A look at the oppresion of Tibet

[Thanas]

Anything but humane

A high-ranking Communist Party official has written a book exposing the crimes of the Chinese against Tibetans. His fellow party members still don't suspect that he has defected to the opposition.

A Tibetan who once believed in the Chinese Communist Party and carved out a career within the Beijing bureaucracy has now decided to publish a damning report of China's policies in his country. To protect his anonymity, the official, who is known nationwide, met secretly with SPIEGEL at a restaurant in a Chinese provincial city. He hopes that what he has written about the oppression of his people will be published as a book in the West, thereby exerting pressure on leaders in Beijing.

Dorjee Rinchen got up very early on Oct. 23, 2012, the last day of his life. The 58-year-old turned the Buddhist prayer wheels at the Labrang Monastery, then returned to his hut, cleaned up and went back to the monastery.

Near the police station on the main street of Xiahe, a town in China's Gansu Province, the Tibetan farmer poured gasoline over his body and lit himself on fire. Images taken with mobile phones show the man, engulfed in flames, running down the street until he falls to the ground.

Police and soldiers immediately appeared on the scene, jostling with bystanders trying to take Dorjee's charred body to his house, according to Tibetan custom. The officers eventually relented.

Dorjee is one of more than 100 Tibetans who have turned to self-immolation since March 2011 in protest of Chinese rule in Tibet. Another man, who also took his life a few days later, left behind a letter that sums up the sentiments of these unfortunate people: "There is no freedom in Tibet. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not allowed to return home. The Panchen Lama is in prison."

The mood is desperate in the region known as the "Roof of the World." Never before have so many Tibetans sacrificed their lives in this manner to draw the world's attention to their fate. But not everyone believes this is the right approach. A few hundred kilometers from the Labrang Monastery, a high-ranking Communist Party official is shaking his head in disapproval. The self-immolations, he says, are an "overreaction, an excessively radical act. Buddhism forbids suicide."

And yet he can understand the motives, he says. Conditions are dramatic in his native Tibet. "The economic situation, the standard of living, culture and education have greatly improved in Tibet, he says. But the government exacts too high a price from Tibetans in return for this development, he adds, noting that Beijing is trying to discipline them with violence. "There is substantial surveillance and limited freedom."

The man is a senior official in the Communist Party. He is well known, not only in Tibet but also throughout China, and no one suspects him of being a member of the opposition. He is one of the privileged, someone who long believed in the promised goal of a socialist China, one in which not only the Han Chinese, but also Tibetans and all other ethnic groups would lead a better life.

But now he intends to make a stand. "I am a Tibetan, and I work in the government. I have the authority to describe what is really going on," he says.

'Far Worse Than the West Suspects'

He has served the Chinese government since youth. Like many Tibetans, he had who come to terms with the fact that Beijing has ruled their country since the Chinese army invaded in 1950. These individuals include party officials, police officers, propagandists, journalists and engineers, all of whom behave like people who want to live in peace under foreign rule. They assimilate, parrot the party slogans and enjoy their growing affluence, though they often feel miserable in the end.

This helps to explain why this contemporary witness sat down and penned an account of the more recent history of Tibet, as seen through his eyes. He focuses on what the propagandists and chroniclers working for the system suppress or sugarcoat, writing: "Everything was and still is far worse than people in the West suspect."

He is determined to remain anonymous for as long as possible. "I don't want to mention my name, I don't want you to mention my profession, and you can only describe the place where I live in general terms," he says.

He aims to have the book published abroad, which is his only option, of course. If it emerged that he, a respected official, were in fact a Tibetan dissident who compares the "fate of the Tibetans" with that of the Jews under the Nazis, his comfortable existence would quickly come to an end. He could face a prison term and possibly even the death penalty.

The book is written in Mandarin, the language of the rulers in Beijing. The author wants as many people as possible to understand his people, who, as he says, have been "plunged into pools of blood and purgatorial fire" in exchange for a foreign utopia.

Ironically, some Tibetans were initially pleased to see the Chinese invade Tibet, because the new masters brought the promise of modernity and prosperity. They believed that the Communists, led by Mao Zedong, would help them liberate themselves from a brutal dictatorship of monks. The Tibetan people lived a harsh life under the thumb of monasteries and the aristocracy, who oppressed their subjects, treated them like serfs and whipped them into submission.

But the mood changed when the Chinese government, under Mao, did not keep its promise to allow the Tibetans to maintain their traditions and religion. The collectivization of agriculture proved to be especially devastating. Tibetan nomads were forced to settle in so-called people's communes, destroying their traditional way of life. By the 1950s, there was growing unrest.

Atrocities and Brutal Policies

In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966 to 1976), the Red Guards, including many Tibetans, attacked their supposedly "revisionist" and "imperialist" countrymen. Thousands of monks were beaten to death or put in camps, and ancient relics were destroyed. The Red Guards used their artillery to flatten hundreds of monasteries.

The Communist Party officials wanted to destroy the culture of their subjects. Tibetan women, for example, were made to wear the kinds of trousers worn by Han Chinese women, and helpers cut off their braids. Clan elders and abbots were sent to reeducation camps, where they were forced to study Mao's directives every day.

The Chinese military brutally crushed any rebellions. When monks killed a corporal in the People's Liberation Army in 1956, a Chinese cavalry regiment exacted its revenge in the town of Qiuji Nawa in Gansu Province with an attack on about "200 innocent women and children. They surrounded a tent, threw hand grenades inside and then fired at it."

The author quotes a former soldier who witnessed a similar massacre: "Some women were stabbed in the vagina with swords and their chests were split open. Some two- and three-year-old children were grabbed and thrown into the Yellow River."

In the early 1980s, the Communist Party had to admit that it had "seriously harmed the interests of the people" with its brutal policy. By then, Tibet had become a permanently restive region. As the Communist Party official writes, Beijing's claim that "millions of Tibetan farmers" had become "masters of their own house under the party's leadership" proved to be nothing but propaganda.

In his opinion, there are many reasons for the unrest and the rage of Tibetans. One is that the long-cherished hope that the Dalai Lama could one day return home from India, where the Tibetan government in exile has its headquarters, is beginning to fade. Beijing condemns him as a "traitor" and refuses to even consider talks.

It was an affront to Beijing when, in 1987, the Dalai Lama spoke to members of the United States Congress in Washington, where he presented his Five Point Peace Plan. He demanded, among other things, that Beijing put an end to the immigration of Han Chinese to Tibet and its use of the Tibetan Plateau as a nuclear waste dump. According to the Communist Party official, after the visit "a new spirit of opposition began to grow among young intellectuals and a few officials, as well as laborers, farmers and shepherds."

Then, in 1988, the Chinese made another mistake. At the end of the annual Great Prayer Festival, senior officials had gathered on a roof terrace of the Jokhang Temple in the Tibetan capital Lhasa to watch the grand procession. As it happened, they were standing directly above a room that the monks considered sacred. It was where the Dalai Lama had always slept during the festival.

Soon the group was pelted with stones. Soldiers beat their way through the crowd, and a few party officials, including the deputy party chief for Tibet, had to be lowered from a window on ropes.

Monks and nuns repeatedly took to the streets in the ensuing weeks, until Beijing finally cracked down. The central government removed senior Tibetan Communist Party officials and replaced them with Han Chinese, including Hu Jintao, who would later become General Secretary of the Communist Party and president of China. A year later, Hu ordered soldiers to open fire on protesters. According to the author, the incident resulted in the deaths of 138 people and 3,870 arrests, while many others were abducted.

The author quotes many eyewitnesses, one of whom reported: "They screened the entire urban population of Lhasa and arrested those they didn't like. First there were beatings, and then those who had been arrested were thrown into police cells."

But the cells were apparently so full that some of the detainees suffocated. "When someone died," said the witness, "it didn't mean anything more to them (the Chinese) than as if they had stepped on the grass while walking and killed an ant."

Part of the Tibetans' dissatisfaction stemmed from the fact that Chinese immigrants from other parts of the People's Republic were cultivating more and more land. In the author's opinion, this causes serious environmental damage, because the gradual disappearance of grasslands leads to desertification. "The Tibetans have less and less space in which to live, and the environment is getting colder and more severe," he says.

A conspicuous example of China's reckless environmental policy is Qinghai Lake, the official adds. Because too much pasture was cultivated and an extensive irrigation system was built, , only eight of the 108 rivers that once emptied into the lake still exist today, he says.

Tension on the Streets

Things were quiet for a few years after the unrest, which lasted until 1989. Communist Party leader Hu later attempted to placate the Tibetans with billions of dollars in investments. The mineral resources that had been discovered in the region, as well as its strategic importance as a buffer zone between China and its economically powerful rival India, were extremely important to Beijing.

But the tension is palpable in the streets of Lhasa today, partly because of the presence of Chinese security forces, who act like occupiers. "The way the members of the Armed Police behave is anything but humane. They kill people as cold-bloodedly as poisonous snakes. They indiscriminately beat local residents, loot their property and kill them if they defend themselves," the Communist Party insider writes in his manuscript.

In March 2008, as Beijing was preparing for the Summer Olympics, Lhasa's residents revolted once again. But this time schoolchildren, students and office workers joined the protesting monks, as did Tibetans from other regions. The police and military arrested about 6,000 people.

The authorities now see only one way to pacify the Tibetans: more investment, together with even harsher repressive measures. During the so-called patriotic education campaign, which takes place in all monasteries, the monks are required to distance themselves from the Dalai Lama. Many were temporarily or permanently banned from monasteries, and some lamas were imprisoned or sent to reeducation camps. Alleged supporters of people who committed suicide by self-immolation were sent to prison, including six people tied to Dorjee Rinchen, the farmer from Xiahe.

Beijing's rulers do not permit a public debate over their Tibet strategy. Very few Chinese dare to even raise the issue, and then only in Hong Kong or through foreign media organizations. Author Wang Lixiong, married to Tibetan lyricist Tsering Woeser, is one of the brave few. He believes that nothing will change as long as hostility toward the Dalai Lama translates into the livelihoods of tens of thousands of officials within the party's propaganda machine.

The Tibetan book author puts it this way: "We all have a knot in our heart." The authorities, he says, "view the monks as outsiders. They are not allowed to express their opinions, and they are certainly not permitted to participate in political decisions."

Is there a solution to Tibet's plight? The author remains faithful to his upbringing in saying that it would be wrong to permit the return of a theocratic government, a Tibet in which the abbots are in charge and "politics and religion are one" -- the kind of system many monks would prefer.

And the alternative? "We have to practice democracy," he says. "Not necessarily a Western-style democracy, but a unique, Tibetan form. Otherwise we will remain at an impasse."

Interesting read. All too often one only hears about how the Chinese liberated Tibet from the oppressive monks, but you don't hear much about the way the Chinese behaved here.

[Broomstick]

My impression is that the Chinese are doing several ill-advised things:

1) Attempting to impose agriculture on a region ill-suited towards it. There is a reason nomadism has so long been a feature of the Roof of the World. It's also one of the very few places where polyandry has arisen, and polyandry always seems linked to harsh and marginal environments. You can't practice modern agriculture (meaning 19th Century or later, not just 21st) in most of Tibet, you'll destroy the environment if you do so. Subsistence agriculture is possible and has long been practiced, but there is no way to make the region any sort of net exporter of agricultural products, and likely the population has already passed the point where the region can be independently self-sustaining in food. (One feature of polyandry is that it limits population growth. The old practice of siphoning off substantial numbers of people into monasteries also tended to control population. Tibet can't sustain high population densities until you funnel in a lot of resources from outside and historically there's never been an incentive to do that.)

2) Attempting to swamp the native Tibetans with Han (and other) immigrants. The Chinese maintain that Tibetans are no different than Han, that they are not a distinct ethnic group. In fact, Tibetans are different than any other group on the planet, with physiological adaptions to living at high altitude no one else shares. Tibetans certainly can die at high altitude (and do, every year, during the annual Mount Everest Climber Deathfest) but supposedly none has ever died of either HACE and they have much greater resistance to HAPE than anyone else. How they adjust and react to reduced oxygen is demonstrably different than others. Tibetan women are able to carry pregnancies to full term at higher altitudes than anyone else. There are villages in Tibet where pregnant Han women are routinely relocated to lower altitudes to sustain their pregnancies but Tibetan women do not need to do this. Ethnic Tibetan women in Tibet are more likely to carry to full term, and have heavier babies for any point in their pregnancies than women of low-land ancestry.

Aside from the physiological issues, the Chinese view Tibet as a pressure relief valve of sorts for overpopulation, not unlike how Europe exported younger sons and surplus people to other continents a few centuries ago. If enough Han immigrate to Tibet then Tibetans will become a minority in their own land, not unlike the fate of many other native peoples during European colonization. This can not help but degrade Tibetan culture and language unless positive efforts are made to protect it - something the Chinese do not seem to want to do.

3) Repressive tactics are, of course, objectionable to the west. They work in one sense, but long-term it breeds resentment and violence. I suppose, in one sense, the Tibetans' current fate is better than outright genocide such as practiced by the Nazis, but that doesn't make it good. The strategy seems to be to slaughter the uppity Tibetans and leave only the compliant ones, that will over the generations be assimilated into the culture of the invaders.

I do question the tone of the article that implies that the choice is between the Chinese or the Dalai Lama. The Tibetan government in exile is also full of corruption and problems, it's not some paragon of virtue. I don't see a return to what is essentially divine kingship is going to be any better now than it was in the past. Historically, it's always kind of sucked to be a peasant serf in Tibet, and being a low-level monk was no picnic either. The Chinese won a lot of hearts and minds with rather simple things like any medical care whatsoever and small improvements in living standards, but they didn't do it with a mind to actually help the Tibetans but rather to keep them pacified while they moved in and took over. Now the Tibetans are waking up to being outsiders in their own land and of course they're upset about it. The Chinese are acting all surprised that the "tame" Tibetans are getting restless from time to time, maybe they don't understand it, especially if they really don't see them as a separate group of people.

[Ralin]

Interesting read. All too often one only hears about how the Chinese liberated Tibet from the oppressive monks, but you don't hear much about the way the Chinese behaved here.

Don't you? Honest question here. Most of what I hear is apologia, but I was under the impression that most people not into some form of Chinese studies hear nothing but pro-Free Tibet, pro-Dalai Lama stuff whenever they actually think about the subject.

[Mr Bean]

Interesting read. All too often one only hears about how the Chinese liberated Tibet from the oppressive monks, but you don't hear much about the way the Chinese behaved here.

Don't you? Honest question here. Most of what I hear is apologia, but I was under the impression that most people not into some form of Chinese studies hear nothing but pro-Free Tibet, pro-Dalai Lama stuff whenever they actually think about the subject.

European VS American differences, all you hear in America is Free Tibet, any other competing story has been scrubbed from the media here or is at a vast 50 pro-Tibet to 1 pro china story.

[Ralin]

European VS American differences, all you hear in America is Free Tibet, any other competing story has been scrubbed from the media here or is at a vast 50 pro-Tibet to 1 pro china story.

Yeah, it's just that this is something where I know I'm pretty out of touch with mainstream opinions. Though I had heard that the Dalai Lama has started to attract Chinese student protesters when he's in the US.

[mr friendly guy]

You know the Cultural revolution sucked, was bad, and Mao's accomplices otherwise known as the gang of four got their deserts when Deng Xiaopeng came to power. The madness wasn't just confined to Tibet though, it occurred in most all of China, whereas Tibet managed to escape the worse of it because of its remoteness. Since then the PRC has made efforts to restore cultural buildings, which we see in tourist spots. But I think this quote is a bit telling.

"The economic situation, the standard of living, culture and education have greatly improved in Tibet,"

1. If you are going to complain about environmental degradation in Qinghai lake, at least have the decency to point out that its kind of in Qinghai not in Tibet (yes I know lots of Tibetans live outside of the TAR). People might accept that if a country decides to ruin its own environment, its their problem, but its unacceptable to do so to another "country". I mean if if this article pointed out China has ruined the environment in Tibet and pointed an example to pollution in Beijing, I think people might scratch their heads.

2. China got pissed when the Dalai Lama proposed his Five Point Peace plan.

Well ok, since we are all in favour of truth telling, lets try an analogy. If a Serb Nationalist gave a speech saying that for the Serbs in Kosovo to survive as a people Albanians must be ethnically cleansed returned to Albania, I wonder how many people would cheer.

Lets have a look at his Five point peace plan (taken from his own website of course)

Anyone can read it to see if I am taking him out of context, but I will post the relevant details I want to draw attention to.

The massive transfer of Chinese civilians into Tibet in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a distinct people. In the eastern parts of our country, the Chinese now greatly outnumber Tibetans. In the Amdo province, for example, where I was born, there are, according to the Chinese statistics, 2.5 million Chinese and only 750,000 Tibetans. Even in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region (i.e., central and western Tibet), Chinese government sources now confirm that Chinese outnumber Tibetans.

For now we will ignore the part that even in the latest census, the Chinese government sources he relies on lists Tibetans as greater than 90% of the population (fun fact, some of this perception of Han swamping Tibet is most likely due to different urbanisation rates, so Han look like they are numerous in urban areas, but in rural its mainly Tibetan).

The point I want to draw attention to, is that when he refers to Tibet, he isn't referring to the same thing when China says Tibet. What China calls Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) his Holiness refers to central and western Tibet. Amdo falls mainly into Qinghai province (which by the way the Tibetans didn't administer even in the Qing dynasty, and haven't controlled it since the mid 18th century). He does claim other areas as part of "Greater Tibet" but that's less important for now. Lets get to the good bit.

For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China. Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past

So he wants to force all Chinese out of "Greater Tibet" which he at least admits will require to deport at least 2.5 million of them out of Qinghai (this was in the 1980s). No one sees a problem with this? I guess its only bad when people we don't like propose to do it.

Yes the Chinese got angry with the DL's speech. I am sure they get angry with a lot of things. But in this case I would think they had a good reason and anyone who doesn't see problem with the double standard is smoking crack.

3.

Then, in 1988, the Chinese made another mistake. At the end of the annual Great Prayer Festival, senior officials had gathered on a roof terrace of the Jokhang Temple in the Tibetan capital Lhasa to watch the grand procession. As it happened, they were standing directly above a room that the monks considered sacred. It was where the Dalai Lama had always slept during the festival.

Soon the group was pelted with stones. Soldiers beat their way through the crowd, and a few party officials, including the deputy party chief for Tibet, had to be lowered from a window on ropes.

Just want to make sure if a say Danish artist drew the Mohammed which Muslims consider sacrilege its not ok to pelt them with stones, because harming someone for offending your irrational believe is bad, not just when Muslims do it.* And after all this and more (according to the article) the Chinese acted weeks later by replacing the person in charge with someone else and didn't overreact until one year later.

* that's not to say we shouldn't stir people up just to get a rise out of them, but it seems in the Chinese case it was an honest mistake.

4.

In his opinion, there are many reasons for the unrest and the rage of Tibetans. One is that the long-cherished hope that the Dalai Lama could one day return home from India, where the Tibetan government in exile has its headquarters, is beginning to fade. Beijing condemns him as a "traitor" and refuses to even consider talks.

Well he did buddy up with the CCP and was even a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress so I can see why he might be considered a traitor. Its not like he opposed them from the outset.

BTW - by totally ignoring the fact the TGIE refused talks in 1991 (linky from a pro Tibetan site BTW) it deliberately gives the impression the PRC alone is being obstinant. I have heard it speculated that after the events in Tiananmen he guessed wrongly which way the wind was blowing, and thought the Beijing government would fall and didn't negotiate because he felt he held the stronger hand.

Of course Beijing can never take him seriously as long as he considers parts of Gansu, Sichuan and Qinghai part of Greater Tibet. Oh and when his plan involves massive ethnic cleansing, er I mean deportation. I am sure the free western media would eventually catch onto that factoid.

In short its bad for China to engage in propaganda, but ok for its critics to do the same? At least I freely admit when China fucks up, (and that includes the massacres if true) what's the Spiegel's excuse?

Now to other people.

2) Attempting to swamp the native Tibetans with Han (and other) immigrants. The Chinese maintain that Tibetans are no different than Han, that they are not a distinct ethnic group. In fact, Tibetans are different than any other group on the planet, with physiological adaptions to living at high altitude no one else shares. Tibetans certainly can die at high altitude (and do, every year, during the annual Mount Everest Climber Deathfest) but supposedly none has ever died of either HACE and they have much greater resistance to HAPE than anyone else. How they adjust and react to reduced oxygen is demonstrably different than others. Tibetan women are able to carry pregnancies to full term at higher altitudes than anyone else. There are villages in Tibet where pregnant Han women are routinely relocated to lower altitudes to sustain their pregnancies but Tibetan women do not need to do this. Ethnic Tibetan women in Tibet are more likely to carry to full term, and have heavier babies for any point in their pregnancies than women of low-land ancestry.

Where do you get this claim about Chinese seeing Tibetans as not a distinct ethnic group? The PRC recognises 56 ethnic groups in its population and that includes Tibetans. Even the previously Republic of China recognised Tibetans as an ethnic group (albeit they only recognised five instead of 56 but still).

Not that you need to go into genetic differences (as opposed to simply cultural identity) to distinguish ethnic groups, since genetic differences are not even good to qualify "races" which is a more wider and nebulous concept and like ethnic group is a social construct.

Aside from the physiological issues, the Chinese view Tibet as a pressure relief valve of sorts for overpopulation, not unlike how Europe exported younger sons and surplus people to other continents a few centuries ago. If enough Han immigrate to Tibet then Tibetans will become a minority in their own land, not unlike the fate of many other native peoples during European colonization. This can not help but degrade Tibetan culture and language unless positive efforts are made to protect it - something the Chinese do not seem to want to do.

In This book the authors were not allowed to visit the TAR, but they visited a secluded Tibetan areas in Qinghai (chapter 9) with no minders. They are quite critical of the PRC government but they did note that in this area Tibetan was the lingua fraca even among non Tibetan ethnic minorities. Supposedly they have bilingual schools but the implementation is most probably haphazard, but given the experience of the authors (the Tibetans didn't speak Mandarin, so they used an interpreter) it seems unlikely the language is dying out just yet.

Moreover China does promote Tibetan culture overseas like this event. I am not saying this effort to protect Tibetan culture will necessarily succeed just like a minority culture can become assimilated greatly with a majority culture, but to say China isn't interested might have been true in the Cultural revolution, but certainly isn't true at the present.

European VS American differences, all you hear in America is Free Tibet, any other competing story has been scrubbed from the media here or is at a vast 50 pro-Tibet to 1 pro china story.

That's the same here. Although I am a bit dubious about Europe showing more pro China stories than pro Free Tibet ones, especially seeing BBC's hit pieces over the years. Maybe Germany is different from Britain.

[Thanas]

You know the Cultural revolution sucked, was bad, and Mao's accomplices otherwise known as the gang of four got their deserts when Deng Xiaopeng came to power.

...who also oversaw much of the campaign against Tibet. It is not like China miracoulisly reformed under Deng nor did he do anything to give back their freedom to people the PRC conquered.

The madness wasn't just confined to Tibet though, it occurred in most all of China, whereas Tibet managed to escape the worse of it because of its remoteness. Since then the PRC has made efforts to restore cultural buildings, which we see in tourist spots. But I think this quote is a bit telling.

Restoration events (which are done by amateurs in some cases and involve the painting over of old murals by garish new things instead of proper restauration which causes money) do not in any weigh or form outweigh the repression against monks which is still ongoing.

So he wants to force all Chinese out of "Greater Tibet" which he at least admits will require to deport at least 2.5 million of them out of Qinghai (this was in the 1980s). No one sees a problem with this? I guess its only bad when people we don't like propose to do it.

I don't see a problem with deporting them out of central Tibet. It is not like the people who were settled there by the brutal communist dictatorship moved there.

As for the rest, it is his job to start with a maximum position in negotiations. It is not like China is not doing the same thing when it tries to negotiate with others.

Just want to make sure if a say Danish artist drew the Mohammed which Muslims consider sacrilege its not ok to pelt them with stones, because harming someone for offending your irrational believe is bad, not just when Muslims do it.* And after all this and more (according to the article) the Chinese acted weeks later by replacing the person in charge with someone else and didn't overreact until one year later.

* that's not to say we shouldn't stir people up just to get a rise out of them, but it seems in the Chinese case it was an honest mistake.

After you blasted their monasteries with artillery only a few decades ago people should not be blamed for not giving them the benefit of the doubt, especially not in an ongoing occupation.

Of course Beijing can never take him seriously as long as he considers parts of Gansu, Sichuan and Qinghai part of Greater Tibet. Oh and when his plan involves massive ethnic cleansing, er I mean deportation. I am sure the free western media would eventually catch onto that factoid.

Sure they would if there was any danger of this being implemented.

But last I checked the Dalai Lama is actually promoting a middle ground, a sort of high level autonomy for Tibet. Which of course the Chinese still refuse.

Without seeking independence for Tibet, the Central Tibetan Administration strives for the creation of a political entity comprising the three traditional provinces of Tibet; Such an entity should enjoy a status of genuine national regional autonomy; This autonomy should be governed by the popularly-elected legislature and executive through a democratic process and should have an independent judicial system; As soon as the above status is agreed upon by the Chinese government, Tibet would not seek separation from, and remain within, the People's Republic of China; Until the time Tibet is transformed into a zone of peace and non-violence, the Chinese government can keep a limited number of armed forces in Tibet for its protection; The Central Government of the People's Republic of China has the responsibility for the political aspects of Tibet’s international relations and defense, whereas the Tibetan people should manage all other affairs pertaining to Tibet, such as religion and culture, education, economy, health, ecological and environmental protection; The Chinese government should stop its policy of human rights violations in Tibet and the transfer of Chinese population into Tibetan areas; To resolve the issue of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai Lama shall take the main responsibility of sincerely pursuing negotiations and reconciliation with the Chinese government.

How dastardly a plan.

[Broomstick]

Now to other people.

2) Attempting to swamp the native Tibetans with Han (and other) immigrants. The Chinese maintain that Tibetans are no different than Han, that they are not a distinct ethnic group. In fact, Tibetans are different than any other group on the planet, with physiological adaptions to living at high altitude no one else shares. Tibetans certainly can die at high altitude (and do, every year, during the annual Mount Everest Climber Deathfest) but supposedly none has ever died of either HACE and they have much greater resistance to HAPE than anyone else. How they adjust and react to reduced oxygen is demonstrably different than others. Tibetan women are able to carry pregnancies to full term at higher altitudes than anyone else. There are villages in Tibet where pregnant Han women are routinely relocated to lower altitudes to sustain their pregnancies but Tibetan women do not need to do this. Ethnic Tibetan women in Tibet are more likely to carry to full term, and have heavier babies for any point in their pregnancies than women of low-land ancestry.

Where do you get this claim about Chinese seeing Tibetans as not a distinct ethnic group?

In the past I have heard this as a justification for the Chinese taking over Tibet, and also as to why it shouldn't matter if Han settle in Tibet.

Not that you need to go into genetic differences (as opposed to simply cultural identity) to distinguish ethnic groups, since genetic differences are not even good to qualify "races" which is a more wider and nebulous concept and like ethnic group is a social construct.

In the case of the Tibetans there really are genuine physical differences between them and other people, all of them have to do with adapting to high altitude, and those differences are presumably genetic. They are a group for which there is an actual biological basis for distinguishing them from other people. This is not based on appearance or skin color but differences in how they react to low-oxygen environments. While there are no doubt some rare individuals in other human groups that posses similar traits (some of the non-Tibetans that have managed to climb Everest without supplemental oxygen, as an example) they are very much the exception. Tibetans are the only group where the vast majority of people show these traits.

I know it's trendy to say race doesn't exist but there are instances where we can make biological distinctions between groups.

Aside from the physiological issues, the Chinese view Tibet as a pressure relief valve of sorts for overpopulation, not unlike how Europe exported younger sons and surplus people to other continents a few centuries ago. If enough Han immigrate to Tibet then Tibetans will become a minority in their own land, not unlike the fate of many other native peoples during European colonization. This can not help but degrade Tibetan culture and language unless positive efforts are made to protect it - something the Chinese do not seem to want to do.

In This book the authors were not allowed to visit the TAR, but they visited a secluded Tibetan areas in Qinghai (chapter 9) with no minders. They are quite critical of the PRC government but they did note that in this area Tibetan was the lingua fraca even among non Tibetan ethnic minorities. Supposedly they have bilingual schools but the implementation is most probably haphazard, but given the experience of the authors (the Tibetans didn't speak Mandarin, so they used an interpreter) it seems unlikely the language is dying out just yet.

Not yet - but you have to look at trends. If education is truly offered in a bilingual environment that could help to preserve the language.

When it comes to preserving culture, however, we need to remember that people and their cultures aren't museum pieces. I have concerns that if the Dalai Lama was restored there would be attempts to purge all outside influences in an effort to seek a "pure" Tibetan culture. A return to feudal theocracy with most of the population serfs or slaves would not be an improvement in my mind even if such a thing would be a true example of Tibetan culture. I don't think modern influences, regardless of origin, are bad. I would like to see the genuine improvements made in Tibet to be maintained, regardless of who brought them there.

Maybe Germany is different from Britain.

I expect that Germany is difference from Britain, the question here is if they're different enough. If the Germans have a more balanced reporting, or at least a different bias that what the Chinese and the West have, that would be of interest.

[mr friendly guy]

In the past I have heard this as a justification for the Chinese taking over Tibet, and also as to why it shouldn't matter if Han settle in Tibet.

I must admit I haven't heard of this. The Chinese justification AFAIK was that the PRC is the successor state of the ROC which in turn is the successor state of the Qing. Which included Qinghai, parts of Sichuan and Gansu, and the TAR. Of course during the fall of the Qing, various parts of the country had de facto independence while the Guomindang tried to assert control against the warlords, the CCP and then had to fight the Japanese. The fighting of course lasted for years. They exerted control weakly in Xinjiang (interrupted by Soviet military interference) and parts of China which weren't Japanese occupied, but couldn't do so in the TAR. So it was the last part of the old Qing dynasty to be incorporated into the successor state, by which time the Guomindang had lost to the CCP.

In the case of the Tibetans there really are genuine physical differences between them and other people, all of them have to do with adapting to high altitude, and those differences are presumably genetic. They are a group for which there is an actual biological basis for distinguishing them from other people. This is not based on appearance or skin color but differences in how they react to low-oxygen environments. While there are no doubt some rare individuals in other human groups that posses similar traits (some of the non-Tibetans that have managed to climb Everest without supplemental oxygen, as an example) they are very much the exception. Tibetans are the only group where the vast majority of people show these traits.

I know it's trendy to say race doesn't exist but there are instances where we can make biological distinctions between groups.

I am not saying groups have different phenotypes, but ethnic group and race is mainly decided as a social construct, ie culture. The differing culture of Tibetans itself and self identification should be in and of itself be sufficient to consider them a separate ethnic group.

Not yet - but you have to look at trends. If education is truly offered in a bilingual environment that could help to preserve the language.

When it comes to preserving culture, however, we need to remember that people and their cultures aren't museum pieces. I have concerns that if the Dalai Lama was restored there would be attempts to purge all outside influences in an effort to seek a "pure" Tibetan culture. A return to feudal theocracy with most of the population serfs or slaves would not be an improvement in my mind even if such a thing would be a true example of Tibetan culture. I don't think modern influences, regardless of origin, are bad. I would like to see the genuine improvements made in Tibet to be maintained, regardless of who brought them there.

Language appears to be preserved for now. Nomadic lifestyle is very difficult to preserve in the face of industrialisation and urbanisation. Its not just a Chinese phenomena. In Mongolia they are experiencing the same issue.

[mr friendly guy]

...who also oversaw much of the campaign against Tibet. It is not like China miracoulisly reformed under Deng nor did he do anything to give back their freedom to people the PRC conquered.

Sure reform takes time. But if you are going to go down that route about freedom, I am willing to bet most people consider being poor in the PRC more free than being a serf.

Restoration events (which are done by amateurs in some cases and involve the painting over of old murals by garish new things instead of proper restauration which causes money) do not in any weigh or form outweigh the repression against monks which is still ongoing.

I was using this a counterweight to the destruction of Tibetan culture argument. Certainly that shit went on in the Culture revolution, but its harder to claim now.

I don't see a problem with deporting them out of central Tibet. It is not like the people who were settled there by the brutal communist dictatorship moved there.

Er well, um no. The government actually entices them with things like higher pay for government jobs eg teachers. Some migrated in the 1990s from neighbouring Sichuan because in that time the economic prospects weren't as good and they did better in business in Tibet. Remember, freedom of movement is so great when the EU does it, but god damn it, its bad when the PRC does it.

BTW - Han Chinese make up apparently 6% of the approx 3 million population in the TAR, er I mean Central Tibet so that's around 180,000 to deport. Though I am curious what will you do with the other ethnic minorities particularly the Islamic Hui who do seem to cop it from Tibetans when the Chinese authorities aren't around (and if you want I will provide links although its not exactly rare even to see it in Western media).

As for the rest, it is his job to start with a maximum position in negotiations. It is not like China is not doing the same thing when it tries to negotiate with others.

Are you really really sure you want to go down this route? Seriously? Your starting point for negotiations is to want to ethnically cleansed the other group you don't like? I don't recall China ever suggesting to the DL they will ethnically cleansed the Tibetans if his Holiness didn't acquiesce to their position.

After you blasted their monasteries with artillery only a few decades ago people should not be blamed for not giving them the benefit of the doubt, especially not in an ongoing occupation.

No country aside from say Mongolia and perhaps vaguely the British empire recognised Tibetan independence during the Chinese civil war, it only became an occupation because the CCP won that war. Moreover the PLA were fighting CIA funded foes who if the Tibetans are to be believed, at one stage were militarily strong enough to cut off routes between Xinjiang and the TAR.

Sure they would if there was any danger of this being implemented.

Ok. Iran's crazy ex leader says Israel will go the way of the USSR or will be wiped off the map depending on the translation, western media goes apeshit even though the chances of that are like... very unlikely. Dalai Lama starts off with the maximum point of negotiation saying he wants to ethnically cleansed from Sichuan, Qinghai etc at least millions of Han Chinese, but that's ok. Western Media will definitely catch onto that when it becomes likely. Then he gets a Nobel Peace Prize one year later. Nice to see the consistency in the free media buddy.

But last I checked the Dalai Lama is actually promoting a middle ground, a sort of high level autonomy for Tibet. Which of course the Chinese still refuse.

Without seeking independence for Tibet, the Central Tibetan Administration strives for the creation of a political entity comprising the three traditional provinces of Tibet; Such an entity should enjoy a status of genuine national regional autonomy; This autonomy should be governed by the popularly-elected legislature and executive through a democratic process and should have an independent judicial system; As soon as the above status is agreed upon by the Chinese government, Tibet would not seek separation from, and remain within, the People's Republic of China; Until the time Tibet is transformed into a zone of peace and non-violence, the Chinese government can keep a limited number of armed forces in Tibet for its protection; The Central Government of the People's Republic of China has the responsibility for the political aspects of Tibet’s international relations and defense, whereas the Tibetan people should manage all other affairs pertaining to Tibet, such as religion and culture, education, economy, health, ecological and environmental protection; The Chinese government should stop its policy of human rights violations in Tibet and the transfer of Chinese population into Tibetan areas; To resolve the issue of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai Lama shall take the main responsibility of sincerely pursuing negotiations and reconciliation with the Chinese government.

How dastardly a plan.

I was going to talk about how his middle ground didn't actually mention either way whether he still wanted that great plan of mass deportation. And also how its historically dubious he, er I mean the new government gets control of Qinghai, Sichuan and parts of Gansu provinces + the TAR, but then I decided I will have much more fun the following way with his middle plan. You see I realised the problem can be solved by following his proposal of "popularly elected legislature and executive through a democratic process" for an authority that governs the creation of a political entity comprising the (here is the important part) the "three traditional provinces of Tibet."

Since he thinks the TAR, Qinghai, Sichuan and parts of Gansu should become a new autonomous province democratically elected, then lets see what this hypothetical new government will do. Lets assume the TGIE has a bunch of candidates. The CCP puts forward its candidate who favours pretty much the old way. This is just a guess mind you, but I figure the 76 million plus Han Chinese in Sichuan alone (never mind the population of Qinghai, and the ethnic minorities in those former provinces) will most probably democratically not want the TGIE in control of this combined province and vote against it. In case you're wondering, the total population of Tibetans in the PRC is only 6.2 million. So I am going to say its just going to end voting for the status quo. Unless you want to ethnically cleansed the even higher numbers of Han Chinese from Sichuan of course, because <soto voice> its only bad when the Serbs do it </soto voice>.

We're in agreement. Democracy is wonderful isn't it. China should waste money conducting such an exercise just to show the hypocrisy of certain human rights groups.

[Thanas]

...who also oversaw much of the campaign against Tibet. It is not like China miracoulisly reformed under Deng nor did he do anything to give back their freedom to people the PRC conquered.

Sure reform takes time. But if you are going to go down that route about freedom, I am willing to bet most people consider being poor in the PRC more free than being a serf.

Sure, there is no question about that. But the point is the Chinese show no inclination at all to be willing to surrender their control over Tibet. I think we do both agree that China has an obligation to do so?

I was using this a counterweight to the destruction of Tibetan culture argument. Certainly that shit went on in the Culture revolution, but its harder to claim now.

Monks are still being imprisoned via showtrial. The armed police forces are still there and go largely unchecked. Nothing has changed since the worst excesses were over.

Er well, um no. The government actually entices them with things like higher pay for government jobs eg teachers. Some migrated in the 1990s from neighbouring Sichuan because in that time the economic prospects weren't as good and they did better in business in Tibet. Remember, freedom of movement is so great when the EU does it, but god damn it, its bad when the PRC does it.

Sure the Government entices them. That does not make it any less of a settlement policy in an occupied country in order to gain a foothold there. I think we both agree that these things are bad?

BTW - Han Chinese make up apparently 6% of the approx 3 million population in the TAR, er I mean Central Tibet so that's around 180,000 to deport. Though I am curious what will you do with the other ethnic minorities particularly the Islamic Hui who do seem to cop it from Tibetans when the Chinese authorities aren't around (and if you want I will provide links although its not exactly rare even to see it in Western media).

I would argue that they deserve just as much freedom. And note that the middle way actually provides a safety valve in form of Chinese troops being allowed to intervene if things go out of hand.

Are you really really sure you want to go down this route? Seriously? Your starting point for negotiations is to want to ethnically cleansed the other group you don't like? I don't recall China ever suggesting to the DL they will ethnically cleansed the Tibetans if his Holiness didn't acquiesce to their position.

No, I am saying that every nation (or group pretending to be one) tries to start out with a maximum claim when negotiating. After all, when a compromise is forced on you, you don't want to already have compromised.

No country aside from say Mongolia and perhaps vaguely the British empire recognised Tibetan independence during the Chinese civil war, it only became an occupation because the CCP won that war. Moreover the PLA were fighting CIA funded foes who if the Tibetans are to be believed, at one stage were militarily strong enough to cut off routes between Xinjiang and the TAR.

That does not make any of the occupation right.

Ok. Iran's crazy ex leader says Israel will go the way of the USSR or will be wiped off the map depending on the translation, western media goes apeshit even though the chances of that are like... very unlikely. Dalai Lama starts off with the maximum point of negotiation saying he wants to ethnically cleansed from Sichuan, Qinghai etc at least millions of Han Chinese, but that's ok. Western Media will definitely catch onto that when it becomes likely. Then he gets a Nobel Peace Prize one year later. Nice to see the consistency in the free media buddy.

The Spiegel certainly does not go apeshit. Neither do I. So I don't see your point here.

I was going to talk about how his middle ground didn't actually mention either way whether he still wanted that great plan of mass deportation. And also how its historically dubious he, er I mean the new government gets control of Qinghai, Sichuan and parts of Gansu provinces + the TAR, but then I decided I will have much more fun the following way with his middle plan. You see I realised the problem can be solved by following his proposal of "popularly elected legislature and executive through a democratic process" for an authority that governs the creation of a political entity comprising the (here is the important part) the "three traditional provinces of Tibet."

Since he thinks the TAR, Qinghai, Sichuan and parts of Gansu should become a new autonomous province democratically elected, then lets see what this hypothetical new government will do. Lets assume the TGIE has a bunch of candidates. The CCP puts forward its candidate who favours pretty much the old way. This is just a guess mind you, but I figure the 76 million plus Han Chinese in Sichuan alone (never mind the population of Qinghai, and the ethnic minorities in those former provinces) will most probably democratically not want the TGIE in control of this combined province and vote against it. In case you're wondering, the total population of Tibetans in the PRC is only 6.2 million. So I am going to say its just going to end voting for the status quo. Unless you want to ethnically cleansed the even higher numbers of Han Chinese from Sichuan of course, because <soto voice> its only bad when the Serbs do it </soto voice>.

We're in agreement. Democracy is wonderful isn't it. China should waste money conducting such an exercise just to show the hypocrisy of certain human rights groups.

The mdidle plan only happens to pertain to central Tibet. I think he has given up the idea of getting Greater Tibet back. Do you agree that the chinese refusing to even discuss such an option for Central Tibet is the act of an unjust occupier?

[stormthebeaches]

I was going to talk about how his middle ground didn't actually mention either way whether he still wanted that great plan of mass deportation. And also how its historically dubious he, er I mean the new government gets control of Qinghai, Sichuan and parts of Gansu provinces + the TAR, but then I decided I will have much more fun the following way with his middle plan. You see I realised the problem can be solved by following his proposal of "popularly elected legislature and executive through a democratic process" for an authority that governs the creation of a political entity comprising the (here is the important part) the "three traditional provinces of Tibet."

Since he thinks the TAR, Qinghai, Sichuan and parts of Gansu should become a new autonomous province democratically elected, then lets see what this hypothetical new government will do. Lets assume the TGIE has a bunch of candidates. The CCP puts forward its candidate who favours pretty much the old way. This is just a guess mind you, but I figure the 76 million plus Han Chinese in Sichuan alone (never mind the population of Qinghai, and the ethnic minorities in those former provinces) will most probably democratically not want the TGIE in control of this combined province and vote against it. In case you're wondering, the total population of Tibetans in the PRC is only 6.2 million. So I am going to say its just going to end voting for the status quo. Unless you want to ethnically cleansed the even higher numbers of Han Chinese from Sichuan of course, because <soto voice> its only bad when the Serbs do it </soto voice>.

You seem concerned that the wishes of the Han Chinese won't be respected if greater autonomy for Tibet is allowed. I could respect this position, if it weren't for the fact that you were arguing that Gibraltar should be returned to Spain despite the fact that the majority of the population wants to remain British in this thread.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5&start=25

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

[montypython]

In the past I have heard this as a justification for the Chinese taking over Tibet, and also as to why it shouldn't matter if Han settle in Tibet.

I must admit I haven't heard of this. The Chinese justification AFAIK was that the PRC is the successor state of the ROC which in turn is the successor state of the Qing. Which included Qinghai, parts of Sichuan and Gansu, and the TAR. Of course during the fall of the Qing, various parts of the country had de facto independence while the Guomindang tried to assert control against the warlords, the CCP and then had to fight the Japanese. The fighting of course lasted for years. They exerted control weakly in Xinjiang (interrupted by Soviet military interference) and parts of China which weren't Japanese occupied, but couldn't do so in the TAR. So it was the last part of the old Qing dynasty to be incorporated into the successor state, by which time the Guomindang had lost to the CCP.

This is pretty much the historical rationale I've always known about that's followed by both ROC and PRC, and given that whenever portions of China get taken or broken off (like Outer Mongolia) the strategic and political imperatives for China in retaining Tibet become paramount.

Sure, there is no question about that. But the point is the Chinese show no inclination at all to be willing to surrender their control over Tibet. I think we do both agree that China has an obligation to do so?

In that respect my view is Tibet is as inalienable part of China as South Carolina is to the US, and maintaining notions of separate cultures is antithetical to the need of a unified human culture. Too many people seem to think of cultures being kept in glass cases for their own entertainment instead of amalgamating cultures together for the common human benefit. It's that type of cultural idealist claptrap that publications like Der Spiegel exemplify that I've always been strenuously opposed to.

[Thanas]

You are an idiot if you think Tibetan culture is the same as Han culture. Different ethnic. It would be like saying Serbs and Bosniaks are the same.

Besides, here you got one minority clearly not wishing to be part of the greater good. South Carolina does not plan to secede.

[ray245]

In the past I have heard this as a justification for the Chinese taking over Tibet, and also as to why it shouldn't matter if Han settle in Tibet.

I must admit I haven't heard of this. The Chinese justification AFAIK was that the PRC is the successor state of the ROC which in turn is the successor state of the Qing. Which included Qinghai, parts of Sichuan and Gansu, and the TAR. Of course during the fall of the Qing, various parts of the country had de facto independence while the Guomindang tried to assert control against the warlords, the CCP and then had to fight the Japanese. The fighting of course lasted for years. They exerted control weakly in Xinjiang (interrupted by Soviet military interference) and parts of China which weren't Japanese occupied, but couldn't do so in the TAR. So it was the last part of the old Qing dynasty to be incorporated into the successor state, by which time the Guomindang had lost to the CCP.

This is pretty much the historical rationale I've always known about that's followed by both ROC and PRC, and given that whenever portions of China get taken or broken off (like Outer Mongolia) the strategic and political imperatives for China in retaining Tibet become paramount.

One of the reason for the separation movement was because the Tibetans view themselves as a part of the Qing Empire and not China. It doesn't help when most of the revolutionaries that overthrown the Qing dynasty wants to create a Han-centric state.

[mr friendly guy]

I was going to talk about how his middle ground didn't actually mention either way whether he still wanted that great plan of mass deportation. And also how its historically dubious he, er I mean the new government gets control of Qinghai, Sichuan and parts of Gansu provinces + the TAR, but then I decided I will have much more fun the following way with his middle plan. You see I realised the problem can be solved by following his proposal of "popularly elected legislature and executive through a democratic process" for an authority that governs the creation of a political entity comprising the (here is the important part) the "three traditional provinces of Tibet."

Since he thinks the TAR, Qinghai, Sichuan and parts of Gansu should become a new autonomous province democratically elected, then lets see what this hypothetical new government will do. Lets assume the TGIE has a bunch of candidates. The CCP puts forward its candidate who favours pretty much the old way. This is just a guess mind you, but I figure the 76 million plus Han Chinese in Sichuan alone (never mind the population of Qinghai, and the ethnic minorities in those former provinces) will most probably democratically not want the TGIE in control of this combined province and vote against it. In case you're wondering, the total population of Tibetans in the PRC is only 6.2 million. So I am going to say its just going to end voting for the status quo. Unless you want to ethnically cleansed the even higher numbers of Han Chinese from Sichuan of course, because <soto voice> its only bad when the Serbs do it </soto voice>.

You seem concerned that the wishes of the Han Chinese won't be respected if greater autonomy for Tibet is allowed. I could respect this position, if it weren't for the fact that you were arguing that Gibraltar should be returned to Spain despite the fact that the majority of the population wants to remain British in this thread.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5&start=25
Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

If you can quote me saying Gibraltar should go back to Spain, please show it. I did however tried to get a conversation on "how far back" something is stolen when it should be given back. Or where do we draw the line. Clearly I haven't decided whether the Gibraltar incident occurred "too far back" or not, but I did try to get other people's ideas on where to draw the line, especially with the examples I gave, stolen goods at least several generations were given back.

[mr friendly guy]

Sure, there is no question about that. But the point is the Chinese show no inclination at all to be willing to surrender their control over Tibet. I think we do both agree that China has an obligation to do so?

Why? By the same standards descendants of Western colonies eg Australia, NZ, USA, aren't willing to surrender their control either. They are willing to share somewhat, but certainly not surrender completely.

Sure the Government entices them. That does not make it any less of a settlement policy in an occupied country in order to gain a foothold there. I think we both agree that these things are bad?

To be blunt, the PRC's rationale is that the TAR was part of its predecessor state, so I find it hard to argue its occupying another country as opposed to preventing secession in its territory. Even China's geopolitical rivals acknowledge their sovereignty over the TAR. Even the DL wants autonomy.

I would argue that they deserve just as much freedom. And note that the middle way actually provides a safety valve in form of Chinese troops being allowed to intervene if things go out of hand.

What I meant is, will you deport the non Tibetan ethnic minorities as well from the TAR? Although you seem to imply they can stay there if they wish.

No, I am saying that every nation (or group pretending to be one) tries to start out with a maximum claim when negotiating. After all, when a compromise is forced on you, you don't want to already have compromised.

Just making sure you understand the implication of what you said. You are literally saying we shouldn't take statements of "I want to ethnically cleanse you" as a statement of his belief, because he is really really starting out from a maximum claim.

Forgive me but I think you are projecting what you think the DL should accept (control over the TAR) with what he has actually stated (control over the 3 traditional provinces of Tibet, which includes Sichuan and Qinghai).

That does not make any of the occupation right.

It does however casts doubt on whether they are occupying another country as opposed to preventing secession in their country.

The Spiegel certainly does not go apeshit. Neither do I. So I don't see your point here.

Don't be coy here. You know very well the West got outraged when Ahmadinejad made that statement. Strangely when the DL suggests something similar to a larger area and bigger population he gets a Nobel peace prize the following year. Can you not see how this is a double standard? Going on, why would anyone want to listen to such arguments when the standards are so rigged against them?

The mdidle plan only happens to pertain to central Tibet. I think he has given up the idea of getting Greater Tibet back. Do you agree that the chinese refusing to even discuss such an option for Central Tibet is the act of an unjust occupier?

Read your own quote buddy.

"Without seeking independence for Tibet, the Central Tibetan Administration strives for the creation of a political entity comprising the three traditional provinces of Tibet;<snip>

He clearly is still stating he wants the other provinces. Claims that he has given up getting Greater Tibet back while possible, is pure speculation on your part.

You are an idiot if you think Tibetan culture is the same as Han culture. Different ethnic. It would be like saying Serbs and Bosniaks are the same.

Mate, that is not what he said, and if you re read it you might be giving yourself a facepalm.

[Thanas]

Sure, there is no question about that. But the point is the Chinese show no inclination at all to be willing to surrender their control over Tibet. I think we do both agree that China has an obligation to do so?

Why? By the same standards descendants of Western colonies eg Australia, NZ, USA, aren't willing to surrender their control either. They are willing to share somewhat, but certainly not surrender completely.

The current situation is hardly the same. For one, there is not a majority of people living in New York that lived there and who want them out.

To be blunt, the PRC's rationale is that the TAR was part of its predecessor state, so I find it hard to argue its occupying another country as opposed to preventing secession in its territory. Even China's geopolitical rivals acknowledge their sovereignty over the TAR. Even the DL wants autonomy.

By that same rationale the serbs were right as well. If the people there want to be independent and gone (and given your own sources, an overwhelming majority of 90% is of the ethnic group that wants them gone) what right does any state have to hold them?

What I meant is, will you deport the non Tibetan ethnic minorities as well from the TAR? Although you seem to imply they can stay there if they wish.

They should not be deported. If they profited from the occupation they shall have to make some recompense.

Forgive me but I think you are projecting what you think the DL should accept (control over the TAR) with what he has actually stated (control over the 3 traditional provinces of Tibet, which includes Sichuan and Qinghai).

I think Tibetans should be free to rule themselves. That includes the parts of the provinces where they are ethnically dominant except for the areas in which others are in the majority (last I checked Han are mainly concentrated in the eastern urban centers). Do you agree with that?

It does however casts doubt on whether they are occupying another country as opposed to preventing secession in their country.

Since when is a state right in preventing secession when it is one ethnic group being oppressed by another?

Don't be coy here. You know very well the West got outraged when Ahmadinejad made that statement. Strangely when the DL suggests something similar to a larger area and bigger population he gets a Nobel peace prize the following year. Can you not see how this is a double standard? Going on, why would anyone want to listen to such arguments when the standards are so rigged against them?

The DL also got the Nobel prize a year after China used tanks to crush people who wanted to use democracy. Why would anyone want to listen to the statements coming from brutal occupiers and dictators who even act against their own people (and still do, cf the current situation of the poor farmers)? See, two can play that game. At the end however you have to listen to all arguments and then decide in the specific situation.

In this specific situation, do you agree that the Chinese are in the wrong oppressing an ethnic minority?

He clearly is still stating he wants the other provinces. Claims that he has given up getting Greater Tibet back while possible, is pure speculation on your part.

My apologies, I got confused what he said regarding the different provinces. (amdo Kam etc vs Qinghai once renamed etc.)

Mate, that is not what he said, and if you re read it you might be giving yourself a facepalm.

No, I read what he said, he is clearly in favor of people being forced to assimilate against their will.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

In that respect my view is Tibet is as inalienable part of China as South Carolina is to the US, and maintaining notions of separate cultures is antithetical to the need of a unified human culture. Too many people seem to think of cultures being kept in glass cases for their own entertainment instead of amalgamating cultures together for the common human benefit. It's that type of cultural idealist claptrap that publications like Der Spiegel exemplify that I've always been strenuously opposed to.

So in order to see your little globalist utopia come true, you have no problem with forced assimilation under a brutal dictatorship. The Borg are supposed to be the villains, mang.

[mr friendly guy]

The current situation is hardly the same. For one, there is not a majority of people living in New York that lived there and who want them out.

In the areas the TGIE claim, it certainly is similar to Western offshoots. I am pretty confident most of the Han and non Tibetan ethnic minorities wouldn't advocate autonomy to the extent the TGIE is asking.

Now you could say, ok lets split it via TAR + some other areas with predominant Tibetan population. The next question is, where on the map do you draw the line. That is if the area I claim doesn't agree with me, can I get then ask for a smaller area. If the people there still don't agree, can I therefore keep on subdividing until I get an area where the majority people there will agree with me?

If this is acceptable, then I am going to hazard a guess that the maps of Europe could be redrawn quite a bit.

BTW - I notice you have made numerous comments on region x doesn't want to secede from country y and at the same time mention how its bad to flood a region with your supporters to get a foothold in that region. Well in your examples South Carolina, New York I can make a case that the reason they don't want to secede happens after the region was flooded with people who would not want to do so. Are you implying if the population of the TAR was flooded with non Tibetans who wouldn't want to secede, we wouldn't even be having this conversation?

By that same rationale the serbs were right as well. If the people there want to be independent and gone (and given your own sources, an overwhelming majority of 90% is of the ethnic group that wants them gone) what right does any state have to hold them?

The same problem as above. I can just divide a territory into smaller and smaller units until the majority in that region are those who want independence. At what point do you stop dividing. Is it until you get the answer you want? The region the TGIE claim is unlikely to go along with their plans, because non Tibetans have been living in those areas for centuries and will most likely prefer the benefit of being with the PRC.

I think Tibetans should be free to rule themselves. That includes the parts of the provinces where they are ethnically dominant except for the areas in which others are in the majority (last I checked Han are mainly concentrated in the eastern urban centers). Do you agree with that?

This sounds suspiciously like irredentism in the sense that people of the same ethnicity should be united in the same geopolitical entity. You sure you want to go down that route? I don't think it worked very well for Europe. If you think this, then do you accept that every ethnic minority in a multi ethnic state, say in all European countries can demand the same high level of autonomy?

However in answer to your question (bear with me) the PRC has autonomous regions in provinces where they have high numbers of ethnic minorities, even if they long since no longer the majority. For example Guangxi has greater autonomy than other Han majority provinces because of the high number of ethnic Zhuang living there. This extra autonomy for certain provinces includes the TAR, but I have no problem with granting more autonomy to such provinces. That of course depends on how much to give.

Since when is a state right in preventing secession when it is one ethnic group being oppressed by another?

So you are saying preventing secession is only ok when its the same ethnic group, because any attempt to prevent secession will lead to a situation where the other side can claim oppression.

The DL also got the Nobel prize a year after China used tanks to crush people who wanted to use democracy. Why would anyone want to listen to the statements coming from brutal occupiers and dictators who even act against their own people (and still do, cf the current situation of the poor farmers)? See, two can play that game. At the end however you have to listen to all arguments and then decide in the specific situation.

Actually you aren't playing that game well, because you missed the point. What I am trying to say is not that necessarily the PRC or the DL is more trustworthy or we have to take what one says like gospel. I am saying that if human rights groups or the West wants to talk about human rights they have to apply the same standard consistently. Its like a referee who is consistently favouring one team on the field. Eventually the other team is going to decide to join a rival competition or form their own league.

The double standard is quite obvious. When this happens why the hell would anyone take the referee seriously? Well anyone besides the team being favoured.

Look I can see this is hard to communicate through, so I will try another example.
You disagree with the West's lack of condemnation of Saudi Arabia for their human right violations right? I have seen your comments in those threads. You also most probably detest some of the shit that goes on in Iran. What happens if only one side cough Iran cough gets condemned and the other side less so. The leaders of those countries aren't stupid. They are going to see this double standard, and they HAVE concluded that human rights outcries are just used for propaganda purposes to gain a geopolitical advantage over a rival. This is frankly how I am starting to see it as well. And the fact the DL gets a free pass when his Orwellian named peace plan involves massively ethnic cleansing, er I mean expelling people it makes it very hard to accept articles as balanced (via sins of omission rather than sins of commission).

In this specific situation, do you agree that the Chinese are in the wrong oppressing an ethnic minority?

I don't think they are wrong for holding onto their territory just like every other country. If some of their targets eg monks are not a threat then they are wrong for using such heavy handed tactics on them. Is that clear enough?

No, I read what he said, he is clearly in favor of people being forced to assimilate against their will.

That's not how I read it. But rather than guess what he said I will just wait for montypython to clarify it.

[energiewende]

Interesting read. All too often one only hears about how the Chinese liberated Tibet from the oppressive monks, but you don't hear much about the way the Chinese behaved here.

Ultimately the two stories aren't contradictory, granting that "liberated" is always read as a euphamism at this point.

PRC just wants the land and is flooding the area with immigrants to perform the same sort of 'genocide-by-dilution' that Europeans did to the Native Americans. It's illegal now, but only for newly conquered territories, so Tibet missed its chance to escape. This probably isn't a bad thing any further than it strengthens the PRC, and a negligible fraction of PRC's power is derived from Tibet. The elephant in the room is that the PRC treats all its subjects pretty badly.

This sounds suspiciously like irredentism in the sense that people of the same ethnicity should be united in the same geopolitical entity. You sure you want to go down that route? I don't think it worked very well for Europe. If you think this, then do you accept that every ethnic minority in a multi ethnic state, say in all European countries can demand the same high level of autonomy?

Apart from that being already how Europe works, in the few borderline cases it is broadly accepted that an existing government wouldn't have much legitimacy to deny independence to a region that voted for it in a referendum. What China is doing is more akin to the Russians in Chechnya, or Germany in the 1930s.

[Thanas]

Now you could say, ok lets split it via TAR + some other areas with predominant Tibetan population. The next question is, where on the map do you draw the line. That is if the area I claim doesn't agree with me, can I get then ask for a smaller area. If the people there still don't agree, can I therefore keep on subdividing until I get an area where the majority people there will agree with me?

Sure, why not, as long as the end product is a viable state and not just a tiny cluster of villages?

If this is acceptable, then I am going to hazard a guess that the maps of Europe could be redrawn quite a bit.

And this would be a bad thing? Also, it is already going on. Belgium is already split into Flanders and Walloon parts and might very well be two seperate countries in the near future given how they were unable to agree on a Government for over a year.

BTW - I notice you have made numerous comments on region x doesn't want to secede from country y and at the same time mention how its bad to flood a region with your supporters to get a foothold in that region. Well in your examples South Carolina, New York I can make a case that the reason they don't want to secede happens after the region was flooded with people who would not want to do so. Are you implying if the population of the TAR was flooded with non Tibetans who wouldn't want to secede, we wouldn't even be having this conversation?

If this happened over centuries on a natural case of immigration instead of one Government forcing the situation, then sure, we would not.

The same problem as above. I can just divide a territory into smaller and smaller units until the majority in that region are those who want independence. At what point do you stop dividing. Is it until you get the answer you want? The region the TGIE claim is unlikely to go along with their plans, because non Tibetans have been living in those areas for centuries and will most likely prefer the benefit of being with the PRC.

There is however no reason at all why it would not work for the Tibetan areas of the three provinces and of course central Tibet.

This sounds suspiciously like irredentism in the sense that people of the same ethnicity should be united in the same geopolitical entity. You sure you want to go down that route? I don't think it worked very well for Europe.

It worked very well in Europe for the Italians and Germans who managed to overthrow their feudal lords and create stable nation states. It did not work so well for nations which tried to use irredentism to further nationalistic goals in areas where they had no majority. Like all tools, it would depend on the situation. Do you agree on that?

If you think this, then do you accept that every ethnic minority in a multi ethnic state, say in all European countries can demand the same high level of autonomy?

As long as they can provide a viable state and the majority are against the current political system, then sure. See for example Kosovo, Bosnia, Slowenia, Czechia, Slowakia, Croatia etc.. Are you saying they should have all been forced to continue being one state? For what purpose? Nation states are not invaluable and immortal assets simply by existing. They are tools to serve a common purpose. Once that purpose is no longer shared, they might as well not exist.

However in answer to your question (bear with me) the PRC has autonomous regions in provinces where they have high numbers of ethnic minorities, even if they long since no longer the majority. For example Guangxi has greater autonomy than other Han majority provinces because of the high number of ethnic Zhuang living there. This extra autonomy for certain provinces includes the TAR, but I have no problem with granting more autonomy to such provinces. That of course depends on how much to give.

Then what is wrong with applying the DL plan, or what is wrong with granting Tibet independence?

Since when is a state right in preventing secession when it is one ethnic group being oppressed by another?

So you are saying preventing secession is only ok when its the same ethnic group, because any attempt to prevent secession will lead to a situation where the other side can claim oppression.

No. Sigh. Bear with me. It is not "only" ok. Mixed ethnic groups can also try and secede. It all depends on the specific situation. If one ethnic group wants to secede for the specific purpose of enslaving another ethnic group, then of course that is not ok. Or if it wants to install a fascist and wage war.

But wanting to have their own culture, to preserve their own history? What is wrong with that?

Actually you aren't playing that game well, because you missed the point. What I am trying to say is not that necessarily the PRC or the DL is more trustworthy or we have to take what one says like gospel. I am saying that if human rights groups or the West wants to talk about human rights they have to apply the same standard consistently. Its like a referee who is consistently favouring one team on the field. Eventually the other team is going to decide to join a rival competition or form their own league.

The double standard is quite obvious. When this happens why the hell would anyone take the referee seriously? Well anyone besides the team being favoured.

Look I can see this is hard to communicate through, so I will try another example.
You disagree with the West's lack of condemnation of Saudi Arabia for their human right violations right? I have seen your comments in those threads. You also most probably detest some of the shit that goes on in Iran. What happens if only one side cough Iran cough gets condemned and the other side less so. The leaders of those countries aren't stupid. They are going to see this double standard, and they HAVE concluded that human rights outcries are just used for propaganda purposes to gain a geopolitical advantage over a rival. This is frankly how I am starting to see it as well. And the fact the DL gets a free pass when his Orwellian named peace plan involves massively ethnic cleansing, er I mean expelling people it makes it very hard to accept articles as balanced (via sins of omission rather than sins of commission).

If this was Merkel speaking you would have a point. If it is Der Spiegel, which has condemned Bahrain, Kuwait, German arms deals with these and Saudi-Arabia (much more harshly than their recent article of Journalist oppression in China for example) I don't see where you are coming from. Can you accept that news agencies might not be biased towards one side or the other, but biased in favor of Human rights in General?

As an aside, this is also why I think organizations like AI are necessary. They go after everybody (even the Chinese) when nobody else (*cough* German Government *cough*) dares to question the great eastern factory.

In this specific situation, do you agree that the Chinese are in the wrong oppressing an ethnic minority?

I don't think they are wrong for holding onto their territory just like every other country. If some of their targets eg monks are not a threat then they are wrong for using such heavy handed tactics on them. Is that clear enough?

First, do you think the monks are a threat? I think given how disorganized and non-violent they are, they are far from being dangerous terrorists.

Second, I think justifying it with "their" territory is a rather flimsy excuse usually made by conquerors. Kosovo was Serbian territory as well as Bosnia by that standard. My rule is simple - if people don't want to be part of a state and can survive on their own then why not let them, especially if they pause no threat to China? I think China should hold a referendum amongs the Tibetans (if only just Central Tibet to avoid ethnic clashes) and let the people there decide what they want to do. After all, should the wishes of the people who are actually affected by the policies be the ones who get the final say?

[ray245]

My rule is simple - if people don't want to be part of a state and can survive on their own then why not let them, especially if they pause no threat to China? I think China should hold a referendum amongs the Tibetans (if only just Central Tibet to avoid ethnic clashes) and let the people there decide what they want to do. After all, should the wishes of the people who are actually affected by the policies be the ones who get the final say?

However, doesn't Tibet rely on government investment to keep most of its infrastructure sustainable? Tibet had no real industry to speak off, nor should it over rely on a tourist industry that requires the central Chinese government to fund its transportation infrastructure.

Tibet as a nation will have no viable economy to survive in the long run, and will be forced to rely on foreign aid. Although most of the time foreign aid is hardly enough to raise the standard of living of the people in those nations.

[Thanas]

My rule is simple - if people don't want to be part of a state and can survive on their own then why not let them, especially if they pause no threat to China? I think China should hold a referendum amongs the Tibetans (if only just Central Tibet to avoid ethnic clashes) and let the people there decide what they want to do. After all, should the wishes of the people who are actually affected by the policies be the ones who get the final say?

However, doesn't Tibet rely on government investment to keep most of its infrastructure sustainable? Tibet had no real industry to speak off, nor should it over rely on a tourist industry that requires the central Chinese government to fund its transportation infrastructure.

Tibet as a nation will have no viable economy to survive in the long run, and will be forced to rely on foreign aid. Although most of the time foreign aid is hardly enough to raise the standard of living of the people in those nations.

What are your sources for the Tibetan economy?

[ray245]

My rule is simple - if people don't want to be part of a state and can survive on their own then why not let them, especially if they pause no threat to China? I think China should hold a referendum amongs the Tibetans (if only just Central Tibet to avoid ethnic clashes) and let the people there decide what they want to do. After all, should the wishes of the people who are actually affected by the policies be the ones who get the final say?

However, doesn't Tibet rely on government investment to keep most of its infrastructure sustainable? Tibet had no real industry to speak off, nor should it over rely on a tourist industry that requires the central Chinese government to fund its transportation infrastructure.

Tibet as a nation will have no viable economy to survive in the long run, and will be forced to rely on foreign aid. Although most of the time foreign aid is hardly enough to raise the standard of living of the people in those nations.

What are your sources for the Tibetan economy?

I recall reading about it somewhere but I need to look into it again. I'll get back to you after my exams.