese authors - even though Taiwanese. China thinks that Tibet was always a part of China. Many of the Tibetens, that fled from Tibet since the grabbing of Tibet by China, currently live in India, in reserved areas established by the government of India. Whatever conclusions one may wish to draw from previous history, may no longer be valid, for most any country. At the beginning of the 20th century vast areas of the world were living sovereign feudal controls, including of course China. One needs to look at the universal growth of Democracy that has apparently included Tibet, more so than one might recognize in China.

Here is a bit about the community in Dharamsala.
http://www.iisd.org/50comm/commdb/desc/d46.htm

 

[seyitcan]

It's a fact that concerners of Tibet work well to express their own ideas.For example,Richard Gere always defend their rights.However,another state of China called East Turkistan(Xinjiang) is not able to defend their own rights against China.It is not lucky like Tibet.

This article from Financial Times:


Uighurs' despair
Published: August 6 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 6 2008 03:00
One of the side-effects of the September 11 2001 attacks on the US was the way it enabled other countries to smuggle their unresolved conflicts under the umbrella of George W. Bush's global "war on terror". Russia's assault on Chechnya suddenly became legitimate. Ariel Sharon got the green light to retake the West Bank by force. China adroitly used the opportunity to tar the Uighurs of Xinjiang, its biggest and westernmost province, with the brush of al-Qaeda.

Now, on the eve of the Olympics, Beijing would have us believe the games are under threat from the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a tiny Uighur group that China persuaded Mr Bush, in his "either with us or against us" mood, to put on the US terrorist list. Monday's incident in Xinjiang, in which 16 policemen were allegedly killed by Uighur separatists, may cause some alarm but the essential thesis is spurious.

If the ETIM survives in western China - which is far from clear - it is the most rudimentary insurgency. Despite Beijing's extravagant claims in the run-up to the Olympics, the small number of attacks appears to involve knives and primitive explosives. For Chinese security, this is no more difficult than swatting a fly. But the Uighurs do appear to be trying to use the Olympic stage to grab the spotlight.

And no wonder. Their cause is almost unknown. A cultured people who founded the first Turkic state in the 10th century and published the first works of Turkish literature, the Uighurs had an episodic autonomy that ended with their forced assimilation by the People's Liberation Army in 1949. Since then their culture, language and Muslim religion have been engulfed by Han Chinese colonisation. Discrimination over jobs and housing has only worsened with the discovery of oil and mineral wealth in Xinjiang.

Xinjiang is in a similar situation to Tibet. But it lacks the religious radiation provided by the Dalai Lama or, in another context, a city built on combustible history like Jerusalem. It has no high-profile Hollywood star such as Richard Gere to emote for it; more people probably worry whether giant pandas mate than whether the Uighurs can survive as a culture and a people. If only they were Buddhists.

Yet their restiveness is a flickering if forlorn hope that something like the break-up of the Soviet Union might happen to China, not a response to al-Qaeda. But if Beijing continues its bulldozer approach to minorities and robs the Uighurs of their identity, it could incite jihadism. China's interpretation of the Olympics slogan "One World, One Dream" is not universally shared.

 

[kyleb]

I think you may want to take care in weighing too much the opinions of Chinese authors - even though Taiwanese.

Sure, but the article says jives with what I've seen previously of historical accounts from others who visited the region. Do you dispute anything in particular?

China thinks that Tibet was always a part of China.

Or since the Ming Dynasty anyway, which is reasonably debatable at least from my understanding, albeit obviously with far more autonomy prior to 1959.

Many of the Tibetens, that fled from Tibet since the grabbing of Tibet by China, currently live in India, in reserved areas established by the government of India. Whatever conclusions one may wish to draw from previous history, may no longer be valid, for most any country. At the beginning of the 20th century vast areas of the world were living sovereign feudal controls, including of course China. One needs to look at the universal growth of Democracy that has apparently included Tibet, more so than one might recognize in China.

Here is a bit about the community in Dharamsala.
http://www.iisd.org/50comm/commdb/desc/d46.htm

Sure, the democracy practiced by the exiles is a promising development, but considering they are largely from the old ruling caste anyway, it is questionable how they would function in returning to Tibet.

Besides, as seyitcan's comment alludes to, what about other separatist movements? shall we back them all, or by what standards? I really don't see drawing more borders as the way forward for any of us.