China in Tibet / Tibet in China ?? [Archive]

View Full Version : China in Tibet / Tibet in China ??

yuuteya

11-09-2005, 06:55 AM

Which are you for?

1. China in Tibet? Its chinese imperialism/colonialism, cultural assimilation, oppression and genocide...

or

2. Tibet in China? Its friendly liberation, helping the people, helping their culture, legal and good thing...

Frankly, my opinion, it reminds me of what Old Imperial Japan did to Korea in the past. But instead this Tibet/China problem is happening in the present right now...

If you think its good that Tibet is "part of China" then how do you reconsile it with the oppression and aggression, cultural assimilation and human rights violations. Or do you think everything is fine in Tibet?

Im wondering where yw members stand on this issue.

To be balanced i included both sides of the issue, for and against.

http://www.rangzen.org/history/views.htm

The Chinese History of Tibet

Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). Centuries ago Mongol and Manchu Emperors ruled or influenced large parts of Asia. During the Tang period (618-907), the Tibetan King, Songsten Gampo, married Princess Wen Cheng. The Princess is thought to have had alot of influence in Tibet. During the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), Tibet was part of the Mongol Empire which was under Yuan rule. At this time, the Yuan Government implemented residence registration, levied taxes, and imposed corvee duties in Tibet. China's "White Paper" claims that the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) "replaced the Yuan dynasty in China and inherited the right to rule Tibet." During the Manchu rule (1644-1911), the Qing army on a number of occasions entered Tibet to protect it. Finally, in 1951, China and the Tibetan Local Government signed a 17-point agreement concerning the peaceful liberation of Tibet. During this time, The 14th Dalai Lama supported this liberation and acknowledged Tibet is one part of China.

The Tibetan History of Tibet

Tibet has a recorded history of statehood extending back to 127 B.C. In the seventh to ninth centuries, the Tibetans often bested the Tang dynasty in battle. Additionally, during this dynasty, the marriage of Princess Wen Cheng and King Gampo was viewed as a strategic move to achieve cooperation and peace between Tibet and China. In 821, after centuries of periodic fighting, China and Tibet signed a treaty where boundaries were confirmed, and each country promised respect for the other's territorial sovereignty. During the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), the Mongol leader, Genghis Khan, conquered most of Eurasia including China. Thus, instead of China claiming a right to Tibet, Mongolia could assert claim to both China and Tibet. There is no historic evidence to support the assumption that the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) ruled Tibet. In fact, the Qing Emperor in 1652 not only accepted The Fifth Dalai Lama as a leader of an independent state, the Emperor also treated Him as a Divinity on Earth. During this period, Tibet was known in Chinese as Wu-si Zang or Wu-si Guo (guo meaning country). During the Manchu rule (1644-1911), the Qing army was asked by Tibetans to settle disputes. But, this does not support China's right to Tibet. If it did, then the U.S.A. should claim Kuwait and Haiti since it assisted these countries. In fact, on a number of occasions, Tibet exercised power over China, suggesting that perhaps Tibet should claim China! At the time of China's invasion in 1949, Tibet possessed all the attributes of an independent country recognized by international law, including a defined territory, a government, tax system, unique currency, unique postal system and stamps, army, and the ability to carryout international relations. Two years later, the 17-point agreement was imposed on the Tibetan Government by the threat of arms after 40,000 PLA troops had already seized Tibetºs eastern provincial capital, Chamdo. The Tibetan delegates were threatened. The seal of the Tibetan Government was forged by Peking. In Tibet, The 14th Dalai Lama could not freely express His disapproval. However, soon after arriving in India, He repudiated this Agreement stating it was "thrust upon the Tibetan Government and people by the threat of arms." If Tibet had always been a part of China, why was there a need for the 17-point agreement? Finally, the Atlas of Chinese History Maps (published by Chinese Social Science Institute in Beijing) depicts Tibet as an independent country that was never part of China at least before 1280.

World Governments Do Not Recognize Tibet: China's Perspective

China asserts that no country has ever recognized Tibet. China also contends that Britain masterminded the Simla Conference (1913-1914) in collusion with Tibetan pro-British individuals. Both wanted to separate Tibet from China. At the time of the Simla Conference, even though the "McMahon Line" was negotiated between Tibet and Britain, at the end of the tripartite conference on Tibet's status and boundaries, Chinese officials who were present refused to recognize the "Line" on the grounds that Tibet was subordinate to China and had no power to make any treaties.

World Governments Recognize Tibet: The Tibetan Perspective

International law states that recognition can occur by explicit or implicit acts including treaties, negotiations, and diplomatic relations. Mongolia and Tibet signed a formal treaty of recognition in 1913. Historically, Nepal and Tibet had peace treaties. Tibetºs independence was also confirmed at the Treaty of Simla (1914) which was concluded by Tibet and British India. In 1949, Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations with such countries as Nepal, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, British India, and to some extent, Russia and Japan. Further, Nepal maintained an Ambassador in Lhasa and told the U.N. in 1949 that it conducted international relations with Tibet. In fact, Britian, Bhutan, India, and even China also maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capitol, Lhasa. The Tibetan Foreign Office conducted talks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he sent representatives to Lhasa to discuss the allied war effort against Japan during World War II. In 1950, El Salvador formally requested that China's aggression against Tibet be placed on the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. The issue was not discussed. However, during four U.N. General Assembly debates on Tibet (1959, 1960, 1961, & 1965), many countries (e.g., Philippines, Nicaragua, Thailand. United States, Ireland) openly stated that Tibet was an independent country illegally occupied by China. In fact, the U.N. passed three resolutions (1959, 1961, & 1965) concerning Tibet stating that Tibetans were deprived of their inalienable rights to self-determination. Even Mao Zedong during the Long March admitted that Tibet was an independent country when he passed through the border regions of Tibet remarking, "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu (sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them." Tibetans clearly constitute a people under international law, as described, for instance, by the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples. They are a distinct people and fulfill all the characteristics of this concept: commonality of history, shared language, culture, and ethnicity.

Tibet Was Liberated: China's Perspective

China states that its invasion and occupation of Tibet was designed to liberate Tibetans from medieval feudal serfdom and slavery. Tibetan serfs were thought to have no freedoms. They were regarded by their masters as talking animals. China argues that the masses of Tibetan serfs lived in extreme poverty. Since the liberation in 1959, China asserts that Tibetans have enjoyed all rights of equality and they have embarked on the road of freedom and happiness. China claims that Tibet is now a modernized community benefitting from economic growth and social progress. Millions of serfs are now the masters of their fate, and large numbers of Tibetan workers, intellectuals, and officials have taken up the task of building and managing Tibet. China argues that all Tibetans now have equal rights in politics, the economy, and in their daily life. Tibetans are also thought to enjoy full religious freedom. China claims that Tibetans have greatly benefitted from their presence. There are now over 2,500 primary schools in Tibet. Moreover, according to Chinaºs White Paper, China has invested 1.1 billion yuans to develop education in Tibet. Big strides have been made in education, science, culture, and public health. For instance, China argues that it has rebuilt Tibetan Monasteries, Nunneries, and monuments. Further, it asserts that the Tibetan population has soared to 2 million from 1 million in the 1950's. China also claims that the Tibetans fully support the Communist Party and Government officials in Tibet. China argues that negotiation is the only solution for Tibet, stating that The 14th Dalai Lama should size up the situation, go with the tide of historical development and make a correct choice.

Tibet Was Not Liberated: The Tibetan Perspective

Old Tibet was not perfect. The current Dalai Lama has admitted this. However, The 14th Dalai Lama initiated far-reaching reforms in Tibet as soon as He assumed temportal authority. Throughout Tibet's history, the mistreatment of peasants was forbidden by law and social norms. The largest portion of land in Tibet was held by peasants. Famine and starvation were unheard of in Tibet. The "liberation" has resulted in the death of over 1.2 million Tibetans and the destruction of over 6,000 Tibetan Monasteries and cultural centers. Before the "liberation" in 1959, the population of Tibet was 6 million. Prior to the invasion, Tibet was a simple and self-reliant nation with a very rich cultural heritage. Tibetºs citizens, in comparison to its' neighbors, enjoyed much greater freedom. Currently, Tibetans have become veritable serfs. In independent Tibet, over 6,000 Monasteries and Nunneries served as schools. Most were destroyed, and many have been reconstructed as result of Tibetan finances and labor. The teachers in China's "new schools" are unqualified to teach the Tibetan language, culture, or history. Chinese students are the main beneficiaries of these schools. Since 1980, over 15,000 Tibetan children have fled Tibet to receive education in India.The primary beneficiaries of Chinaºs presence in Tibet have been the Chinese settlers, their government and military, and their business enterprises. Former Communist Party Secretary, Hu Yaobang, even admitted in 1980 that the living standard of Tibetans had declined since 1959 and that the large Chinese presence was an obstacle to development. China's policies in Tibet do not even receive full support from Tibetan cadres, let alone the Tibetan people. China has never found a trustworthy Tibetan to serve in a key government post in Tibet. For the past 21 years, The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government In-Exile have offered a number of proposals for negotiations for the mutual benefit of Tibet and China. All have been ignored or rejected by China.

*Note. These views were extracted from various Tibetan and Chinese printed materials.

http://www.rangzen.org/history/views.htm

SunWuKong

11-09-2005, 10:24 AM

yoMAMA

11-09-2005, 04:52 PM

Player 0

11-09-2005, 04:59 PM

Napoleon Chynamite

11-09-2005, 08:10 PM

Well it's a never-ending cycle. Somebody feels that Japan is getting too much focus as the target of blame here and so he feels the need to balance shit out with criticism of China in a "Oh yeah, but look at what YOUR country did/is doing!" kinda way. I suppose you guys could do something similar in turn and point the barrel of the gun in the other direction again, but I'm not sure that would really accomplish anything. Then again, comparing China in Tibet with Imperial Japan in China and Korea isn't really a good idea.

kusojiji

11-10-2005, 11:52 PM

yuuteya

11-11-2005, 02:12 AM

Player 0

11-11-2005, 02:16 AM

Here's my (unbelievably subjective) view:

When I was in Tibet (only for a couple of weeks, so take it for what its worth) back in the mid 90s every single Tibetan I met seemed to resent the Chinese occupation (and a few folks privately told me in rather colorful terms what they thought of the Han) and not one single person of Tibetan origin that I have ever met (and I've met more than a few) was anything less than perfectly clear as to their view of China as an unwelcome occupier.

Tibet now is probably much better off now then it was back in the 90s, keep in mind this was back in a time of huge political upheval, with the fall of the USSR peopel probably wanted the PRC to fall apart and hope that they would split up like the USSR, and to the misfortune of the anti-sino crowd, something that gives me great pleasure, that never happened.

Now it's probably not so much like this now, but as with all ethnic minorities in all nations, there will always be some who will dislike the majority.

yuuteya

11-11-2005, 02:29 AM

Even if it colonialism, what exactly gives people in the west and Japan the right to criticize something China did at a point when nations like Britain and France still had their colonial empires?

The fact that they're westerners?

If that is then that would be the single most racist and hypocritical statement ever.
well despite your problem of hardcore nationalism, at least you arethe most honest and recognize the reality in tibet.

Yes it IS Colonialism!

but your approval of colonialism is a problem. isnt ALL colonialism wrong?? past or present, its all bad.. its all about the ruthless exploitaion of innocent people for the selfish benefit of the aggressive colonizer. thats what japan did in the past, thats what china is doing now.

its hypocritical if the same people is involved. but we are NOT the same people (you are having time-confusion syndrom again :rolleyes: ) anti-war, pacifism, and anti-colonialism by the younger generation, its the wisdom gained from the terrible experience! the fact that a country like japan DOES have a history of PAST ruthless colonization and imperialism, which the PRESENT generation acknowledges and criticizes about, means you should consider our opinion about colonialism! our country used to be a perpetrator! we know what imperialism and colonialism does to our country, like a cancer, because the dead or old generation did that disgusting crap in the name of "Japan" in the past. and now the present younger generation is very wary and disgusted by it because we are carrying the SHITTY consequences of those past imperialist crimes in the present and future.. dont you see?

so do NOT follow the PAST colonial japanese footsteps! ironically if you do that then you are actually approving the past japanese colonialism as a bad excuse to rationalize present chinese colonialism. thats the real hypocrisy!

btw. japanese are NOT westerners!! why do you deny that we are your Asian brothers!

Well it's a never-ending cycle. Somebody feels that Japan is getting too much focus as the target of blame here and so he feels the need to balance shit out with criticism of China in a "Oh yeah, but look at what YOUR country did/is doing!" kinda way.
you are the one in a neverending cycle see:

Well it's a never-ending cycle. Somebody feels that China is getting too much focus as the target of blame here and so he feels the need to balance shit out with criticism of Japan in a "Oh yeah, but look at what YOUR country did/is doing!" kinda way.

so is that an excuse to cover up, ignore and whitewash what china did and is presently doing?

Then again, comparing China in Tibet with Imperial Japan in China and Korea isn't really a good idea. I think past japan's colonialism and attempt to assimilation of korea is parallel to china's colonialism and attempt to assimilation of tibet.

my real question is WHY do you people have a DOUBLE STANDARD???

ALL COLONIALISM IS WRONG, or didnt you realize that by now???

http://www.tchrd.org/press/2005/nb20051013.html

13 October 2005 [news brief]
China recommences "patriotic education" campaign in Tibet’s monastic institutions

The People’s Republic of China recommenced implementation of the "patriotic education" campaign in monastic institutions in Tibet, according to testimonies received from Tibetan monks who fled into exile. There has been a noted rise in the intensity of the campaign, which is being carried out vigorously in the monastic institutions in and around Lhasa City, "Tibet Autonomous Region" (‘TAR’). Monks who fled Tibet in the aftermath of the campaign reported expulsions of monks from their monasteries.

Three young Tibetan monks, who escaped from Tibet in September 2005, reported conduct of "patriotic education" in June 2005 in their monastery, Talung Monastery located in Phenpo Lhundrup County, Lhasa Municipality, ‘TAR’. The monastery which housed around 120 monks reportedly has only 20 monks who are registered with the Religious Bureau. Earlier the monks were issued with five different political literatures to study; two additional literatures were distributed in June 2005. The monks were notified that officials from the County Religious Bureau would arrive in the monastery in July 2005 to conduct examinations. Monks, above 18 years of age, were ordered to condemn the Dalai Lama as a "separatist," and to pledge loyalty to the mainland China during the next visit of the officials. Upon learning the pre-requisites set by the authorities for enrollment in monastery, a large number of monks left the monastery voluntarily before the arrival of the officials.

In another instance, in June 2005, the officials from the Religious Bureau visited Gyabdak Nunnery, located in Dzongshul village in Phenpo Lhundrup County, "TAR". The officials conducted "patriotic education" and demanded the 50 nuns of the nunnery to pose for individual photographs. Except for six nuns who are members of the Nunnery’s Democratic Management Committee (DMC), the remaining nuns refused to comply with the order. Consequently the officials nullified their enrollment in the nunnery and called for their immediate expulsion. Reportedly the pictures were to be used for official propaganda purposes. The expelled nuns are reported to be staying in their respective homes currently.

In the beginning of April 2005, officials from the Lhasa Religious Bureau began to conduct a three month long "patriotic education" campaign in Sera Monastery, one of the three great monasteries of Tibet. The monks were issued six different literatures to study and four education sessions per week were conducted. The literatures were titled "Handbook on Crushing the Separatists," "Handbook of Contemporary Policies," "Handbook of Policies on Religion," "Handbook on Law," "Handbook on Ethics for the Masses," "Handbook of History of Tibet". The monks were subjected to random questions regarding the texts, and an examination was conducted at the end of the campaign in July 2005 to test their knowledge regarding the handbooks and their allegiance to the state. Reportedly 18 monks were expelled out of which eight monks faced detention in the Public Security Bureau Detention Centre.

In another reported incident, which could not be confirmed yet, 13 nuns from Shugseb Nunnery located in the outskirts of Lhasa City were expelled during the conduct of the "patriotic education" campaign in the nunnery. Another monk-refugee from Drepung Monastery in Lhasa who arrived into exile recently reported that the "patriotic education" campaign began in his monastery on the first week of October 2005.

On 31 October 2004, Lobsang Gyurmey, head of the Committee for Patriotic Education in Lhasa, in his opening speech during the weeklong workshop for officials in charge of "patriotic education" in monasteries and nunneries in Lhasa, said, "Patriotic Education should be implemented absolutely in the monasteries and nunneries to prevent separatist activities. Precautionary measures should also be taken to stop the infiltration of literature from the splittist group based in exile." [Referring to Dharamsala – temporary headquarters of the Dalai Lama]

The "patriotic education" campaign first started in 1996 forms one of the major causes of religious repression in Tibet. This campaign has created havocs in the life of the clergy and in the monastic community within Tibet. The campaign is used as a tool to stabilize and to exert control over what the Chinese authorities term "the hotbed of dissent activities," referring to the monastic institutions. The forcible implementation of the campaign in garnering loyalty to the state is in direct contravention with many international human rights provisions on religion.

The monastic community is placed in an extremely difficult position either to comply with the Party and commit religious blasphemy or to leave the monastic life clandestinely or out of compulsion. The United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China in its 2005 Annual Report released on 11 October 2005 stated there has been "no improvement overall in human rights conditions in China over the past year, and increased government restrictions on Chinese citizens who worship in state-controlled venues or write for state-controlled publications." It further stated that "The religious environment for Tibetan Buddhism has not improved in the past year. The Party demands that Tibetan Buddhists promote patriotism toward China and repudiate the Dalai Lama, the religion's spiritual leader."

Despite strong criticism from the international community, religious repression under the "patriotic education" campaign continues in Tibet. The Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) has documented known expulsions of 11,383 clergy between January 1996 and August 2004 under the "patriotic education" campaign. (list on pages 57-64 at the link below)

http://www.tchrd.org/publications/topical_reports/strike_hard-2004/strike_hard-2004.pdf

do you support the chinese colonial assimilation of tibet???

http://www.tibet.com/Humanrights/torture/cover.html

A. China Has Failed To Ban All Forms Of Torture
B. Chinese Authorities Rarely Prosecute Torturers
C. Torture Remains A Common Practice Against Tibetan Prisoners
D. Torture Is Increasingly Leading To Deaths Of Tibetan Prisoners
E. The Absence Of An Independent Judiciary And Due Process Safeguards Contribute To Torture Against Tibetans

http://www.tibet.com/Humanrights/torture/torture.html

do you support chinese torture of tibetans???

Player 0

11-11-2005, 02:49 AM

yuuteya

11-11-2005, 02:58 AM

Yuuteya

You have absolutely no right to criticize my country for colonialism, nor can any American or European, they criticize China for colonization, they are completely hypocritical, if they want to be so rightous and claim that colonialism is wrong then they should back up their claims by giving up land that is no more theirs than Tibet is apart of China.

that means that if the British want to criticize China then England better damn well get out of Scotland, Wales and Ireland first.

France wants to criticize, they damn well better get their asses out of Normandy.

Germany wants to criticize us, Prussia better give independence to the rest of the German principalities.

America wants to criticize us, first let's see them give all their land back to the native Americans, same goes for Australia and its aborigines.

Russia wants to criticize us, they damn well better give independence to Siberia first.

Japan wants to criticize us, first they damn well better give independence back to the people of Hokaido, the Ryukus and Okinawa and Amami.

And so on and so fourth and i think you can understand my point.
as a human being on the earth who comes from a country (japan) that has a disgusting history of nationalism/colonialism, I DO HAVE A RIGHT to criticize any other country that chooses to blindly follow the same disgusting nationalistic/colonialistic path that japan did.

you have a Double Standard

you are saying that past injustice gives you the right to conduct your present injustice.

does the holocaust experience of the jews give them the right to inflict their own hell on the palestinians.

as a long time victim of foreign imperialism and colonialism, why does china want to follow that same path as the past colonizers/imperializers??? its bizzare! if anything, because of its past as a target of foreign imperialism/colonialism, china should be one the world's leading champion to defend pacifism, anti-war and human rights!

but with tibet it is not happening.

Player 0

11-11-2005, 03:08 AM

as a human being on the earth who comes from a country (japan) that has a disgusting history of nationalism/colonialism, I DO HAVE A RIGHT to criticize any other country that chooses to blindly follow the same disgusting nationalistic/colonialistic path that japan did.

you have a Double Standard

you are saying that past injustice gives you the right to conduct your present injustice.

does the holocaust experience of the jews give them the right to inflict their own hell on the palestinians.

as a long time victim of foreign imperialism and colonialism, why does china want to follow that same path as the past colonizers/imperializers??? its bizzare! if anything, because of its past as a target of foreign imperialism/colonialism, china should be one the world's leading champion to defend pacifism, anti-war and human rights!

but with tibet it is not happening.

You are the one with the double standard, as long as you or any other critics China's actions in Tibet come from nations which occupy land with people who have just as much of a claim to independence as Xinjiang or Tibet then YOU are the one with the double standard, not my people, because my people don't form groups which on a regular basis protest against the English occupation of Scotland, the European occupation of the Americas or the Japanese occupation of the Ryukus.

Because there are pro-Tibet groups in Japan and western nations, that makes YOU and other Tibetan independence protesters such as yourself makes you the hypocrites.

yuuteya

11-11-2005, 03:10 AM

Chinese Colonialism in Tibet

China's Tibet
The World's largest remaining Colony

Report of a Fact-Finding Mission and Analyses of Colonalism and Chinese Rule in Tibet http://www.tibet.com/Humanrights/Unpo/

The United Nations declared 1990 as the start of the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. Colonialism in its many forms has plagued the world for centuries. Much progress was made this century in securing the freedom of peoples who suffered under colonialism. In many cases the outcome of the decolonisation process was the creation of independent states, in a few cases the establishment of associations between the former colonies and the former colonial powers. But in some regions colonialism persists, and it appears certain that despite the call for the acceleration of decolonisation, we shall enter the 21st century without having rid the world of colonialism.

The largest territory to have lost its sovereignty since the Second World War is Tibet, which came under Chinese Communist rule in 1951, following a military invasion of the country. Resistance to Chinese rule has been considerable and continues to this day. The Chinese government characterises this resistance as a conspiracy of splittist Tibetans, headed by the Dalai clique, to split the Chinese Motherland :

Maintaining stability is one of the two major tasks of our region. ...In the past decades, since the Dalai clique betrayed the Motherland and fled away, their sabotage activities of the conspiracy to separate the motherland have never stopped.1

But Tibetans view their movement as a liberation struggle. The government of Tibet, which went into exile in 1959, following a massive but unsuccessful revolt against China, strives to free Tibet from occupation. The 14th Dalai Lama, the political as well as spiritual leader of Tibet, stated in a speech at the European Parliament in 1996:

The problem of Tibet is...fundamentally of a political nature. It is a problem of colonial domination: the oppression of Tibet by the People's Republic of China and the resistance to that domination by the Tibetans.2

This observation by the exiled Tibetan Head of State, is not the only reference to Tibet as a 'colony' of the People's Republic of China. The current situation in Tibet is described increasingly often as 'colonial'. These descriptions are based on the assumption that colonialism is a well-defined concept which needs no further explanation. Yet, it is by no means clear what it actually means and how it can be defined. Research on colonialism has mainly focused on concrete examples of European rule in Africa and Asia. Most people would agree, however, that the term colonial has a much wider meaning: it refers to a political system, to a set of beliefs, to an attitude of one people towards another. Little research has been done on the mechanics of colonial systems and their ideological underpinnings.

In the present report, the situation in Tibet is examined in terms of its relationship to China. The question is posed: is Tibet a colony of China? Stated differently: is China's rule over Tibet since 1951 a form of colonial rule?

In order to answer this question, which can have far reaching implications, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, in association with the Tibet Support Group Netherlands and with the help of the International Campaign for Tibet, commissioned an independent study on colonialism and sent a mission to Tibet, Nepal and India, composed of three eminent and independent persons: two members of Parliament, one each from Ireland and the Netherlands (a former colony and a former colonial power, respectively) and a professor of International Law of Maastricht University, with extensive United Nations experience, who headed the mission. Their findings are contained in the Tibet Mission Report, which is the first part of this publication.

The second part of this publication. is an Independent Study on Colonialism and Tibet, which consists of a study, made up of two distinct parts: Part I is a study of colonialism. The author analyses the concept of colonialism and identifies the principal characteristics of or criteria for colonialism. The members of the mission to Tibet read this part of the study before starting on their journey, and adopted these criteria as the framework for their investigation. Part II of this study, which was written independently of the mission's work, is a study of the situation of Tibet in relation to the concept of colonialism analysed in Part I.

The observations of the mission members (contained in the mission report) and the conclusions reached by the independent. researcher compliment each other very well. What emerges from this body of work is astounding: the PRC, a state which has been on the forefront of the struggle against colonialism and which has been a champion of colonised peoples, is today undeniably a colonial power itself.

China's rule over Tibet since 1951 has all the characteristics of colonialism in the real sense of the word. This is evident not only from the manner in which Chinese authority was established and is maintained in Tibet. It is clear from the way in which the Chinese authorities decide on and implement economic and other development policies and exploit natural resources, and from the population transfer of million of Chinese into Tibet. It is clear also from the policies implemented by China regarding the Tibetan language, culture and religion. Mostly revealing is the attitude of the Chinese authorities and of the Tibetan people, whose perceptions of each other are typical of those of the colonial power and the colonised people.

This report is the first in-depth analysis of the de facto colonial status of Tibet. The implications of the findings contained in this report could be very significant. International law and practice, including especially the practice of the United Nations, condemns colonialism in all its forms and recognised the full right to self-determination of colonial peoples and territories. It prescribes decolonisation as the means for exercising this right and requires of the administering power (usually the colonial power) to undertake all measures to facilitate its realisation.

It is hoped that this report may contribute to efforts by the UN and others to accelerate the eradication of colonialism as we approach the end of the Decade.

Endnotes:

1 Speech by Chinese Communist Party Secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) Chen Kuiyan during the
4th Plenary Session of the 6th TAR Regional Congress on 14 May 1996.
2 H.H. The Dalai Lama, Speech at the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 23 October 1996.
tibet mission report

You are the one with the double standard, as long as you or any other critics China's actions in Tibet come from nations which occupy land with people who have just as much of a claim to independence as Xinjiang or Tibet then YOU are the one with the double standard, not my people, because my people don't form groups which on a regular basis protest against the English occupation of Scotland, the European occupation of the Americas or the Japanese occupation of the Ryukus.

Because there are pro-Tibet groups in Japan and western nations, that makes YOU and other Tibetan independence protesters such as yourself makes you the hypocrites.

the present is NOW so you still have a CHOICE to a better path. if you really wanted to...

but now you sound like a hard core ultranationalist from japan's imperialist past trying to justify imperial japan's "liberation" of asia.

congratulations.

you have become the demon which victimized you in the first place.

welcome to hell.

Player 0

11-11-2005, 03:31 AM

the present is NOW so you still have a CHOICE to a better path. if you really wanted to...

but now you sound like a hard core ultranationalist from japan's imperialist past trying to justify imperial japan's "liberation" of asia.

congratulations.

you have become the demon which victimized you in the first place.

welcome to hell.

Don't you compare my nation's imperialism to yours, despite what you say the sources that point out China's 'crimes' against Tibet are skewed to say the least, for one there are sources that claim the PLA killed 1.2 million Tibetans that's a little hard to believe seeing as the population of 1949-50 only had a population of 1.25 million.

Emperor_Mike

11-11-2005, 04:34 AM

Unfortunate (or fortunate depending on your point of view) as it may be, Tibet won't be going anywhere politically any time soon. Diplomacy is centred around the notion that if you can get away with something without creating too big a wave in the global community, you go right ahead and push it through. That's reality and we don't have to like it.

simayi

11-11-2005, 07:47 AM

i don't even think of it as "occupation" because i think Tibet is a natural part of China. the CCP only seeked to recover the areas that the Qing government ruled over (but had to reluctantly give up Outer Mongolia to USSR). even the KMT wanted to maintain the areas that Qing dynasty China had and never gave up claim to Tibet when KMT was the internationally recognised government of China.

also, by the way, the Dalai Lama no longer wants an independent Tibet and recognises that it needs the development and modernisation that the CCP is providing it.

:eek:

Did you write this when you were half-awaken??
That's so Pro-China, and so unlike you. :smile:

You shouldn't've deleted my earlier post, it was quite legitimate. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that yuuteya is "begging the question" on this topic.

Anyway, my view on this issue - just in case you question the relevence of this thread again, is that history alone cannot justify sovereighty. It helps a little, but not by much.

If based on your arguement, China's sovereignty would really include places like Korea and Mongolia, as they were also "ruled over" by the Qing government. And that little "Okinawa" should also be part of China if you look it this way.

SKW, the reason I refrained from making a direct reply on this issue is that, for as much as I know it is a nicely laid trap, this topic is hard to debate, and the more you argue, the deeper you would fall into it, and of course the more ugly you would appear.

Notice the comment that yuuteya had made about you as soon as your view differs from theirs?

Here's my (unbelievably subjective) view:

When I was in Tibet (only for a couple of weeks, so take it for what its worth) back in the mid 90s every single Tibetan I met seemed to resent the Chinese occupation (and a few folks privately told me in rather colorful terms what they thought of the Han) and not one single person of Tibetan origin that I have ever met (and I've met more than a few) was anything less than perfectly clear as to their view of China as an unwelcome occupier.

Trust me, you are not the only Japanese who share this (unbelievebly subjective) view :wink:

Honestly, China may not be a nice occupier, and of course you can say some Tibetan view China as an unwelcomed occupier. I won't dispute that.

But for all the good and bad things China had done on Tibet, what would she be today if without China?

Can you imagine a Hawaii without the U.S.?

yoMAMA

11-11-2005, 08:29 AM

Don't you compare my nation's imperialism to yours, despite what you say the sources that point out China's 'crimes' against Tibet are skewed to say the least, for one there are sources that claim the PLA killed 1.2 million Tibetans that's a little hard to believe seeing as the population of 1949-50 only had a population of 1.25 million.

good points.

snailpoo

11-11-2005, 10:25 AM

You are the one with the double standard, as long as you or any other critics China's actions in Tibet come from nations which occupy land with people who have just as much of a claim to independence as Xinjiang or Tibet then YOU are the one with the double standard, not my people, because my people don't form groups which on a regular basis protest against the English occupation of Scotland, the European occupation of the Americas or the Japanese occupation of the Ryukus.

Because there are pro-Tibet groups in Japan and western nations, that makes YOU and other Tibetan independence protesters such as yourself makes you the hypocrites.
That's interesting.

If the concept of previous wrongs by a person's country erases that person's ability to complain about any similar wrong, then you're opening a door that you may not want opened.

If we apply your logic evenly, you as Chinese lose the right to complain about America's military support for Taiwan, about Japan's honoring of its war criminals, about Japan's refusal to teach the full history of its attrocities, about America's invasion of Iraq, about... well, everything else in the world you may want to object to.

Be careful when you use the "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" argument, since, there are plenty of sins to go around.

kimpossible

11-11-2005, 11:22 AM

Trust me, you are not the only Japanese who share this (unbelievebly subjective) view :wink:

He's Japanese?

tint

11-11-2005, 11:31 AM

A.R.A.M.

11-11-2005, 01:06 PM

The Chinese Empire invaded Tibet many centuries ago. It's now part of China. You maggots throw words around like colony, colonialism, and imperialism without knowing the meaning. If the Tibetans have any power to win their own independence, then more power to them. Too bad they can. The Tibetans aren't looking too good these days - Beijing is in a race with time to sinicize Tibet.

This is an emotional debate for many, but let's keep the perjoratives to a minimum, okay? Also, while you castigate others for not understanding the terms colonialism, colony, and imperialism, you have reproduced here, perhaps inadvertently, one of the central discourses of imperialism: the need to civilize the natives for their own good. The U.S. justified all of its colonial enterprises by saying it was going out to civilize/Christianize the natives. Hell, even the seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony has a picture of an Indian on it with the motto "Come over and help us." Imperialism and colonialism is almost always justified as being for the good of the colonized.

That's interesting.

If the concept of previous wrongs by a person's country erases that person's ability to complain about any similar wrong, then you're opening a door that you may not want opened.

If we apply your logic evenly, you as Chinese lose the right to complain about America's military support for Taiwan, about Japan's honoring of its war criminals, about Japan's refusal to teach the full history of its attrocities, about America's invasion of Iraq, about... well, everything else in the world you may want to object to.

Be careful when you use the "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" argument, since, there are plenty of sins to go around.

Good points.

SunWuKong

11-11-2005, 03:14 PM

i guess you are not as liberal and progressive as i imagined. thats sounds conservative and hardline. you are making logical historical rationalization of the occupation (i dont put quotes, sorry) of tibet. but what about the human cost (killed people) cultural assimilation and oppression. do you say they never happen? everything is wonderful in tibet?

i never claimed to be liberal or progressive - which only seem to me to be positive-sounding terms to describe a set of political ideals. if you ever talk to the average mainland Chinese, you'll find that overwhelmingly most Han Chinese do not want to see China split apart and fragmented.

is the chinese nationalist protection of so-called "natural part" of china worth the violation of human rights and colonial policy over tibet?

i don't consider it "nationalistic protection" - whatever that means. i recognise that the CCP's way of governing Tibet is not very welcomed, but that doesn't mean i think Tibet should be independent. that just means i think the Chinese government needs drastic improvement.

I think past japan's colonialism and attempt to assimilation of korea is parallel to china's colonialism and attempt to assimilation of tibet.

umm, no. western powers and Japan were trying to carve up China. the CCP, and the KMT, only wanted to regain the China that the Qing dynasty governed.

and again, if you want to criticise China, go ahead. but your only purpose in criticising China seems to be an attempt to make a parallel with Japan.

Chinese Colonialism in Tibet

China's Tibet
The World's largest remaining Colony

Report of a Fact-Finding Mission and Analyses of Colonalism and Chinese Rule in Tibet http://www.tibet.com/Humanrights/Unpo/

tibet.com is not exactly an unbiased source of information. but i doubt there really exists a truly unbiased source of information on the Tibet issue. if you go to mainland Chinese websites, you'll find different information. for example, there was a succession of claims to Tibet. Qing dynasty China ruled Tibet. the KMT never gave up its claim to it, and neither did the CCP. so it's incorrect to say that China took control of Tibet in 1951. in fact, China took control of Tibet hundreds of years ago in the Qing dynasty.

:eek:

Did you write this when you were half-awaken??
That's so Pro-China, and so unlike you. :smile:

i have no idea why that is so difficult to believe. just because i criticise the Chinese government doesn't mean i want it to crumble and die, nor does it mean i want to see China split and fragmented. i just want the Chinese government to improve.

You shouldn't've deleted my earlier post, it was quite legitimate. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that yuuteya is "begging the question" on this topic.

next time, don't make it sound like flamebait and your post won't be deleted.

If based on your arguement, China's sovereignty would really include places like Korea and Mongolia, as they were also "ruled over" by the Qing government. And that little "Okinawa" should also be part of China if you look it this way.

actually Korea and Qing dynasty China had a suzerain-vassal relationship. the Qing government never directly ruled the Korean peninsula. it basically acted as sort of a "big brother" - but not that the relationship was great for Korea. and China's influence became increasingly insignificant the weaker the Qing government became.

as for Mongolia, the difference here is that the Chinese government gave up its claim to Outer Mongolia. but it never gave up its claim on Tibet.

and i had no idea Okinawa used to be part of China. care to post a link for this information?

snailpoo

11-11-2005, 03:47 PM

tibet.com is not exactly an unbiased source of information. but i doubt there really exists a truly unbiased source of information on the Tibet issue. if you go to mainland Chinese websites, you'll find different information.
Where would you find unbiased sources of information? What do you consider an unbiased source? You dismiss tibet.com as unbiased, yet you refer us to "mainland Chinese websites"...

for example, there was a succession of claims to Tibet. Qing dynasty China ruled Tibet. the KMT never gave up its claim to it, and neither did the CCP. so it's incorrect to say that China took control of Tibet in 1951. in fact, China took control of Tibet hundreds of years ago in the Qing dynasty.
Control and claim are different things from actual rule and ownership. It's perplexing how you can, on one hand, view the evils of empire and militaristic expansion, and on the other hand, use the same actions of past empires and militaristic expansion to justify a claim to land.

You quibble about the distinction that the difference between Japan and the West carving up China and China taking Tibet, and yet you lay China's claim on Tibet to having it fall under the Qing Empire. Centuries from now in a hypothetical future, a remilitarized Japan lays claim to Manchruia, Canton, and Taiwan for having once ruled them during World War II. What would your response be then?

Let's forget the hypothetical. What is your response to Hitler claiming to Europe as the successor of the Third Reich? How is your claim of empire and past military expansion any different from Hitler's claims based upon the Holy Roman Empire?

SunWuKong

11-11-2005, 04:46 PM

Where would you find unbiased sources of information? What do you consider an unbiased source? You dismiss tibet.com as unbiased, yet you refer us to "mainland Chinese websites"...

didn't i just admit that you probably can't find an unbiased source of information on the Tibet issue...? you didn't assume that i think mainland Chinese websites are unbiased, did you?

You quibble about the distinction that the difference between Japan and the West carving up China and China taking Tibet, and yet you lay China's claim on Tibet to having it fall under the Qing Empire. Centuries from now in a hypothetical future, a remilitarized Japan lays claim to Manchruia, Canton, and Taiwan for having once ruled them during World War II. What would your response be then?

the Chinese government never willingly gave up any territories to Japan. and the now-peaceful Japanese government doesn't claim any of those territories. the same way that the Chinese government doesn't claim Outer Mongolia anymore. so obviously it would be invalid for Japan to claim those territories based on history if it ever conquers them. the only claim it would have, in that case, would be claim of force and might.

Let's forget the hypothetical. What is your response to Hitler claiming to Europe as the successor of the Third Reich? How is your claim of empire and past military expansion any different from Hitler's claims based upon the Holy Roman Empire?

i don't know much about European history. has Germany always claimed all of Europe as its territory?

snailpoo

11-11-2005, 05:33 PM

didn't i just admit that you probably can't find an unbiased source of information on the Tibet issue...? you didn't assume that i think mainland Chinese websites are unbiased, did you?

Yes you did admit that you couldn't find an unbiased source, HOWEVER, you then proceeded directly to argue from biased sources that happen to support your side while dismissing the biased source that disagreed with you due to... bias.

If you acknoledge that all sources are biased, then treat them the same way.

the Chinese government never willingly gave up any territories to Japan. and the now-peaceful Japanese government doesn't claim any of those territories. the same way that the Chinese government doesn't claim Outer Mongolia anymore. so obviously it would be invalid for Japan to claim those territories based on history if it ever conquers them. the only claim it would have, in that case, would be claim of force and might.

But for the force and might of the Allies during World War II, Japan would have never willingly gave up any territories.

Again, the question stands, how does your Tibet claim differ from those of empire and military expansion? Your only quibble now is that Japan gave up "willingly" its rights to its conquered territories. If that is the case, first you now must join us in renouncing Player0's claims of hypocrisy: the Native Americans and the Austrian aboriginies willingly gave up their lands, the Welsh and the Scots willingly joined Great Britian,... And second, your quibble becomes reduced to the consistent continuance of the claim, NOT actual ownership, rule, or any physical presence.

i don't know much about European history. has Germany always claimed all of Europe as its territory?

The Third Reich claimed to be the heir to the Second Reich, also known as the Holy Roman Empire, which, at its height, ruled much of central Europe. The Holy Roman Empire was the heir of the Western Roman Empire, which was broken from the Roman Empire, the "First Reich." The claim, therefore, but for the force and might of the Vandals, the Goths, the Huns, the Visigoths, would be that since Rome never willingly gave up any territories, that the Third Reich would own Europe, parts of Asia, and North Africa.

Be careful when you use such words and phrases to justify empire and military expansion. Dig deep enough, and search hard enough, and you can find justification for anything... not that such justification may be legitimate.

kuilong

11-11-2005, 09:44 PM

We've been through this debate innumerable times before, haven't we? So I'll just content myself by saying that the words "natural part of China" sound so 19th century.

In other news, Yesha is a natural part of Israel and the FLN were goddamn secessionists.

robotic

11-12-2005, 06:08 AM

;_; asian nations do remain divided over these disputes.

after the partition, there was one rift being formed because a war had been fought in order to seperate the countries (as well as families, which people started to realize after cross-border stories slowly became known) but also because creating pakistan had torn india in half.

on the other hand, indians who had migrated over the border in 1947 still aren't considered any part of a "native" pakistani population by locals already living in pakistani provinces before the partition. this issue is usually brought up in politics, where pakistani's who have a non-migrant background justify that these pakistani's aren't authentic enough to be elected.

heheha, it's often like you aren't really part of an anywhere ;-;

ahsingjai

11-12-2005, 06:27 AM

The only people fighting for Tibetan Independence is overseas western hippies.

Tibetans themselves doesn't want independence, their former exile leader doesn't want independence.

Tibetan Independence has no meaning or cause.

Next thing you know, Pro-Tibet Independence people will start ranting about past kingdoms. that were seperate should be all independent states.

"Because Southern Chinese culture aren't all the same from Northern Chinese culture, they should be apart!" They eat wheat base, they eat rice? blah blah blah.

AliBabaIncorporated

11-12-2005, 09:09 AM

Next thing you know, Pro-Tibet Independence people will start ranting about past kingdoms. that were seperate should be all independent states.

"Because Southern Chinese culture aren't all the same from Northern Chinese culture, they should be apart!" They eat wheat base, they eat rice? blah blah blah.
Sorry, Dru Gladney (a professor who focuses mainly on the study of Muslims in China) beat you to it:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/pacific2000/gladneypaper.htm
The recognition of minorities, however, also helped the Communists' long-term goal of forging a united Chinese nation by solidifying the recognition of the Han as a unified "majority." Emphasizing the difference between Han and minorities helped to de-emphasize the differences within the Han community. The Communists incorporated the idea of Han unity into a Marxist ideology of progress with the Han in the forefront of development and civilization, the vanguard of the people's revolution (Gladney 1994a: 97). The more "backward" or "primitive" the minorities were, the more "advanced" and "civilized" the so-called Han seemed and the greater the need for a unified national identity. Cultural diversity within the Han has not been admitted because of a deep (and well-founded) fear of the country breaking up into feuding warlord-run kingdoms as happened in the 1910s and 1920s. China has historically been divided along north/south lines, into Five Kingdoms, Warring States, or local satrapies, as often as it has been united. Indeed, China as it currently exists, including large pieces of territory occupied by Mongols, Turkic peoples, Tibetans, etc., is three times larger than China was under the last Chinese dynasty, the Ming, which fell in 1644. Ironically, geographic "China" as defined by the People's Republic was actually established by foreign conquest dynasties, first by the Mongols and finally by the Manchus. A strong, centralizing Chinese government (whether of foreign or internal origin) has often tried to impose ritualistic, linguistic, and political uniformity throughout its borders. The modern state has tried to unite its various peoples with transportation and communications networks and an extensive civil service. In recent years these efforts have continued through the controlled infusion of capitalistic investment and market manipulation. Yet even in the modern era, these integrative mechanisms have not produced cultural uniformity.

ahsingjai

11-12-2005, 05:46 PM

Just think of China as another United States with different princples. lol

SunWuKong

11-12-2005, 09:15 PM

Yes you did admit that you couldn't find an unbiased source, HOWEVER, you then proceeded directly to argue from biased sources that happen to support your side while dismissing the biased source that disagreed with you due to... bias.

If you acknoledge that all sources are biased, then treat them the same way.

you misread me. i never said the information was absolute truth. and i never flat out dismissed the biased source that disagreed with me - i said it was biased. then i said mainland Chinese websites will show different information, and gave an example of what they may say. that's all.

But for the force and might of the Allies during World War II, Japan would have never willingly gave up any territories.

which is why i specifically said the "current Japanese government". nobody is holding a big gun to Japan right now and forcing it to not lay claim to any territories in China it conquered in WW2.

as an example - the same cannot be said for both of Russia's and Japan's claims to the Kuril Islands. and that's why the two countries are in dispute.

Again, the question stands, how does your Tibet claim differ from those of empire and military expansion? Your only quibble now is that Japan gave up "willingly" its rights to its conquered territories. If that is the case, first you now must join us in renouncing Player0's claims of hypocrisy: the Native Americans and the Austrian aboriginies willingly gave up their lands, the Welsh and the Scots willingly joined Great Britian,... And second, your quibble becomes reduced to the consistent continuance of the claim, NOT actual ownership, rule, or any physical presence.

hey, i don't necessarily agree with Player0. as far as i'm concerned, the fact that the CCP went to consolidate control over the areas that the Qing government governed is enough for me. western powers and Japan sought to carve up China in the downfall of the Qing and during KMT's rule of China. then the CCP made sure this did not happen when they defeated the KMT. it's very simple.

The Third Reich claimed to be the heir to the Second Reich, also known as the Holy Roman Empire, which, at its height, ruled much of central Europe. The Holy Roman Empire was the heir of the Western Roman Empire, which was broken from the Roman Empire, the "First Reich." The claim, therefore, but for the force and might of the Vandals, the Goths, the Huns, the Visigoths, would be that since Rome never willingly gave up any territories, that the Third Reich would own Europe, parts of Asia, and North Africa.

correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't there a long period of time between the Third Reich and the Second Reich aka Holy Roman Empire where Germany did not lay claim to all of Europe as its territory?

Sorry, Dru Gladney (a professor who focuses mainly on the study of Muslims in China) beat you to it:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/pacific2000/gladneypaper.htm
The recognition of minorities, however, also helped the Communists' long-term goal of forging a united Chinese nation by solidifying the recognition of the Han as a unified "majority." Emphasizing the difference between Han and minorities helped to de-emphasize the differences within the Han community.

i'm no scholar, but i'm willing to bet the fact that the Mongols and the Manchus conquered and ruled China had already de-emphasize the differences within the Han community, in other words, unify the Han community, long before the communists even came into the picture.

simayi

11-13-2005, 04:42 AM

i have no idea why that is so difficult to believe. just because i criticise the Chinese government doesn't mean i want it to crumble and die, nor does it mean i want to see China split and fragmented. i just want the Chinese government to improve.

Sure. But why on earth would you care?

As an AA, your future, interests and destiny should be tied with America, not China. And if I may add, it really is none of anyone's business outside China.

next time, don't make it sound like flamebait and your post won't be deleted.

flamebait? really? :rolleyes:

actually Korea and Qing dynasty China had a suzerain-vassal relationship. the Qing government never directly ruled the Korean peninsula. it basically acted as sort of a "big brother" - but not that the relationship was great for Korea. and China's influence became increasingly insignificant the weaker the Qing government became.

as for Mongolia, the difference here is that the Chinese government gave up its claim to Outer Mongolia. but it never gave up its claim on Tibet.

Direct governance or not, it ain't matter. Did China not attack Korea, and force it to become part of the Qing empire?

As for what you said about Mongolia, you should start a new thread, because it is clearly a completely different issue.

and i had no idea Okinawa used to be part of China. care to post a link for this information?

May I suggest some googling on your own?

Filiprish

11-13-2005, 06:17 AM

The Dalai Lama said that the Tibet-China/China-Tibet relationship is good for Tibet. I trust his judgement.

Btw, I didn't vote b/c I think the poll options are too dichotomized.

SunWuKong

11-13-2005, 09:46 AM

Sure. But why on earth would you care?

As an AA, your future, interests and destiny should be tied with America, not China. And if I may add, it really is none of anyone's business outside China.

:rolleyes:

you don't know my background at all, or what i want for the future.

furthermore, even if an overseas Chinese was born and raised outside of China, it doesn't mean s/he cannot or should not care about a better China.

Direct governance or not, it ain't matter. Did China not attack Korea, and force it to become part of the Qing empire?

... no, Korea was not a part of the Qing empire...

Sunflare

04-10-2008, 07:27 PM

Wow SunWuKong, you was really fighting like an animal for your beliefs in that heated debate. Woah.

SunWuKong

04-10-2008, 10:04 PM

oops, i meant to close this. it's an outdated discussion, taking place at a time when i (and perhaps others as well) was more prone to participate in heated arguments.

plus we've got a current thread talking about Tibet anyway.