Anyone actually think Chinas occupation of Tibet IS legitamite?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
China has always swallowed and assimiliated its little neighbours, Vietnam and Korea could resist, Korea with great loss of territory, Vietnam was a province for 1000 years, Mongolia lost inner Mongolia too.

Whose DL are you?

You must be able to see the contradictions in your posting.

[asleepathewheel]

Richard Gere: Douchebag

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Aye UR a better analogy would of been the Aborigines in Aussie, smokers have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

EXACTLY!


Now if we can just poke UR's brain a little bit, to initiate his thought process, so that he can understand the fallacy of his ridiculous analogy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's TEA! TEA, YOU ****ER!

[lord of the mark]

first there is a distinction between the legitimacy of the chinese takeover, and legitimacy of their current position.

Tibet from 1911 to 1950 was de facto independent. Under international law this should have been established as De jure independence. That the powers did not recognize it is not necessarily relevant - legally they should have recognized it - Tibet had as much right to become independent of a China in colllpase, as did the successors to the Austrian empire, or Finland and Poland.

However once China took over Tibet, and established de facto control, it gained "legitimacy". Despite the fact that the takeover was postwar, and by force. International law is odd that way - it recognizes FACTS - its not a standard of morality, so much as a mechanism to limit states interfering in each others business at the drop of a hat.

This is not comparable to Irian Jaya, as IJ was never de facto independent. Nor was Goa. Both were european colonies. (it should be noted that under UN standards, the right to de jure recognition of stable de facto sovereignty does not apply to OVERSEAS colonies)


It should be noted that the Dalai Lama does NOT now call for Tibetan independence - he calls for human rights in Tiber, and (IIUC) cultural autonomy.

The backward state of the Tibetan polity prior to WW2 is not necessarily relevant - slavery and other abuses were widespread in parts of the non-western world where Westernization had not taken place. AFAIK the current Dalai Lama was interested in opening up, and this would likely have led to reforms.

And of couse the PRC did not just end the old labor regime - they massacred people in large numbers.


Certainly the way China currently runs Tibet is morally illegitimate. Free Tibet is therefore a worthwhile slogan, whatever Tibet ultimate sovereignty is to be.

[Mao]

I'm a bit curious. It's great to parrot "Free Tibet!!!" everywhere...but free it to what? The Dalai Lama? What about the other Lamas? Should they have power? Do we install a democratic government/try to? What would this "free" Tibet, if it ever were to happen, possibly look like? What is the best case, and the most likely case?

Yes yes, I realize that the most likely case is that this is a moot point anyway, but I'm cuirous.

[GePap]

International Law does not recognize "facts". Since when?

Poland and Finland were created by TREATY, recognized as independent by the international community, allowed to become members of the League of Nations. NO such recognition was granted to Tibet, or for that matter any of the chuncks of China that began having de facto local rulers in the times of chaos.

If anything, sticking to pieces of paper as opposed to "facts" is what allows regimes to stay out of each other's hair, not the other way around. Because facts can become inconvinient, and hey change fluidly, while pieces of paper granted legitimacy can change only by agreement, or to force.9 both of which are conscious decisions).

[Odin]

Finally, it should be noted that the criticism posed herein is not intended as a personal attack on the Dalai Lama. Whatever his past associations with the CIA and various reactionaries, he speaks often of peace, love, and nonviolence. And he himself really cannot be blamed for the abuses of the ancien régime, having been but 15 years old when he fled into exile.

UR pwns himself.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
International Law does not recognize "facts". Since when?

Poland and Finland were created by TREATY, recognized as independent by the international community, allowed to become members of the League of Nations. NO such recognition was granted to Tibet, or for that matter any of the chuncks of China that began having de facto local rulers in the times of chaos.

If anything, sticking to pieces of paper as opposed to "facts" is what allows regimes to stay out of each other's hair, not the other way around. Because facts can become inconvinient, and hey change fluidly, while pieces of paper granted legitimacy can change only by agreement, or to force.9 both of which are conscious decisions).

1. FInland, and IIUC Poland, had emerged de facto before that was recognized by treaty, IIUC.

The chinese warlords, AFAIK, did not claim independence - IIUC its not enough under international law to be de facto sovereign, you have to claim independence. Thats why Taiwans 40 years as an independent state doesnt county, cause they never claimed independence, and thats why PRC threatens war IF Taiwan declares independence - if they so declare, china would then have to deny their de facto independence, or states would gain the right under international law to recognize them.

These questions have come up in the case of Bosnia, Quebec, and other discussions of international law, and from what i can gather de facto sovereignty is an important consideration, though certainly international recognition is also a factor, esp in borderline cases.

In this case, Id suggest that the lack of international recognition for TIbet was one factor causing the world community to look the other way when PRC commited its aggression. The other factor was the desire to placate the PRC.

[lord of the mark]

"The international relations of Tibet were focused on the country's neighbours. Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with countries in the region such as Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, British India, and, to a limited extent, with Russia and Japan.

Tibet's independent foreign policy is perhaps most obviously demonstrated by the country's neutrality during World War II. Despite strong pressures from Britain, the U.S. and China to allow the passage of military supplies through Tibet to China when Japan blocked the strategically vital "Burma Road," Tibet held fast to its declared neutrality, which the Allies were constrained to respect.

China today claims that "no country ever recognised Tibet." In international law, recognition can be obtained by an explicit act of recognition or by implicit act or behaviour. The conclusion of treaties, even the conduct of negotiations, and certainly the maintenance of diplomatic relations are forms of recognition. Mongolia and Tibet concluded a formal treaty of recognition in 1913; Nepal not only concluded peace treaties with Tibet, and maintained an Ambassador in Lhasa, but also formally stated to the United Nations in 1949, as part of its application for UN membership, that it maintained independent diplomatic relations with Tibet as it did with several other countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, India and Burma.

Nepal, Bhutan, Britain, China and India maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capital, Lhasa. Although China claimed in its propaganda that its mission in Tibet was a branch office of the so-called Commission of Tibetan and Mongolian Affairs of the Guomindang government, the Tibetan Government only recognised it as a diplomatic mission. Its status was no higher than the Nepalese Embassy (Nepal had a full Ambassador or "Vakil" in Lhasa) or the British Mission. The Tibetan Foreign Office also conducted limited relations with the United States when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent emissaries to Lhasa to request assistance for the Allied war effort against Japan during the Second World War. Also, during the four UN General assembly debates on Tibet in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1965, many countries expressly referred to Tibet as an independent country illegally occupied by China.

Relations with Nationalist China

China's position was ambiguous during this period (1911-49). On the one hand, the Nationalist Government unilaterally announced in its constitution and in communications to other countries that Tibet was a province of the Republic of China (one of the "five races" of the Republic). On the other hand, it recognised that Tibet was not part of the Republic of China in its official communications with the Government of Tibet. Thus, China's President repeatedly sent letters and envoys to the Dalai Lama and to the Tibetan Government asking that Tibet "join" the Republic of China. Similar messages were sent by China to the Government of Nepal. Both Tibet and Nepal consistently refused to join China. In response to the first letter of Chinese President Yuan Shih-kai, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama rejected the invitation to join the Republic, explaining courteously but firmly that Tibetans did "not approve" of the Chinese Government due to past injustices and stated:


The Republic has only just been proclaimed and the national foundations are far from strong. It behoves the President to exert his energies towards the maintenance of order. As for Thibet, the Thibetans are quite capable of preserving their existence intact and there is no occasion for the President to worry himself at this distance or to be discomposed. [Guomin Gongbao, 6 Jan. 1913]

[Mr. Harley]

Umm, does that apply to all the UN resolutions reference Israel and the West Bank.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. FInland, and IIUC Poland, had emerged de facto before that was recognized by treaty, IIUC.

Which is irrelevant, as eventually they became de Jure.

The chinese warlords, AFAIK, did not claim independence - IIUC its not enough under international law to be de facto sovereign, you have to claim independence. Thats why Taiwans 40 years as an independent state doesnt county, cause they never claimed independence, and thats why PRC threatens war IF Taiwan declares independence - if they so declare, china would then have to deny their de facto independence, or states would gain the right under international law to recognize them.

The Republic of China is a recognized state by many smaller nations, like Panama, which has no embassy for the PRC but does have one for ROC. The issue of course is that ROC at least still nominally claims itself to be the legitimate Chinese government. As of yet, there has ben no claim of there being an independent entity such as Taiwan, thought that may still happen.

As for the notion of others bieng able to grant recognition of independence, yes, states are free to grant anyone recognition of legitimacy- for example, only three states recognized the Taliban, which had obvious de facto control of the country, as the legitimate regime of Afghanistan. Even states that did not recognize de Jure Taliban rule did interact with them, like the US when it came to anti-opium actions.

The situation today is very simple thought, even if back in the good ol days of the cold war people complained about China moving to de facto control of Tibet, no state today question's China's rule.

These questions have come up in the case of Bosnia, Quebec, and other discussions of international law, and from what i can gather de facto sovereignty is an important consideration, though certainly international recognition is also a factor, esp in borderline cases.

In this case, Id suggest that the lack of international recognition for TIbet was one factor causing the world community to look the other way when PRC commited its aggression. The other factor was the desire to placate the PRC.

The ex-Yugoslavia brings up an interesting point, as Germany';s swift recognition of Croatian independence brought about significant criticism, as many blamed this act for that war moving forward (thought that is not really the case).

Having de facto control of a piece of land is crucial for anyone to claim de jure control. BUt de facto control of land by itself does not bring de jure control.

And in the end of the day, small weak backwards groups are always at the mercy of larger, more powerful players in the system. Just look at the Chechens. The Chechens had de facto control for many years, but no one would give them the time of day when it came to recognizing them hacing any de Jure rule, and I don;t see any states talking about illegal Russian occupation.

[Gatekeeper]

I say we should all just return to our ancestral homeland — Mother Africa.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


Which is irrelevant, as eventually they became de Jure.

The chinese warlords, AFAIK, did not claim independence - IIUC its not enough under international law to be de facto sovereign, you have to claim independence. Thats why Taiwans 40 years as an independent state doesnt county, cause they never claimed independence, and thats why PRC threatens war IF Taiwan declares independence - if they so declare, china would then have to deny their de facto independence, or states would gain the right under international law to recognize them.

The Republic of China is a recognized state by many smaller nations, like Panama, which has no embassy for the PRC but does have one for ROC.

Im not sure how to put this, but no one really cares about the collection of small, poort states that Taipei has bribed into recogniizing the ROC.

The issue of course is that ROC at least still nominally claims itself to be the legitimate Chinese government. As of yet, there has ben no claim of there being an independent entity such as Taiwan, thought that may still happen.

But the ROC obviously has NOT had de facto control over China, which is why that claim is not particularly threatening, as compared to a claim for Taiwan independence.

As for the notion of others bieng able to grant recognition of independence, yes, states are free to grant anyone recognition of legitimacy- for example, only three states recognized the Taliban, which had obvious de facto control of the country, as the legitimate regime of Afghanistan. Even states that did not recognize de Jure Taliban rule did interact with them, like the US when it came to anti-opium actions.

And more importantly, had the US invaded Afghanistan without the provocation of 9/11, that would have created problems internationally for the US,even with states that did not have embassies in Kabul. When the US DID go to war, they emphasized Afghanistans failure to extradite AQ leaders, NOT their lack of formal recognition.

The situation today is very simple thought, even if back in the good ol days of the cold war people complained about China moving to de facto control of Tibet, no state today question's China's rule.

I agree, which is why I made the distinction I made. OTOH Tibets history certainly does speak to a particular CHinese obligiation to respect human rights and local culture, above and beyond universal obligationst to do so.

The ex-Yugoslavia brings up an interesting point, as Germany';s swift recognition of Croatian independence brought about significant criticism, as many blamed this act for that war moving forward (thought that is not really the case).

Having de facto control of a piece of land is crucial for anyone to claim de jure control. BUt de facto control of land by itself does not bring de jure control.

And in the end of the day, small weak backwards groups are always at the mercy of larger, more powerful players in the system. Just look at the Chechens. The Chechens had de facto control for many years, but no one would give them the time of day when it came to recognizing them hacing any de Jure rule, and I don;t see any states talking about illegal Russian occupation.

The chechens period of de facto independence of course antedated the UN charter, unless you are referring to the period of autonomy following the first Chechen war.

Did the Chechens every have formal diplomatic relations with other states, as Tibet did? if so, when?

[lord of the mark]

infoplease:


"The Bolsheviks seized the region in 1918 but were dislodged in 1919 by counterrevolutionary forces under Gen. A. I. Denikin.

After Soviet rule was reestablished, the area was included in 1921 in the Mountain People's Republic"

so a grand total of two years outside of Moscows control, of which at least part was under the control of RUSSIANS opposed to Moscow. As if Tibet had been governed by Taiwan prior to the PRC takeover.