Anyone actually think Chinas occupation of Tibet IS legitamite?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that China is the legitimate ruling government, and hence not subject to those clauses of the Geneva convention.

And since when are communist supposed to be enamored by Nationalist arguements? After all, Tibetan identity is secondary to their identity as workers and so forth. Any government that replaces a backwards and supersticious agrarian society with a modern industrial society is doing the good work of history.

which of course represent the PRC stand on questions of colonialism and imperialism throughout its history, colonial occupations are to be judged negatively only when they can be shown to have impeded economic growth.

NOT.

The PRC has always supported the third world nationalist stance against colonialism, at least from Bandung onwards.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

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.

You mean the few state the ROC kept bribing to keep recognizing it (maybe you forgot which government had the UN seat at the start). But you make MY POINT in this very statement.

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.

Actually, I really doubt that there would have been much international concern for a US invasion of Afghanistan outside of the Muslim world, and that would have been caused by secterian concerns, as long as the US came in with the intent of restoring the recognized Afghan regime.

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.

"Particular Chinese obligation"? Where would such a thing have come from? Tibet's history makes it culture no more worthy of saving than anyone elses.

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?

The Russian called it autonomy, the Chechens called it independence, but yes, that is exactly the priod I speak of.
That no one recognized the Chechens as a few recognized the Tibetans back in the day has nothing to do with claims being any less valid, but a statement of the relative power of the other side, ie. China was weak from 1911 to 1945, while Russia in the 1990's was a permanent UNSC member and a nuclear power, meaning that as poor as she had become, she was not weak.

Which goes to the heart of my point, which is that China's hold on Tibet today is unquestioned, and that isn't going to change unless the Tibetans win independence, which is certainly currently NOT in the cards.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Its not an issue of time, period.

In 1914 most of Poland was part of the Russian empire, and there was no question as to the "legitimacy" of that, except amongst Polish nationalists.

Ditto for Tibet. Its part of China, every diplomatic document out there signed and recognized as valid says so.

Its that freaking simple.

Yes, Tibetans have nationalist claims, and if they carry out a nationalist revolution and win independence, good for them. Ain;t going to bloody happen, but the only ones who get a say on the future status of Tibet are the Tibetans AND the Chinese.

and the indian govt host the Tibetan govt in exile. And THATS up to the govt of India. If the Chinese dont like it, they can try to do something about it.

Similarly, we, as individuals, can take the Chinese position in Tibet into account in our view of the PRC.

[Datajack Franit]

learning chinese history by watching Richard Gere´s movies

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

The Russian called it autonomy, the Chechens called it independence, but yes, that is exactly the priod I speak of.
That no one recognized the Chechens as a few recognized the Tibetans back in the day has nothing to do with claims being any less valid, but a statement of the relative power of the other side, ie. China was weak from 1911 to 1945, while Russia in the 1990's was a permanent UNSC member and a nuclear power, meaning that as poor as she had become, she was not weak.

Which goes to the heart of my point, which is that China's hold on Tibet today is unquestioned, and that isn't going to change unless the Tibetans win independence, which is certainly currently NOT in the cards.

Yes I agree, Chinas hold is unquestioned, despite being the fruit of an act of aggression, against a state whose de jure independence far exceeded that of Chechnya in the 90's.

OTOH its also the fact that govts, while they dont question Chinas control, choose to disreagard Chinese requests wrt to Tibet - for ex the govt of India allows the Govt in exile to exist on its soil. And states and peoples look to the PRCs treadment of tibetans when judging China, as it attempts to gain a broader role in world affairs. And THATS a Fact that isnt going to change, unless we let it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yes I agree, Chinas hold is unquestioned, despite being the fruit of an act of aggression, against a state whose de jure independence far exceeded that of Chechnya in the 90's.

OTOH its also the fact that govts, while they dont question Chinas control, choose to disreagard Chinese requests wrt to Tibet - for ex the govt of India allows the Govt in exile to exist on its soil. And states and peoples look to the PRCs treadment of tibetans when judging China, as it attempts to gain a broader role in world affairs. And THATS a Fact that isnt going to change, unless we let it.

"act of aggression"..you mean like Russia's hold on almost anything east of the urals, the US west of the Mississippi?So forth and so on? Like Israel's hold on the West bank? The list is too long to keep going, its a bit silly, and its irrelevant to the point of legitimacy.

Tibets de facto government was recognized because it was convinient to do so. That time passed.

As for India's allowance of a "Tibetan exile government", so what? India has its own games with China over their borders. Taht they decide to keep the Tibetans around as an irritant means little. Given how many insurgencies India itself has to fight off, her government is hardly one to speak about Nationalist claims, or about taking bits of land by force.

As for the issue of Chinese authoritarianism, that is a seperate issue from any nationalistic land claims from any one nationality within the PRC.

[Pax]

Injustice anywhere is wrong but if the injustice is done and now there are X amount of chinese inhabiting Tibet I basically would have to concede that the time for giving Tibet back has passed.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"act of aggression"..you mean like Russia's hold on almost anything east of the urals, the US west of the Mississippi?"


Were the Cheyenne, or the native siberians, defacto and close to de jure independent, as were the Tibetans when China marched in?

So forth and so on? Like Israel's hold on the West bank?

Ive been meaning to read Michael Oren on the 6 day war. Thanks for reminding me - I wont go into detail on this till I do. But Im puzzled - where did King Hussein establish his government in exile?

And when did you become an advocate for Israels uniateral annexation of the West Bank? I myself doubt Israel will keep much more than 5% of the West Bank, and even that will likely be compensated with land that was Israeli pre-1967. I think the govt of Tibet in exile would be quite happy if the PRC would give up even 60% of Tibet.

The list is too long to keep going, its a bit silly, and its irrelevant to the point of legitimacy.

Its not a long list, as your strained comparisons make clear.

As for India's allowance of a "Tibetan exile government", so what? India has its own games with China over their borders. Taht they decide to keep the Tibetans around as an irritant means little. Given how many insurgencies India itself has to fight off, her government is hardly one to speak about Nationalist claims, or about taking bits of land by force.

Other than Goa (where there IS no rebellion, which of Indias national rebellions is on land not part of the British Raj in 1945?

As for the issue of Chinese authoritarianism, that is a seperate issue from any nationalistic land claims from any one nationality within the PRC.

Chinese authoritarianism is one issue the world has with China, but such authoritarianism is traditionally an internal matter. Chinas behavior in a disputed area, formerly (and RECENTLY) sovereign is another question.

[child of Thor]

Is Englands occupation of Scotland/Eire and wales(not forgetting cornwall!) legitamite? are any occupations to the people under the occupation going to seem legitamite? probably not. So no Chinas occupation of a Tibet that seems to want its autonomy doesnt seem right. Still what about economic occupation? Thats much more applicable to the state of the world today? and i dont much like that either.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Is Englands occupation of Scotland/Eire and wales(not forgetting cornwall!) legitamite? are any occupations to the people under the occupation going to seem legitamite? probably not. So no Chinas occupation of a Tibet that seems to want its autonomy doesnt seem right. Still what about economic occupation? Thats much more applicable to the state of the world today? and i dont much like that either.

Is tibet going to have a devolution referendum?

[lord of the mark]

"Reply by Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to a written question in the National Assembly

Paris, November 4, 2002
At the time of the government's recognition of The People's Republic of China with her present borders in 1964, like all the States which have forged diplomatic relations with The People's Republic of China since then, France recognized that Tibet was part of China. However, she is closely following the situation regarding human rights violations in Tibet, and regularly draws the Chinese authorities' attention to her concerns in this sphere.

France is keen for a dialogue to be opened between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama, who is recognized as a moderate interlocutor. She is pleased that China received a Tibetan delegation in September led by Mr Lodi Gyari, the Dalai Lama's special envoy to the United States, and is encouraging the two parties to pursue their contacts. The French authorities will continue to emphasize to their Chinese interlocutors the huge importance they attach to the opening of such a dialogue./. "

[lord of the mark]

"Bonn: Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (Alliance 90/Greens) has stressed that the federal government does not support independence for Tibet. The Foreign Ministry stated in Bonn on Wednesday [16th June] that, after his talks with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of the Tibetans, Fischer pointed to Germany's good relations with the PRC [People's Republic of China]. The basis of these relations is the federal government's "clearly formulated one-China policy", Fischer said. At the same time, Fischer pointed out that the federal government was, however, interested in "constructive dialogue" between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese leadership. The minister added that the federal government was following the cultural situation of the Tibetans and the human rights situation in Tibet with "very great concern". He added that China had recently made some progress in the area of strengthening human rights. This should now also comprehensively benefit the population in Tibet, he added. Fischer stressed that these questions were also an issue in the federal government's talks with the Chinese government. The Dalai Lama reaffirmed his interest in the genuine cultural autonomy of the Tibetans on the basis of a joint solution with the Chinese government. He pointed to the importance of preserving the Tibetans' cultural heritage. "

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Is tibet going to have a devolution referendum?

how long did that take to happen here in the civilised uk?

And i'm against it anyway - old history, too old now except for sporting events vs the auld enemy

But is it me or does every other european nation want to be friends with (rich) china. wheres our principles gone? have we no pride left after the economic gloom of recent years?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Were the Cheyenne, or the native siberians, defacto and close to de jure independent, as were the Tibetans when China marched in?

Given that the United States government signed treaties with various Native American tribes, their status as de jure rulers of land should be without question. And large areas of Central Asia, not only Siberia, were rules by states, like the grand cities of Samarkand or Tashkent.

Ive been meaning to read Michael Oren on the 6 day war. Thanks for reminding me - I wont go into detail on this till I do. But Im puzzled - where did King Hussein establish his government in exile?

It was in Gaza, cause King Hussein was de facto, but not de jure owner of that land. We have been oevr this. but even if you don;t accept that, he was in Amman, just like the Syrian government in in Damascus, and why the Golan is de facto, but not de jure, Israeli land.

Its not a long list, as your strained comparisons make clear.

Strained? The examples are utterly valid. I am surprised you could so easily and obviously forget the fact that Native tirbes were veiwed as soverign nations. If anything, our annexation of lands we recognized as Native lands is worse than what China did, as China never surrendered claims of soverignty over Tibet, nor did it dign any treaties with Tibet giving away at the minimum suzreinty.

Other than Goa (where there IS no rebellion, which of Indias national rebellions is on land not part of the British Raj in 1945?

Lets see, kashmir is the most obvious. India faces rebellion in assam, and has for a long time. Only recently did China accept the kingdom of Sikkim as part of India. The state of Manipur also includes a veriety of separatist gRoups.

Chinese authoritarianism is one issue the world has with China, but such authoritarianism is traditionally an internal matter. Chinas behavior in a disputed area, formerly (and RECENTLY) sovereign is another question.

Given that Tibet is part of China, I fail to see the distinction.

Oh, and 50 years ago is not recently.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GePap


Given that the United States government signed treaties with various Native American tribes, their status as de jure rulers of land should be without question. And large areas of Central Asia, not only Siberia, were rules by states, like the grand cities of Samarkand or Tashkent.

Despite the treaties it was also clear that the various Native American treaty "nations" only existed in a strange subordinant fashion within the United State's territory. In fact the status of the Indian territories was so far outside the customary that it could be argued that not one of the treaties was ever anything more than a little bit of fraud.

Other than Goa (where there IS no rebellion, which of Indias national rebellions is on land not part of the British Raj in 1945?

Lets see, kashmir is the most obvious. India faces rebellion in assam, and has for a long time. Only recently did China accept the kingdom of Sikkim as part of India. The state of Manipur also includes a veriety of separatist gRoups.



Given that Tibet is part of China, I fail to see the distinction.

Oh, and 50 years ago is not recently. [/QUOTE]
How about Bhutan?