tibetan uprising

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
...That a Sovereign State should put down an uprising by an ousted power from which it's people were liberated?

The above only makes any sense if you're asserting recent events were orchestrated directly by the exiled Tibetan Government? Do you have direct, citable evidence of this?

I think the Chinese can reasonably claim to have liberated Tibet.

The Chinese can claim whatever they want, reasonably or otherwise, it doesn't make it so. It does however beg a few questions; generally speaking when 'liberating' a people it's not usual to try and eradicate their centuries old cultural heritage, demolish some of their most significant buildings oh yes and torture, kill and suppress the basic rights of many of its citizens. Also, when a people are 'liberated' is it normal that they spend the next sixty years trying to re-instate their former oppressors?

The Cultural Revolution apart, the lot of the average Tibetan can also be claimed to be much better. The fact that maybe 200,000 Han Chinese are doing well in business there is no different to any other part of S.E.A..

In an economic sense that's not in dispute. But rather misses the point - what occurred during the Cultural Revolution merely added insult to injustice.

In the grand scale of uprisings, it looked more like a publicity stunt to me. Yes people died regrettably, but less than in the average month a while back in Iraq.

Irrelevant. The only comparison being that in both cases the deaths resulted directly or indirectly from an unwanted, illegal military occupation. If 1000 had died, would your view be different, how about 10,000? At what point would it become clear that what occurred, and is occurring in Tibet is not an outpouring of gratitude by liberated Tibetans.

What do the protesters/upriseres want to achieve? Certainly not an autonomous Tibet. Tibet isn't Hong Kong, it's the size of Western Europe with a population of three million.

Very few Tibetans I spoke to wanted independence, or had long since abandoned that hope. What most wanted was to be left alone, few bore serious ill will toward the Chinese. I imagine that may have changed a little of late.

And I have to ask; what does population density have to do with this? Tibet's is pretty close to that of Australia, are you suggesting Australia should be occupied by China also - for having too few people? Never mind, it was rhetorical.

The Monasteries are declining - well they can't make the country work for their sole benefit anymore.

The ones that are left anyway.

The Chinese built a Railway - mmhh well yes, Tibet is strategically significant, why shouldn't they?

What does that have to do with anything? It suits the Chinese more than it benefits Tibetans who likely don't use it much - where would they go?

The passage of time doesn't make my analogy to our own dissolution of monastic power any less relevant. The Tudors dragged this country out of the medieval mire, the Chinese have done the same for Tibet.

If only it were so simple. Henry was more interested in bleeding the church dry and securing his power base than addressing abuses of the peasantry by clerics. Many of the concomitant benefits of his actions were almost accidental and came close to being undone anyway.

While I doubt many British would like a return to their pre reformation era, it appears a good many Tibetans don't seem to mind the idea at all. If only the Chinese hadn't liberated them.:rolleyes:

What made me laugh (and not in a ha ha way) a few years back (May 2001) was China celebrating the 50th anniversary of its 'Peaceful liberation of Tibet from imperialist forces'. While the true independence of Tibet is dubious, but this is almost a side issue. It had been de facto independent for close to 300 years.

The Chinese can call it whatever they wish, it wasn't liberation, it was occupation. It's not been universally bad, but denial of actual events and their motivation merely makes a bad situation worse.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
My dear dong, your points were so congruent with my own, but with a soupcon, or far more than that, of passion.
Enlivening, you are, this evening.
Chapeau, my good fellow.
(I can't tell, however, how much our dear friend drifter is pulling our legs.)
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
My dear dong, your points were so congruent with my own, but with a soupcon, or far more than that, of passion.
Enlivening, you are, this evening.
Chapeau, my good fellow.

It's because we're correct! What else could it be. :biggrin1:

(I can't tell, however, how much our dear friend drifter is pulling our legs.)

Nor I. But it isn't an especially uncommon view. And Tibet isn't an issue to play around with lightly.

Sadly, as in so many grave situations, Indian road traffic etiquette especially - regardless of the true events surrounding an incident, might is right.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Because the Dalai Lama has a nice smiley media friendly face does not change the fact that the system he headed before he fled, subjugated an entire population in serfdom.

Yes they had had irrelevant independence in which 5% of the population enslaved the majority.

China has re-emerged as a major regional and global power. When they re-asserted their claim to Tibet, the world was in political turmoil and there was an ideological element to the Chinese action in Tibet. The CIA tried to interfere but did not turn Tibet into another (or the first) Vietnam and then sold them out when Kissinger saw the opportunity for exploitation in China.

The West washed its hands of Tibet when the Chinese really were repressing the country. What you see now is a shadow of former injustices.

I won't claim to understand China, but I know a lot more than most westerners. I don't think that Monks represent the people of Tibet quite as much as some would like to believe. It's a fucking hard place to live and its people are highly pragmatic. The Chinese do not have a policy of repressing religion anymore, but why should they allow religious organisations to run secular matters anymore than we do?
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Because the Dalai Lama has a nice smiley media friendly face does not change the fact that the system he headed before he fled, subjugated an entire population in serfdom.

Yes they had had irrelevant independence in which 5% of the population enslaved the majority.

China has re-emerged as a major regional and global power. When they re-asserted their claim to Tibet, the world was in political turmoil and there was an ideological element to the Chinese action in Tibet. The CIA tried to interfere but did not turn Tibet into another (or the first) Vietnam and then sold them out when Kissinger saw the opportunity for exploitation in China.

The West washed its hands of Tibet when the Chinese really were repressing the country. What you see now is a shadow of former injustices.

I won't claim to understand China, but I know a lot more than most westerners. I don't think that Monks represent the people of Tibet quite as much as some would like to believe. It's a fucking hard place to live and its people are highly pragmatic. The Chinese do not have a policy of repressing religion anymore, but why should they allow religious organisations to run secular matters anymore than we do?

I know you have dealings with China, and it's good that you agree that fully seeking to understand Chinese political motivation by westerners is likely an exercise in futility, I know I all but gave up years back. But none of what you have said alters the basic premise of the argument - that China occupied what was in effect an independent state. And it did so with unnecessary cruelty and questionable justification.

Seeking to justify this on the basis that Tibetans were all serfs, and it was for their own good may have some plausibility but for the repression that occurred immediately after this 'liberation'. Any credibility the Chinese had in bringing Tibet into the 20th century was long since negated by their methodology, and that's even assuming it was what Tibetans actually wanted, for which the evidence is sketchy. Since when is Tibetan independence irrelevant? Would you argue it's more or less irrelevant than Welsh, Scottish or NI Independence would be to Great Britain?

Your argument about religion holds water only if one concedes that Tibet never had a history as theocracy, I don't. This is true regardless of that fact that strictly Buddhism isn't a religion, and has never posed a threat to China's political hegemony, nor does it today - it simply chafed Beijing's ass ideologically at the time and for decades after.

What happened in 1950, the years of abortive CIA wooden spoon stirring - the US having already long since recognised Tibet as Chinese by the way, the West selling Tibet out for Beijing's 30 pieces of silver and Beijing no longer so actively repressing Tibetan cultural expression - I know all this.

You're skirting around the issue. These facts are not in dispute and it isn't at all the point I've been trying to make; that if peace and harmony came to Iraq (Tibet) tomorrow it wouldn't justify the events leading up to it. The end doesn't always justify the means.

Arguing over these smaller injustices in today's Tibet only seems petty and irrelevant because these injustices all stem from the mother of injustices - only you don't appear to see it as an injustice. That's your view, it's just not one with which I can agree. On almost all else, I do.

Or, perhaps you're simply doing what I sometimes do.:smile:
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Or, perhaps you're simply doing what I sometimes do.:smile:

:eek:

Original Sin - for shame Dong.

The Russians and British were messing around with Tibet before the war, it's situation was was interesting during the end of the Raj and then the Americans started to poke their big noses in.

No-one (apart from the ruling class) objected to China running Tibet at the time.

Chinese rule is far better now than it ever was - so why suddenly is it such a big issue?

Should the Nepalese crush the Maoist rebels?
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
None of what you have said alters the basic premise of the argument - that China occupied what was in effect an independent state. And it did so with unnecessary cruelty and questionable justification.

True, though Tibet, if I'm not mistaken, was not technically independent, or at least, the Chinese perception that it was not could be made out coherently.
(I know you're talking to drifter, but these thoughts pop into mind ...)

Seeking to justify this on the basis that Tibetans were all serfs, and it was for their own good may have some plausibility but for the repression that occurred immediately after this 'liberation'.

The second part is obviously a good point, and as for the first part: If I liberate Jones and Jones is damned pissed off about it, I'm going to think that maybe my idea of liberation and his are two very different things. And if I'm a Westerner looking at a political situation on a high plateau Asia, I'm going to be quite worried about my Western understandings profoundly biasing my 'perceptions.'
Which is why I would be inclined to take the expressed wishes of the Tibetan themselves as the primordial considerations in judging the rightness or wrongness of the Chinese invasion.
(Again, and in all that follows, I'm addressing drifter, who I'm sure has far more boots-on-the-ground knowledge of the matter than I shall ever have, through you, dong.)

Any credibility the Chinese had in bringing Tibet into the 20th century was long since negated by their methodology, and that's even assuming it was what Tibetans actually wanted, for which the evidence is sketchy.

Sketchy? Nonexistent. The Tibetans feel profoundly put upon.

If peace and harmony came to Iraq (Tibet) tomorrow it wouldn't justify the events leading up to it. The end doesn't always justify the means.

And peace and harmony will surely only come if the Chinese yoke is significantly loosened ... not removed, for not even the Dalai Lama is calling for independence.
But you're right: a final and unaccountable Tibetan concession of the rights of the Chinese to control them would not justify what went on in the past six decades.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
True, though Tibet, if I'm not mistaken, was not technically independent, or at least, the Chinese perception that it was not could be made out coherently.

I don't think a truly convincing case has been or can be made. While it enjoyed close to de facto independence from the 17th Century (and a real de facto state from its 1911 declaration until the 1950 Chinese invasion), I doubt there's any Tibetans alive today that would be able to claim they ever lived in a truly 'independent' Tibet.

Sketchy? Nonexistent. The Tibetans feel profoundly put upon.

Yes. Well, I can say some (esp older) Tibetans I spoke with said they had advocated for and did support modernisation. They added, poignantly IMO, that they just didn't want to be modernised at gunpoint.

But you're right: a final and unaccountable Tibetan concession of the rights of the Chinese to control them would not justify what went on in the past six decades.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not, who can say for certain - I wasn't in Tibet in 1950. I can't help but think that if Beijing allowed the Dalai Lama to return as spiritual leader (abandoning any political claim) tensions would ease massively. It's probably the best Tibet outcome can realistically hope for. This would require Beijing to back down and 'loose face' though, so I can't see it happening.

Though, perhaps DW is right and continued changes in the Chinese leadership may yet bring this about. I won't hold my breath though.:cool:

:eek:

Original Sin - for shame Dong.

I have no concept of shame.

The Russians and British were messing around with Tibet before the war, it's situation was was interesting during the end of the Raj and then the Americans started to poke their big noses in.

The British were, arguably, one of the key players in laying the foundations for today's problems in this region. The Russians are often clumsy amateurs by comparison. The Americans too often just think it's a good gig.

Chinese rule is far better now than it ever was - so why suddenly is it such a big issue?

Sudden in what sense?

Should the Nepalese crush the Maoist rebels?

Well, they're seeking to overthrow a regime they don't like, but from within. It's not really the same thing.

No-one (apart from the ruling class) objected to China running Tibet at the time.

Except it wasn't. Shortly after the 1910 invasion, the fall of the Qing dynasty allowed Tibet to boot out the Chinese and declare independence in 1911 - It initialled the 1914 Simla agreement along with with Britain and China in which Britain accepted Tibet as being under Chinese suzerainty. Tibet did so too but did so reluctantly, and only once precise limits on the extent of that suzerainty were set.

Essentially, and without going into detail, this meant delineation of a fixed border, a condition that China did not interfere in Tibetan internal affairs and would not seek to convert it into a Chinese province. To no one's surprise China later reneged and refused to sign. Nevertheless, from 1911-47 Tibet was in charge of its own affairs.

In 1943 the then British Foreign Secretary Sir Anthony Eden restated (in a memorandum) to the Chinese Foreign Secretary that while Britain still recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet it did so only on the condition Tibet remained autonomous. The Chinese didn't respond. After Indian Independence China saw it's chance and things began to unravel. The rest is history.
 

Quite Irate

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Posts
701
Media
34
Likes
26
Points
248
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
But what does visiting a country really mean?
Even people who actually live in a country have a huge range of views.
Look at the differing views of Clinton and Obama from people who are clearly going to be voting Democrat.
A visit doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
Close reading of a wide range of carefully researched journalism might.
A visit wasn't quite what I had in mind. In depth knowledge on something like this is unattainable without a geographical and cultural/political understanding of the region. Which require first hand experience, in my opinion. Obviously some would rather think that that's not the case, but I think they're nuts.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Again, the people of Tibet have just as much right to determine for themselves what form of government they wish to have as any other.

They have a history as a distinct and independent people considerably longer than 300 years.

Their language has been separate from Chinese over 6,000 years, it is not tonal, it is closest to Burmese.

There was a historical, unified Tibetan state at least from the 31st person on their traditional kinglist, Tagbu Nyasig, 579-619 AD.

In the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, they had a considerable empire, including Bengal, Burma, present Chinese Turkestan, eastern Afghanistan. In 763 they occupied the Tang capitol, Chang An, (Sian) present Yunnan province was tributary.

They were conquered in the mid 13thc by the Mongol Khans, who went on to conquer Song China. When the Mongol empire broke up, they were not a unified state, but they also certainly were not subject to the Ming dynasty.

Central Tibet became a unified state again with the 5th Dalai Lama, 1617-1682.

In the mid 17thc China was conquered by the Manchus. There was, following a war, in 1727 a treaty between the Ching dynasty and Tibet, setting the boundary between the upper Yangtze and Mekong rivers. The Ching Emperors were represented at Lhasa by a resident commissioner, called in Manchu an Amban. They were nearly all Manchu, not Han, as were most of the upper officials in China. They did not govern the country.

Following an 1856 war with Nepal, the bilateral peace treaty established diplomatic relations. Nepal referred to this in it's 1949 UN membership application, to demonstrate it's history of sovereignty.

There was a treaty of mutual recognition with Mongolia in 1913.

The 1918 truce between the government of the 13th Dalai Lama and the representatives of the ROC set the eastern boundary at the upper Yangtze river. The ROC had no representative in Lhasa during the time of the 13th Dalai Lama.

They produced their own coins, currency, postage stamps, and passports.

The British government stated that they were de facto independent. The US was a very strong supporter of Chiang Kai Shek, so did not go counter to his claims. After the defeat of the ROC by the PRC in the civil war, and the conquest of Tibet, the US agreed to recognition and support of the cause of independence and UN membership. The 14th Dalai Lama was persuaded by the CCP to instead return to Lhasa, he tried to make co operation work for nine years.
 

Attachments

unabear09

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
6,763
Media
14
Likes
233
Points
283
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
kalipygian, your avatar is a very powerful one. Way to make a statement....btw, just checked out your gallery and you are hot! Nice ass, and Beautiful cock and balls....
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
A visit wasn't quite what I had in mind. In depth knowledge on something like this is unattainable without a geographical and cultural/political understanding of the region. Which require first hand experience, in my opinion.

If we (here) were tasked with actually finding and implementing a solution as opposed to engaging in largely superficial discussion of the main talking points, I'd agree.

But, from what I can see, none of us are directly involved in the formation of any affected Government's regional, domestic or foreign policy, and we're not asserting otherwise. We are simply interested observers possessed of varying degrees of familiarity with the subject at hand.

When setting a standard, it's only really useful (or necessary) for it be as high as the consequences of failing to meet that standard would merit. In short; I believe you're being unrealistic given the venue.:cool:
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I can't help but think that if Beijing allowed the Dalai Lama to return as spiritual leader (abandoning any political claim) tensions would ease massively. It's probably the best Tibet outcome can realistically hope for.

Have to agree.

This would require Beijing to back down and 'loose face' though, so I can't see it happening.

Neither can I. And one thing that the Chinese have been very consistent about is allowing no erosion of control of the Communist Party.
Hong Kong and Macau are given measures of self-control, but they came from outside the Communist orbit, so even their cases demonstrate increases (from a base of zero) of Communist control.
The Communist Party seems to show no willingness to reduce their control of any part of the country already within their political orbit.
From their perspective, it's probably wise, because any unraveling, once it starts, could get completely out of hand, as exemplified by any number of historical cases.

Though, perhaps DW is right and continued changes in the Chinese leadership may yet bring this about. I won't hold my breath though.:cool:

I won't hold my breath either.
But they may use their jackboots a bit more lightly.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
A visit wasn't quite what I had in mind. In depth knowledge on something like this is unattainable without a geographical and cultural/political understanding of the region. Which require first hand experience, in my opinion. Obviously some would rather think that that's not the case, but I think they're nuts.

Standing with one's boots on the ground on some point of the Earth, and continuing to breathe, is not much of an education. (Of course, I'm not saying your claim is anything so naive, QI.)
One must systematically inform oneself ... through newspapers, magazines, books, the better television programs, etc.
And that kind of self-education, one could achieve without being on the ground at all.
Now, I would be foolish to say that actually residing in a place for a period of time, would contribute nothing.
From a distance, I might have heard that the people of Darfur, say, have deep and abiding grievances against the government in Khartoum.
But only by going there could I know the texture of the anger, some of the personal stories, and so forth.
But having done my research, depending on how applied my efforts were, and the strength of my intelligence and memory, I might well go to that region and arrive having a far more detailed and accurate formal understanding of what was going on than do many of the natives.
But both are important.
I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Again, the people of Tibet have just as much right to determine for themselves what form of government they wish to have as any other.

A point lost on some.

They have a history as a distinct and independent people considerably longer than 300 years.

Their language has been separate from Chinese over 6,000 years, it is not tonal, it is closest to Burmese.

In the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, they had a considerable empire, including Bengal, Burma, present Chinese Turkestan, eastern Afghanistan. In 763 they occupied the Tang capitol, Chang An, (Sian) present Yunnan province was tributary.

Indeed, I didn't want to get into the whole history, it's really too involved for this scope of discussion. The maximum size of the Tibetan empire approached that of China in the T'ang dynasty.

In the mid 17thc China was conquered by the Manchus. There was, following a war, in 1727 a treaty between the Ching dynasty and Tibet, setting the boundary between the upper Yangtze and Mekong rivers. The Ching Emperors were represented at Lhasa by a resident commissioner, called in Manchu an Amban. They were nearly all Manchu, not Han, as were most of the upper officials in China. They did not govern the country.

This is where I 'came in'. It's really the earliest date that makes a comparison with contemporary Tibet feasible.

There was a treaty of mutual recognition with Mongolia in 1913.

China ignored Mongolia's declaration of independence also.

...After the defeat of the ROC by the PRC in the civil war, and the conquest of Tibet, the US agreed to recognition and support of the cause of independence and UN membership. ...

I don't believe the US Government ever openly and officially supported a claim, or acknowledged Tibetan independence, although it most certainly did so via 'other' channels. I'd be interested to see a citation for that, or perhaps you could clarify your definition of 'recognition and support' in this context.

Since at least 1943 the US had (officially) considered Tibet part of China.

"For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that...the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims."

Extract from State Department to British Embassy Aide-Mémoire
May 15th, 1943

To my knowledge they have never deviated from that position:

"The United States, which was one of the early supporters of the principle of self-determination of peoples, believes that the Tibetan people has the same inherent right as any other to have the determining voice in its political destiny.

It is believed further that, should developments warrant, consideration could be given to recognition of Tibet as an independent State. The Department of State would not at this time desire to formulate a definitive legal position to be taken by the United States Government relative to Tibet.

It would appear adequate for the present purposes to state the United States Government recognizes the de facto autonomy that Tibet has exercised since the fall of the Manchu Dynasty, and particularly since the Simla Conference.

It is believed that, should the Tibetan case be introduced into the United Nations, there would be an ample basis for international concern regarding Chinese Communist intentions toward Tibet, to justify under the United Nations Charter a hearing for Tibet's case in either the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly."

Extract from State Department to British Embassy Aide-Mémoire
December 30, 1950
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
What isn't acceptable? That a Sovereign State should put down an uprising by an ousted power from which it's people were liberated?

...

The above only makes any sense if you're asserting recent events were orchestrated directly by the exiled Tibetan Government? Do you have direct, citable evidence of this?

Well, I came across this earlier:

"An unnamed suspect in connection with the Lhasa violence has confessed to the police that the "security department" of the "Tibetan government-in-exile" asked him to hand around leaflets promoting the so-called "Tibetan people's uprising movement" to civilians and monks in Tibet, according to the article."

"The violence on March 14 was related to the instigation done by the 'security department' of the 'Tibetan government-in-exile'," the suspect said.

"For the sake of protecting myself, (the Dalai Lama clique) asked me not to participate in the demonstrations in person, just in charge of stirring people up," the suspect said."

I'd like to see exactly what those leaflets said. How convenient that the Insider didn't take part in order to 'protect' those giving him his 'orders'. It's convenient how Xinhua was 'authorised' to release the article. It follows on from a BBC article a couple of weeks back.

It's from a Xinhua sourced China Daily report so I have to ask; how credible is it likely to be coming from the mouthpiece of a regime which supports the likes of Robert Mugabe and Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir.

Are there radicals within the Tibetan government-in-exile - of course, did they organise this directly - possibly, do I believe they would capitalise on or prolong such events had they occurred spontaneously - absolutely, do I believe they operate with the knowledge of more moderate members of the Tibetan government-in-exile - it's hard to believe otherwise, do I believe they represent the express wishes of the Dalai Lama, no.

That's just my feeling, but of course I can't prove any of it.