Every now and then in the messy quagmire that is diplomacy and international relations, the true hypocrisy of all this jostling for national position becomes glaringly obvious. Lightly camouflaged behind a veneer of garish moral make-up and far from the bright lights of CNN and the BBC, the diplomatic whores and pimps of our world’s nations ply their trade.
March 10 2008 is the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan national uprising against Chinese occupation, supported clandestinely and unsurprisingly by the CIA (has there been a single revolution where these nosy fellows were not involved?). All around the world there are marches to free the beleaguered country from Chinese rule, but China will not budge on its position and the world stops short of doing anything more about it except to march and protest and arrange for meetings between spiritually barren Hollywood stars and the Dalai Lama, who uses them for photo opportunities for his cause.
Way across on the other side of Europe, the pimps have been rather busier of late on a more conveniently soluble, accolade-earning problem. Backed by a paternal dose of US and EU support, young Kosovo has just announced its independence from Serbia. Unlike Tibet, Kosovo is not an invaded country ruled by Serbs. It is formally, and now I guess formerly, an official province of Serbia with an ethnic Albanian population that has in recent history rapidly increased in number to become the dominating ethnicity of the formerly majority Serb province. After the reversal of Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing debacle, the Albanians now number about 90% of the population in part due to a wave of Serbian refugees that left for other parts of Serbia after the war.
Since the end of the war in 1999, Serbia has largely been on a moderate path towards EU membership. In the most recent elections, Serbs elected Boris Tadic, a moderate for whom EU membership is a top priority. In short, the Serbs have been toeing the Western and EU line, stumbling only on the emotional issues of handing over wartime generals and releasing Kosovo to the Albanian majority, both of which were still under negotiation.
Imagine then, if you will, the surprise when the US and the EU along with the Albanian leadership in Kosovo planned and implemented a unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia. The timing was superb and no coincidence. Literally days after the Serbs had chosen a moderate leader to work towards EU membership, a move that would include the bilaterally negotiated resolution of the Kosovo issue, the Albanian minority staunchly supported by the US delivered a literal slap in the face of Serbian efforts and declared unilateral independence for the rogue province out from under them.
Serbia was stunned, Russia and China grumbled in disgust and even certain sleeping EU nations such as Spain, Greece and Cyprus were woken up to the hard reality that their little rogue provinces might soon be doing the same. For Serbs who had voted to resolve the issue fairly and bilaterally by voting in Tadic instead of his hard-line rival Nicolic, it was an insult and further proof that there seemed to be one set of rules for all other countries in the world and a special set just for Serbia. It is simply another case of global bullying by that old, meddling schoolyard ruffian, the US of A and her ruthless EU cohort.
Serbs duly protested, of course, and although the attack on the US embassy can hardly be condoned, it also seems rather naive of the US to expect Serbs to take the news lying down and for there to be no backlash. To ponder a parallel, I wonder how the US might react if Serbia, working with Russia and China, connived with the burgeoning Mexican population of Texas and after unilaterally declaring independence, swiftly moved to recognise it officially as a new country. I suspect there may be a few scenes like we saw when France opposed the “war on terror” and French products and businesses became targets. So lets temper American outrage about flag and embassy right there and give it the perspective it deserves.
One also has to ask why the EU, the US and the Albanian majority in Kosovo decided to take the entire emotionally charged province lock, stock and barrel? Since the move was unilateral and all parties knew that Serbia would vehemently object, why could they not make a peace offering and gain some moral altitude by declaring independence of a modified region, excluding certain Serbian enclaves? Most notably, why not exclude the Serbian part of Mitrovica that comes complete with a handy river for a border? They will surely pull a “Kosovo” on Kosovo and declare their own independence and rejoin Serbia anyway. It simply shows the disdain with which the declaration was made.
Thankfully, not all thinking Americans were behind the decision to support the unilateral independence of Kosovo. In fact, the very few who know the region intimately could scarcely believe their ears when their own country blundered ahead with its loud proclamation of support. Former US secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger; John Bolton, the former permanent US representative to the United Nations; and Peter Rodman, the former assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs, were three of the bigger names to stand up and ask what on earth the US was thinking. All three of these esteemed and respected fellows — along with countries such as China, Brazil and even South Africa — have urged that a lasting solution can only be as a result of bilateral negotiation. They have warned that Serbia today is not the Serbia of Milosevic, and that treating it as such is to breed his successor and bring instability to a region making progress.
I won’t go through the long and tedious historical arguments that were the subject of a previous blog, but there are some very good arguments why Serbia and its Serbs have a strong and indisputable historical claim to Kosovo; at the very least as good and often far better than the Albanian claims to the territory. It should also be noted that during both world wars, the ethnic Albanians indulged in ethic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo, making the claim of the US and EU that this is a special case because of the ethnic cleansing under Milosevic flimsy at best.
As for the precedent that this rash action sets, it is hardly possible to know where to start pointing out the pitfalls. Perhaps to remain in the Balkans at first, Serbia has promptly said that it will now investigate the possibility of supporting the declaration of independence of the majority Serb province of Bosnia, Republica Srpska, as well as enclaves within Kosovo such as Mitrovica. Since provinces are now fair game, nobody who supported the Kosovo independence should have even a wobbly leg to stand on and Bosnia could duly be ripped asunder. Palestinians are licking their chops, as are the Basques, the Tamil Tigers, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq — and perhaps even little Orania has taken a breath, opened its eyes and started thinking about its future. Fair enough, I guess.
Along the same lines then, why on earth should Tibet not simply declare its independence from China? If Kosovo is a called a “special case” to justify EU and US support, then Tibet must surely be a no-brainer, super-special case. It was formerly a country, not a province, and it was invaded by China in living memory. It is the very modern icon of human rights abuse and displacement and the entire world largely agrees that China is in the wrong and should give poor Tibet back its autonomy. Should it declare independence from China, one would like to believe that the US and the EU would be forced to step up to the plate and recognise it in a flash. On the moral basis of Kosovo, they should have no choice but to do so.
But they won’t. Tibet will remain occupied.
There is quite simply no way that either of them will risk standing up to China and it is inconceivable — in fact, unthinkable — that they would do so unilaterally without China’s consent. That kind of arrogant disregard can only be dished out to countries too weak to resist, preferably ones that you have bombed into submission and ones against which your voters are still nicely prejudiced and from whom you don’t buy billions of dollars’ worth of toys, computers and dog food.
Bottom line: China is a big pimp on the street and Serbia is not. That means you can gang up on Serbia, garner support in Kosovo and build US military bases in nice strategic positions. It means you can run detention centres like Guantánamo Bay in Kosovo and it means you can kick your old enemy Russia and your new one Iran smugly in the balls. And should Russian diplomacy make inroads with Poland and the Czech Republic when you need to put up your missile defence system at the confluence of Russia and Middle East, what a great alternative your new best buddy Kosovo would make. The clues to otherwise indefensible and incomprehensible behaviour are all in the timing and the agendas playing out behind the scenes.
Look no further than the dark corner of the street where the pimps and whores ply their trade. There you might be surprised to find the “democratically pious” and “morally righteous” elbowing their way to the front and slipping a few dollar bills to the whores for the right to play the control and submission game with them in the dark rooms where few good people ever tread.
I take it that where you wrote ‘ethic cleansing’ we should instead read ETHNIC CLEANSING?
Fair enough.
Closer to home: What if the Swazi’s decided to reclaim their lands?
Why should any proud African recognise the colonial borders?
Absolutely, Grant. I couldn’t agree more with you. But action must be taken… somehow.
One positive consequence of China’s invasion (oppression, cultural genocide, etc.) of Tibet is that Tibetan Buddhadharma has undergone a diaspora to the West.
But that is the silver lining to a very dark cloud.
The conditions in this column are actually nothing new, and date all the way back to Rome. However, international diplomats do have one thing in their favour – whoever they are, they support their own country first, at whatever cost. Their motives can be worked out. They display only a fraction of the venality of domestic politicians, who have no such guiding principles and no allegiances with anything other than their own bank accounts.
i have to say that some things you write are totally untrue.
“It is formally, and now I guess formerly, an official province of Serbia with an ethnic Albanian population that has in recent history rapidly increased in number to become the dominating ethnicity of the formerly majority Serb province.” This is very, very untrue. Please digg up some unbiased historical facts.
Also, it was no surprise to anyone that right after the elections the albanians declared independence. It seems you are trying to beef up your piece because everyone knew they were going to declare independence right after the elections in Serbia. Wrong again.
Furthermore you implicate that what is going on in kosovo is against international laws,… that is nonsense. A state only can apply for their territorial integrity of their borders when there has been no difference in treatment of her citizens by fate, race, of belief. This has been the case in Kosovo under Milosevic, so it is perfectly legal.
Also, you ask why it would be a stupid idea to divide kosovo by ehtnic lines. Quite simply because that is exactly a ridiculous reason to declare independence by… a foreign family could that way, declare independence in their home since in between those four walls, they form the majority and not the indigineous people. Quite a ridiculous idea to divide among ethnic lines.
Also you say: “They have warned that Serbia today is not the Serbia of Milosevic, and that treating it as such is to breed his successor and bring”. That is not really true either: Tadic only won by a small majority vote… and now the parliament fell, with hardliners responsible for it.
Please, i ask with respect… read up some unbiased historical facts and dont assume a certain ethnicity can claim kosovo, that is just dumb. the arguments u you use in your other blog are flimsy.
I DO AGREE, however, on Tibet. That is why i started reading this article. They deserve independence. May every nation in the world recognize that within our lifetime.
Perhaps China is in Tibet because if they were not the USA would be.
Just as the USA is in Kosovo now.
As a westerner I feel it is my duty to look hard at my origins before I blame everyone else, and if ever there was a certainty it is that as westerners we have a big smelly American/Anglo pile in our living room right now.
Kosove is in the EEC’s back yard, Tibet is not.
The Dalai llama, in contradiction to the Tibetan govt in Exile, favours, and has stated in public he would like autonomy within China.
China has Nukes, Serbia doesn’t though Russia does.
So why not start World War Three for something the Tibetans may not actually want?
When they are ready to compromise and the Chinese wont.
@critique
Historical and unbiased fact is that Kosovo was Serbian teritory for 600 years and a cradle of Serbian kingdom. You never hear on western media that Albanians became majority only after WWII ethinc cleansing they commited while fighting on the side of Nazis. They had continuous terror activity since then. I it is not only against Serbs, as some media want to portrait it. They expelled everyone: Bosniaks, Macedonians, Romas, etc. Do you know how many medieval monasteries and churches they destroyed. Hundreds! Some under UNESCO protection. But, USA needed cheep military base, so there we are: another banana republic led by narco-cartel and human traficers. Kosovo. “Independent”. Right…
It reminds me of the Olympics. The Olympic Committee should be consistent with how they implement and execute their decisions on who gets the Olympics. If China is okay – should Zimbabwe get it next? It will be consistent with what they call “the Olympic” values. Or maybe we should have a closer look at their values – if we can find it. More on this in my blog at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/and-the-olympics-goes-to-zimbabwe/
Free the Scotland and wales from queen first.
There is no area quite as complicated as the Balkans. But what is undoubtedly true is that the suffered under Serbians during the recent wars and the tension between these two groups of people is extremely high. Almost every armchair statesman will agree that some form of “two state solution” is the ideal outcome for Palestine and Israel. Why not the same for Kosovo and Serbia?
And as for Tibetans – of course they too deserve to be free. There aren’t many people who’ve experience a form domination far far worse than apartheid. In the past century only Hitler’s bunch have committed worse atrocities than what the Chinese have done to Tibet.
Critique, how many Serbs were in Kosovo before WWI..65%. How many Albanians escaped communist Albania and settled in Kosovo with Yugoslav (Titos) blessing. During old Yugoslavia, milions were invested in Kosovo anually to give them a way of life when the unemployment was about the same as it is today…60%. While a Serbian family had 3 children, Albanian families had 12 on avarage. There are many Albanians in Kosovo who ‘always lived there’ BUT, the majority of the ones now are from Albania itslef (open border policy). Just because they immigrate to a country does not give them the right to suceed. Kosovo was never a country, Serbia never occupied it. How can Kosovo become Independant…they are nothing but dependant…on EU and US money and support! Look at your economy, Kosovo has become a ghetto, not a country. During the negotiations, Serbia offered you a country inside a country and that wasn’t good enough, you wanted the whole pie!
When you speak of ethinic cleansing, do you mean the Serbs albanians massacered when they were allied with Nazi Germany?…Kosovo was part of greater albanian once…during Hitler.
You said “its stupid to split kosovo btw ethnic lines” ummm…didn’t the albanians do that in Serbia??? What makes you so special and gives you the right? Oh yes, i forgot, Kosovo is a unique case but you dont haveto do much reading to relize that it ISN’T! The only unique thing is that you are getting away with it!
Tibet must be allowed to be free to decide their own destiny. This is the crux of the matter, and one that the Chinese should face up to. World opinion has always been against them on this and they should be brought to task for what is essentially constant human rights violations both in Tibet and their own country.
DON’T FREE TIBET, I say. Much of the grandstanding about Tibet is based on a number of romanticised misconceptions. The first one being that Tibet was ever independent. It was long a tributary state of China. Also, yellow hat (Tibetan) Buddhism was the religion followed at the Chinese court during the Qing dynasty. The Lama’s paid regular court to the Chinese emperor and there was even a replica of the Potala in Beijing. Most Chinese were Daoists but Tibetan scrolls were often placed at the top of Daoist temples by the emperor to demonstrate the orthodoxy of Tibetan Buddhism. Secondly, Tibetans were never the harmless and benign softies as Hollywood and a number of movie actors would have us all believe. Tibet remained isolated so long because Tibetan monks routinely murdered all foreigners entering their country, especially Western missionaries. There was a major museum exhibit in Europe a year or two ago of Tibetan military armour and weaponry giving lie to the peace-loving reputation that is entirely an invention of modern pop culture and its adoption of the Dalai Lama. Thirdly, the Tibetan population was NEVER free. It was until recently the most repressive and brutal feudal society imaginable. The serfs had a lower status than cattle (yaks). The monastic system was aristocratic, repressive and parasitic and sustained its control over the populace by means of fear, superstition and ignorance – Tibetan Buddhism relies heavily on the occult and black magic. If there was one sole good thing that came out of the terrible Cultural Revolution it was the invasion and liberation of Tibet. The ordinary people who live there have been taught how to read and write for the first time. They no longer have to live like pack animals and can have jobs and use computers, just like the people who read this blog. The Dalai Lama is just another of those mega-rich guru-types who have managed to trade on the sentimentality of guilt-ridden Westerners. He is proof that there’s a sucker born every minute.
Technically the Queen is Scottish first after James the Sixth of Scotland was invited down to be james the First of England.
So we should free England from the Sottish Crown.
And she’s actually German, the names was changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the more English sounding Windsor in the first World War to be more patriotice when fighting the Huns.
Dear critique,
I agree with you that it was rather obvious that US was maneuvering very hard towards independence, so it wasn’t truly surprising… But Kosovo WAnS created independent on the basis of ethicity – and yet you claim that no ethnicity can claim Kosovo! Further – in Kosovo there was segregation on basis of ethnicity – before Milosevic – Serbs were gradually (but surely) pushed out of the province. This fact is rarely published in Western media – because it is not supportive of Albanian case… but nevertheless it is a fact that can be verified. That is in fact what created “case” for Milosevic- he tried (unsuccessfully) to reverse the trend by marginalizing Albanians in Kosovo. Albanian major reason for claimning the territory is their statement that they are descendants of Illyrians – but many historians say that they also migrated from Adriatic islands – due to Roman expansion. There is no trace of Illyrian influence in present Albanian language. So in a sense – Milosevic’s segregation was a response to Albanian segregation which was in operation Kosopvo before he came to power….
According to to estimates from Austria-Hungary – at the end of 19th century – there were 48% of Albanians in Kosovo and 43% Serbs in that area. Albanins did displace many Serbs during WWII. Before the NATO bombing in 1999 (which was induced by manipulating casualties of fighting Serb forces and KLA and in fact framing Serbia at Racak village) Albanians already had 78% and today it is already 90%. Borders of Kosovo province were not – state borders, even Mitrovica region was included in Kosovo province much later after WWII – so Kosovo borders are certainly negotiable. Especially in view that we are talking about partitioning of sovereign state Serbia – a member of UN and Kosovo was nether of those.
@John
Are you a propagandist for the Chinese embassy, or do you always sound off volubly on topics that you know almost nothing about?
The moral and cultural case for Tibetans to be independent is just as strong anyone’s. They are genetically and racially completely different from the Han Chinese. Archaeological records and early Chinese writings identify the Tibetan tribes as living in the same general area with their own distinct language, culture, history, traditions, myths and even governments quite apart from the Chinese going back to before the time of Jesus. In about 830 AD Tibet and China signed treaties to identify their common border and had engraved on rock pillars the words ” ..the whole region to the East being the country of Great China and the whole region to the West being … Tibet”. One of these pillars still exists.
The full history of both countries is full wars and revolutions, each country conquering and being conquered by each other and also by outsiders such as the Mongols, the Manchurians, the British, etc, etc … The Chinese claim to Tibet is highly contrived. A much stronger case could be made that South Africa should not exist, or that France really belongs to England.
Regarding the rest of your arguments, they are all illogical. Your mumbo-jumbo about them having some hierarchy in Buddhism, well, so what. That religion came from India so should they both now be subject to Delhi? And most of the rest of the world subject to Israel because they hold Jerusalem?
Surely the fact that Tibet was isolated for so long should give it more reason to be isolated from China now? And sure before the modern western enlightenment, times were tough for peasants everywhere, not just Tibet, and full of “fear, superstition and ignorance”. In what you call the “liberation of Tibet” a third of the Tibetan population died, was murdered or starved as a direct result of that liberation. Over 6000 monasteries and nunneries (where the poor could be educated) were destroyed. Some liberation. The Dalai Lama lives a very humble life and deserves the worldwide respect that he receives, including the Nobel Peace Prize.
Grant, you make good points on the Balkan issues in your previous posts, pity you seem not to have done the same research on China or Tibet.
@Robert, since you accuse John of not knowing what he is talking about, what qualifies you? And what are your sources? (Not a word was said about the Tibetans being Han – what is that about? ) As for your comment about “mumbo-jumbo about them having some hierarchy in buddhism” reveals not only your own ignorance about Tibetan history, but a distasteful willingness to promote western propaganda and a gross disrespect for those Tibetans who lived under the yolk of the Dalai Lama’s sect. Regrettably, violations of common peoples’ rights have been extensive in Tibet for many years, prior to and after the Chinese ‘invasion’. There are few, if any, instances in history where a nuanced reading of all sides is required to gain some sense of the experiences of real people, as opposed to poster icons such as the Dalai Lama. The history of Tibet (like everywhere else) is a contested one, not least because of the CIA/Hollywood versions. Here are some views, by no means exhaustive:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7355
And in case you hadn’t noticed about Israel…
@John , much of what you is correct, though “mega-rich guru-type” seems a bit petty.
Anyone from England is not qualified to support the so called Tibet cause as long as North Ireland is still hold by UK. Double standard is the most common symptom of Western Syndromes
@John
You talk a good deal of crap. Tibetan Buddhism relies heavily on black magic? I think you should do some research.
Tibet as a state WAS warlike and belligerent, and warred with its neighbours when it followed the animist religion of Bon, whose iconography informed Tibet’s brand of Buddhism (resulting in its deities, which are NOT rightly understood as gods but as functional symbols representing aspects of the psyche). After Buddhism suffused, Tibet got a whole lot more peaceful – although it was by no means saintly. But I find it hard to believe your assertion that monks routinely murdered people (I’d like to know your sources).
Regardless of its history, Tibetans have been oppressed extremely harshly and their culture unjustifiably wrecked by a regime that has behaved just as immorally towards its own populace as any other (70 million Chinese died under Mao, for instance). If there is any way the Tibetans can be given restitution, and the Chinese (and the world) freed from the auspices of the CCP, I’m in favour.
Why resort to abusive language Paddy II? Hopefully you respect my right to free speech – it doesn’t seem so if you swear at anyone you disagree with. Freedom of speech is one that Tibetans and Chinese do not have enough have – but they have more of it than in feudal Tibet or Mao’s China. My sources are generally drawn from academic and cultural journals, but if you did a quick search on Google you would similar information. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia explaining how Tibet was incorporated into China by the Mongols (with whom the Tibetans share many cultural similarities.) Further, a point to bear in mind about Buddhism is that there are many forms vastly different from each other and that throughout history it was often suppressed in Asia – India, China and Korea for example.
Wkipedia says:
“Tibetans learned in 1207 that Genghis Khan was conquering the Tangut empire. The first documented contact between the Tibetans and the Mongols occurred when Genghis Khan met Tsangpa Dunkhurwa (Gtsang pa Dung khur ba) and six of his disciples, probably in the Tangut empire, in 1215. [42]
After the Mongol Köden took control of the Kokonor region in 1239, he sent his general, Doorda Darqan, on a reconnaissance mission into Tibet in 1240 to investigate the possibility of attacking Song China from the west. During this expedition the Kadampa monasteries of Rwa-sgreng and Rgyal-lha-khang were burned and 500 people were killed. The death of Ögödei the Mongol Qaghan in 1241 brought Mongol military activity around the world temporarily to a halt. Mongol interests in Tibet resumed in 1244 when Köden sent an invitation to Bengali scholar Sakya Pandit’ta, the leader of the Sakya sect, to come to his capital and formally surrender Tibet to the Mongols. Sakya Pandi’ta arrived in Kokonor with his two nephews Drogön Chögyal Phagpa (‘Phags-pa; 1235-80) and Chana Dorje (Phyag-na Rdo-rje; 1239-67) in 1246. This event marks the incorporation of Tibet into China, according to modern Chinese historians.[citation needed] Pro-Tibetan historians argue that China and Tibet remained two separate units within the Mongol Empire.[citation needed] It may be more accurate, however, to characterize this as both China and Tibet being incorporated into the Mongol Empire, which became known as the Yuan Dynasty. During the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongolians conquered China. The Han Chinese was discriminated against that the Mongol Khubilai employed only Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other non-Chinese foreigners to rule over the majority—-the Han Chinese. To preserve Mongol identity, Khubilai prohibited Mongols from marrying Chinese, but left both the Chinese and Tibetan legal and administrative systems intact.[43] Tibet never adopted the Chinese system of exams nor Neo-Confucian policies.”
and
@After the rebellion of a Qoshot Mongol prince near Koko Nur, the Qing made the region of Amdo and Kham into the province of Qinghai in 1724,[68] and incorporated eastern Kham into neighbouring Chinese provinces in 1728.[69][citation needed] The Qing government sent a resident commissioner (amban) to Lhasa.
“The temporal power [in the mid 1840s] of the Supreme Lama ends at Bathang [see Batang Town]. the frontiers of Tibet, properly so called, were fixed in 1726, on the termination of a great war between the Tibetans and the Chinese. Two days before you arrive at Bathang, you pass, on the top of a mountain, a stone monument, showing what was arranged at that time between the government of Lha-Ssa and that of Peking, on the subject of boundaries. At present, the countries situate east of Bathang are independent of Lha-Ssa in temporal matters. They are governed by a sort of feudal princes, originally appointed by the Chinese Emperor, and still acknowledging his paramount authority. These petty sovereigns are bound to go every third year to Peking, to offer their tribute to the Emperor.”[70]
Spencer Chapman gives a similar, but more detailed, account of this border agreement:
“In 1727, as a result of the Chinese having entered Lhasa, the boundary between China and Tibet was laid down as between the head-waters of the Mekong and Yangtse rivers, and marked by a pillar, a little to the south-west of Batang. Land to the west of this pillar was administered from Lhasa, while the Tibetan chiefs of the tribes to the east came more directly under China. This historical Sino-Tibetan boundary was used until 1910. The states Der-ge, Nyarong, Batang, Litang, and the five Hor States—to name the more important districts—are known collectively in Lhasa as Kham, an indefinite term suitable to the Tibetan Government, who are disconcertingly vague over such details as treaties and boundaries.”"
Great article Grant!
George Bush said that the US supported Kosovo’s independence because his administration believes it will bring peace.
He may be the president of the most powerful country in the world, but he does not seem to know much about conflict management and peace building.
Long-lasting peace is possible only when parties in a conflict come up with an agreement that accommodates them all. Everything else is a short-term masquerade and a further protraction of conflict and violence.
Those countries that supported Kosovo’s independence argue that Kosovo is a unique case in the world. They say that Serbia lost its right to govern the province because of the deep-rooted conflict and mistrust between the two ethnic groups.
What about an independent Palestine, Kurdistan, Tamil region in Sri Lanka, and many others? Secessionist tendencies, mistrust, and deep-rooted conflict are not unique to Kosovo only.
SAVO HELETA
Author of “Not My Turn to Die:
Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia”
http://savoheleta.livejournal.com
John seems to be propagadanist for chinese. His name is probably john followed by a chinese name. He is following chinese propaganda. Tibet was a free country. And if it was part of china in centuries ago. Then every country should start claiming whatever was there centuries ago. SO every country start fighting.
Sorry vika, I’m neither Chinese, Tibetan nor Marxist – just someone astonished at how widespread the misconception is that Chinese involvement in Tibet first began in 1950′s and that it was a Shang-ri-la-ish democracy before then. The Tibetan lamas did everything in their power to keep the populace backward and uneducated and putting the Tibetan people back under their non-democratic yoke would probably be the greater of two evils.
If you do want to read more about Tibet there are many books available in English. Here’s an excerpt from a review of Andre Alexander’s “The Temples of Lhasa: Tibetan Architecture from the 7th to the 21st Centuries” with a foreword by leading Tibetologist, Per Sorensen, (Serindia Piblications, Chicago, 2005.)
“‘China makes more funds available for the restoration of Tibetan monuments than at any point since the end of the Qing dynasty, and [the] quality of the work compared to 15 years ago has improved remarkably’ (page 278.)”
“‘In the 17th century Lhasa was not ‘re-established’ as the national capital (page 19) but became so for the first time. The regent’s rule in the latter half of the same cuntury was not a ‘reign’ (page 17) but a regency, the title and prerogative of ‘king of Tibet’ belonging to the Qoshot rulers. Qing rule over Tibet began in 1720 not in ’1750′ (page 17).
The limited introduction of electricity, telegraph and radio communication, as well as motor vehicles during the first half of the 20th century was largely confined to Lhasa, and did not result in an actual ‘modernization’ of society (page 17). In fact the author himself admits that efforts towards modernization ‘were continuously thwarted by by the conservative religious establishment and the aristocracy’, the consequence of which was that in 1959 Tibetan society was ‘distinctly unprepared for modern political or military challenges’, and the modernization of Lhasa occurred in the 1990′s ‘as a result of the economic reforms that had already transformed most of China (page 21). Indeed, until 159, the Tebetan government continued to take political decisions on the basis of divinations and oracles, and to counter military invasions by means of’ [magic] ‘charms, while monasteries carried on their usual business of trading and money-lending (page 207), and compelled the English schools at Gyantse and Lhasa, established when there were British diplomatic representatives in Tibet, to close down.’”
Every Tibetological and academic historical account seems to confirm that the Tibetan people were repressed by their own authorities to a degree not dissimilar to that of contemporary Burma, and perhaps more so. The Tibetan monks and aristocrats were the equivalent of the Burmese and apartheid regimes in South Africa, only worse, so why are so many being reactionary and wanting their repressive privileges restored?
Indeed, until 1959
@Robert, I would disagree that the Han Chinese and Tibetans are “genetically and racially completely different”, there has been cross-cultural contact between the two peoples for centuries, if not more. Of course they are not the same people, but I would like to clarify that they are not completely different either.
by the way，I‘m a chinese。I know more about China than you。
Let’s face it. It’s called power game for independence.
Who get independence is mostly depending on who get upper hand on power. In Kosova, it’s US and EU (not poor Albania or Serbia). And in Tibet, it’s Chinese.
I don’t want to argue who own the history. Actually, there is very good old saying in Chinese: If a country is united long enough, it will go seperate; and if a country is seperated long enough, it will get united.
Human being lives only short life, and history will only be rewritten by the power not the poor (regardless who is right). China has its own history being colonized.
World map is always redraw after each war, should we regret born too early or too late?
From Shanghai, China
In response to critique and other kosovo supporters … First of all Kosovo is created in 1945 with totally arbitrary borders so why not let Serbs have their independence – the whole border thing is just made up anyway. Another thing – for your information according to the international law only nations have right to independence not actual provinces. By term nation I mean people of the particular nationality such as Albanians or … Serbs – gives them equal right. Another illegal thing is unilateral independence. Totally and utterly illegal. Albanians have overtaken Serbs from Kosovo. Not just by explosive population rate but also by systematical harrasement, persecution and terrorizing the Serbs that are living there. Since 1999 over quarter of a million of Serbs have moved out of Kosovo. The independence was won by illegal means and is morally wrong and should be undone!
John, some of what you say may be true and some may not be but remember this:
Not everyone believes that freedom and happiness rely on western-style “civilisation”, wealth, “economic reforms” or …computers.
It is therefore not necessarily repression to not enbrace those things for your citizens. Maybe the (exiled) Tibetan leaders know something about happiness and civilisation that you (we) don’t…
It is highly unlikely that Tibet will be allowed political independence whatever the arguments – and it is even more unlikely that any of the politically powerful countries such as the US, Britain, Russia, Pakistan or India would really risk a newly destabilised region in central Asia.
There can be no democracy in Tibet (or anywhere else) without freedom of speech. That is the first requirement, and there is no precendent of the Lamas ever having allowed freedom of speech however much it is promised. Indeed, they closed down schools and prevented Tibetans from being educated. The existence of slavery in pre-1950 Tibet was also recorded.
Current Tibetan resentment of China may well be the result of a disparity in income and living standards. Since Tibetans were held back by a feudal and theocratic regime, the Chinese in Tibet are at an advantage simply because more are literate and educated. Perhaps the aspirations of ordinary and rural Tibetans need to be addressed to a greater degree, but looting and violence will solve nothing. Booting the Chinese out of Tibet and returning it to the theocratic rule of Buddhist monks is a rather far-fetched scenario. Neither is it likely to result in Western-type freedom.
With the skeletons of serfdom and slavery in their closet the Dalai Lamas don’t have a sparkling human rights record. Neither have they ruled Tibet for thousands of years as many believe.
The title of Dalai Lama (Ta la’i Bla ma), is Mongolian and was conferred retrospectively on his two predecessors by Bsod nams rgya mtsho (1543-1588) the third Dalai Lama, after it was first conferred on him by Altan Khan of the Tumed in about 1578. [ref M. Aris].
The University of Cal. (Berkeley) site says: “The 17th and 18th centuries were watershed periods in the history of Tibetan religious and political life. It was during this pivotal era that Tibet witnessed the rise to power of the incarnate Dalai Lamas and the establishment of a centralized government in the capital city of Lhasa under the leadership of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682). In the century following the political ascent of the Fifth Dalai Lama, far-reaching changes unfolded in almost every sphere of Tibetan cultural life and social organization. The central government’s efforts to innovate and exert control were felt in areas ranging from administration to commerce, from monastic curriculum to public festival life, from ritual performance to medical and legal practice. At the same time, response and resistance to these changes fostered a vibrant flourishing among groups at the social and geographic margins of Tibet. These changes in the Tibetan polity also involved complex negotiations of Tibet’s relations with Mongolian, Manchu, and Chinese neighbors.”
Does anyone know where the United Nations (UN) stands on the issue? Didn’t they rubberstamp the incorporation of Tibet into China as an autonomous region? If they are responsible shouldn’t they help fix the crisis in Tibet? What are they doing about states that may be occupying the territory of others – France, Britain, the US, Spain, Italy, Sri Lanka, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, and so on?
Can’t agree with you more.
Thanks.
Had begun to think I was alone in my doubts about the Dalai Lama but the op-ed piece I found on the New York Times site is by a former director of the Free Tibet Campaign and confirms that I was on the right track. I rest my case.
“He May Be a God, but He’s No Politician
London
NEARLY a decade ago, while staying with a nomad family in the remote grasslands of northeastern Tibet, I asked Namdrub, a man who fought in the anti-Communist resistance in the 1950s, what he thought about the exiled Tibetans who campaigned for his freedom. “It may make them feel good, but for us, it makes life worse,” he replied. “It makes the Chinese create more controls over us. Tibet is too important to the Communists for them even to discuss independence.”
Protests have spread across the Tibetan plateau over the last two weeks, and at least 100 people have died. Anyone who finds it odd that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rushed to Dharamsala, India, to stand by the Dalai Lama’s side fails to realize that American politics provided an important spark for the demonstrations. Last October, when the Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to the Dalai Lama, monks in Tibet watched over the Internet and celebrated by setting off fireworks and throwing barley flour. They were quickly arrested.
It was for the release of these monks that demonstrators initially turned out this month. Their brave stand quickly metamorphosed into a protest by Lhasa residents who were angry that many economic advantages of the last 10 or 15 years had gone to Han Chinese and Hui Muslims. A young refugee whose family is still in Tibet told me this week of the medal, “People believed that the American government was genuinely considering the Tibet issue as a priority.” In fact, the award was a symbolic gesture, arranged mostly to make American lawmakers feel good.
A similar misunderstanding occurred in 1987 when the Dalai Lama was denounced by the Chinese state media for putting forward a peace proposal on Capitol Hill. To Tibetans brought up in the Communist system — where a politician’s physical proximity to the leadership on the evening news indicates to the public that he is in favor — it appeared that the world’s most powerful government was offering substantive political backing to the Dalai Lama. Protests began in Lhasa, and martial law was declared. The brutal suppression that followed was orchestrated by the party secretary in Tibet, Hu Jintao, who is now the Chinese president. His response to the current unrest is likely to be equally uncompromising.
The Dalai Lama is a great and charismatic spiritual figure, but a poor and poorly advised political strategist. When he escaped into exile in India in 1959, he declared himself an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance. But Gandhi took huge gambles, starting the Salt March and starving himself nearly to death — a very different approach from the Dalai Lama’s “middle way,” which concentrates on nonviolence rather than resistance. The Dalai Lama has never really tried to use direct action to leverage his authority.
At the end of the 1980s, he joined forces with Hollywood and generated huge popular support for the Tibetan cause in America and Western Europe. This approach made some sense at the time. The Soviet Union was falling apart, and many people thought China might do the same. In practice, however, the campaign outraged the nationalist and xenophobic Chinese leadership.
It has been clear since the mid-1990s that the popular internationalization of the Tibet issue has had no positive effect on the Beijing government. The leadership is not amenable to “moral pressure,” over the Olympics or anything else, particularly by the nations that invaded Iraq.
The Dalai Lama should have closed down the Hollywood strategy a decade ago and focused on back-channel diplomacy with Beijing. He should have publicly renounced the claim to a so-called Greater Tibet, which demands territory that was never under the control of the Lhasa government. Sending his envoys to talk about talks with the Chinese while simultaneously encouraging the global pro-Tibet lobby has achieved nothing.
When Beijing attacks the “Dalai clique,” it is referring to the various groups that make Chinese leaders lose face each time they visit a Western country. The International Campaign for Tibet, based in Washington, is now a more powerful and effective force on global opinion than the Dalai Lama’s outfit in northern India. The European and American pro-Tibet organizations are the tail that wags the dog of the Tibetan government-in-exile.
These groups hate criticism almost as much as the Chinese government does. Some use questionable information. For example, the Free Tibet Campaign in London (of which I am a former director) and other groups have long claimed that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese since they invaded in 1950. However, after scouring the archives in Dharamsala while researching my book on Tibet, I found that there was no evidence to support that figure. The question that Nancy Pelosi and celebrity advocates like Richard Gere ought to answer is this: Have the actions of the Western pro-Tibet lobby over the last 20 years brought a single benefit to the Tibetans who live inside Tibet, and if not, why continue with a failed strategy?
I first visited Tibet in 1986. The economic plight of ordinary people is slightly better now, but they have as little political freedom as they did two decades ago. Tibet lacks genuine autonomy, and ethnic Tibetans are excluded from positions of real power within the bureaucracy or the army. Tibet was effectively a sovereign nation at the time of the Communist invasion and was in full control of its own affairs. But the battle for Tibetan independence was lost 49 years ago when the Dalai Lama escaped into exile. His goal, and that of those who want to help the Tibetan people, should be to negotiate realistically with the Chinese state. The present protests, supported from overseas, will bring only more suffering. China is not a democracy, and it will not budge. “
Patrick French is the author of “Tibet, Tibet: A Personal History of a Lost Land.”
I wonder if the US goverment would be so supportive of an independence declaration or seperatist uprising in Texas?
This is good one :
“there are some very good arguments why Serbia and its Serbs have a strong and indisputable historical claim to Kosovo; at the very least as good and often far better than the Albanian claims to the territory. It should also be noted that during both world wars, the ethnic Albanians indulged in ethic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo, making the claim of the US and EU that this is a special case because of the ethnic cleansing under Milosevic flimsy at best.”
must see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XdrIdBYNyY
best Obi
When exactly did China ‘invade’ Tibet? Genghis Khan ‘invaded’ Tibet in the 1200s, then took over China. So Tibet and China were ruled as part of the same mass of land. China rebelled against the Hun, so got hold of everything that they already held. If the Tibetans want their land ‘back’, they should have fought harder when Genghis Khan was around.
China definately have human rights issues, this can not be disregarded and the situation needs to be improved. However China has offered help in some circumstances.
1. Building of Hospitals (which were non-existent before government intervention) and Schools in the region
2. The of the local language is taught in schools, and the use is encouraged
3. Tibetans previously engaged in the practice of human sacrifices for religion. This is no longer allowed.
4. China has a one-child policy for Han Chinese. Ethnic minorities including Tibetans are exempt from this rule.
When exactly did China ‘invade’ Tibet? Genghis Khan ‘invaded’ Tibet in the 1200s, then took over China. So Tibet and China were ruled as part of the same mass of land. China rebelled against the Hun, so got hold of everything that they already held. If the Tibetans want their land ‘back’…
I don’t think this was the case.
First – after the Mongols – China was ruled by Manchu (not Han Chinese) till the beginning of 20th century. Iran and Afghanistan (even some parts of Eastern Europe were ruled by Mongols as was the China then) so should we assume that today Iran is part of China? Even in Mongol Empire Tibet enjoyed a special status – different to China, when Mongol Emperor took Buddhism as a state religion. So as we can see – Tibet definitely was not part of Han China till invasion by Communists in 1950. Crystal clear.
Monday 17 March 2008
Using Tibet to settle scores with China
Tibetans want to be free. But they’ve been given a green light to riot by Western elements driven more by spite and envy than a love for liberty.
Brendan O’Neill
The grainy, sneaked-out footage of Tibetans rioting in Lhasa and in parts of China itself clearly reveals one thing: Tibetans want more control over their daily lives and destinies. Frustrated with living under illiberal and undemocratic Chinese rule, they are lashing out against what they consider to be symbols of Chinese domination: Han Chinese businesses and buildings owned by Chinese officialdom.
But there’s another story behind the images of instability being broadcast around the world, a more complex, dangerous and difficult-to-spot story of cynical, spiteful political manoeuvring. Elements in the West have effectively encouraged Tibetans to riot, not because they are committed to democracy and liberty, but because they fear and loathe the Chinese. Western encouragement of Tibetan instability may dress itself in the rallying cry of ‘Free Tibet!’, but its real motivation is to ‘Humiliate China!’
The Tibetan protesters’ angry outbursts reveal their deep-seated dissatisfaction with life under the Stalinist regime. Yet the protests can also be seen as a physical, violent manifestation of Western China-bashing, which is increasing in intensity as the Beijing Olympics approach. For the past three months, Western officials and commentators have implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) encouraged Tibetans and others to ‘use the Olympics to humiliate China’ (1). Taking their cue, at least in part, from Western culture’s feverish fear and suspicion of China, Tibetans have launched protests that seem designed as much to please Western observers as to push through real, meaningful changes in Tibet and China.
In both their timing and their presentation, the protests seem more a product of Western cajoling than of an independent, groundswell demand for liberty amongst Tibetans. It is no coincidence that the protests, reportedly the biggest amongst Tibetans since the late 1980s, have erupted in the run-up to Beijing 2008. Vast numbers of political entrepreneurs and activists are trying to transform the Olympics into a platform for moral posturing and China-bashing. According to the International Herald Tribune, such is the frenzied politicisation of the Olympics by Western officials and campaigners that athletes are becoming confused about which cause to support. They have found themselves ‘overwhelmed by menu choices’ and also by numerous ‘wardrobe decisions’: should they wear a ‘China, Please’ armband to protest against China’s links with Sudan, or a yellow ‘Livestrong’ bracelet to indicate their support for a ‘pollution-free games and lead-free toys’? An American triathlete has complained: ‘Every time you turn around, there is someone trying to make a statement about something.’ (2) The relentless politicisation of the Olympics by Western elements, the widespread discussion of Beijing 2008 as an opportunity to ‘humiliate China’, has helped to create a volatile atmosphere in the more restive parts of China and its surrounding territories, including Tibet.
Presentation-wise, the protesters’ use of English slogans and their speedy dissemination of mobile-phone footage suggest the demonstrations are aimed very much at a Western audience. In the march of the Tibetan monks in northern India last week, and during the more fiery protests in Tibet and China over the weekend, Tibetans carried placards with English-language demands such as ‘Tibet Needs You’. They wore headbands saying ‘Free Tibet’ – the favoured slogan of Western middle-class and even aristocratic pro-Tibet sympathisers, such as Prince Charles (3). Tibetan monks in Dharamsala, India (where the Tibetan government-in-exile resides, led by the Dalai Lama) have put up English posters saying ‘Beijing 2008: A Celebration of Human Rights Violations’ (4). One British newspaper has celebrated Tibetan protesters’ use of ‘the most dangerous weapon in the world – the cameras on their mobile phones’ (5). Many Western observers who cheer Tibetans for using this ‘weapon’ to beam images of their struggle around the world would probably feel very uncomfortable if Tibetans used real weapons to force their Stalinist rulers to make changes or concessions.
The protests seem orientated very much towards the outside world. They appear to gain their legitimacy and fire from today’s widespread China-bashing, and they seem designed, in some ways, for Western consumption. This shows the extent to which Tibetans have become caught up in a global tug-of-war between the West and China. No doubt some people feel genuinely inspired by the Tibetan unrest, but many of the Western elements cheering the Tibetan cause and encouraging the Tibetans to ‘humiliate China’ are motivated less by a genuine commitment to liberty and democracy than by a deep and cynical desire to make life difficult for the Chinese.
Today’s Tibetan protests are taking place in a broad, quite sinister political context: the West’s transformation of China into a cultural and political target. In recent years, China has inexorably, and in some ways unconsciously, been transformed into a whipping boy for the West. Anti-Chinese sentiments cut across the political divide: on both the old right and the new left, attacking China for its economic growth, human rights record, environmental destruction or suppression of the Tibetan people has become de rigueur. There is an unspoken consensus today – amongst Western officials, commentators and radical activists – that China is a global threat which must be put back in its place with a short, sharp dose of humiliation. Far more than the demonisation of the Soviet Union as the ‘Evil Empire’ during the Cold War era, the labelling of China as a dirty, uncontrollable, violent beast enjoys widespread, unquestioned support throughout political circles in the West.
On the right, China-bashing has become a way of settling old scores from the Cold War. American right-wing thinkers and officials seem to take comfort in the familiar feeling of standing up to an ‘old communist foe’. Robbed of the ‘Evil Empire’ in the East by the end of the Cold War, and thrown by the unpredictability of global affairs more broadly, old right elements cling to China as an old-fashioned enemy from an era when politics was simpler and international affairs were more black-and-white; they are trying to recreate that era with a new ‘yellow-and-white’ divide between barbaric China and the civilised USA (6). Last week, the Pentagon made a splash with its annual report to US Congress on the threat posed by Chinese military power. It was hard not to nod, at least in partial agreement, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman who accused officials in the Pentagon of being consumed by ‘Cold War thinking’ (7).
There is also an element of palpable jealousy in right-wing attacks on contemporary China. As America’s economy spins from one crisis to another, becoming reliant in many ways on East Asian cash to bail it out, traditionalist economic thinkers are discussing Chinese growth as a problem and a threat. Using the language of environmentalism – clearly sensing that old-fashioned protectionism would not go down very well today – establishment publications in the US publish essays with headlines such as ‘Choking on growth’; they argue that if China is to reduce its carbon emissions (that is, slow down its growth) then there will have to be a ‘wholesale mindset change’ amongst the Chinese people (8). Books such as The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future are snapped up and celebrated by traditionalist American thinkers and economists (9).
Amongst left-leaning campaign groups and writers, China has become the No.1 International Bogeyman because of what they see as its ceaseless industrialisation. Westerners who find the idea of growth so nineteenth-century openly discuss China as a poisonous nation that is killing its own people and possibly the planet. Liberal green writers see only the ‘dust, waste and dirty water’ in modern China; they describe the economic progress there as the ‘mass poisoning of a people and the ecological devastation of a nation’, which is a product, apparently, of greed – ‘ours and theirs’ (10). Those greedy Chinese, getting jobs in the city and buying cars and TVs… why don’t they go back to the paddy fields where they belong? Green campaign groups call on Western nations to cut their political and economic ties with China, and instruct Western consumers that ‘If it says “Made in China”, don’t buy it’: only then, they argue, will ‘The World’s Biggest CO2 Emitter’ and ‘The World’s No.1 Consumer of Coal’ (that’s ‘China’ to those of us who don’t think and speak in the dehumanising language of trendy China-bashers) be forced to change its ways (11). They fancy this as a radical stance, but in today’s Great China-Bashing Consensus, greens are merely the protesting wing of the backward, fearful, protectionist politics of a West worried about the ‘Chinese threat’.
In many ways, campaigners and commentators in the West are projecting their own disgust with ‘the Western way of life’ on to China. They see in China everything that they doubt or loathe about modernity itself. That is why commentators frequently tell China not to make ‘the same mistakes that we made’. On everything from economic growth to sporting competitiveness, from the use of coal to the building of skyscrapers, today’s China-bashing is motivated by Western self-loathing, as well as by spite and envy towards the seemingly successful Chinese. Ironically, this means that China is now seen as ‘the Other’ precisely because it appears too Western: it is China’s ambition, growth, its leaps forward – things that a more confident West might once have celebrated – which make it seem alien to Western observers who today prefer carbon-counting to factory-building and road tolls to road construction. China-bashing is underpinned by a crisis of belief in the West in things such as progress, growth, development.
It is the sweeping consensus that China is dangerous and diseased that has attracted Western observers to the issue of Tibet. Both left and right elements in the West are exploiting the Tibet issue as a way of putting pressure on China. They are less interested in securing real freedom and equality for Tibetans, and for the Chinese people more broadly, than they are in using and abusing internal disgruntlement in China and nearby territories as a way of humiliating the Chinese government. That is why Tibetans can symbolise different things to different people. For conservative commentators, the Tibetans are warriors for freedom against a Stalinist monolith; their protests are a replay of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989 (12). For greener, more liberal campaigners, Tibetans are symbols of natural and mystical purity in contrast to rampant Western and Chinese consumerism. As one author puts it, Tibetan culture offers ‘powerful, untarnished and coherent alternatives to Western egotistical lifestyles [and] our gradually more pointless pursuit of material interests’ (13). Various political factions in the West are using Tibetans as ventriloquist dummies in order to mouth their own complaints against modern China. They are promoting Tibetan unrest not to liberate Tibetans but in the hope that the protests will represent their own personal disgust for China in a real-world, physical manner.
There is a long history of Western politicians and activists using Tibet as a stick with which to beat China. In his fascinating book Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West, Donald S Lopez Jnr shows how, in the Western imagination, ‘the invasion of Tibet by [China] was and still is represented as an undifferentiated mass of godless Communists overrunning a peaceful land devoted only to ethereal pursuits… Tibet embodies the spiritual and the ancient, China the material and the modern. Tibetans are superhuman, Chinese are subhuman.’ (14) Today, too, pro-Tibetan activism often disguises a view of the Chinese as subhuman. Indeed, in the current, all-encompassing right/left consensus about China, even left-leaning campaigns can employ old right tactics of demonising the Chinese. A poster for the trendy campaign group Free Tibet shows Tibetans as serene and peaceful and the Chinese as smog-producing modernisers with distinctly slitty eyes and goofy teeth (15).
spiked is no friend of the Chinese regime. Yet those promoting self-serving internal unrest in the run-up to the Olympics, encouraging Tibetans and others to bash China for real where the West only does it with words and propaganda, are playing a dangerous game indeed. Such a strategy of cynical destabilisation could unleash yet more violence in China, and have repercussions around the world. And the biggest losers, at least in the short term, are likely to be Tibetans themselves: they will not win liberty or equality by being transformed into performing protesters for the benefit of Chinaphobic Westerners.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. Visit his website here.
(1) China feels the heat of its Olympic ambitions, Los Angeles Times, 13 February 2008
(2) Athletes face dizzying choice of causes, International Herald Tribune, 15 August 2007
(3) See Australia won’t support boycott of Beijing Games: Olympic chief, The Citizen, 17 March 2008
(4) See Australia won’t support boycott of Beijing Games: Olympic chief, The Citizen, 17 March 2008
(5) Dalai Lama attacks ‘cultural genocide’, Independent, 17 March 2008
(6) China condemns Pentagon’s Cold War thinking, Reuters, 4 March 2008
(7) China condemns Pentagon’s Cold War thinking, Reuters, 4 March 2008
(8) Economy: China’s ability to tackle greenhouse gas caps, Council on Foreign Relations, September 2007
(9) The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future, Elizabeth C Economy, Cornell University Press, 2005
(10) See Polluting minds, by Brendan O’Neill, Comment Is Free, 25 July 2007
(11) See Enough is Enough’s Boycott China campaign here
(12) Could Tibet achieve the impossible dream of independence?, Vancouver Online, 16 March 2008
(13) See Why Western Tibetophilia won’t set Tibet free, by Brendan O’Neill
(14) See Why Western Tibetophilia won’t set Tibet free, by Brendan O’Neill
(15) See Why Western Tibetophilia won’t set Tibet free, by Brendan O’Neill
reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4880/
Related link: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4880
Coffee sippers who think it might be a good idea to free Tibet from China are about 58 years too late. China is not going to free Tibet, and Western encouragement of Tibetan resistance will only get people killed needlessly.
Tibet was part of China for centuries. In 1913, when China seemed to be falling apart, the British Empire encouraged Tibet to declare its independence. It did, and that lasted until 1950, when, at the end of the Chinese civil war, China invaded and reclaimed the area. By then, the impotent British Empire was in no position to help anyone even if it had been so inclined. America chose to do nothing.
If you are not willing to make your way to the Tibetan plateau and face Chinese guns and prisons, then you certainly should not sit around some coffee shop and urge Tibetans to do so. Tibet is a strategic area of China, and the Chinese government is not going to give it up or grant it independence or even autonomy. To paraphrase a famous outlaw, it is enough that we know that China will do what it has to do.
As for us, we should do nothing. Tibet is part of China, and what happens there is an internal affair of China. The rest of the world has no right to interfere, and other than bloviating for a while, I seriously doubt that it will. Unfortunately, in this age of global communications even bloviating can cause bad things to happen to people.
Boycotting the Olympics is a foolish idea by a tiny minority of fanatics. The Olympics have nothing to do with Tibet, just as they had nothing to do with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Boycotting the games would be a cruel blow to athletes who have been sweating and training for four years. It would accomplish nothing. It would further politicize the games, which should be encouraged to return to their amateur status.
China was awarded the Summer Games in a fair international competition and has spent a lot of money getting ready for them. Any attempt to spoil the games will do a great disservice to the athletes, the Chinese government and the Chinese people. It will do nothing positive and will only harden attitudes and end up making the world even more dangerous than it already is.
Americans in particular should keep in mind that we are currently engaged in mismanaging two occupations of two countries that we illegally invaded. Neither enterprise is going well. Neither is our economy. In short, we have enough on our own plate without trying to steal a bite off of China’s plate. We should make sure that Afghanistan and Iran are the last wheezes of the sick American Empire and shut it down and return to our republic.
I don’t know why some Americans seem to have trouble realizing that the days of the European empires are over. Part of the problem is that we have way too many vocational intellectuals and way too few real intellects. A vocational intellectual is someone who makes a living writing or talking. Such people tend to live inside their heads. Delusions of grandeur and fantasies about the real world are constant occupational hazards for such people.
No country in the world has to do what we tell it to do. Certainly that’s the case with the big powers like China, Russia, Japan and India. As you can see every day in your morning paper, even a little country like Iraq can cause us more trouble than it’s worth. It’s a crime against humanity that our sons and daughters are dying in the desert dust while fat politicians cavort about in Washington. Don’t encourage Tibetans to die in some futile fantasy about independence. They are not independent. They are part of China, and part of China they will stay.
Sorry Branislav, but I can’t say that I can agree with you.
Firstly, the Kin Dynasty (Manchu) invaded China. Then, the Song Dynasty (Han) asked the Mongols for help, and together drove out the Manchu. Afterwards, the Song (Han) asked that the Mongols retreat their army, however they refused and allied with Tibet (who followed the same religion as the Mongols) took over China, and in the Yuan Dynasty 1280 Kublai Khan (Genghis Khan’s Grandson) was seated on the throne of China. By this point, Tibet was already part of Mongol ruled China. By 1368, the Ming Dynasty (Han, not Manchu) had pushed the Mongols out of power and reclaimed China, continuing to rule for the next 276 years. The Manchu ruled for the next 268 years afterwards in the Quing Dynasty until China became a Republic in 1912. Iran and Afghanistan were never ruled as part of China, unlike Mongolia and Tibet.
As far as I’m concerned, a place called ‘Han China’ has never existed and Tibet has been part of China since the 13th Century. The idea that Tibet was ever independent was pushed forwards by British and American agents in Tibet. During the 1946 – 1949 civil war in China, there were already Han Nationalist Party members in government in Tibet, the CIA told the Tibetans that they should deport these Nationalist Party members to prevent the Communists from going into Tibet to fight the Nationalists. Because there was effectively no Chinese government in Tibet, the British and US Agents told Tibet that they could therefore declare themselves independent, which is not legitimate.
There was no communist invasion in 1950. In 1951, the Dalai Lama signed a 17 point agreement in order to reform and liberate Tibet from its serfdom and feudalistic society. One point of this agreement was that the Tibetans were meant to make the reforms themselves, and the People’s Liberation Army would not be involved in enforcement. The LPA however were responsible for assisting the building of essential services such as hospitals, schools and roads. The reform meant the property of the landholders – noblemen and monasteries were redistributed among the serfs. Unhappy with losing their land and power over the serfs, the noblemen and monasteries led a rebellion in 1956, killing the Han government, and civilians in Sichuan. But 1959, the situation was so bad, that in order to prevent further attacks on civilians, the Chinese Government deployed the army to crackdown on the violence.
Crystal clear?
Risky Geopolitical Game: Washington Plays ‘Tibet Roulette’ with China
by F. William Engdahl
April 10, 2008
Washington has obviously decided on an ultra-high risk geopolitical game with Beijing’s by fanning the flames of violence in Tibet just at this sensitive time in their relations and on the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. It’s part of an escalating strategy of destabilization of China which has been initiated by the Bush Administration over the past months. It also includes the attempt to ignite an anti-China Saffron Revolution in the neighboring Myanmar region, bringing US-led NATO troops into Darfur where China’s oil companies are developing potentially huge oil reserves. It includes counter moves across mineral-rich Africa. And it includes strenuous efforts to turn India into a major new US forward base on the Asian sub-continent to be deployed against China, though evidence to date suggests the Indian government is being very cautious not to upset Chinese relations.
Read it here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8625
The chinese are smart using the railway to bring more han people into tibet. They going to culturally and racially blur tibet so there wont be a tibetan problem but a chinese problem.
There’s no logic in the way that you frame the argument or maybe it is that you are just truffling without any proper literature review or reading up before writing. If Kosovo meant anything to anyone, is the message it sent to opressed minorities world wide that there is hope and it has indeed inspired millions to seen independence.
Dear Mr Wallister,
I suggest that you took some geography lesson before you write anything. Check all the official maps published by all western countries before 1950, they all include Tibet as part of China.