China vs Tibet Monks

[Bloodclanorcs]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/tibet-monks-disrupt-tour-by-journalists/20080327073809990001

[Corwin]

It's the impact this might have on the Olympics that I'm concerned about!!

[txa1265]

Of course no one is taking too strong of a stand because of the massive economic power China wields ...

[V7]

Of course no one is taking too strong of a stand because of the massive economic power China wields ...

It would be nice if they were taking such a principled reasoned stand as greed but the truth is no one cares any more than they do about the Kurds, Basque, Chechnya, Darfur, catholic northern Irish, muslim sothern Thailand, your pick of any number of indeginious groups through the Americas and so on and on and on.

[magerette]

Very true. It's distant and therefore dismissible. The Tibetans have waited a long time to stage these protests at a time when the eye of the world is turned their way, but as you say V7, to most it's just another 2 minute newsbyte. I've read some of the Dalai Lama's works, and that any government on earth could consider him as advocating violence is beyond sad.

There's a real parallel to me between this and the way the Native Americans were divested of their land and their culture by force. That was a hundred years ago, but the fact of the matter is, no one intervened then for the Sioux, the Commanche, the Pima etc and I don't know who will intervene for the Tibetans now.

[Corwin]

Money talks and the Chinese have more than the Tibetans. Sad, but True!!

[txa1265]

... now if the Tibetans had some *OIL* ...

[Prime Junta]

... we'd have cause to feel a lot sorrier for them than we already do.

[Eliaures]

I give money to the Campaign for Tibet (http://www.savetibet.org/) and have for many years. It would be nice to think that Tibet could gain it's freedom through organizations such as this, but unfortunately, the best I think I can hope for is that they soften some of the worst abuses of the Chinese towards Tibet.

[Pladio]

China isn't only a massive economic superpower, but also a military superpower. Not only that, Tibet has been under Chinese occupation for so long without anyone noticing that China know it's only a temporary issue. They'll calm down their stance a bit before the Olympics until a bit after and then they'll just start anew.

[V7]

Its a bit of a stretch to call it an occupation, Chineese soverignty over Tibet is generally recognised.

[Prime Junta]

China is hardly a military superpower (yet) -- it is a significant regional power, though. IMO the central question isn't even Tibet as such; it's the way the Chinese central government treats its national minorities in general. The Uighurs, for example, don't have as charismatic a spokesman as the Dalai Lama, but they're just about as badly oppressed.

[JemyM]

Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream ("http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBcwAJZGXsk), Ed McCurdy, 1950
Last night I had the strangest dream
I ever had before,
I dreamed the world had all agreed,
To put an end to war.

I dreamed there was a mighty room,
And the room was filled with men,
And the paper they were signing said
They’d never fight again.

And when the paper was alla signed,
And a million copies made,
They all joined hands and cirkled round,
And grateful prayers were made.

And the people on the street below
Were dancing ’round and ’round,
With swords and guns and uniforms
All scattered on the ground.

Last night I had the strangest dream
I ever had before,
I dreamed the world had all agreed
To put an end to war.

[dteowner]

China is hardly a military superpower (yet) -- it is a significant regional power, though. IMO the central question isn't even Tibet as such; it's the way the Chinese central government treats its national minorities in general. The Uighurs, for example, don't have as charismatic a spokesman as the Dalai Lama, but they're just about as badly oppressed.Massive conventional forces backed by nuclear weapons...I don't see how you say they aren't a superpower yet. About the only thing they lack is an imposing navy and they're only a small step behind on aircraft. Those shortfalls are easily covered by sheer manpower. I suppose they aren't really equipped to wage a long-distance conventional war, but I'm not sure that's a requirement to get superpower status, is it?

Some researcher showed that, given growth rates at the time (a couple years ago), you could have the Chinese walk past you single-file and the parade would literally never end.

[Prime Junta]

Massive conventional forces backed by nuclear weapons...I don't see how you say they aren't a superpower yet. About the only thing they lack is an imposing navy and they're only a small step behind on aircraft. Those shortfalls are easily covered by sheer manpower. I suppose they aren't really equipped to wage a long-distance conventional war, but I'm not sure that's a requirement to get superpower status, is it?

Actually, IMO that's exactly the what's required for superpower status. Regional powers are capable of projecting military power over their own borders; great powers are capable of projecting it overseas, and superpowers are capable of projecting it overwhelmingly overseas. So, for example, that would make France, Britain, the USA, and Russia (now that they've got their military act together again) great powers, and China, Iran, Israel, and India regional powers. Examples of superpowers would be the USA from 1941 to 2003 or so, the USSR from 1948 or so to 1991, and Great Britain from the 1840's to 1945 or so. Superpower status is fairly transient; it rarely lasts over a century nowadays.

IOW, China is still two steps removed from being a superpower. I'm sure it could develop "great power" military capacity in another decade or so; beyond that the going would get tough, though -- it's as much a matter of circumstances as effort.

Some researcher showed that, given growth rates at the time (a couple years ago), you could have the Chinese walk past you single-file and the parade would literally never end.

Would that make India a superpower as well?

[Prime Junta]

PS. Check out this page: [ http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/eindex.htm ]. It has a nifty "population clock" for China. It ticks up a notch every few seconds. The birth counter ticks a bit faster, so if your single file was marching at a pace where one of them passed you every second, indeed you would never run out of Chinese. Although, of course, if all of them were marching, they wouldn't have any time to make new ones...

[dteowner]

Hmmm. I guess you're right. Although the nukes offer the ability to inflict extensive casualties at a tremendous distance, it might be too much to make that equate to a step up the regional/great/super ladder all by itself. Similar situation with the population point, although I would say that a billion Chinese with guns is a little different from a billion Indians with...ummm...a bunch of cows?

India has no legit military complex to speak of, so their ridiculous numbers don't rate for much.

[Remus]

Obviously, both China and India are big military power in Asia, and India doesn't left far behind in term of military build up and modernization. Still, it difficult what predict who will actually wins in reality if war broke up...

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp

[dteowner]

Interesting link, Remus, thanks.

[V7]

I think the nukes get overplayed a bit in China's case. They're currently an order of mangitude smaller than US and USSR for numbers and have even fewer launchers, certainly they don't come close to a MAD deterant force. If a war went nuclear a first strike could serously compromise their force and, even if they were able to launch the reach is limited.

Agreed with PJ as well that power projection is one of the defining components of being a superpower, and for that you really need a serous blue water navy, start worrying when they're building carrier battle groups like the US.

[Prime Junta]

Hmmm. I guess you're right. Although the nukes offer the ability to inflict extensive casualties at a tremendous distance, it might be too much to make that equate to a step up the regional/great/super ladder all by itself. Similar situation with the population point, although I would say that a billion Chinese with guns is a little different from a billion Indians with...ummm...a bunch of cows?

And nukes.

Proliferation has crept along quietly, so now it seems every tin-pot little dictator has one, or at least wants one. They have a great deterrent effect, for sure, and may have either a stabilizing or a destabilizing effect depending on where they're deployed, but in and of themselves they do not a great power make. Pakistan, India, and North Korea are certainly not great powers; they're barely even regional powers. And Iran is a regional power, with or without nukes.

But nukes are really more of an insurance policy than an effective battlefield weapon -- the cost of using them in anger is so high that they're rarely even worth the bother.

India has no legit military complex to speak of, so their ridiculous numbers don't rate for much.

Indeed. They didn't do too good against the Chinese in '62, and I doubt they'd do much better now.

[Prime Junta]

Agreed with PJ as well that power projection is one of the defining components of being a superpower, and for that you really need a serous blue water navy, start worrying when they're building carrier battle groups like the US.

If they start doing that, I'll officially consider them as having lost their marbles. Carrier groups are only good at intimidating countries with no serious military capability to start with -- or fighting beyond-the-horizon engagements in the middle of an ocean, which isn't going to happen in any war currently on the cards.

Closer to the coast, where "power projection" actually happens, even a low-tech country like Iran can effectively counter a carrier group, and any country with a decent stockpile of reasonably current anti-shipping missiles will make short work of one. The Chinese have plenty; they've even designed one of the better ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802) currently on the market. The new Russian one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks) is even more impressive.

(Strangely, the USA hasn't replaced the Harpoon yet; being subsonic, it's much more vulnerable to countermeasures, and is looking pretty antiquated compared to the newer Chinese and Russian ones. But then the USA is the one with the biggest and most expensive ships, so it's pretty logical that its rivals will be building ship-killers. In fact, one of the reasons the US is getting such lousy value for money with its military spending is that such a lot of it goes towards white elephants like the USS Gerald R. Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)). I mean seriously, folks -- the US already has the biggest and most expensive surface navy on the planet, so what are these new ones for anyway? All it takes to counter one of these trillion-dollar penis extensions is a few more missiles.)

[V7]

Sure they've limited capacity inshore, (althought that didn't stop the US using them in the Gulf, or putting them off Taiwan when theres a crisis for that matter), but you're going to need them to escort convoys if you want real power projection. If you want to be a superpower you have to be able to match or neturalise another superpower in every sphere, so while I don't see any beyond-the-horizon engagements currently thats because the US is the only state currently at that level of ability, not because a superpower doesn't need to be able to do it.

[Corwin]

PJ, I think you've totally encapsulated the whole problem the US is having, especially with regards its navy!! It's all a 'penis extension' !! :)

[Prime Junta]

Sure they've limited capacity inshore, (althought that didn't stop the US using them in the Gulf, or putting them off Taiwan when theres a crisis for that matter),

If there's a serious crisis over Taiwan, I very much doubt the US would put carriers there -- they know they'd get sunk in no time flat. And the US has not used them in the Gulf against an enemy with the capacity to counter them -- Iraq's coastline is too short, and they haven't fought Iran yet. If the US and Iran do come to blows, those battle groups will bugger off to the Indian Ocean well ahead of time (i.e., they'll be "off the board" for most intents and purposes).

but you're going to need them to escort convoys if you want real power projection. If you want to be a superpower you have to be able to match or neturalise another superpower in every sphere, so while I don't see any beyond-the-horizon engagements currently thats because the US is the only state currently at that level of ability, not because a superpower doesn't need to be able to do it.

That still doesn't make sense, on a great many levels.

(1) Carrier battle groups were never intended as convoy escorts -- they're orders of magnitude too expensive, there are way too few of them, and they are just as vulnerable to submarines as the convoys themselves. To my knowledge, they've never been used for this role, and putting them into it would be the final indignity for them.

(2) You don't need a surface fleet to neutralize a surface fleet. You need subs and missiles.

(3) Blue-water, over-the-horizon engagements make no sense in any war currently on the cards. The writing has been on the wall since the 1950's at least -- I recall reading about some American admiral at that time who had a painting of an empty seascape on the wall of his office, titled "US Surface Fleet, 1970."

(4) You don't need to match or neutralize your rivals in every sphere -- just in the ones that count. For example, the US has no need to match China's infantry army, because China doesn't have the transport capacity to land it on Long Beach, California. The USSR never matched America's surface fleet, and that didn't detract from its superpower status any.

Point being: large blue-water surface fleets are obsolete.

(1) They can't effectively defend against supersonic anti-shipping missiles *or* massed attacks with low-tech weaponry -- subsonic missiles, unguided rockets, even speedboats firing RPG's, and once you take them beyond the reach of these weapons, they can't do any effective power projection.

(2) Aircraft and missiles with intercontinental range have made them partly unnecessary.

(3) Shipping can be protected -- to the extent that it can be protected at all -- just as effectively and orders of magnitudes more cheaply with long-distance air patrols and light warships.

There will never be another battle of Midway; wars just aren't fought like that anymore.

The USA only continues to build these behemoths because of the politics of the procurement process, tradition, and prestige. It's a complete waste of money from a military standpoint -- if you want to use carrier groups for the only role they still can do, i.e., intimidating countries that can't fight back, the ones you already have will get that done just fine.

[Prime Junta]

As a bit of a postscript, the problem with this latest discussion is that it's too centered on hardware. Hardware does matter, obviously, but in the end it's only the edge of the blade. The political, social, cultural, and economic dimensions are equally important; in fact, superpower status is lost just as often due to changes in them than losses on the battlefield or falling behind in hardware. The Soviet military was still perfectly capable of rolling through the Fulda gap and turning half the globe into a radioactive wasteland when the USSR collapsed, for example -- and all this military capability didn't do a damn thing for them then.

Similarly, the causes of US weakness today aren't as much in its military capacity as in its political, diplomatic, and economic status. Yes, the military is badly mismatched to the threats it faces, and enormously wasteful of resources, but that could be quite easily fixed if there was the political will to do it; however, that won't change anything much until the US regains some of the respect it commanded in its superpower days and gets some of its formerly genuinely willing allies back, nor until the structural problems in its economy get fixed.

I believe that the root cause is the weakness of the American political system -- it's gone downhill fast since Watergate at least, and many of its problems are self-perpetuating and therefore extremely difficult to fix. The obvious inability to marshal the nation's enormous resources where they're needed (whether we're talking USS Gerald R. Ford, flak jackets, or New Orleans levees) is simply a symptom of this more serious disease.

[Corwin]

Do you think the incredibly BLOATED bureaucracy/public service is at least partially to blame?

[Prime Junta]

The American bureaucracy and public sector isn't particularly bloated; it's smaller than in most comparable countries, in fact, and has shrunk relative to the size of the economy over the past few decades.

[dteowner]

Said the 600 pound man, "I used to be 800 pounds. I'm withering away to nothing!"

Nothing marshals public sentiment and revs the economic motor quite like a good war, PJ. *engage tinfoil hat* I still think this was at least part of Dubya's gambit in going to Iraq. That clearly didn't quite go as planned. And I still say that our political system is headed for revolutionary collapse. The massive systemic flaws combined with a government more interested in self-perpetuation than actual progress will eventually become so unstable that there will be no saving it. *remove hat*

[V7]

I think you're underrating the CBGs but I'm not an expert on military hardware. I'd also dispute your extending 'superpower' into the cultural and social, to me the term is very specifically about military power and power projection. Hegemony covers the range of hard and soft powers much better.

[Prime Junta]

Said the 600 pound man, "I used to be 800 pounds. I'm withering away to nothing!"

Wanna now something interesting?

It's the countries with too little government that get the reputation for stifling bureaucracies. Tsarist Russia, for example. It had way too few functionaries compared to the population, and they were very poorly paid. The result? Individual bureaucrats with loads of power, too little oversight, and too low pay -- ergo, corruption, inefficiency, and bureaucratic obstructionism.

Once more, the American civil service isn't and never was particularly bad or bloated -- it's not the slimmest and most efficient in the world, but on the whole it's pretty well run. The myth to the contrary has been very successfully sold to the American public, though, including you, it seems.

Nothing marshals public sentiment and revs the economic motor quite like a good war, PJ. *engage tinfoil hat* I still think this was at least part of Dubya's gambit in going to Iraq. That clearly didn't quite go as planned. And I still say that our political system is headed for revolutionary collapse. The massive systemic flaws combined with a government more interested in self-perpetuation than actual progress will eventually become so unstable that there will be no saving it. *remove hat*

You're at least partly correct about Iraq, I think, but I don't think there's a revolutionary situation in the US. You're only so pessimistic because you've painted yourself into an ideological corner; remove those blinkers, and things will look a fair bit brighter. The American system has survived far worse crises; the Civil War and the Great Depression to name two, and it still has pretty good machinery for change. Second, the American public isn't revolutionary -- they've bought into the propaganda too deeply, and are too emotionally invested in the symbols of the system -- the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance, In God We Trust, and so on.

[Prime Junta]

I think you're underrating the CBGs but I'm not an expert on military hardware. I'd also dispute your extending 'superpower' into the cultural and social, to me the term is very specifically about military power and power projection. Hegemony covers the range of hard and soft powers much better.

It most certainly is about military power and power projection -- but the ability to project military power rests on the economic, political, social and cultural basis of the state doing the projecting.

Russia inherited a crazily powerful military from the USSR, but it didn't have the money to keep the plains flying, the ships sailing, and the men training, so it lost its ability to project power.

The USA has an even more crazily powerful military and an extremely big economy, but it lost the willing cooperation of most of its allies and non-hostile nations, which dramatically reduced its ability to project power, and it is politically unable to reform its military to match the post-Cold War world, which led to its current humiliating situation of overstretch due to two small colonial-type wars.

Again, the USA could easily afford the kind of military it would need to project power around the world in true superpower fashion, and there are no external reasons it couldn't build up the kind of alliances and groups of like-minded states that would let it do so with a minimum of fuss -- the reasons it doesn't have the military nor the allies are mostly political -- related to the power structure of the state.

The problem with the structure of the US military -- and its military-industrial complex in general -- is that it's still stuck in Cold War mode. It's designing and deploying huge and ridiculously expensive super-high-tech weapons (B-1, B-2, F-115, F-22, those CBG's, space-based missile shields, etc.), when it needs to think small, fast, numerous, and cheap.

The Gerald R. Ford won't do a damn thing for Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the similar wars that it might be in the American national interest to fight in the next few decades. What you need for that is a couple of million more highly-trained GI's equipped with better rifles, better flack jackets, lots and lots of better shoulder- and small vehicle-launched missiles, a big mix of infantry vehicles of various speeds, weights, armor protections, sizes, and costs, and all the air lift capacity -- from Ospreys to Hercules to Galaxies -- they might every want.

You could easily afford to do all that, and more, if you scrapped some of those white elephants. But it ain't gonna happen, because of the procurement process -- not unless something really dramatic happens.

[V7]

Lets say we have a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of superpower and leave it at that.


Once more, the American civil service isn't and never was particularly bad or bloated -- it's not the slimmest and most efficient in the world, but on the whole it's pretty well run. The myth to the contrary has been very successfully sold to the American public, though, including you, it seems.



I'd disagree with you there. America has some particularly bad examples of government at state and federal level (IRS before the reforms, DHS, FEMA, Lousiana) they've also got some very good examples too but at an average quality-of-government level I'd rate them lower than any of the other anglo-saxon countries that share a similiar culture. Unlike Dteowner I don't think its a matter of bloat or size, Europe has examples of larger better government (the Nordics) and worse (pick somewhere on the Med.). In my view the real problem with the American government is low expectations, I find it strange that people can be so consistantly cynical and derogratory about governement and the people who go into public service and then be so frequently supprised and upset when it meets their expectations. Its a self furfilling prophecy and no one will be able to fix it without changing American attitudes to government.

[JemyM]

Europe has examples of larger better government (the Nordics)

As far as I concern, Sweden have failed due to dogmatic conservative socialists who believe they have endless resources to support "old values" in a new world. Having employees is so expensive that companies either do not hire, or fail. The ones who hire go for the best of the best since if they do not they wont get their moneys worth. This built up a huge unemployment rate. Then they started to take in immigrants like there were no tomorrow, who naturally had no better chance to get a job than the Swedes themselves. Then they messed up the education so that we are currently far below other Nordic countries like Finland, causing even more unemployment. The unemployed and dissatisfied naturally blames the newcomers so you have rampart racism going on, so much that a nationalistic party have a chance to get into government next election. Media replies by pumping more US crap culture with "get famous quick" shows and promoting materialistic lifegoals. The segregation with loads of immigrants and unemployed people is a country that simply lost it's sense of unity as well as it's sense of direction.

Once im done with my education I hope there's a country left that still have a future. I just hope I wont have to learn Chinese.

Of course, I might just be a pessimist. It's easy to blame your government when you are a failure yourself.

[V7]

I think you're confusing government in the sense being discussed with politics. Is your public service efficient and responsive or wasteful and corrupt? You can have good government implementing bad policy; to take your immigration example, it may be a bad idea to have a big immigration program while you've got high unemployment but I'd guess that the department running it is fairly efficient, implements the governments legislation and has reasonable customer service (that’s a guess you'd know their reputation better than me), now compare that to the reputation of the US INS (now part of the DHS) as bloated and bureaucratic which service would you prefer if your politicians have already decided you’re getting the immigrants?

[Prime Junta]

at an average quality-of-government level I'd rate them lower than any of the other anglo-saxon countries that share a similiar culture.

Me too, but then on a global scale, the Anglo-Saxon countries have pretty good government. As you said, compared to Italy, the USA is a model of probity and efficiency -- and compared to Syria, Italy is a model of transparency and reliability.

[Zaleukos]

I think you're confusing government in the sense being discussed with politics. Is your public service efficient and responsive or wasteful and corrupt?

Corrupt it's generally not, but it can be very irresponsive. Part of it is certainly size-induced inertia and sheer lag from wanting to requlate everything. Queues and waiting is the norm when dealing with them. I'm particularly disdainful towards the migrations board, who separated my gf and me during the 17 month "processing of our application (that is 17 months between her interview at an overseas embassy and my interview in Sweden, plus exactly ONE day of actually processing the interview results before granting us our wishes and she wasnt allowed to visit Sweden during the "processing"). Health care also suffers from similar issues. Processing and treatment is efficient, but the lagtimes and queues are ridiculous.

The tax authority is both fast and responsive though:p

EDIT: Bad policy can make any system wasteful btw:(

[V7]

Well, responsivness may be relative. I'm not sure many smaller governements are more responsive when the responses are worth having.

[Prime Junta]

Actually, poor responsiveness is usually an indication of a bureucracy that's too small rather than too big -- if the law says that immigration applicants have to be individually interviewed and their applications individually processed, but there aren't enough functionaries to process and interview the applicants, there will be latency, much of which will appear completely pointless.

The other side of the equation is that if a bureaucracy grows too big, it'll eventually generate enough administrative overhead that you might as well nail the doors shut -- it'll be fully employed just running itself.

[magerette]

Protests are heating up a bit, and there's some talk of boycott now:

Torch Extinguished 3 Times in Paris Protests (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23978408/)

[ffbj]

What's really amusing, and telling, to me. Is how when they ask the Chinese, man in the street, about these protests, they are almost uniformly bemused. They just don't get it. They have no clue how the rest of world really views them. The Chinese propaganda machine, which they have perfected over the centuries, is operating at full bore. Of course there are some Chinese intellectuals and intelligentsia who don't buy the party line, but they are in the minority, and yes it's and occupation that has turned into a colonization, of Tibet. Calling a spade a spade, it can't be called anything else. There were virtually no Chinese in Tibet prior to it's occupation by the Chinese army in the 50's. Now there are 100's of thousands, in the country: controlling the economy and in places of power throughout the country. They are trying to destroy the language, culture, and heritage of Tibet, and for the most part they will eventually succeed. They are the Chinese. They have lots of time

[Prime Junta]

Someone commented that China and America share many of the same faults -- both are great countries, both see themselves rather differently than others see them, both are extremely touchy about anything they perceive as "interference" with their affairs, both are rather keen to export the blessings of their civilization to regions under their influence, and both simply fail to understand why others see them differently than they see themselves. No wonder the relationship is so complex!

[GothicGothicness]

I happend to know China very well, guess why? :P The chinese belief is that Taiwan and Tibet belong to them! and they see the people that burned the chinese shops in tibet as terrorists. They are angry at the outside word for critizising the chinese actions in Tibet. One China is the main picture and propaganda by the chinese gouverment. It is amazing what propaganda can do, but what is seldom mentioned is that the information you guys get in the western world is also a kind of propaganda, the truth lays somewhere in between! For example the chinese gouverment started a group to give benefits and preserve the minorities in China, did any of you know that? I do not think any of your heard it.

Russia doesn't get nearly as many protest even if they are doing worse in several countries they want to belong to them, and I don't hear voices about boycotting winter olympics there!

[Prime Junta]

You're absolutely correct, GG -- reality is almost never as simple as the picture we get of it.

There are lots of other little details that don't quite fit the simple black-and-white narratives we like to construct. For example, the last time Tibet was independent (and Dalai Lama was the nominal head of state), it had serfdom and chattel slavery -- not something we'd normally associate with our idea of a peaceful mountain state consisting mostly of monks making mandalas out of sand and contemplating enlightenment.

[Squeek]

PJ, I think you've totally encapsulated the whole problem the US is having, especially with regards its navy!! It's all a 'penis extension' !! :)It's our penis extension, and we'll do what we want with it (you're just jealous because you don't have a penis extension like ours).

Tibetan monks don't need navies, penis extensions or nukes. Didn't anybody here watch Kung Fu? Five bucks says the monks kick their ass!

[Squeek]

For example, the last time Tibet was independent (and Dalai Lama was the nominal head of state), it had serfdom and chattel slavery -- not something we'd normally associate with our idea of a peaceful mountain state consisting mostly of monks making mandalas out of sand and contemplating enlightenment.That would depend entirely on the mandala. Take a close look at one, and you might be surprised at some of what you find (remember, Buddhism isn't Christianity).

[Bartacus]

Russia doesn't get nearly as many protest even if they are doing worse in several countries they want to belong to them, and I don't hear voices about boycotting winter olympics there!

1980 olympics were boycotted by a some western countries (among them USA) and 1984 olympics were boycotted in return by the USSR controlled states.

I personally find it a disgrace that people use the olympics for a political statement. A political statement has to be brought by politicians, not by taking the athletes hostage.

[GothicGothicness]

I meant the upcoming winter olympics, I know about those pasts ones. I do think that the olympics should be held in a peaceful and open country, that is what the olympics stand for. Everything is in some way connected to politics it is unavoidable. Especially the olympics not only will it be a major boost to china's economy but they will use every chance they can for positive propaganda.

[magerette]

The Olympics at least in modern times, seem to have had a lot of political activity associated with them. That seems logical, actually, as it's an event witnessed by much of the world, an ideal platform for protest or as GG says, propaganda. Wikipedia has a synopsis of all the events that have disrupted the games since their inception here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Olympics#Olympic_problems), including numerous boycotts, interruptions because of war, and terrorist and political mishaps such as the 1936 Olympics with Jesse Owens and of course the 1972 Munich games with the disastrous Israeli team kidnapping.

So in some ways, these protests are also part of the historical context of the games.

[Prime Junta]

It's our penis extension, and we'll do what we want with it (you're just jealous because you don't have a penis extension like ours).

We don't need them :-}

[Prime Junta]

I personally find it a disgrace that people use the olympics for a political statement. A political statement has to be brought by politicians, not by taking the athletes hostage.

Yeah, damn those Chinese -- using the Olympics for politics...

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/german/berlin_class/archives/olympics.jpg

[zahratustra]

LOL timely reminder that it was Hitler who started the tradition of Olympic Torch Relay.

[ffbj]

Sadly this is somewhat appropriate. Hitler through the Olympics wished to show the superiority of the, so called, Aryan race. There is a deep undercurrent of racism in the Chinese people themselves. While it is not so blatant or overt, it is there. The Chinese, being practical, tremendous at trade, and intelligent, realized people being told that they were inferior, other races, was not something that people really like to hear. If you really know the Chinese you know this to be true.

These weak efforts at portraying the occupation and colonization of Tibet, as anything else, are rather sad. Just take a poll of Tibetans and see how many would like the Chinese to just leave. It would be like asking the Indian nations in North America how many wish the white man never came. You would not get too many dissenting votes.

[Corwin]

This racism, sadly is more on the surface than you may realise. There was a current affairs report on TV last week which showed that an incredible number of Chinese immigrants to Australia refused to either learn or speak English. They said it was unimportant and not at all necessary to be familiar with the language of the country they were living and working in!! This attitude then fuels further racial issues with the Aussie response!! If I were living in a non-english speaking country, say anywhere in Europe, I would expect to have to learn the language at least a little.

[Prime Junta]

These weak efforts at portraying the occupation and colonization of Tibet, as anything else, are rather sad. Just take a poll of Tibetans and see how many would like the Chinese to just leave. It would be like asking the Indian nations in North America how many wish the white man never came. You would not get too many dissenting votes.

You're equivocating. Occupation and colonization have specific definitions, which your putative poll does nothing to address. You could make the same poll of, say, the Komi in Russia, the Hungarians of Transylvania, or the Basques in Spain, and get the same result. Yet it would be incorrect to say that Russia is "occupying" the Urals, Romania is "occupying" Transylvania, or Spain is "occupying" the Basque country. Nor, for that matter, is it correct to say that the United States of America is "occupying" North America.

More to the point, there are unambiguous examples of occupation and colonization, and Tibet is not one of them. From the Chinese point of view, Tibet is a backward border province that tends to break off during times of weakness and get reabsorbed during times of ascendancy. They have a claim to the territory that's at least as legitimate as, say, the French claim to Alsace or the Danish claim to Greenland -- neither of which are seriously under dispute by anyone.

This is my problem with loaded terms like this. Calling the Tibetan question "occupation" and "colonization" closes the door on most things that could actually work -- the only morally acceptable solution to occupation is that the occupier leaves, right?

The history of China and Tibet is far more complex than the simple narrative of the idyllic Shangri-La mountain kingdom brutally taken over by the Communist hordes. Tibet under the Dalai Lamas was *not* a very nice place to live, unless you happened to be a rich landowner or a monk in a rich lamasery who really, really likes meditation. That means that any resolution to it will be more complex than simply having the brutal Communist hordes leave. (Who's gonna make 'em do that, anyway?)

Even Dalai Lama accepts this. He's not disputing Chinese sovereignty over Tibet; he's opposing the discrimination and nationality-based oppression the Chinese are perpetrating there. That, not your "occupation," is the problem -- and it's a soluble problem. China is being a bleedin' idiot for not talking to Dalai Lama (a bit like America was a bleedin' idiot for not talking to the Iranian president back when they had a sane one), but that's rather different from just being the "occupier" and "colonizer" and insisting that everyone pout and stamp their foot at them until they up sticks and leave.

[magerette]

Clip of the Dalai Lama supporting Prime J's statements. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24036120#24044616) and showing he (Dalai Lama)has quite a pragmatic grasp of the materialistic side of life as well as the spiritual.

[Ionstormsucks]

While I widely agree with PJ's conclusions I seriously doubt that you cannot call it an occupation. Chinese sovereignty over Tibet is highly controversial. It is fairly safe to assume that the contract of 1951 was only possible because China put pressure on the Tibetan government representatives who signed it... therefore it has no legal basis.

[zahratustra]

Civil, criminal and international law are governed by different sets of principles Ionstormsucks. While, in civil law, signature obtained under duress in not binding the same isn't true in international law. Government of Czechoslovakia was put under duress to relinquish Sudetenland to Germany by signatories of Munich Agreement. Yet German takeover of Sudetenland was perfectly legal under international law.

[Ionstormsucks]

Civil, criminal and international law are governed by different sets of principles Ionstormsucks. While, in civil law, signature obtained under duress in not binding the same isn't true in international law. Government of Czechoslovakia was put under duress to relinquish Sudetenland to Germany by signatories of Munich Agreement. Yet German takeover of Sudetenland was perfectly legal under international law.

With all due respects, but these two cases are simply not comparable. I really don't want to go into detail, but they hardly have anything in common.

[dteowner]

It's safe to say any surrender treaty is done under duress, so clearly international law has at least a few differences to civil proceedings.

[Ionstormsucks]

Small quote from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:


Article 51 Coercion of a representative of a State

The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.



I'm well aware that China's position within the United Nations is problematic. Nonetheless I'd say that this should not influence our perspective on the China/Tibet conflict.

[dteowner]

That refers to coercion of the person, not of the state itself.

[Ionstormsucks]

That refers to coercion of the person, not of the state itself.

So what? It's exactely what happened in the case of Tibet. China put pressure on representatives of the Tibetan government until these persons signed a contract (they were not even authorized to do it btw). And this is exactely why many experts think that this contract has no legal basis.

[Prime Junta]

@ISS, that paragraph isn't about political pressure -- it's about physical pressure, blackmail, or that sort of thing. They didn't kidnap the Tibetan government and stick bamboo splinters under their toenails until they signed; they applied plain ol' great power political and military pressure. That's not what the article you're quoting is about.

And in any case, my point is that it's totally beside the point. China has Tibet, and it's not about to leave no matter how much outrage you're able to muster up, nor how much you pout and stamp your foot about it. Insisting that they do, or going out of your way to insult them, isn't going to help.

Again, the problem is China's shabby way of treating national minorities in general, and the Tibetan one in particular -- and if the rhetoric got turned down a notch or two, and perhaps some face-saving formulas were found, that's a problem that might be soluble.

[ffbj]

No, I'm not equivocating. It is an occupation which has been turning Tibet into a Chinese colony. You are incorrect. You also seem to have the tendency to put words, in people mouths and then argue against an unstated argument, one that you yourself have created. Of course you will always win that one. Generally the quality of argument on these boards is fairly low, and this particular one has not changed my opinion much, but by all means. Go on ahead and resolve it to your satisfaction...

[V7]

That still doesn't make it an occupation Tibet wasn't an internationally recognised state before China took control and no one who matters considers it occupied at the moment, even discounting the UN find us a single government that recognises a Tibetan government in exile. Tibet isn't a Chinese colony, its part of China, you're not going to get anywhere until you recognise that.

[Prime Junta]

No, I'm not equivocating.

Yes, you are. You argued that a poll of Tibetans showing they don't like living under Chinese rule constitutes evidence that it is an occupation, while such a poll has nothing to do with the definition of an occupation. You could make the same poll of any more or less oppressed national minority anywhere and get the same result. That wouldn't make Xinjiang, the Crow reservation, or the Basque country occupied territories either.

It is an occupation which has been turning Tibet into a Chinese colony.

Sez you.

You are incorrect.

Sez you.

You also seem to have the tendency to put words, in people mouths and then argue against an unstated argument, one that you yourself have created.

Examples, please.

Of course you will always win that one. Generally the quality of argument on these boards is fairly low, and this particular one has not changed my opinion much, but by all means. Go on ahead and resolve it to your satisfaction...

Sez you, and marchez off in a huff.

[Ionstormsucks]

@ISS, that paragraph isn't about political pressure -- it's about physical pressure, blackmail, or that sort of thing. They didn't kidnap the Tibetan government and stick bamboo splinters under their toenails until they signed; they applied plain ol' great power political and military pressure. That's not what the article you're quoting is about.
[quote]

Seriously PJ, it's not really something we can discuss about. This is not my argument, this is the argument that experts on international law are using. The Vienna convention on the law of treaties makes very clear that countries are not bound to contracts that were imposed by force or if a country was coerced into signing the agreement by the threat of force. Unless you can assure me that you are an expert on international law I'll believe them...

So, this statement

[QUOTE=zahratustra;75523]While, in civil law, signature obtained under duress in not binding the same isn't true in international law.

is in fact NOT correct, at least not according to UN law.


And in any case, my point is that it's totally beside the point. China has Tibet, and it's not about to leave no matter how much outrage you're able to muster up, nor how much you pout and stamp your foot about it. Insisting that they do, or going out of your way to insult them, isn't going to help.


This has nothing to do with "mustering outrage" or "stamping your foot", it has to do with taking an opportunity. China wants to be a global player, but it does not want to play according to international law, that's the real problem. Unfortunately the rest of the world does nothing about it. The Olympic games are an opportunity to apply some pressure - not only on China - but also on the rest of the world. Right now all eyes are on China, so western politicians can't simply ignore Tibet's problems how they usually do. No, probably all these Tibetans and Tibetans in exile won't get their free Tibet, but you seldom get all you want... at the moment however such demonstrations help to keep the conflict in the media, and that's all that counts.

That still doesn't make it an occupation Tibet wasn't an internationally recognised state before China took control and no one who matters considers it occupied at the moment, even discounting the UN find us a single government that recognises a Tibetan government in exile. Tibet isn't a Chinese colony, its part of China, you're not going to get anywhere until you recognise that.

You have to be careful here... what governments say and what they do are often two different things. If you look at the UN assembleys on Tibet then the majority of the UN does in fact know that the Tibetans have every right to have their own state, unfortunately they do not act accordingly.
Take my own country for example (Germany). Experts working for the German parliament came to the conclusion that Tibet shows all aspects and signs of an independent state (in 1987). Still, the German government never officially recognized Tibet as an independent state. The reason is of course that they don't want to piss off China - that's all...

Another problem seems to be that if the average guy on the street hears about Tibet he thinks it's some kind of Chinese province that wants to become independent. But that is simply not true. For several thousand years Tibet was in fact an independent state. There were only two periods in Tibetan history when Tibet was under a foreign influence, it was never a real part of China. In between these two periods there were almost 200 years in which Tibet had nothing to do with China whatsoever.

[Prime Junta]

Seriously PJ, it's not really something we can discuss about. This is not my argument, this is the argument that experts on international law are using. The Vienna convention on the law of treaties makes very clear that countries are not bound to contracts that were imposed by force or if a country was coerced into signing the agreement by the threat of force. Unless you can assure me that you are an expert on international law I'll believe them...

I'm not an expert on international law, but I can think of any number of similar treaties imposed by coercion that are utterly undisputed in international law. So, unless you can explain why this principle doesn't apply to, say, the Finnish cession of Karelia, Petsamo, and Salla to the Soviet Union, I won't take your assertion about it being an argument some unspecified "experts" are using very seriously either.

Come to think of it, I'd like to see some references from those "experts" of yours.

This has nothing to do with "mustering outrage" or "stamping your foot", it has to do with taking an opportunity. China wants to be a global player, but it does not want to play according to international law, that's the real problem.

Yes, this does explain why you want to take the previous point off the table -- if it's shown to rest on shaky ground, the bottom falls out from your main argument.

I for one don't consider the underlying point settled yet, though, thank you very much.

Second, China isn't playing by the rules any less than any major power you might care to name. I can think of similar examples from the USSR, the USA, post- and pre-USSR Russia, Britain in its heyday and even after, France, you name it.

Unfortunately the rest of the world does nothing about it. The Olympic games are an opportunity to apply some pressure - not only on China - but also on the rest of the world. Right now all eyes are on China, so western politicians can't simply ignore Tibet's problems how they usually do. No, probably all these Tibetans and Tibetans in exile won't get their free Tibet, but you seldom get all you want... at the moment however such demonstrations help to keep the conflict in the media, and that's all that counts.

Trouble is, the only *effect* it'll have is China cracking down harder -- and, of course, salving the social conscience of people like you. It won't do anything to address the real problem -- China's shabby treatment of its national minorities, including but not limited to the Tibetans.

And even *that* point is rather tricky to address, because China isn't behaving any worse than France, America, Britain etc. etc. behaved until very recently (or in some cases still behave).

(snip rest for space)

ISS, you have a very, very one-sided view of the situation. You're repeating, point for point, the screed of the hard-line Tibetan nationalists -- who do not include the Dalai Lama. I would strongly recommend that you look at the bigger picture; you'll find that the narrative is much more complex than the one you recited in the part I snipped for space.

[V7]

Vienna convention- This is not my argument, this is the argument that experts on international law are using.

Source please.


is in fact NOT correct, at least not according to UN law.

There is no such thing as UN law.

This has nothing to do with "mustering outrage" or "stamping your foot", it has to do with taking an opportunity. China wants to be a global player, but it does not want to play according to international law, that's the real problem.
I'd suggest the contary, China makes huge efforts to comply with international law to the leter if not always the spirit. Its part of their strategy for a 'peaceful rise'.

You have to be careful here... what governments say and what they do are often two different things. If you look at the UN assembleys on Tibet then the majority of the UN does in fact know that the Tibetans have every right to have their own state, unfortunately they do not act accordingly.

Please show a UN resolution recognising an independant Tibet. Please show any resolution recognising a 'Tibetan' right to an intependant state. Please show any government granting defacto recognition to the Tibetan government in exile as an independant government. In fact please show any government saying or doing anything to suggest Tibet is an independant state.

Take my own country for example (Germany). Experts working for the German parliament came to the conclusion that Tibet shows all aspects and signs of an independent state (in 1987). Still, the German government never officially recognized Tibet as an independent state. The reason is of course that they don't want to piss off China - that's all....

Reguardless without recognition there is no state. Expert reports have no baring until the government changes its policy. Incidentally the 'experts' are flat out wrong if you've quoted them correctly, as international recognition is a fundamantal aspect of an independant state.

Another problem seems to be that if the average guy on the street hears about Tibet he thinks it's some kind of Chinese province that wants to become independent. But that is simply not true. For several thousand years Tibet was in fact an independent state. There were only two periods in Tibetan history when Tibet was under a foreign influence, it was never a real part of China. In between these two periods there were almost 200 years in which Tibet had nothing to do with China whatsoever.

The average guy on the street is irrelevant to the discussion. 'Several thousand years' of history may be persuasive but do not make an independant state (see for example the Tamils). Reguardless the historical record is nowhere near as clear as you present it, in fact I'm not even clear what period you're refering to by those 200 years, most of the claims for Tibetan independance rest on the brief inter-war period.

[dteowner]

Seriously PJ, it's not really something we can discuss about. This is not my argument, this is the argument that experts on international law are using. The Vienna convention on the law of treaties makes very clear that countries are not bound to contracts that were imposed by force or if a country was coerced into signing the agreement by the threat of force. Unless you can assure me that you are an expert on international law I'll believe them...This flies in the face of all reality. How do you explain the Japanese surrender in WW2? It's safe to say the Japanese didn't sign that treaty out of the goodness of their hearts. I would think further nuclear attack would qualify as "the threat of force". I'm certainly no expert, but your statement is in direct opposition to historical facts. Perhaps you need to clarify?

[ffbj]

Yes Tibet is/was an independent state.
True, treaty with China has no force since it is an illegal occupation.
To PJ. I don't think you know what equivocating means.

Here is just one part of an article on the subject, and is the generally held view of international jurisprudence:

"From a legal standpoint, Tibet has not lost its statehood. It is an independent start under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing occupation by the PLA has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China. As pointed out earlier.la the Chinese government has never claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional circumstances provided for in the UN Charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty, or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged subjection of Tibet to a few of China's strongest foreign rulers in the 13th and 18th centuries."

(Michael C. van Walt van Praag practices international law. His publication include The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law (Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., Wisdom Press, London, 1987) and numerous articles in book collections and magazines.)

So, you know, just cause you say something does not make it true. Do some scholarly investigation into the subject. So your mere opinions at least have the semblance of veracity to back them up.

[Ionstormsucks]

This flies in the face of all reality. How do you explain the Japanese surrender in WW2? It's safe to say the Japanese didn't sign that treaty out of the goodness of their hearts. I would think further nuclear attack would qualify as "the threat of force". I'm certainly no expert, but your statement is in direct opposition to historical facts. Perhaps you need to clarify?

The UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is from 1969. China ratified it btw.

[Ionstormsucks]

Source please.

See ffbj's post - he quoted one.


There is no such thing as UN law.

While there is no such thing as "UN law" International law has been strongly influenced by the UN conventions and contracts. For example the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is important in the case of Tibet and which China ratified.


I'd suggest the contary, China makes huge efforts to comply with international law to the leter if not always the spirit. Its part of their strategy for a 'peaceful rise'.

LOL


Please show a UN resolution recognising an independant Tibet. Please show any resolution recognising a 'Tibetan' right to an intependant state. Please show any government granting defacto recognition to the Tibetan government in exile as an independant government. In fact please show any government saying or doing anything to suggest Tibet is an independant state.

There is none. Tibet is a topic that the UN never really tried to touch upon. That has to do with China's diffcult position within the UN. They (China) are already behaving like total idiots when it comes to the UN and the other countries very obviously did not want to deepen the conflict.
Nonetheless there are statements like this one from the Irish ambassador to the UN:
"for thousands of years, for a couple of thousands years at any rate, (Tibet) was a free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after it own affairs than many of the nations here."

It's rather hard to treat Tibet as an independent state if China is already offended when the German Chancellor or the US President meets the Dalai Lama. This is, at least for my understanding, part of the problem: China can behave like the UN village idiot and the rest of the world just let's it happen.


Reguardless without recognition there is no state. Expert reports have no baring until the government changes its policy. Incidentally the 'experts' are flat out wrong if you've quoted them correctly, as international recognition is a fundamantal aspect of an independant state.

A government has to get its information from someone... I'm sure most politicians are no experts on Tibet. The German parliament has its own experts the so called "wissenschaftliche Fachdienst des deutschen Bundestages". So these were no independent experts. And nope, I seriously doubt they were "flat out wrong" just because you say so...


The average guy on the street is irrelevant to the discussion. 'Several thousand years' of history may be persuasive but do not make an independant state (see for example the Tamils). Reguardless the historical record is nowhere near as clear as you present it, in fact I'm not even clear what period you're refering to by those 200 years, most of the claims for Tibetan independance rest on the brief inter-war period.
During the Ming dynasty Tibet had hardly any connections to China... it would be great if you could enlighten us however when exactely before 1951 Tibet was a part of China.

[Prime Junta]

Yes Tibet is/was an independent state.

Keep repeating it. Perhaps eventually it'll become true.

If you want to convince us, though, you need to produce some, y'know, argument and evidence. Simple assertion won't wash.

True, treaty with China has no force since it is an illegal occupation.

Keep repeating that too.

To PJ. I don't think you know what equivocating means.

I do know what equivocating means.

Here is just one part of an article on the subject, and is the generally held view of international jurisprudence:

"From a legal standpoint, Tibet has not lost its statehood. It is an independent start under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing occupation by the PLA has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China. As pointed out earlier.la the Chinese government has never claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional circumstances provided for in the UN Charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty, or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged subjection of Tibet to a few of China's strongest foreign rulers in the 13th and 18th centuries."

(Michael C. van Walt van Praag practices international law. His publication include The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law (Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., Wisdom Press, London, 1987) and numerous articles in book collections and magazines.)

Thank you for the reference.

I hope you know that van Walt van Praag does not represent the general consensus on this matter -- he is, after all, closely associated with the Dalai Lama, and a long-time advocate of Tibetan independence. That doesn't have any bearing on the strength of his arguments, naturally, but it does mean that citing him doesn't do much to support your bald assertion that the matter of Tibetan statehood is "beyond discussion."

(In fact, it's just plain dumb to argue that it's beyond discussion, since it's patently obvious that a discussion is going on. There's a pretty good run-down of it here: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate ].)

So, you know, just cause you say something does not make it true. Do some scholarly investigation into the subject. So your mere opinions at least have the semblance of veracity to back them up.

Funny, that's exactly what I said to you just above. You could do with a bit of scholarly investigation into the subject as well -- *including* sources that aren't as partisan as the one you cited.

You're the one asserting that Tibet is legally an independent country, despite the fact that it has no international recognition as such. That's a pretty strong claim, and simply appealing to authority about it won't win that debate for you.

[Prime Junta]

The UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is from 1969. China ratified it btw.

And the Tibetan treaty is from 1959. But, of course, that doesn't matter because it's Tibet. Right?

[Ionstormsucks]

And the Tibetan treaty is from 1959. But, of course, that doesn't matter because it's Tibet. Right?

As I said, I'm not an expert myself. I can only listen to external sources and there are several sources who obviously believe that this treaty does violates the Vienna convention (Michael van Walt van Praag was already mentioned - he's an expert on international law, but there are others like Dr. Bernhard Müller, who is an expert on Tibet, China and North-India).
Personally I think that common sense dictates that if I sign such a contract I'll stick to it, even if it concerns terretories I "acquired" in the past (if these territories want to be independent that is). The problem is that China never really wanted to sign it.

You might have a look at what the international comission of jurists wrote about Tibet... you'll be surprised. Just to give you a few examples:

"It is not necessary to go very far into the historical background of Tibet beyond stating that from 1912 to 1950 Tibet was virtually an independent country. No Chinese writ ran in Tibet: there was no Chinese law, no Chinese judge, no Chinese policemen on the street corner; there was no Chinese newspaper, no Chinese soldier and even no representative of the Chinese government.

In 1950 China assured India that China had no intention of incorporating Tibet into China by force or otherwise and was willing to negotiate with Tibet regarding the future relationship of Tibet with China. But a few weeks later the invasion of Tibet took place -- on the 7th of October 1950. On the 19th October 1950, Chamdo in Eastern Tibet was captured and on the 24th Peking announced that the forces had been ordered to advance into Tibet "to free three million Tibetans from imperialist oppression."

Sounds pretty independent to me...

In the end all this doesn't really matter I guess since China does not base its claim to Tibet on this convention anyway (how could they - the 17-Point-Agreement guarantees freedom of religion and self-rule to the Tibetans). They also don't base their claim on Tibet on their military invasion since China itself condems the military acquisition of foreign territory. Their only argument is that Tibet became a part of China 700 years ago...


ISS, you have a very, very one-sided view of the situation. You're repeating, point for point, the screed of the hard-line Tibetan nationalists -- who do not include the Dalai Lama. I would strongly recommend that you look at the bigger picture; you'll find that the narrative is much more complex than the one you recited in the part I snipped for space.

You, of course, have the big picture... like always. Mate, stop belittling people. My view on the situation is not more one-sided than yours, it's just a different view, that's all.
I know the "narrative" and how complex it is... I just don't come to the same conclusions as you. Sure, Tibet and China have a common past, and China always had an interest (even in the 13th century) to annex Tibet, unfortunately for China, Tibet never accepted that.


Trouble is, the only *effect* it'll have is China cracking down harder -- and, of course, salving the social conscience of people like you. It won't do anything to address the real problem -- China's shabby treatment of its national minorities, including but not limited to the Tibetans.

Ya, really sucks that there are people out there who actually have a social conscience. Mate, Tibet is a conflict that is going on for over 50 years... it's not something that came up in the last two weeks. And what did our politicians do the last 50 years to improve Tibet's situation? Nothing... that's the problem. Why do you think we're discussing this right now? Because someone suddenly had the idea to make a post about it? How naive are you? We're discussing it because of the media attention the topic gets at the moment.
What do you expect people to do? To shut up and watch? The rest of the world shut up and watched for over 50 years, it's long overdue that it voices its opinion.

I'm not someone who insists on a free Tibet, but I don't exclude it as a possible solution. I don't know if Tibet as an independent country makes any sense, all I'm saying is that China has no "claim" to it. Most Tibetans would probably not even insist on a free Tibet if China did not treat them like a piece of shit. But I seriously doubt that China will change its treatment of Tibetans (and other minorities) without external pressure. That's what we did the last 50 years - no pressure - maybe it's time we try and see if some pressure actually helps.

I also don't ignore the Dalai Lama, but I don't think the Dalai Lama is Tibet and I also don't believe that the Dalai Lama can always say what he wants to say. If you look at his statements from the past then some of them sound quite different from what he's saying nowadays. Fair enough, he's a diplomat, in a way even a politican, and he cannot afford to offend China. Imagine he would openly demand a "free Tibet" - can you imagine what would happen?

But I'm not the Dalai Lama - I don't have his responsibility and China gives shit about what I'm saying or not and as long as it stays that way I perfer to call things by their names.

[V7]

While there is no such thing as "UN law" International law has been strongly influenced by the UN conventions and contracts. For example the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is important in the case of Tibet and which China ratified.

Its usually refered to simply as the Vienna Convention and its a legal instrument in its own right, there is no UN in the title and apart from being registered with the SG its not related to the UN directly. Note that internaitonal law is not retroactive although treaties may be argued to be codifications of existing customary international law (as was the specific intention of the drafters of the Vienna Convention). SO you're correct in arguing that a treaty cannot be entered into under duress, Dte and PJ are correct however in their interpretation that the duress is related to the state of mind of the government officials not the threat of force. A better arguement would be to suggest that the Chinese use of force was a breach of the UN charter, unfortunatly you can't since Tibet wasn't an intependant state or member of the UN.


LOL
Lovely counter arguement, do you have a recent example of China breaching the letter of international law besides obviously disputed Tibetan situation?

There is none. Tibet is a topic that the UN never really tried to touch upon. That has to do with China's diffcult position within the UN. They (China) are already behaving like total idiots when it comes to the UN and the other countries very obviously did not want to deepen the conflict.

SO you're saying no other country inside or outside the UN, no international organisation, in fact no one with any standing in international law recognises Tibet as an independant state but they're all wrong? May I suggest you don't have a very good grasp on what intenational law is or how it works?

Nonetheless there are statements like this one from the Irish ambassador to the UN:.
Of course, why do a quick search on the website for the Irish Dept. of Foreign Affairs to find Irish foreign policy on Tibet (http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/search.aspx?search=tibet) when you can quote an article selectivly quoting a diplomat on a partisan website to misconstrue official policy. Note that your quote doesn't even say that Tibet is independant, mearly that there were at some periods, which no one disputes.

It's rather hard to treat Tibet as an independent state if China is already offended when the German Chancellor or the US President meets the Dalai Lama. This is, at least for my understanding, part of the problem: China can behave like the UN village idiot and the rest of the world just let's it happen.

Irrelevant.

A government has to get its information from someone... I'm sure most politicians are no experts on Tibet. The German parliament has its own experts the so called "wissenschaftliche Fachdienst des deutschen Bundestages". So these were no independent experts. And nope, I seriously doubt they were "flat out wrong" just because you say so....
Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, A1; states should posess a) permanent population, b) defined territory, c) government and d) capicity to enter into relations with other states. The requirement for a capaicty to enter into reations is considered the enumeration of the concept of independance, to support that claim you need evidence of executive and state organs, conduct of foreign relations through those organs (note interwar Tibet failed on this score) a system of courts and legal system and a nationality law. I'm not going to continue typing up from the basic legal textbook, if you need more: Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed. Oxford Uni Press 2003 - Chapter 4 covers Incidence and contunity of Statehood, 5 Recognition and Part III Territorial Sovereignty.

During the Ming dynasty Tibet had hardly any connections to China... it would be great if you could enlighten us however when exactely before 1951 Tibet was a part of China.

During the Ming Dynasty (1368-1664) intenational law barely existed in a form recogniseable today, and it certainlly didn't extend to Asia. The political boundries of Europe barely resemble those of that period.

I don't claim to be an expert on Tibetan history but a quick read through the obstensibaly independant article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet for the history and the article PJ linked above make it clear Tibet has shifted in and out of Chineese control and influence a number of times.

[Prime Junta]

In the end all this doesn't really matter I guess since China does not base its claim to Tibet on this convention anyway (how could they - the 17-Point-Agreement guarantees freedom of religion and self-rule to the Tibetans). They also don't base their claim on Tibet on their military invasion since China itself condems the military acquisition of foreign territory. Their only argument is that Tibet became a part of China 700 years ago...

That's it exactly, ISS -- the entire question doesn't matter, because Tibet is not independent now, and it has no chance of becoming independent in the predictable future. You can spout jurisprudence 'til you're blue in the face, and this fact won't change -- nor will the fact that the legal question is ambiguous at best. I mean come on -- if the case was as strong as you make it, surely there would be one country somewhere willing to recognize Tibet's independence, China and all.

You, of course, have the big picture... like always. Mate, stop belittling people. My view on the situation is not more one-sided than yours, it's just a different view, that's all.

Yes, I usually do have the big picture. It's something I actively pursue in everything I do, and have been for twenty years at least, and I've gotten pretty good at smelling out one-sided and narrow viewpoints, like yours in this case. I buy neither the official Chinese narrative, nor the Tibetan nationalist one that you're peddling. Both narratives have elements of truth, but neither presents the big picture -- both omit facts and characteristics inconvenient to their version of events, and apply an extremely tendentious spin to the facts they do accept.

I know the "narrative" and how complex it is... I just don't come to the same conclusions as you. Sure, Tibet and China have a common past, and China always had an interest (even in the 13th century) to annex Tibet, unfortunately for China, Tibet never accepted that.

If that's true, I can only conclude that you're foolish to have blindly rejected one narrative and accepted the other.

Ya, really sucks that there are people out there who actually have a social conscience.

I've gotta be doing *something* right, since you're accusing me of not having a social conscience, and dte and my other friends from the right are accusing me of being a naive bleeding-heart statist liberal.

And that's not the issue. I do sympathize with the Tibetans. Hell, I know plenty of Tibetans, from back when I lived in Nepal for a year. I've been to within a stone's throw of the border, and overnighted in several Tibetan Buddhist monasteries.

But, unlike you apparently, I prefer to try to find things that might actually work. Ranting and railing at the injustice of it all, and China in particular, isn't going to help the Tibetans any. What I'm proposing -- respecting Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, but applying gentle pressure on them to treat all of their minorities better -- might. My "big picture" includes people like the Uighurs, who are unfortunate not to have a charismatic leader, and to have a religion that's not as sexy in the West as Tibetan Buddhism (Sunni Islam, to be specific). I'd very much like to see them treated like full citizens too.

(Snip rest of righteous indignation.)

[V7]

"It is not necessary to go very far into the historical background of Tibet beyond stating that from 1912 to 1950 Tibet was virtually an independent country.

Sounds pretty independent to me...



virtually an independent country...

[V7]

I know the "narrative" and how complex it is... I just don't come to the same conclusions as you. Sure, Tibet and China have a common past, and China always had an interest (even in the 13th century) to annex Tibet, unfortunately for China, Tibet never accepted that.


And unfortunatly for Tibet all the parties that matter in international law have.

[Ionstormsucks]

And unfortunatly for Tibet all the parties that matter in international law have.

And that would be which parties exactely? I would assume that the UN is at least one party that matters in international law and in its resolution concerning Tibet from 1961 it actually atrributed the right of self-determination to Tibet.

Seriously, mate don't just claim something without being able to back it up. You demanded from me that I should name my sources which I have done. I'd like to see the same from you, because unless you do I'll assume that your posts are full of logical and factual errors:

That still doesn't make it an occupation Tibet wasn't an internationally recognised state before China took control...

Tibet WAS an independent state before 1951. It had its own government headed by the Dalai Lama. It acted in every way like an independant state. It had its own passports which were excepted by other countries and it entered into treaties with other states - GB is just one example. I already quoted the international comission of jurists which also thinks that Tibet was in fact an independant state.


Reguardless without recognition there is no state. Expert reports have no baring until the government changes its policy. Incidentally the 'experts' are flat out wrong if you've quoted them correctly, as international recognition is a fundamantal aspect of an independant state.

That is not quite correct. According to the Inter-American Convention on the Rights and Duties of States there are four requirements of statehood and international recognition is not one them. The four attributes are: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter relations with other states. It is undisputed that Tibet fulfills these requirements, since it has proven before 1951 that it does.


Reguardless the historical record is nowhere near as clear as you present it, in fact I'm not even clear what period you're refering to by those 200 years, most of the claims for Tibetan independance rest on the brief inter-war period.

I did answer you and I think I made clear to which period I refer. I also asked you to explain to us when exactely before 1951 Tibet was a part of China, but you never gave me an answer. At no point before 1951 did the Tibetan government declare that it is a part of China - according to international law however this would be the only possibility that China has any claims to Tibet. That Tibet had connections to China in the past is of absolute no consequence since international law recognizes the rule to self-determination.

There is absolutely nothing in international law that justifies China's rule over Tibet. China was well aware that the territory they invaded in 1950 was NOT a part of China - the 17-Point-Agreement proves that. If it had been a part of China before a contract would have been unnecessary. And as I said before even this contract is not valid because it was signed under the threat of military force. It violates the Vienna convention which China signed. There are only two situations in which a treaty may lawfully be imposed upon a party whose territory is forcibly occupied - if the party is an aggressor or if it's based on a UN resolution. Both situations do not apply in the case of Tibet.


Sorry, but your assumption that everything is alright and according to international law, just because neither the UN nor any country does treat Tibet as an independent state is so naive it's bordering on the idiotic. China is an economic and military factor in the world and no one wants to piss of the Chinese, that should be obvious. The Chinese government is already pissed if a foreign government invites the Dalai Lama (recently happened in Germany...again) - what do you think would happen if a foreign nation would simply recognize the Tibetan government in exile?

Think about the following: The UN and its members individually, as well as the rest of the world simply sits and watches when China constantly violates human rights (China is just one of many examples). They do absolutely nothing - some mild criticism, but that's about it. Do you honestly believe that violating human rights is allowed according to international law, just because the UN does nothing against it?

[dteowner]

I've gotta be doing *something* right, since you're accusing me of not having a social conscience, and dte and my other friends from the right are accusing me of being a naive bleeding-heart statist liberal.Well, I don't think I've ever called you "naive"... ;)

It's a bit disorienting to find myself on your side on this one, PJ. Given that Tibet isn't seeing Saddam-esque (aka lethal) oppression from the Chinese, I just don't see much justification for us to stick our nose into their business. There's a big difference between bad manners with minority populations and gassing them.

[V7]

And that would be which parties exactely? I would assume that the UN is at least one party that matters in international law and in its resolution concerning Tibet from 1961 it actually atrributed the right of self-determination to Tibet.

States and some internaitonal bodies including the UN have standing in international law. However, did you actually read the (non-binding) resolution?
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/167/76/IMG/NR016776.pdf?OpenElement
-doesn't mention China
-doesn't question the legitimacy of the Chinese presence
-calls for the 'cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of ... including right to self determination'

None of which rejects Chinese claims to soveringity or asserts tibetan independance. Note also at the period the PRC didn't occupy China's seat at the UN.

Re self-determination - its a human right accepted by the UN and all member states, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Seriously, mate don't just claim something without being able to back it up. You demanded from me that I should name my sources which I have done. I'd like to see the same from you, because unless you do I'll assume that your posts are full of logical and factual errors:.

You've provoided one non binding resolution, which even if you misinterpreted it to suggest implied Tibetan independance subsequent state practice has clearly demonstrated was not the intention. One legal opinion by an expert closely associated with the Tibetans (a quick check of the book reviews will show that while he's got a good reputation he's considered to have interpreted the evidence and law toward the government in exile where possible and that his conclusion looks toward a Hong Kong style One China Two State solution). And a report by the International Comission of Jurists, once again non binding and principally directed at human rights issues and dispite your subesequent claims quite explicitally described Tibet as virtually independant not explicitally independant.

Against which the resounding silence of every other state in the world. No UN resolution calling it an occupation (cf Israel and Palistine) no demands for China to withdraw (cf Kwuait) no direct government recognition (cf Yugoslavia). I can't give you sorces for something thats not there. And then there's basic international law, if you don't like the introductory text I referenced please pick any other basic introduction to international law you like and read up on soverignty, de facto and de jure independance, recognition and the consequences there of... any one.

Tibet WAS an independent state before 1951. It had its own government headed by the Dalai Lama. It acted in every way like an independant state. It had its own passports which were excepted by other countries and it entered into treaties with other states - GB is just one example. I already quoted the international comission of jurists which also thinks that Tibet was in fact an independant state.

Again read some basic international law texts, a couple of treaties and passports do not equal recognition (see Katanga, Biafra). No one disputes Tibet exercised de facto independance prior to the PRC asserting control but the same can be said of dozens of regions with active independance movements round the world, acting like an independant state is only half the equation, without recognition by other states its the same as the survivalist nuts claiming their farm is an independant state and selling passports on the internet as far as international law is concerned.

That is not quite correct. According to the Inter-American Convention on the Rights and Duties of States there are four requirements of statehood and international recognition is not one them. The four attributes are: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter relations with other states. It is undisputed that Tibet fulfills these requirements, since it has proven before 1951 that it does.

Once again. The capacity to enter into relations with other states is dependant on mutual regognition, if the other states don't recognise your state you don't have the capacity. And it is disputed that Tibet furfiled that requirment.

I did answer you and I think I made clear to which period I refer. I also asked you to explain to us when exactely before 1951 Tibet was a part of China, but you never gave me an answer. At no point before 1951 did the Tibetan government declare that it is a part of China - according to international law however this would be the only possibility that China has any claims to Tibet. That Tibet had connections to China in the past is of absolute no consequence since international law recognizes the rule to self-determination.

I'm not an expert on Tibetan histroy, what I've read suggests that the independance or otherwise is far from clear, certainly China claimed soveringty, and was recognised in that role by Britian during the Qing dinasty and lost control during the civil war. A period in the 16th century is neither here nor there.

There is absolutely nothing in international law that justifies China's rule over Tibet.

Possession, recognition, exercise of soveringty, historical claim. Unwind that and there's nothing in international law that justifies any governent anywhere.

China was well aware that the territory they invaded in 1950 was NOT a part of China - the 17-Point-Agreement proves that. If it had been a part of China before a contract would have been unnecessary.
It proves they thought they needed an agreement, it doens't say anything about international law.

It violates the Vienna convention which China signed. There are only two situations in which a treaty may lawfully be imposed upon a party whose territory is forcibly occupied - if the party is an aggressor or if it's based on a UN resolution. Both situations do not apply in the case of Tibet.
International law is not retroactive. The Vienna convention only applies to treaties between states.

Sorry, but your assumption that everything is alright and according to international law, just because neither the UN nor any country does treat Tibet as an independent state is so naive it's bordering on the idiotic. China is an economic and military factor in the world and no one wants to piss of the Chinese, that should be obvious. The Chinese government is already pissed if a foreign government invites the Dalai Lama (recently happened in Germany...again) - what do you think would happen if a foreign nation would simply recognize the Tibetan government in exile?

I'd suggest that your assumptions about intenational law are naive. China's not nice to .. well anyone who's not a ranking member of the Communist Party they do all sorts of cruel and unusual things to people all over the place. But, and here's the thing, international law is not about good, or nice, or justice, fair play and happy rainbows its a system of rules and customs regulating international relations. Sure there's some nice things in IHL, and a really spiffy new court to deal with crimes against humanity but in the main its about states, and power, and if you're not recognised you don't even get a seat at the table.

What would China do? Stamp its foot, make a speach, bluster for a bit. Pretty much what it does when the ROC manages to bribe another state to recognise Taiwan. Sure China's got some weight and they're willing to use it when they think other countries are interfearing in their internal affairs but that wouldn't stop everyone from recognising Tibet if they had a resonable legal case.

Think about the following: The UN and its members individually, as well as the rest of the world simply sits and watches when China constantly violates human rights (China is just one of many examples). They do absolutely nothing - some mild criticism, but that's about it. Do you honestly believe that violating human rights is allowed according to international law, just because the UN does nothing against it?

Thats a different area of international law with different standards, and I really don't feel like getting into another long debate about it but short answer; the criticism is the legal scanction avaiable under international law for the types and level of rights violations occuring in China.

[Prime Junta]

Well, I don't think I've ever called you "naive"... ;)

It's a bit disorienting to find myself on your side on this one, PJ. Given that Tibet isn't seeing Saddam-esque (aka lethal) oppression from the Chinese, I just don't see much justification for us to stick our nose into their business. There's a big difference between bad manners with minority populations and gassing them.

Being on opposite sides of the political spectrum doesn't mean we're obliged to disagree about everything. In fact, if you step back a bit, compared to, say, a Fascist, a Communist, or an Islamic integrist, our politics are as good as identical.

Edit: I think there's a continuum between "sticking our nose in their business" and "doing nothing." We *can* keep the Chinese minority population on the table, we *can* lead by example (cough cough), and we *can* remind them that we expect better from a great country on a peaceful rise towards world power. We can also offer to broker talks between the Chinese and the Dalai Lama, we can send a few reporters into Xinjiang to look in on the Uighurs, and so on.

But what we shouldn't do, IMO, is escalate the rhetoric. In this case, a big part of the problem is losing face -- China has declared the Dalai Lama a separatist violence-fomenting evil terrorist who cannot be negotiated with, so it cannot negotiate with the Dalai Lama without losing face. Hotter rhetoric just drives them further into their bunker on this score. If everyone could just settle down for a bit, just maybe they could talk to each other. Problems like this have been solved this way in the past.

The alternative isn't nice -- continuing escalation until the Dalai Lama is no more; his successor will very likely be a hard-line nationalist, which means terrorism and violence in Tibet, which means that the Chinese will crack down *hard* and may finally end up going for a Stalinist solution -- move in the People's Army, forcibly disperse the Tibetan population around China, and move in Han Chinese. IOW, destroy Tibet. They're capable of doing that, and given sufficient provocation, they will -- despite the international outcry it will certainly arouse.

The tragedy is that well-meaning people like the ones on this thread are contributing towards this outcome.

[Prime Junta]

Re self-determination - its a human right accepted by the UN and all member states, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

The Wikipedia article on self-determination was pretty interesting: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination ].

Doesn't even mention Tibet under "Twentieth-century issues," though. Perhaps you folks could remedy that?

[Ionstormsucks]

States and some internaitonal bodies including the UN have standing in international law. However, did you actually read the (non-binding) resolution?

Yes, I did. The fact that it is non-binding is of no consequence to this discussion. You claimed that no one recognizes Tibet's right to self-determination and resolution 1723 (XVI) proves that this is just not the case. At least it proves that the UN and its members are aware that there is a problem concerning Tibet. You keep on misrepresenting the situation by constantly stating that the rest of the world, without any concerns, accepts Tibet as a part of China.


-doesn't mention China
-doesn't question the legitimacy of the Chinese presence
-calls for the 'cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of ... including right to self determination'

Seriously now, mate - this is getting grotesque. Who and what do you think they are talking about? Who do you think is supposed to stop practices which deprive Tibetan people of their right to self-determination - Donald Duck? Of course they are talking about China.
And the very fact that they attribute a right of self-determination to the Tibetan people does of course question the legitimacy of the Chinese presence.


None of which rejects Chinese claims to soveringity or asserts tibetan independance.

Read the remarks of the UN members?

UK
"Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have in the past recognized Chinese suzerainty over Tibet only on the condition that Tibet retained its autonomy."

Cuba
"It may be stated that Tibet enjoyed de facto independence in various periods of its history, especially from 1911 until the arrival of the Chinese communist forces at Lhasa in 1951."

Ireland
"We know, however, as the whole world knows, that the Tibetans are a distinct people by race, by language, by culture and by religious organization. We know that over the centuries they have developed a separate individuality and a characteristic way of life. We know that they have enjoyed self government throughout most of their history and that in the present century Chinese authority has never been made effective in Tibet except during the period of two invasions-the Manchu invasion of 1910 and the incursions of the troops of the People's Republic of China in the present decade."

While the resolution itself does no name China, the representatives of the UN members did. It's absolutely clear what the resolution aims at if you read it in context.


Note also at the period the PRC didn't occupy China's seat at the UN.

So if I'm not a member of an organization at the point it recogizes human rights I can later on violate human rights after I joined the organisation? Mate, use your common sense...


Re self-determination - its a human right accepted by the UN and all member states, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

It does mean exactely what I think it means. This is how Karen Parker defines it (she's a human rights attorney who has made herself name in international law):

"The right to self-determination, a fundamental principle of human rights law, is an individual and collective right to "freely determine . . . political status and [to] freely pursue . . . economic, social and cultural development." The principle of self-determination is generally linked to the de-colonization process that took place after the promulgation of the United Nations Charter of 1945. Of course, the obligation to respect the principle of self-determination is a prominent feature of the Charter, appearing, inter alia, in both Preamble to the Charter and in Article 1."


You've provoided one non binding resolution...
The only thing you provided so far is your own opinion. I'm well aware that Michael van Walt van Praag is close to the Tibetans (which I don't think makes his statements any less credible), the "Fachdienst des Deutschen Bundestages" certainly isn't and comes to more or less the same conclusions - but of course, according to you, these experts are "flat out wrong".


Against which the resounding silence of every other state in the world...
You're repeating yourself and that forces me to repeat myself. I think I made pretty clear and also gave proof that there no such thing as a resounding silence. I think I also made clear that there are reasons why the UN has not been able to act as it should.


I can't give you sorces for something thats not there.

How convenient...


Again read some basic international law texts, a couple of treaties and passports do not equal recognition...
As always you ignore facts you don't like, or which don't fit into your understanding of international law. I named the four requirements of statehood (Inter-American Convention on the Rights and Duties of States), and there hardly can be any doubt that Tibet fulfills these requirements. So the fact that it was virtually independent before 1951 is of crucial importance to the discussion of a "free Tibet" because it proves that Tibet is able to govern itself. I also mentioned that Tibet entered into treaties with other states like GB. Most of the world treated Tibet as if it were an independent state.
Ask yourself the following question - If China allowed Tibet to become independent do you seriously believe that any country (apart from the communist ones) would object and not recognize Tibet as an independent state?


Once again. The capacity to enter into relations with other states is dependant on mutual regognition, if the other states don't recognise your state you don't have the capacity. And it is disputed that Tibet furfiled that requirment.

See above. Most countries in the world treated Tibet as an independent state before 1951.


I'm not an expert on Tibetan histroy, what I've read suggests that the independance or otherwise is far from clear, certainly China claimed soveringty, and was recognised in that role by Britian during the Qing dinasty and lost control during the civil war. A period in the 16th century is neither here nor there.

Ya GB claimed sovereignty over the US until they declared themselves independant... does anyone here believe that this entitles GB nowadays to a claim on the US?
During the Quing dynasty Tibet was under Chinese influence, it did not become a part of China. The secular kings that China established in Tibet were powerless - Tibet was ruled by the Lamas. Tibet never accepted Chinese rulership, they never agreed to become a part of China - from a modern perspective that is all that counts.


Possession, recognition, exercise of soveringty, historical claim. Unwind that and there's nothing in international law that justifies any governent anywhere.

What you are telling us here sounds like 18th/19th century rethoric.


It proves they thought they needed an agreement, it doens't say anything about international law.

No, it doesn't and I never said it does. What I said was that you don't need an contract that incorporates Tibet into China if you're convinced that Tibet is already a part of China.


International law is not retroactive. The Vienna convention only applies to treaties between states.

Ya, since Tibet was an independant state before 1951 it applies... I'm still waiting for you to give us a source that says otherwise.


I'd suggest that your assumptions about intenational law are naive.

Yup, although I prefer to call it idealism. I'm tired of people who use cold-hearted pragmatism to justify the fact that they are quite content with the world as it is.


But, and here's the thing, international law is not about good, or nice, or justice, fair play and happy rainbows its a system of rules and customs regulating international relations.

Yes, mate... that's what we have to change. And as long as we just sit on our asses and do nothing it won't change.


What would China do? Stamp its foot, make a speach, bluster for a bit. Pretty much what it does when the ROC manages to bribe another state to recognise Taiwan. Sure China's got some weight and they're willing to use it when they think other countries are interfearing in their internal affairs but that wouldn't stop everyone from recognising Tibet if they had a resonable legal case.

And you accuse me of naivety... mate, China violates human rights on a constant basis, and the rest of the world does nothing because they don't want to piss off China. I take it the people there who are unlawfully imprisoned, executed or tortured also do not have a resonable legal case otherwise the rest of the world had already acted in their interest?


Thats a different area of international law with different standards, and I really don't feel like getting into another long debate about it but short answer; the criticism is the legal scanction avaiable under international law for the types and level of rights violations occuring in China.
No it's not... there is not one discussion about Tibet (including the 3 UN resolutions) which separates these two problems. The question of self-determination and human rights are deeply connected with eachother - that seems to be obvious.

[dteowner]

Let me get this straight. You're saying that Tibet is independent because they have a functioning government capable of entering into international treaties, but you're saying that they've been invaded and are ruled by the Chinese. Either the Tibetan government is functioning (aka no formal foreign rule) or it's not (aka does not meet requirements for statehood). I think we're all in agreement that there's no government in exile. Which way do you want it?

[Prime Junta]

The only thing you provided so far is your own opinion. I'm well aware that Michael van Walt van Praag is close to the Tibetans (which I don't think makes his statements any less credible), the "Fachdienst des Deutschen Bundestages" certainly isn't and comes to more or less the same conclusions - but of course, according to you, these experts are "flat out wrong".

Now, this is just grotesque -- nobody has contributed as much of substance on this discussion -- references to UN resolutions, references to particular cases of international law, references to international law textbooks, etc. etc. -- as V7 here.

You're repeating yourself and that forces me to repeat myself. I think I made pretty clear and also gave proof that there no such thing as a resounding silence. I think I also made clear that there are reasons why the UN has not been able to act as it should.

Do you have any idea how cheap talk is at the UN? The "resounding silence" is a lack of international recognition for a Tibetan state. That's what counts. There are lots of countries that recognize Taiwan, despite the fact that China is way touchier on that question than on Tibet.

And you accuse me of naivety... mate, China violates human rights on a constant basis, and the rest of the world does nothing because they don't want to piss off China. I take it the people there who are unlawfully imprisoned, executed or tortured also do not have a resonable legal case otherwise the rest of the world had already acted in their interest?

I accuse of you of naivety, "mate." The beginning of all wisdom is to accept the facts. That also means recognizing where the limits of your power to affect things lie. If you act as if you had the power to do something you don't, you'll quite often end up with the opposite result of what you wanted. That's what you're doing, and that is the very definition of naive.

Being a pragmatist does not mean not having a social conscience. It means recognizing what is in your power to do, and what isn't, and doing the best you can within these limits.

And yet another irony of this discussion is that you claim to be "talking about things as they are" (i.e., "occupation" and "colonization"), when, in fact, you're doing the exact opposite -- applying loaded terms to an ambiguous situation in order to further your political point.

No it's not... there is not one discussion about Tibet (including the 3 UN resolutions) which separates these two problems. The question of self-determination and human rights are deeply connected with eachother - that seems to be obvious.

Very many things "seem to be obvious" to you, it appears.

[Ionstormsucks]

Let me get this straight. You're saying that Tibet is independent because they have a functioning government capable of entering into international treaties, but you're saying that they've been invaded and are ruled by the Chinese. Either the Tibetan government is functioning (aka no formal foreign rule) or it's not (aka does not meet requirements for statehood). Which way do you want it?

What I'm saying is that Tibet has proven in the past (during its time of independance) that it is able to fulfill the four traditional requirements of statehood. No one can argue that Tibet would not be able to govern itself, because it has successfully done so in the past.
Moreover, and that's the important part, Tibet declared itself independant before it was invaded by China. According to article 3 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States the political existence of the state is independant of recognition by the other states. Again, at that point in time Tibet fulfilled all the requirements of statehood. Since the Convention on Rights and Duties of States is often considered to be one of the cornerstones of international law we must at least take into account the possibility that before 1951 Tibet's independance had a legal basis. If we also take into account that other countries did in fact treat Tibet as if it were an independant state the evidence that it was one is almost overwhelming.
The fact that China did invade Tibet in 1950 did not negate Tibet's statehood. I mean, what kind of logic would that be? You invade an independant country and suddenly it cannot be an own state anymore because the invader doesn't allow it to have an own government? That makes of course no sense.

[V7]

Well clearly we disagree on fundamental concepts of international law. Since we don't agree on the fundamentals serious discussion of the status of Tibet is not possible. We also clearly disagree on the scope, rights, duties and sanctions and applicability of IHL so I’ll set that aside as well.

One question;

If your maximal view of international law were to prevail how do you see it being enforced and, if it’s not enforced what good is it?

[Ionstormsucks]

Well clearly we disagree on fundamental concepts of international law. Since we don't agree on the fundamentals serious discussion of the status of Tibet is not possible. We also clearly disagree on the scope, rights, duties and sanctions and applicability of IHL so I’ll set that aside as well.

One question;

If your maximal view of international law were to prevail how do you see it being enforced and, if it’s not enforced what good is it?

Yes, I agree, we obviously disagree on some fundamental things. It does in fact complicate things, but nonetheless it's valuable to me, because I'm eager to hear what other people think of the situation.

Your question is hard to answer, I admit that. But keep in mind that I never insisted on a free Tibet nor that the UN has to enforce one. All I'm saying is that China has no claim to Tibet.
I'm well aware of the problems that a "free Tibet" would actually bring up... what would happen to all the Chinese that live in Tibet for example? Nonetheless I think that the UN and its members individually can do much more than they did in the past. I admit that 20 or 30 years ago that would have been difficult, because China (together with other communist states) was pretty isolated. But now China is becoming a global player. It needs the international community as much as the international community needs China (same goes for Russia btw). Its thriving economy depends as much on other countries as their economies depend on China. So I think it's time to apply more than just a bit of "gentle pressure" as PJ called it. Economic pressure is certainly one possible sanction individual states could take. But the UN has also some political power and I think it should use it. For once the UN could make unmistakablely clear that it only accepts China's sovereignty over Tibet under the premise that China does not constantly violate the 17-Point-Agreement. Of course you cannot enforce something like that on a military level that would be impossible. But political isolation (at least for a limited period) might be a possibility.

"Free Tibet" is a catch-phrase nothing more. But that's how agenda setting works - you need the attention of the media if you want to set your issue on the political agenda. If Greenpeace gives a press conference in which they state that 20% less whales should be killed no one cares. That's quite different if they enter a whaler and unfold posters saying "S