(Also known as "another can of worms")

Let us examine the "problem of Tibet" from an impartial context and uncover the truth of the matter in a dialectical manner. With this node I intend to prove all the Free Tibet activists wrong (even though I would consider myself one), and also people from the opposing camp (such as, sorry for using you as an example, DMan).

  1. The legal situation of Tibet

    So, what is the legal situation of Tibet? To find that out we have to look deep into the past... When we look in an encylopaedia we find that the Kublai Khan granted control of Eastern Tibet to the Sakya lama in the 13th Century. Interesting... The lamas attained political power not by being installed there -- but by being granted it by an external, and more powerful force. Then we see that the Great Fifth (HH V Dalai Lama) became ruler of all Tibet in 1642. But then we have rule by the Chinese Qing dynasty from 1720 until the bloody and awful revolution of 1911. Then Tibet declared her independence, and then the rest -- well, we know the rest.

    So, what is her legal status? Can we derive much from all of that? I think not, personally. She may have signed treaties with all sorts of neighbouring states, but as someone so rightly pointed out just because China traded with Siberia independently for years that Siberia was not in itself a nation. We, unfortunately, have to turn to the same criteria that was used to carve up the map of Europe after the Great War, i.e.race, culture, language.

    If we use those criteria Tibet must be seen as an independent entity. But, that would no longer be a viable option (see section 3).

  2. Remedies that could be possible

    • Complete independence of the Bod Cholka-sum (also known as Rangzen)
    • "Real" autonomy under China
    • Continuance of the present situation
    • Complete mergeing with the motherland

  3. Pros and Cons to the remedies

    I personally believe that independence is no longer a viable option. For a start, we have a very large amount of Chinese population in Tibet. You can't just ask them to leave... It's their home too. Plus, those that seek independence might not be those that are best to lead the country...

    Plus Tibet does have just under 200 years of links with China (in a direct sense)... So, therefore, complete independence might not be the best option. Continuing the present situation is probably not a good thing either, as it creates too many arguments.

    Complete mergeing with China would just provoke world outrage.

  4. Synthesis

    My only hope is that the regime in China one day changes, and blossoms into something quite wonderful. Maybe it will. I hope so. Historically China had her Communist revolution almost 50 years after Russia so we can't expect any real shake-up until say 2020. However then we might see (as we did in Russia's case) autonomy and/or independence for constituent regions, and a true move towards capitalism instead of totalitarian "pseudo-communism".

Notes:

  • DMan: I'm not trying to pick a fight here -- actually I'm trying to show where I agree with you, and disagree with you, and where I agree and disagree with "my own camp". So don't kill me for this. I actually agree with (virtually) (almost) everything you've written on Tibet.
  • Notice how I've missed out the issue of the government of Tibet. That is extremely problematic. The government before the invasion was theocratic and feudal. HH the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, has said it was being reformed -- but honestly nobody cares about what it was -- the governing bodies of Tibet in whichever scenario have to be fully formed, democratic, untheocratic, impartial, and fair. Under the Chinese or the Tibetans. That's not politics -- it's logic
  • It's true that China has committed vast human rights atrocities in Tibet (AND also in the rest of China). But that's not a magical flag you can swing in front of the UN or the US and hope they will do something. They won't. Violence and brutality has happened the world over. Name a major culture -- the Germans, the Brits, the Japanese, the Russians -- they've all done it. See DMans "The Brutality of Red China".
  • Don't think that I'm not religious -- I would consider myself Buddhist.
  • Then again OTOH don't think I'm not poltical -- I'm not stupid, damnit
What's my big point then? It's this -- and this should be anyone's concern if they truly care about suffering (and stuff like that):

Free Tibet | Free Xinjiang | Free Mongolia | Free Shanghai :-) | Free China

 

Excuse, me, rillefane but how was the border demarcated between China and Tibet drawn by a British bureaucrat...????

You might also note that vast numbers of ethnic Tibetans live in areas which no one doubts are part of China proper.

Much of the discussion about Tibet is taken from the perspective of Westerners who assume that the nation state consisting of a relatively ethnically homogeneous population is, and ought to be, the politically moral norm.

The current boundries of what is taken to be "Tibet" consist of an imaginary line drawn by a British bureaucrat that bears little, if any, relation to the the historic realities of the Tibet/China relationship.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.