I am a believer in a Free Tibet, namely that China illegally invaded occupied and ultimately annexed TIbet, but I admit that I have gleaned my inspirtaion and information from non-neutral sources. What is the argument in favor of China’s position with respect to Tibet? Or is there some middle ground that is closer to the truth?
Michael Parenti describes pre-Chinese-invasion Tibet as a backward feudal society, run by theocratic despots.
Nothing could be as black-and-white as the followers either of the Dalai Lama or of Mao might suggest.
To boil it down to the basics, the chinese claim to tibet is
a) It’s always been part of China. Eg, somehow because the Mongols conquored China and Tibet, that somehow historically China and Tibet are unified stems from the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty.
b) regardless of whether Tibet has always been part of China, Tibet was a feudal backward state and China has brought civilization and moderized the place.
There’s more but the above is essentially the arguements.
The problem, of course, is that the Chinese also became despots, albeit secular ones. They did bring economic growth, but it seems that almost all the actual wealth seems to wind up in the hands of the Chinese: the best land, jobs, and resources are wholly in their hands.
Another argument on China’s side – not for the justice of their rule in Tibet, but perhaps for the position that preserving the status quo would be better than trying to disrupt it – is that the Sinification of Tibet is now a fait accompli. There are now more than 7.5 million Han Chinese and other non-Tibetans living in Tibet, compared with 6 million ethnic Tibetans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Demographics (The Chinese government disputes those figures, which depend in part on whether “Tibet” is defined as only the modern Tibetan Autonomous Region or the much larger historical kingdom.) If Tibet becomes independent, what happens to the non-Tibetans living there? Are they to be deported? Ethnically cleansed? Excluded from the government? If not, they’ll control the government, won’t they?
BrainGlutton:
Funny, you don’t seem to feel that was about Israelis in the West Bank and (formarly) Gaza.
The analogy is inapt. Israelis do not form the majority population of either territory.
Sua
I was not defending the position, merely throwing it out there for debate. As for the Israelis in the West Bank, they ain’t got the numbers, never did, never will. In that situation, the status quo is unsustainable; and deporting the 400,000 Israeli settlers would be less trouble than deporting the 2.4 million Palestinians. Getting the Han out of Tibet would be a much more daunting proposition.
What effect, if any, has China’s new “Westernized” economy had on Tibet?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Economy:
The same article notes that Tibetan nationalists oppose the railway as it will make it even easier for non-Tibetans to move in.
CIA Online Factbook provides very little data.
Prior to 1980, Han Chinese made up less than 20% of the population. Prior to 1959 it was in low single digits. Deng Xiaoping made a big push for the Sinification of Tibet starting in the 1980’s
Didn’t know that but I’m not surprised. It’s the same thinking that led Hussein to colonize Kirkuk with Arabs after the Kurdish uprising in 1991 – and, like that situation, it leaves no really good solution that won’t hurt somebody.
The Chinese invasion of Tibet was a naked war of aggression, committed because the rulers thought that they could get away with it, just like our invasion of Iraq. Invading another country that presents no imminent threat to you isn’t amenable to cheap rationalizations of any sort.
Those who are responsible for both invasions would be in the Hague, being tried as war criminals, if there were any justice in the world.
That is the pro-China side of the debate?
Looking at the Wiki article you cited, though, it appears that the actual territory that China conquered in 1951 is 90% Tibetan. Were this territory returned to the Tibetans, then I can’t see the ethnic makeup of free Tibet being a problem.
Of course the Tibetans want the entirety of historical Tibet, which it would appear would make for a ethnically Han dominated state. But it doesn’t look like the Tibetans haven’t controlled this larger Tibet region in several hundred years, so I’d say thier claim to it is pretty weak anyways.
Out of curiousity, does the Tibetan gov’t in exile want a return to their previous theocracy or simply a new democratic state seperate from China?
Yes, it’s the strongest argument they have.
Territory is now part of the PRC, and areas you’re talking about include the Tibet Autonomous Province, most of Ganzi and Aba Tibetan autonomous Regions, much of Qinghai Province, and the Deqen Tibetan Autonomous Region.
Most of these border areas had loose political affiliations to Tibet/Lhasa and none to Han China. These areas generally were not controlled by China but were left alone renegade lands. Religiously these areas were part of the Tibetan buddhist organizations, which were both religious and political.
You can look up the Tibetan government in exile. The Dalai Lama has for more than a decade been willing to accept a Tibet as a China federated state. He does not advocate a return to the old theocracy.
Thanks for the info China Guy.
Read the wiki article (the history part). There appears to be at least some legitimacy to China’s argument that Tibet has not been a sovreign nation for several hundred years, and that the gov’t overthrown by China in the 50’s was there simply because China was to busy with her own civil wars to exert her claim to Tibet. Thus China did not take over a seperate country but re-exerted control over a border region.
Given the history, I’d say that the Dali Lama’s request for limited sovreignty is reasonable, though unlikely to come true in any meaningful way at least with the current Chinese gov’t.