Preserved Topic: The REAL Taiwan/Tibet Discussion

This sort of started here, and vanvanta mentioned discussing the issue in a thread of its own, so here we are. I would particularly like to hear from our Chinese friends on this one...

China. Tibet. Taiwan. Discuss.





What does it mean?

The invasion of Tibet by China I feel was (and is) wrong. I get the impression from people like the Dali Lama that they (the tibetians) don't like, or accept, the invasion.

As for Taiwan...well, I feel that maybe it could go along the lines of Hong Kong, just as long as all involved in Taiwan don't get persecuted for 'crimes of the past'. However, not sure if Taiwan wants to be part of China...in that case, I feel that Taiwan should then be internationally recoginized as a state.

And so it begins....'rubs hands in anticipation'...

HK only went back to the Chinese due to the terms of the lease!! I doubt the people in HK would have wanted to go back of their own accord. How are things working out there (you don't here a lot about it - some friends went on their honeymoon and I know people who've been before and since who haven't noticed too much change)?

Emps

Suho1004:Thank you that you can post this issue.
(save my time )

Webshaman:I want to tell you that Dali Lama is not the leader of tibet ,he is only a religion leader .

Dali and Banchan are 2 major leaders that belong to 2 different religion class .

At this problem,they have different views.

you cant say that Dali Lama can represents all the will of tibets.


Taiwan problems happen in the battle between communists and guo min party .

the communist government s viewpoint represent quite a lot of chinese view,

though we have the same language ,same culture and same blood ,why not we unite again
?
I think ,korean has the similar feeling .

On the other hand,many young taiwan youths that born there dont really want to confess they are belong to
china ,(now,the PRchina represent the word china)

I think Taiwanese will confess they are Tang ren.(which is a name of all the chinese people including from all over the world)

As for my self ,i have ever think of establish one country which will represent all the chinese .IT should not only a politics meaning ,maybe call "the united state of big china "



i love beatles

I think, as far as HK is concerned, the Chinese government are smart enough to know a good thing when they see it. I don't think they're going to go cutting up the goose that lays the golden egg.

Tibet, hmm... that's a tough one. As I mentioned in the other thread, though, this sort of stuff happens all the time. not that it makes it right, of course. Unfortunately, though, might does often make right on the world stage. My opinion is pretty similar to that of WebShaman's: if the Tibetans don't want it, then I don't agree with it. But you also have to understand China's point of view. There are a ton of other ethnic groups that make up the nation of China, and they view Tibet as yet another ethnic group whose land historically belonged to them. The whole thing is a big mess, of course. Incidentally, I don't think it would be as big an issue as it is if it weren't for the Dalai Lama, but maybe that's obvious.

As for Taiwan, they have certainly expressed no interest in "rejoining" China. In fact, they seem to take pleasure in pissing China off every now and then. I find this amusing, actually. But that's not the point. I think Taiwan is an independent nation, and should be treated as such. China wanting to reclaim Taiwan is like England wanting to reclaim the U.S. That comparison may be a bit of a stretch, but you get my point.

vanvanta? freerain? I'm interested to hear what you have to say about all this. Maybe you can even fill us in on some areas we're less familiar with.





What does it mean?

Well, that regarding Tibet...yes, the Dali Lama is not the ruler of Tibet...I think China made that all too plain...however, he is against the 'invasion' (you can call it what you will, but that doesn't change what it is), and I would think that there is not one Tibetian that had the chance to speak his mind that would say 'Oh, yeah, we love China, and want to be apart of China'. So certainly this is wrong, irregardless of what the official line is.

One also has to consider that China and Russia have had a number of 'border clashes' in the past, and the invasion of Tibet can't be seen as a non-hostile act. What are the neighbors of China supposed to think? I would suspect that many neighbors regard China with an uneasy eye in the face of this sort of 'expansionism'. Doesn't do much for stability in the region...especially when one considers Chinas track record in the past...and that brings up another point: Suho1004, how do South Koreans view China?

I think the issue of Tibet is special. At that time Tibet perhaps can be called 'a country', but it was not a 'nation-state'. The change from country to nation-state is very important to the historical construction of modern world. I have to say, sometimes history is bloody. So some people succeeded in forming a brand new nation-state while others failed, just like the American Indians. Of course you can say that is a kind of invasion, but it is quite different from wars between two nation-states. The problem may be, Europe and America have already finished the process when Asia was still a continent of countries. I think if China 'invade' Tibet at the same time Europeans kicked Indians out of their home, the whole matter will be easy to understand and explain.

On the other hand, I don't believe Dali Lama fought for 'his people' or 'his own country', as I know his reign in Tibet was very cruel, people followed him just for a religion reason because Dali was regarded as 'the living god' in Tibet.

Although I also think the military action and the following government are not good to the Tibetians, yet this problem is not a disputation between two states today.


Then about Taiwan
To tell the truth, I am against a reunion in the near future( if I say so in a native forum I will be sunked by spit). I am glad to see a democracy experiment practised by a group of Chinese in Taiwan while the condition of democracy slumps in HK after '97. I think the best choice now may be keeping silent, both sides. If China PR got democratic enough and prosperous enough, maybe the problem can be solved easily and peacefully. But it seems no one is patient enough to wait for that.

I don't care much whether taiwan become a state or not, I will be happy to see Chinese people have a real good chance to change the unfavorable less-rights-history.

Very good point, WS (hey, whatever happened to plain ol' Suho? ). I think I alluded to this in the other thread, but South Korea is obviously concerned with what goes on in China. I don't think there is a single nation in Asia that can really afford to ignore China, for that matter. Korea, though, has always had a special relationship with China (no, not that type of "special"). You may or may not be aware of this, but traditionally in NE Asia only the Chinese ruler was allowed to call himself "emperor"--the rulers of other lands called themselves "king." China was, for a very long time, the de facto suzerain of most of Asia. In Korea's case, China was seen as an elder brother, which basically meant that Korea was independent, but a tributary to China. The only time Korea was directly controlled by China was when the Mongols conquered all of Asia (except Japan).

With the beginning of the modern era in Asia, Japan started to grow a set of brass ones and began calling their ruler "emperor." Korea decided to follow suit in 1897, but by that time Japan had already grown too strong, and the Korean emperor was somewhat less than capable. In 1905 Korea was forced to sign a protectorate treaty with Japan (acknowledging Japan as their protectors), and in 1910 Japan annexed Korea (it is said that the Japanese troops stole the emperor's seal and the Japanese minister affixed it to the treaty himself). Thus ended the rather brief life of the Great Korean Empire.

Korea has long been a point of contention in NE Asia, the center of a tug-of-war between Russia, China, and Japan. Although China's control over Korea was broken with the arrival of the Japanese, the situation has since changed. After Japan's defeat a military threat from that direction was eliminated (so now we just kick their butts at football whenever we get the chance!), but of course the occupation of Korea eventually led to the Korean War and the division of the nation. So, obviously, the number one concern here is North Korea, but China is probably a close second. Historically, Korea has revered China, but nationalistic sentiment is now strong, and if China ever regained their former power, Korea would not be happy.

Incidentally, none of this is a big issue in Korea now because of all the other issues there are to deal with. I honestly don't think it is something that poses an immediate threat, so you're not going to hear about it. But if you keep the historical relationship in mind, you should get an idea of the general attitude.

Once again, far more information than you really needed.





What does it mean?

Hmm... now, how am I supposed to take that? 'far more information than I needed'? I would say, thank you very much for the detailed information suho (drats!!! I keep wanting to say 'sulu'!!! Star trek forever!!!). I am getting a crash course in Asian history...it's pretty good so far...

Friend of mine went on a minor rant. Here is an exerpt:

quote:

---

China however, has aspirations of grandeur and ARE going to invade Taiwan. If we let them have Taiwan, its almost certain they will launch us into the Second Cold War which will undoubtedly become a shooting one. Thus we will need to defend that stupid little island. Now, taking this island requires boats and we have submarines available to take out anything crossing the straits. Unfortunately, I know what I would do. I would keep bombing Taiwan with missiles until they surrendered. And they will because, unlike London on the blitz, integrated chip manufacturing cannot be dispersed into the countryside. So, bottom line Taiwan has zero future if China pulls the trigger....

---

He's made prediction like this in the past and each time he nailed it.

Hmmm...well, assuming that China would attempt it...it would probably succeed. However, that wouldn't negate the fact that irregardless of how one 'bombs' a land, sometime or other you must send troops, if you wish to intergrate the land in question into the mainstream (like Tibet, for example). That would be a bit more of a problem, I think. You are not only talking about American 'interests' here, but also of how Japan would react.

Granted, it would be very difficult to stop, however, I think that China would have already done it, if it weren't for other factors. Quite frankly, I think that China does give a damn about it's international 'appearance'. Such an attack would bring about a complete stagnation of Chinas booming business prosperity. And money talks, even in China.

Also, one must understand what sort of message that would send in the region. There is also India and Pakistan. Having such an action in the far-east would probably really instabilize the already instable situation there. I'm sure that China doesn't want any type of nuclear conflict anywhere near its borders...

With all that said, I would hope that in such a situation, that the west would react with all due manner, i.e. militarly. Without such a reaction, it would just set the stage for more actions of that nature...which just cannot be accepted.

Also, when I think about it, I'm pretty sure that China wants Taiwan 'unharmed', that is, in its present state. A war would undoubtably reduce Taiwan to rubble, which wouldn't really be very wise. Though the objective might be reached, under what costs? Surely China doesn't want to be in possession of a rock, where there are no living beings, let alone functioning businesses and economy. No, I think China would like to have Taiwan 'returned' in a pristine state. In that regard, it would be the coup of the century.

webshaman:the chance that tibet can complain is concerned with democracy problem,so I think it should be discussed later.(I think they should have that rights)
about the "invasion":The border problem existed for quite a long time ,china was also invaded by some of his neighbours.India,Vienam,Russion occupied some of its region .Why do people like to criticize china when the fight back and fear his fight- back without scold such kinds of countries and fear them?
I think the relation between china and tibet is very like that between russia and chechnya.
It is reasonable.
sohu1004:I agree with your opinion.


In the china history,chinese believe that china is the heaven of the world.(It is one reason to explain why
china lack so much in the recent 200 years.
I can tell you that china nation is not a "expantional" nation,he is a convertional nation.
Why chinese built the Great Wall ?they want to keep their own territory and didnt mean to expand
.As you said,Mongolians conquer Korea .But i dont think that the Yuan dynasty is really a china dynasty which is founded by Mongolians who we chinese didnt consider they were chinese.
china was once of the most glory countries of asia.In the Sui and Tang dynasty ,it attacked Gaoli where is now korea ,the reason is that the empiror want to taught Gaoli a lesson,but it did not succeed .
I hope that will not happen again.
there is a principle in china :
I will not attack anybody if no one attack me.

I sincerely hope that all the asia countries will live together peacefully.
But i can tell that the conflict will still happen in the future,especially between china and japan .(sohu you make me think of this )
In the chinese mind,japanese army leave a very bad impression .(especially they dont even appologize anything to china after they kill so many china civilizens.The "comfort-woman" problem is another reason.I think you can have the same feeling like me after you see the pictures of "the slaughter of Nanjing" ,Germany are much better than japanese because they confess their mistakes and appologizes to the victims)

The economy and politics competing between these 2 countries will lead to a big war in the future .




i love beatles

Suho1004 & freerain, As far as comparing China's invasion of Tibet with what the US did to the native Americans, I think we are comparing apples and oranges. Not because of the morality of the situations but because of the differences in time periods. When is saying "he did it too" a valid excuse for doing something wrong??? Each case should be evaluated on its own merits.

vanvanta, I support a sovereign nation's right to defend itself, but how can you use that excuse for invading Tibet? They didn't attack China!

If Tibet wasn't an independent state then what need was there for thousands of Chinese troops to march into Lhasa on September 9, 1951? This forcible occupation of Tibet was marked by systematic destruction of monasteries, suppression of religion, denial of political freedom, widespread arrests and imprisonment and massacre of innocent men, women and children.

I'm very sorry but defending China's actions on this one on the basis of self-defense seems absurd. But maybe it's just me. I think I have made my views on this one abundantly clear.

vanvanta, I will say that I really appreciate your comments on Japan/China. I think you have a very interesting point there. At this point in history, I see a war between the US and China to be much more likely but things can change pretty quickly when we're discussing geopolitics. China is now looking to expand its sphere of influence, of that I have zero doubt. There is only one thing standing in the way of China doing what Japan attempted 50 years ago and that is the US military.

. . : newThing

Bugs, you raise an interesting question, and that is one of China's current ambition of expansionism. But don't you think that perhaps one of the areas most likely to be 'in the eyes' of the Chinese is the mineral and oil-rich areas of Siberia, right there on the border? I know that has sponsered quite a few 'disputes' in the past, and not all were instigated by the Russians (how do I know this? Well, my information comes straight from inoffical military intelligence, so don't ask).

As to the other things that Bugs posted...right on the money. Very eloquently put in words, I might add.

As for 'expansionist' China - in the past, China has attempted to conquer many neighbors...including Vietnam, Thailand, Korea, Japan and Laos. And the current 'tensions' with the Philapeans (sp) over that ridiculous Sprately island group just because one 'suspects' that oil might be there, only goes to show that China is very interested in obtaining such treasures...

That one living in China might not know this about Chinas history, comes really as no surprise...my sisters husband is Chinese, and now lives in America. His surprise (and it took him a long time to accept this) at what he didn't know about China was great. Seems that the Offical lines from the Chinese Government is not about truth...it's about propaganda. What we could do to help our new-found friends in China is to show links (or post, maybe that would be better, considering the problems with the internet police in China) here to such information...maybe that would help. Is that a good idea? Any takers?

Bugimus: As I said, "not that it makes it right." I'm not trying to justify China's actions, I'm trying to point out that these impulses are common to governments around the world. And yes, you have made your views abundantly clear . I don't disagree with you, either. I think you might be getting a little hung up on my mention of the Native American situation (which was apparently in the other thread). If you'd like we can just drop that.

I would also have to agree that China will not bomb the smithereens out of Taiwan. Just getting the land back is not important in the case of Taiwan--they need to prove that China has the superior system. And that would require getting Taiwan back in one piece. warjournal, your friend may have a good success rate, but I don't think he's right on this one. At least not yet. As the situation stands, I don't see this as a real possibility. Things may change though, but I hope not.

I would have to agree, though, that the presence of U.S. troops in Asia is a stabilizing influence, although I am positive that they play a far greater role in deterring North Korea than they do in deterring China from invading Taiwan. If the U.S. didn't have troops in S. Korea, we would have been overrun long ago. As it is now, I can tell you on very good authority that there is no immediate danger of invasion (but I can't tell you how I know this, 'cause then I'd have to shoot you ).

As for China and Japan, well, let's face it--mostly everyone in Asia holds a grudge against the Japanese. China's grudge is nothing compared to Korea's, for reasons that should be very clear. But I would have to agree with Bugimus that a war between China and the U.S. is more likely than a war between China and Japan.

Wow, I'm all over the place today. I must admit this discussion has gotten me very confused. There's a whole bunch of stuff flying around--I'm just trying not to get knocked senseless . I'm still trying to make sense of all the different opinions and theories.

WS: Yes, Captin?





What does it mean?

I don't know how you can say "china's grude is nothing comparing to korea's"... I really don't. I don't know how to prove that mathmatically either, so let's just hear that and forget it.

After US sent troop to S Korea to stop the N Koreans, US had intentions to invade China. However after some calculations, the US realized that it's totally not beneficial to take that action, and pushed all the responsibility to McCarthy... Wait, where am I going? we supoposed to talk about Tibet and Taiwan.

As a Chinese, I say Tibet stays, Taiwan returns, period.

China, I love you. Hehe.

When I say that China's grudge is nothing compared to Korea's what I mean is that Korea has shown more open hostility toward Japan than China has. Maybe I should have said "Korea's expression of its grudge against Japan has been more vehement than China's." I did not mean to belittle the suffering of China at Japan's hands.

You seem to have taken what I said as a sort of measurement of the suffering that Korea and China experienced, and it disturbs me that you imply China suffered more than Korea, mathematically speaking. I don't think suffering can be measured in mathematical terms, and I don't think we can say that Korea suffered more than China, or vice versa. I think it's safe to say that all of Asia has very bad memories of the suffering.

But you're right, we were talking about Tibet and Taiwan. Back to the discussion then.

[Edit: Heh. I almost forgot.

quote:

---

As a Chinese, I say Tibet stays, Taiwan returns, period.

---

Care to elaborate on your reasoning?]




What does it mean?

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 05-03-2002).]

webshaman:
I find that many countries (usa,japan,russia,uk and german etc)had ever invaded quite a lot of countries.
there are also quite a lot of critism at first ,unfortunately ,at last ,the regions of these poor countries became the lawful regions of them.

I also believe this kind of things will happen in the future...

It is a "big fish eat small fish " principle,although i dont like it.

IF us or german take tibet now,what will they do ?

I agree with you that the china government office line is absurd sometimes, most of chinese cant get the truth ,
I confess that i am also misled sometimes.i cant touch that much about this issue.
Can you tell me more informations about it?
whether tibet was real a state or country at that time?

more background materials are what i really need.

Sohu1004:It seem that I has left the issue a little (when draw japanese in this issue:P)

I decide not to make a conclusion before i get the real materials about tibet now.

what my view on Taiwan problem is just like that song said "Let it be"




i love beatles

Ok, I found this :

quote:

---

Why Tibet?

An Introduction to the Question of Tibet

Why is there an outcry about Tibet? Why is a nation larger than Western Europe held captive and tortured by a foreign power, while the world's leaders stand by or deny responsibility for doing business with the oppressor? Why is Tibet's situation important right now?
The pages below tell how Tibet has come to the most perilous moment in its 3,000 year existence. It is a common theme of history; many ancient and peaceful indigenous civilizations have been assaulted by military powers in search of land and booty. Tibet, an independent nation until the Chinese invasion, is now faced with extinction. But it is not yet too late.

It would be very difficult to oust the Chinese by armed force, and it would go against the Tibetan Buddhist belief in non-violence. Instead, His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people have used diplomacy and non-violent activism in the hopes that the People's Republic of China will be condemned and pressured to withdraw its occupation forces from Tibet.

It is our belief that anyone who hears of what has happened in Tibet will support its cause. But the Tibetans must be heard. Please read on to find out why Tibet needs and deserves your support. If you are moved to become actively involved, contact a Tibet Support Group near you.

In a world where terrorism gets so much attention, it is important to support those who are willing to brave the path of peace.

Rangzen!

---

Still searching for evidence that it was an independent nation, internationally recognized.

Here is something very interesting on moving to a democratic system without violence:

quote:

---

IISD
International Institute for Self-Determination


Devoted to the Study and Promotion of Self-Determination as a Peaceful, Democratic Means of Conflict Resolution

The International Institute for Self-Determination (IISD) is dedicated to the right of peoples everywhere to determine their own political and cultural future. The world's trouble spots are characterized by frustrated minorities distinguishable by race, language, religion, culture or other ethnic marker. However, rather than dealing with the rights of the minority, the world has focused on the rights of the individual - human rights.
Because human rights are generally held to be universal, they can be applied without regard to ethnicity. This makes human rights more readily accepted than approaches which recognize ethnic differences. However, the human rights movement has had little effect in areas of open ethnic conflict. UN intervention in regional or national conflicts, other than to preserve national boundaries, has been in response to genocide, an ethnic or minority group rights issue, not an individual human rights issue.

IISD has been created to address the issue of minority group rights. The frustration of oppressed minorities arises from a lack of control of their own political and cultural destiny. The Institute is dedicated to the study and resolution of the problem of self-determination for minorities and peoples everywhere.

The ideal of self-determination motivated the establishment of the League of Nations, but was never fully implemented. Self-determination was the basis for the liberation of European colonies in the 60s, but was rarely made available to peoples within national boundaries of the colonial powers. Why might self-determination be better embraced today? Fears of self-determination were based upon the vulnerability of the small nation state - vulnerability to hostile neighbors, to economic pressures, to political instability, and even to famine and epidemic. Conditions are different now. Political, economic and technological advances have created conditions that mitigate those fears.

The world has embraced democracy and the belief that every person should be able to influence her own destiny. This global commitment to democracy, plus widespread literacy and mass communications, have created a world where national boundaries are already more fluid. Nations disassociate and coalesce with surprising ease. Barriers to self-determination are lower.

New technology and a new world order enable us to consider alternative forms of governance. Regional alliances, multi-national corporations, shared environmental resources and global media have already blurred national boundaries. All the functions of government need not share the same political boundaries. Innovations such as the World Wide Web have introduced a new paradigm wherein decision-making and control are truly distributed and fluid. Such paradigms may form the basis for new concepts of governance.

IISD will be dedicated to the study and advocacy of self-determination. Although the Institute will study the past, it will concentrate on the future. What new ideas, laws, standards and conventions can best protect the interests and rights of minorities and ensure the survival of threatened cultures everywhere? This is the question we must address. Great social movements don't enforce existing law; they create new law.


IISD
International Institute for Self-Determination
IISD@sbcglobal.net

---

Here are UN resolutions that i could find:

quote:

---

Resolutions Adopted By the UN without Reference to a Committee


1353 (XIV). Question of Tibet

The General Assembly Recalling the principles regarding fundamental human rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948,
Considering that the fundamental human rights and freedoms to which the Tibetan people, like all others, are entitled include the right to civil and religious liberty for all without distinction,
Mindful also of the distinctive cultural and religious heritage of the people of Tibet and of the autonomy which they have traditionally enjoyed,
Gravely concerned at reports, including the official statements of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, to the effect that the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the people of Tibet have been forcibly denied them,
Deploring the effect of these events in increasing international tension and in embittering the relations between peoples at a time when earnest and positive efforts are being made by responsible leaders to reduce tension and improve international relations,
1. Affirms its belief that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution of a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;
2. Calls for respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life.
834th plenary meeting,
21 October 1959.


1723 (XVI). Question of Tibet

The General Assembly
Recalling its resolution 1353 (XIV) of 21 October 1959 on the question of Tibet,
Noting with deep anxiety the severe hardships which these events have inflicted on the Tibetan people, as evidenced by the large-scale exodus of Tibetan refugees to the neighbouring countries,
Considering that these events violate fundamental human rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations, and have the deplorable effect of increasing international tension and embittering relations between peoples,
1. Reaffirms its conviction that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution of a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;
2. Solemly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination,
3. Expresses the hope that Member States will make all possible efforts, as appropriate, towards achieving the purposes of the present resolution.
1085th plenary meeting,
20 December 1961.



2079 (XX). Question of Tibet

The General Assembly
Bearing in mind the principles relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Reaffirming its resolutions 1353 (XIV) of 21 October 1959 and 1723 (XVI) of 20 December 1961 on the question of Tibet,
Gravely concerned at the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Tibet and the continued suppression of their distinctive cultural and religious life, as evidenced by the exodus of refugees to the neighbouring countries,
1. Deplores the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Tibet;
2. Reaffirms that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution of a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;
3. Declares its conviction that the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms ion Tibet and the suppression of the distinctive cultural and religious life of its people increase international tension and embitter relations between peoples;
4. Solemly renews its call for the cessation of all practices which deprive the Tibetan people of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which they have always enjoyed;
5. Appeals to all States to use their best endeavours to achieve the purposes of the present resolution.
1403rd plenary meeting,
18 December 1965.

---

Hope that helps...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-03-2002).]

Ok, I think this pretty much sums up the debate on Tibet...and not in Chinas favor:

quote:

---

Introduction:
The Tibetan Government-in-Exile, headed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled head of state and spiritual leader, has consistently held that Tibet has been under illegal Chinese occupation since China invaded the independent state in 1949/50. The People's Republic of China (PRC) insists that its relation with Tibet is purely an internal affair, because Tibet is and has been for centuries an integral part of China. The question of Tibet's status is essentially a legal question, albeit one of immediate political relevance.
The PRC makes no claim to sovereign rights over Tibet as a result of its military subjugation and occupation of Tibet following its armed invasion in 1949/50. Indeed, the PRC could hardly make that claim, since it categorically rejects as illegal claims to sovereignty put forward by other states based on conquest, occupation, or the imposition of unequal treaties. Instead, the PRC bases its claim to Tibet solely on the theory that Tibet became an integral part of China 700 years ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early History:
Although the history of the Tibetan state started in 127 B.C., with the establishment of the Yarlung Dynasty, the country as we know it was first unified in the 7th Century A.D., under King Songtsen Gampo and his successors. Tibet was one of the mightiest powers of Asia for the three centuries that followed, as a pillar inscription at the foot of the Potala Palace in Lhasa and Chinese Tang histories of the period confirm. A formal peace treaty concluded between China and Tibet in 821/823 demarcated the borders between the two countries and ensured that, "Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mongol Influence:
As Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire expanded towards Europe in the West and China in the East in the 13th Century, Tibetan leaders of the powerful Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism concluded an agreement with the Mongol rulers in order to avoid the conquest of Tibet. The Tibetan Lamas promised political loyalty and religious blessings and teachings in exchange for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when, decades later, Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368), he invited the Sakya Lama to become the Imperial Perceptor (sic) and supreme pontiff of his empire.
The relationship that developed and continues to exist into the 20th Century between the Mongols and Tibetans was a reflection of the close racial, cultural, and especially religious affinity between the two Central Asian peoples. The Mongol Empire was a world empire and, whatever the relationship between its rulers and the Tibetans, the Mongols never integrated the administration of Tibet and China or appended Tibet to China in any manner. Tibet broke political ties with the Yuan emperor in 1350, before China regained its independence from the Mongols. Not until the 18th Century did Tibet again come under a degree of foreign influence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relations with Manchu, Gorkha and British Neighbors:
Tibet developed no ties with the Chinese Ming Dynasty (1386-1644). On the other hand, the Dalai Lama, who established his sovereign rule over Tibet with the help of a Mongol patron in 1642, did develop close religious ties with the Manchu emperors, who conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). The Dalai Lama agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor, and accepted patronage and protection in exchange. This "priest-patron" relationship (known in Tibetan as Choe-Yoen), which the Dalai Lama also maintained with some Mongol princes and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal tie that existed between the Tibetans and Manchus during the Qing Dynasty. It did not, in itself, affect Tibet's independence.
On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of influence over Tibet. Thus, between 1720 and 1792, Emperors Kangxi, Yong Zhen, and Qianlong sent imperial troops to Tibet four times to protect the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people from foreign invasions by Mongols and Gorkhas or from internal unrest. These expeditions provided the Emperor with the means for establishing influence in Tibet. He sent representatives to the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, some of whom successfully exercised their influence, in his name, over the Tibetan Government, particularly with respect to the conduct of foreign relations. At the height of Manchu power, which lasted a few decades, the situation was not unlike that which can exist between a superpower and a satellite or protectorate, and therefore one which, though politically significant, does not extinguish the independent existence of the weaker state. Tibet was never incorporated into the Manchu Empire, much less China, and it continued to conduct its relations with neighboring states largely on its own.
Manchu influence did not last very long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British briefly invaded Lhasa and concluded a bilateral treaty with Tibet, the Lhasa Convention, in 1904. Despite this loss of influence, the imperial government in Peking continued to claim some authority over Tibet, particularly with respect to its international relations, an authority which the British imperial government termed "suzerainty" in its dealings with Peking and St. Petersburg, Russia. Chinese imperial armies tried to reassert actual influence in 1910 by invading the country and occupying Lhasa. Following the 1911 revolution in China and the overthrow of the Manchu Empire, the troops surrendered to the Tibetan army and were repatriated under a Sino-Tibetan peace accord. The Dalai Lama reasserted Tibet's full independence internally, by issuing a proclamation, and externally in communications to foreign rulers and in a treaty with Mongolia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibet in the 20th Century:
Tibet's status following the expulsion of Manchu troops is not subject to serious dispute. Whatever ties existed between the Dalai Lamas and the Manchu emperors of the Qing Dynasty were extinguished with the fall of that empire and dynasty. From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved in every respect as a fully independent state.
Tibet maintained diplomatic relations with Nepal, Bhutan, Britain, and later with independent India. Relations with China remained strained. The Chinese waged a border war with Tibet while formally urging Tibet to "join" the Chinese Republic, claiming all along to the world that Tibet was one of China's five races.
In an effort to reduce Sino-Tibetan tensions, the British convened a tripartite conference in Simla in 1913 where the representatives of the three states met on equal terms. As the British delegate reminded his Chinese counterpart, Tibet entered into the conference as an "independent nation recognizing no allegiance to China." The conference was unsuccessful in that it did not resolve the differences between Tibet and China. It was, nevertheless, significant in that Anglo-Tibetan friendship was reaffirmed with the conclusion of bilateral trade and border agreements. In a Joint Declaration, Great Britain and Tibet bound themselves not to recognize Chinese suzerainty or other special rights in Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention which would have guaranteed Tibet's greater borders, its territorial integrity and full autonomy. China never signed the Convention, however, leaving the terms of the Joint Declaration in full force.
Tibet conducted its international relations primarily by dealing with the British, Chinese, Nepalese, and Bhutanese diplomatic missions in Lhasa, but also through government delegations traveling abroad. When India became independent, the British mission in Lhasa was replaced by an Indian one. During World War II Tibet remained neutral, despite combined pressure from the United States, Great Britain, and China to allow passage of raw materials through Tibet.
Tibet never maintained extensive international relations, but those countries with whom it did maintain relations treated Tibet as they would any sovereign state. Its international status was no different from, say, that of Nepal. Thus, when Nepal applied for membership in the United Nations in 1949, it cited its treaty and diplomatic relations with Tibet to demonstrate its full international personality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Invasion of Tibet:
The turning point in Tibet's history came in 1949, when the People's Liberation Army of the PRC first crossed into Tibet. After defeating the small Tibetan army and occupying half the country, the Chinese government imposed the so-called "17-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" on the Tibetan government in 1951. Because it was signed under duress, the agreement lacked validity under international law. The presence of 40,000 troops in Tibet, the threat of an immediate occupation of Lhasa, and the prospect of the total obliteration of the Tibetan state left Tibetans little choice.
As open resistance to the Chinese occupation escalated, particularly in Eastern Tibet, the Chinese repression, which included the destruction of religious buildings and the imprisonment of monks and other community leaders increased dramatically. By 1959, popular uprisings culminated in massive demonstrations in Lhasa. By the time China crushed the uprising, 87,000 Tibetans were dead in the Lhasa region alone, and the Dalai Lama had fled to India.
In 1963 the Dalai Lama promulgated a constitution for a democratic Tibet. It has been successfully implemented, to the extent possible, by the Government-in-exile.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
In the course of Tibet's 2,000-year history, the country came under a degree of foreign influence only for short periods of time in the 13th and the 18th centuries. Few independent countries today can claim as impressive a record. As the ambassador of Ireland at the UN remarked during the General Assembly debates on the question of Tibet, "[for thousands of years, or for a couple of thousands of years at any rate, [Tibet) was as free and fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here."
Numerous other countries made statements in the course of the UN debates that reflected similar recognition of Tibet's independent status. Thus, for example, the delegate from the Philippines declared, "It is clear that on the eve of the invasion in 1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country." The delegate from Thailand reminded the assembly that the majority of states "refute the contention that Tibet is part of China." The United States joined most other UN members in condemning Chinese aggression and invasion of Tibet. In 1959, 1960, and 1961, the UN General Assembly passed resolutions (1353 (XIV), 1723 (xvi), and 2079 (XX)) condemning Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet and calling on that country to respect the fundamental freedoms of the Tibetan people, including their right to self-determination.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Van Praag is the author of "The Status of Tibet" available through Snow Lion.
Reprinted, with permission, from the Spring 1989 issue of
Snow Lion Newsletter and Catalog.
To: tmciolek@coombs.anu.edu.au
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 93 17:43:44 EST
From: P. Calvert
Dear Dr. Ciolek:
I would like to submit the following article for inclusion in your
archives. I am not the author; however, I have obtained the permission
of the publisher to reproduce the article electronically.
Sincerely,
Philip Calvert

---

Pretty overwhelming proof...

vanvanta, it is becoming very clear to me that you are interested in facts and knowing the truth. I think that is extremely admirable. I will confess to you that some of my words to you have been tainted by my disgust with some of your government's actions. Please understand that I am interested in honest and productive dialogue on these issues and none of my feelings towards your government are directed at you personally.

So I would also like to learn more about the Tibet issue and the stuff Webshaman posted is great. I also found this book: http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/2403.html It looks pretty good. Let's keep the information flowing if we can!

Organization dedicated to Tibet's cause:
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/

. . : newThing

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 05-03-2002).]

Woohoo! Thank you WebShaman and Bugimus! I'll be honest with you, Tibet is probably one of my weak areas in terms of Asian history, etc., and I was hoping to learn something through this discussion. Well, I have learned, and I am still learning.

Thank you all for a very enriching experience.

Galaxal: I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for your rather close-minded post up there, but I've read a few other of your posts in other threads here in the Philosophy forum, and I just have to ask you: Who died and made you chairman? How is it that you can blast me for making an (admittedly) general and unsupported statement and then turn around and make an even worse statement--with absolutely no support whatsoever?

quote:

---

As a Chinese, I say Tibet stays, Taiwan returns, period.

---

Again, I say: a little support here? This is a discussion. We discuss things. We do not make proclamations and expect other people to accept them as law, period.

*gulps meds*

Deep breaths... I think I'll be OK now.

vanvanta: Yeah, drawing Japan into the issue probably wasn't the best of ideas, but I was just as guilty of going off on a tangent .

Now let me go educate myself with the info that WebShaman and Bugimus have been so kind to provide us with...


[Edit: I have read through the information above and some of the information on the sites provided by Bugimus. Thank you for helping me chip away at my vast ignorance. I am quite astounded at what I have just read, and I have only two thoughts to pass on at the moment:

1) As I have mentioned before, China has historically exerted great influence over Korea, and during the 13th century the Yuan (Mongol) Dynasty occupied most of Korea. It would appear that China would have even less of a claim over Tibet, yet they still find justification for an invasion.

2) Having thought of #1, I then realized that, if China could justify their invasion of Tibet, they would have an even easier time of justifying an invasion of Korea. Then again, Tibet does not have over 30,000 U.S. troops stationed in its territory...

*files #2 under "Things that make you go hmmm"*

Oh, I was watching the Simpsons last night (I don't know if it's the same episode they showed in the States), and they went to a Chinese restaurant in Chinatown. Lisa says, "I love Chinatown. But I wish they would stop picking on Tibettown." The camera then pans to a small-fenced off area where a bunch of people are getting beaten, with a sign overhead saying "Tibettown." I just thought that was very ironic, since I had just finished with this discussion.]




What does it mean?

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 05-04-2002).]

bugimus and webshaman:thank you for your help ,I am quite a little clear now (but there are still somethings i should know)


what you have posted here proved that tibet should be consider a independent state in the history and now.

I can tell you that in china textbook this background was expressed like this:

In the Qing dynasty ,the central government sent the representive to tibet ,it means the china was in charge of tibet.dalai must came to beijing meet the empirer before he was appointed by the central goverment .
His power is given by central government.

In this question,I found a site which made by peking University :http://edu.beida-online.com/yypl/zhuanti/tibet.htm

It is chinese site,.......sth view is very different from the above materials.Sohu1004,I think you can read it.

If webshaman's materials is true ,i think ,that kind of activity can be called " invasion ".
sohu1004: i think i should study the relation between china and korea again....
now,china had established the local government which consist of quite a lot of tibetians.china also spent abundant of money there to construct its roads ,factories etc.IF the dalai return ,there are quite a lot of problems should be considered from the beginning.One is that ,quite a lot of han and other nations people have move into tibet ,they maynot agree with the dalai s view,the problem became very complicated now...I think,the conflict between the 2 nations will break if let the tibet go out of china...is it better than now ?At least ,most of the people still live a peace life.
Here comes a problem,If you are china leader ,what should you do ?

If usa meet this situation ,what will bush do ?

i love beatles

[This message has been edited by vanvanta (edited 05-04-2002).]

here is a article which written by a tibet problem professor (He is not a government supporter)
His viewpoit is very different and "constructive". http://edu.beida-online.com/data/data1.jsp?db=sanjiao&id=tibethy


Sohu1004 :I think you can read it at first,because you know chinese.
I want to translate it into english ,but it is quite a long article...

I will try it as soon as possible,please wait.

i love beatles

quote:

---

In the Qing dynasty ,the central government sent the representive to tibet ,it means the china was in charge of tibet.dalai must came to beijing meet the empirer before he was appointed by the central goverment .
His power is given by central government.

---

As I mentioned above (or maybe in another post), Korea also had a tributary relationship with China for the longest time. If you do some research, you'll find that Korea had an almost identical set up with China--every time a new king was crowned, they had to send a representative to China to make sure everything was cool (and Chinese envoys would often visit Korea to make sure everything was OK). As Korea grew stronger, though, they grew more independent, but the "elder brother-younger brother" relationship wasn't really abolished until the modern era, when China began to weaken from pressure by the West and Japan. By the reasoning above, China has just as much a claim over Korea as it does over Tibet. Like I said before, though, Tibet doesn't have 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in its territory.

I'm sure the situation is more complicated than this, but I'm not sure if China has a legitimate claim on Tibet. More research is definitely required, but that's my feeling right now.

Oh, as to reading Chinese--I appreciate your faith in me, but it takes a lot of time and effort for me to read Chinese texts . When it comes to brief passages I'm OK, but I'd probably be overwhelmed by such long articles. I do want to study Chinese at some point in the future (probably after I finish my PhD work), but right now I've still got to get my MA thesis done. So, for the time being, I'll have to take your word on what it says. I trust that you'll give it to us straight .

As for the Han colonists moving into Tibet, I agree with you that there would most likely be problems if the Dalai Lama were to return. But isn't the responsibility for that on the Han Chinese? They are the outsiders, after all. And it would appear that their purpose is to assimilate the Tibetans by erasing any cultural or racial uniqueness.

I wish I had more time to research the problem, but I'm really swamped with my studies these days...





What does it mean?

Not to go off on a tangent here, but I was thinking about the China/Korea thing, and I've got some interesting thoughts. It started with the following quote, which is from galaxal's sole post in this thread:

quote:

---

After US sent troop to S Korea to stop the N Koreans, US had intentions to invade China. However after some calculations, the US realized that it's totally not beneficial to take that action, and pushed all the responsibility to McCarthy...

---

At the time I was just miffed with galaxal and decided to ignore what he said since it is going off on a tangent. But when I brought up the similarities between Tibet and Korea, I thought again about what he said.

First let's start with the Korean War. For those who may not be familiar with it, a brief summary: North Korea invaded the south on June 25, 1950, taking Seoul in three days and continuing to push south. MacArthur landed troops at Incheon (near Seoul), cutting the northern army in half and eventually pushing them back. As US troops approached the Yalu river, hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops stormed south and pushed all the way to Seoul. UN troops eventually recaptured the city, and the fighting ended with a stalemate.

Now, why did the Chinese troops enter the war against UN forces? To protect their Communist brothers in North Korea? Unlikely. In self defense? More likely, but not the whole picture, I think. As to the U.S. entertaining ideas of invading China, well, we can't rule out the possibility, but the fact of the matter is this: had Chinese forces succeeded in sweeping the UN off the peninsula, they would have claimed it as part of China.

And this would not be a new thing. In the 7th century, there were three kingdoms on the Korea peninsula: Silla, Koryeo, and Baekje. Shilla allied with T'ang China and defeated Koryeo and Baekje, unifying the peninsula, but China had other plans. As soon as Silla had defeated the other two kingdoms China sent an invading force to take over the peninsula. Fortunately, Silla was able to hold off the invaders and as a result there is a nation called Korea today.

The Chinese tried to establish hegemony in Korea again when Japan was on the rise in the 19th century, but were eventually defeated. The Korean War was just another opportunity--only a year after it had invaded Tibet. Am I the only one who sees the similarities? I hold to my original position that the only reason China never took over Korea is the U.S. If the U.S. had had troops stationed in Tibet, I guarantee you the invasion never would have happened--or if it had, it would have developed into a full-scale war in which the UN would have gotten involved.

OK, I know it's a bit of a tangent, but I just wanted to provide a little more support for my statements above.



[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 05-05-2002).]

Thank you all for making the discussion much deeper and extending my knowledge about Tibet and something others.

These days I am thinking about some basic issues, that is, which angle of view we take, historical or political.

In a political view, the invasion is quite reasonable, Soviet Union would not allow some western force come into his back yard. I don't think China can avoid USSR's influence at that time, something special also happened in the country of Mongolia. I want to say, we can't tell which is right or wrong in a political view. In the cold war, I can't say US is good and USSR is bad easily although I want US to win if I have to make a choice.

In a historical view, I have mentioned before, it's a process of nation-state, a historical construction of modern. (on this point I agree with Anthony Giddens, famous English sociologist, he says a traditional state has frontiers but no boundaries) In this process, someone won, just like Suho1004 told me the ancient Silla finally turned into modern Korean. Tibetans just failed to formed their own nation-state.

And there is something mixed by politics and history. People's pionts of view is changing. When Plato said a slave should not be treated as a people, we all agree he was wrong, but his friends, students even his enemies would take that as granted. Justice didn't definitely mean equality at that time. We Chinese faced with a 'broken history' in the modern days, many people still think in a traditional(or ancient) mind, that is why I said the long history is a heavy burden to us today, it seems too hard to change.

The problem is, what kind of action is helpful to Tibetans today and of course helpful to all people. I shall say, just throwing stones at Chinese government is not enough, sometimes not wise, because I am sad to see this kind of action is misinterpreted and used to stir up a nationalism emotion by our government recently.

I strongly support a Self-Determination. Tibetans should decide their affairs by their own.

I don't agree that Tibet belong to China in ancient times, that is familiar to Korea or Vietnam. There is another interesting question I remember temporarily, Taiwan also has her original residents, then can we say another group of Chinese invade Formosa?

I personally appreciate a kind of historical angle of view, because I may be effected to misjudge something important by political views.

btw, I am looking for a real Tibetan on the net, I think that will be more fair to hear about sounds from themselves.



[This message has been edited by freerain (edited 05-05-2002).]

Some good points there, freerain.

In a purely political sense, yes, I suppose the invasion of Tibet is understandable. I think what might be bothering people (among many things) is the Chinese government's attempt to fabricate non-political justifications (eg, that Tibet was once a part of China, etc.). Whether or not China invaded a sovereign nation is also a point of contention.

The level of Tibet's development at that point in time is also an important issue, but I'm not sure if you can say that Tibet was not a fully-developed state in 1949, when China invaded. The following is from the material WebShaman posted above:

quote:

---

Tibet conducted its international relations primarily by dealing with the British, Chinese, Nepalese, and Bhutanese diplomatic missions in Lhasa, but also through government delegations traveling abroad. When India became independent, the British mission in Lhasa was replaced by an Indian one. During World War II Tibet remained neutral, despite combined pressure from the United States, Great Britain, and China to allow passage of raw materials through Tibet.

Tibet never maintained extensive international relations, but those countries with whom it did maintain relations treated Tibet as they would any sovereign state. Its international status was no different from, say, that of Nepal. Thus, when Nepal applied for membership in the United Nations in 1949, it cited its treaty and diplomatic relations with Tibet to demonstrate its full international personality.

---

So, when you say Tiber never formed their own nation-state, what time period are you referring to? Granted, I haven't studied enough of Tibetan history to be completely sure of this, but it sounds like they were able to form an internationally recognized state.

quote:

---

The problem is, what kind of action is helpful to Tibetans today and of course helpful to all people. I shall say, just throwing stones at Chinese government is not enough, sometimes not wise, because I am sad to see this kind of action is misinterpreted and used to stir up a nationalism emotion by our government recently.

---

I think this is the most important point. We could sit here and argue forever about whether or not the invasion was justified, and it would get us nowhere. I agree, it would be wonderful if we could put aside ideological differences for a moment and think about what is best for Tibet. I also agree that self-determination is the way to go. If more people thought like you, I think the situation would move more quickly toward a resolution. Thanks for sharing your views.

I'm not going to touch the Taiwan issue right now, but I too have had similar thoughts. I think it goes back to the idea of forming a nation-state, though. And in the end, I think it comes down to "might makes right"--there was a native population in North America when the Europeans arrived, but that didn't stop Mexico, the U.S. and Canada from being founded. It's a sticky situation, I must admit, and from a historical viewpoint the end often justifies the means. Or at least that's what those in power want us to believe. (OK, so maybe I touched the issue a little )

And yes, it would be nice to have a Tibetan join our discussion, but I wonder what would happen if they were found out...

I found some different viewpoins and evidences these 2 days .

I try to translate them into english later.

There are some details i want everyone here to notice.One is that the tibet number that was killed by the PLA.

THis number was enlarged.

THese kind of datum will be posted here later.



i love beatles