Tibet was always culturally under Chinese influence (in pretty much the same way as any other country in asia), but both China and Tibet were unified under the Yuan Dynasty ruled by the Mongols from 1271-1368. For the next few centuries it either recognized China as suzerain or it was part of China, depending on various circumstances, but the Kangxi Emperor (1654-1722) conquered it for good during his reign.
Tibet left China after the fall of the Qing Dynastry (1644-1912). In order to consolidate his power during the Republic that followed, Yuan Shikai (who is presently reviled as a traitor) gave both Mongolia and Tibet autonomy in 1913, though China was still their suzerian. During the warlord period that followed Yuan declaring himself Emperor and getting quickly deposed, the autonomy of Tibet and Mongolia understandable grew and they more-or-less stopped recognizing the supremacy of China though China never recognized their right to do so.
When China was brought back together under the Communists, it was felt necessary to bring Tibet back into compliance. Basically just re-asserting what had always been. No different than the United States asserting its power over the Confederacy, really. All States in America are fairly autonomous (and were more independent back in the day) but they don’t have the right not to recognize Washington.
As bad as China is the Dhali lama is worse, he’s repressive and sexually controlling and ran what was pretty close to a slave coloney.
On top of that the dhali lama has accepted money from the cult responsible for the sarin nerve gas attacks on the tokoyo subway, standards of living for the people of tibet are higher under chinese rule.
I think you bring a good post to tackle this sensitive topic. Your trace of the conflic is spot on and I almost…almost have nothing to say but that I agree with it in it’s entirety. But no cigar…
You mention the similarity of Tibet’s situation and any state within the american union. But the “is” does not equate to an “ought”. The question raised by Tibet is whether empire have a place in this current political culture. You go back to 1860’s and we find that even slavery was thought as justified and colonialism still had an appeal. If Tibet wants to be independent from China today, is it’s history as a colony of China or as a satellite under Chinesse power play a role in it’s right to do so or not? Kosovo has recently declared it’s independence, yet it was part, at some point, or Serbia and the Serbians will probably use, again, a similar argument from history as if history has a significance on the people living there today. Once, obviously, the situation was acceptable, endurable, or without recourse. But what happens when you have recourse to change an unendurable and no longer acceptable situation? Should a people be chained to it’s history? Absolutely not. Let’s bring America as an example. It was historically a colony of the British Empire and yet that did not stop it from seeking it’s independence, and why not, once you have it figured out that they need you more than you need them? The empire used the idea of property- that the states belonged to it historically, as a logic for it’s subsequent invasion…but there is no right where there is no power of enforcement.
If China still can lay claim to Tibet as it’s property it is because of it’s military might, just as the states remain united because of the Union’s military might. Make no mistake and think that the southern states somehow “belong” to the Union after they won the war or that Kosovo “belongs” to Serbia or that Tibet “belongs” to China. None belong to the other but are conquered by the other.
Tellyrand said that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them. We no longer speak of “confederate” states, but simply of states. Americans set out to reunite, not just by force, but by legislation that profited all sides, so that the ground or unity bought by blood (the war bought time for this work of legislation) could be secured more permanently by the creation of common interests. If Tibet today is seeking it’s independence so fiercely, it is because China has failed to listen to Tellyrand, if they even know of him, and are committing the same mistake that the British crown made with it’s american colonies. A history of domination won’t save their cliam to Tibet.
Then forget the Confederacy, we should all still be singing “God Save the Queen”.
Washington isn’t trying to wipe out any particular culture in any particular state through persecution, starvation, imprisonment, torture and murder. What China has done is nothing short of cultural genocide. Last time it was done here was to the Native American population, and we tend to look at that as a major tragedy in American history.
The Dalai Lama has never said that Tibet must be independent from China. He has asked only for sufficient autonomy so that Tibetans can live according to their traditions. He has always sought peaceful compromise to assure the safety and well-being of the people.
It’s a shame that the Chinese leadership is showing such pigheadedness on this issue, it’s certainly not doing them any good internationally. It’s also exacerbated pro-independence sentiment in Taiwan and, I predict, will be a dark cloud over the Olympics that China hoped would serve as positive propaganda to promote its image of modernization.
At twenty-five-hundred kilometers from Beijing, it is not surprising that Tibet has a culture different from that in Beijing (“manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief as well as the art”). At just about five-hundred miles, the Koreas certainly consider themselves a seperate nation (despite the Chinese vesion of Korean history); yet Tibet is not a distinct nation (“cultural and social community”)? Every place from Indonesia and the Philippines to Siberia ought to be under Beijing’s control by your argument. Industrial hell and row apartments are great contributions to world civilization, but…
Tibet, belongs to no one except those who reside there. The people who reside there should have the choice of which form of government they wish, be it Chinese rule, the Dalai Lama, or whatever.
The fact that the current government, the Chinese, refuses to allow the people this choice is what is the problem.
History has nothing to do with it. Gibraltar a few years ago voted to remain a part of Britain, despite Spanish claims for it to be returned. The people choose.
Tibet has the right to be a sovereign nation. China has no right to murderously put down peaceful protests for democracies. This is another negative strike against the chinese government, for what is a large list of Human Rights Violations. Boycott the Olympics and Free Tibet! China should be aiding Tibet in it’s economic struggles. Instead of being physically and politically, repressive and oppressive.
If in anyway the Dalai Lama has in the past, been in the least repressive toward his people. I think we can all agree it is out of a sense of extreme protection. And that it in no amount measures up to the extreme abuses that the People’s Republic of China (which has a history of violently crushing peaceful protests) has enacted on the innocent ( in most cases very docile and peaceful monks) people of tibet. It’s unreasonable and unjustified pointless violence that only moves the progress if it can be said that they’ve made any, of the People’s Republic of China backwards. It’s not giving the European Community nor the American one a permanent sign that says the (PRC) can properly respect human rights. Not one that already fuels the wide known conception that China’s government does what ever it wants towards whoever it wants without any regard for consequences or the effects their actions cause.
They have a choice and they made it, they want the Chinese government to stop brutally crushing protests and to let them be. They don’t want anything to do with the chinese government. They want their way of life back and their freedoms to cease from being encroached upon. There choice has been made and now China is making theres. Unfortunatley it couldn’t be any wronger.
True, but they have no innate right to separate from China without facing the consequences, just as I have no innate right to run out in front of a cement mixer without getting hit. The choice is still there, I just can’t demand control of the results, life doesn’t work that way.
Of course those examples do! That is, until one is strong enough to make it otherwise.
Ing,
I think the secession was illegitimate.
What culture? The culture of yak herding? The cultural loss in Tibet is largely due to modernization. Any theocratic agrarian culture is going to go through a radical period of change when it industrializes. So what? As for the punishment of rebels, what do you expect? If Shanxi wanted to leave China and rose rabble, members of the splinter movement would be put down there as well. Tibet isn’t a special case in this respect.
Again, there is a problem there since many of those traditions go against modernity. I do agree greater autonomy would be in the interests of both the CCP and the Tibetans but that isn’t the path they’ve taken at present.
301.70,
In a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country, having a distinct ethnicity/culture is not sufficient. As for suggesting that all areas where China held cultural sway, that is a strawman. I am just arguing for the boarders of the Qing Empire (or at the very least, the Republican boarders) be maintained as best as China can. The USSR stole Mongolia, and it would be a shame if the west were allowed to steal Tibet.
humegotitright,
What about the Han and the Hui that live there now? Are they to be displaced?
Malibu,
For better or for worse, China is under and authoritarian regime and in authoritarian regimes, protests are violently put down. What makes Tibet special in this case? Or are you arguing that the Chinese government itself out dissolve?
anon,
Different relationships. The Republic allowed a great deal of autonomy to Tibet (largely due to British colonial interests), and during the warlord period, this artifact of colonialism was expanded slightly. The Communists sought to address this problem and restore Tibet to its proper place. That is what restoring what as always-been means.
more or less,
What natural rights? There are no natural rights, only those which can be enforced. If China’s government were based off a rights-based philosophy (such as the American government or most European governments), you would have a case. But it isn’t.
