13 replies to this topic

[Dauth]

CodeCat requested I post this for him.

Tibet was seized by the PRC in 1950 and has since then become the object of many anti Chinese protests.

Do the Tibetans have a right to independence? What will happen if people try to force independence? What actually is the definition of Tibet?

[Dutchygamer]

I think if they become free of China, that the country would fall into chaos, just like other countries that have been released of their oppressors and leaders (look at Iraq and Afghanistan in example).

[Warbz]

I think Iraq and Afghanistan were poorly managed though.
An efficient leader of the country needs to be placed in charge asap after it is freed.

[Dauth]

For how contries survive after independence we also have the topic on devolution http://forum.cncrene...showtopic=28366

[CodeCat]

Self-determination is a basic freedom as far as I'm concerned. That includes the freedom to decide one's own allegiance. If the majority of Tibetans wants to become independent from the PRC, then it is their right to get it. Note however that with Tibetans I meant actual ethnic Tibetans, not necessarily people living in Tibet. I realise that this might sound a bit like discrimination, but at the moment the PRC is encouraging Chinese to move to Tibet, no doubt in an attempt to gain majority support there. It wouldn't really be fair to the Tibetans if that majority counted, because then they'd really have no hope.

[Sharpnessism]

Quote

Self-determination is a basic freedom as far as I'm concerned. That includes the freedom to decide one's own allegiance. If the majority of Tibetans wants to become independent from the PRC, then it is their right to get it. Note however that with Tibetans I meant actual ethnic Tibetans, not necessarily people living in Tibet. I realise that this might sound a bit like discrimination, but at the moment the PRC is encouraging Chinese to move to Tibet, no doubt in an attempt to gain majority support there. It wouldn't really be fair to the Tibetans if that majority counted, because then they'd really have no hope.

The majority doesn't always choose the best options. What would happen if Tibet gained independence from China? The Chinese would refuse to deal with the Dalai Lama, the U.S. is already heading into a recession so I doubt they'd be able to give away much money. Going back to subsistence agricultural living while being ruled by a religious monarchy? Or if not the Dalai Lama, who else? There have been many demonstrations for independence but there have been no leaders (other than the DL).

Quote

I think Iraq and Afghanistan were poorly managed though.
An efficient leader of the country needs to be placed in charge asap after it is freed.

Much easier said than done.

[logical2u]

Dauth, on 22 Oct 2008, 10:47, said:

Do the Tibetans have a right to independence? What will happen if people try to force independence? What actually is the definition of Tibet?

1. Probably. However, it's probably the same right to independence that individual states in the US now have, or the countries that have become protectorates have. In other words - Yes, they have the right to be independent. There are people that will want to be independent. But why, how many, when... are major questions, not to mention the vested interests of China in this matter (just as the US has interests in maintaining the union of states).

2. Either another Tienanmen Square, or a quasi-Israel type scenario are my envisioned outcomes. Instant crushing, or continuous infighting and a struggle to have a meager existence as an enemy of one of the world's larger power groups, and likely to be abandoned by 'allies'.

3. Tibet doesn't exist any more - its people fled, its heritage was excised, it is no longer fully sovereign. It used to be the seat of a religion (buddhism?) and was a "country", but that country was destroyed.

If the country is gone, there can be no independence, because there's nothing to gain from being independent besides an already gone country.

If there is a revolt, then it won't bring back what they want. That's pretty much always the case with revolts though. The ideals that they wished to uphold will be there, yes, but they'll be different and subtly changed - and nothing will have been gained besides a compromise and a further loss of history.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

Whats the point? The Hans have occupied each and every influential position in Tibet. They own everything. Also in todays term Tibet can't survive as Independent Nation and the reasoning behind that is as follows. A Tibet Kingdom will be under a Monarchy type rule under the Dalia lama and no matter how much you try a structure like that is not efficient and will have its problem (Look at Nepal or even Bhutan for example). You will always end up with a disenfranchised fringe that will cause all sort of trouble. So there is a high probability that Independent Tibet might face Conflicts like those seen in Nepal between the government and Maoist or like in India between the Naxals and the Indian Government. A Bigger nation can deal with this situation but a smaller nation will go down the shitter fast. So in the best interest of Tibet Complete independence is not a good option but Autonomy within China would be a good option. Also stop the Han Chinese from further settling in Tibet. They are fucking up everything and seriously killing of any culture that Tibet has.

[NanSolo]

CodeCat, on 22 Oct 2008, 16:43, said:

Note however that with Tibetans I meant actual ethnic Tibetans, not necessarily people living in Tibet. I realise that this might sound a bit like discrimination, but at the moment the PRC is encouraging Chinese to move to Tibet, no doubt in an attempt to gain majority support there. It wouldn't really be fair to the Tibetans if that majority counted, because then they'd really have no hope.

Telephone call here from the numerous native tribes of America, they say they want their country back.

Ultimately what people want is economic prosperity: not freedom to vote. Tibet's only the question here because they're poor. Why is nobody asking about the right to self-determination of Hong Kong?

[CodeCat]

Hong Kong wasn't invaded though, it was voluntarily annexed. There's a huge difference there. Hong Kong could negotiate and state their terms, Tibet had no choice whatsoever.

[NergiZed]

CodeCat, on 27 Oct 2008, 20:19, said:

Hong Kong wasn't invaded though, it was voluntarily annexed. There's a huge difference there. Hong Kong could negotiate and state their terms, Tibet had no choice whatsoever.

They wouldn've had a choice anyways since the majority of the population of Tibet at the time were slaves or serfs. IMO Tibet was one of the most backwards countries in the world at the time.

I think Tibetan indepedance was (remotely) possible a few years back, but now there's been an influx of Han Chinese that have moved into Tibet, so much so that the Tibetians no longer are the majority. So even if China majically became democratic, Tibet wouldn't get it's independance.

Let's be frank though, yes China has oppressed the Tibetians just like any other person in China (more so when they have an uprising). But if they weren't ever invaded by the Chinese 60 years ago, it would probably be an obscure, land-locked, poor-ass country like Afganistan, Tajikistan, or Mongolia. They would probably have human rights issues as well(slavery is bad? Yes, yes it is).

Though it was a bloody transition which also caused the exile of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans, to a certain degree, China has brought some prosperity to a country/area/whatever that would've been condemned by circumstance to be a poor backwards country.

I'm neither for or against Tibetian independance, I would like to see the residents for Tibet have a vote for independance. But that would never happen, and even if it did, the probably outcome is obvious.

logical2u, on 22 Oct 2008, 23:12, said:

3. Tibet doesn't exist any more - its people fled, its heritage was excised, it is no longer fully sovereign. It used to be the seat of a religion (buddhism?) and was a "country", but that country was destroyed.

If the country is gone, there can be no independence, because there's nothing to gain from being independent besides an already gone country.

If there is a revolt, then it won't bring back what they want. That's pretty much always the case with revolts though. The ideals that they wished to uphold will be there, yes, but they'll be different and subtly changed - and nothing will have been gained besides a compromise and a further loss of history.

Sad, but true. The Tibetian culture is both being corrupted by the Chinese government and fadding. If they did become a new country, they certainly won't be the old Tibet (which is both good and bad).

Edited by NergiZed, 04 February 2009 - 00:37.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Hong Kong is NOT independant from China as a country, but only as a special state/city of China. With different law and right hand drive cars (instead of left hand drive in China) still it is a part of China. Asking for independace is a totally different issue.

My first post in PA. Hope it have some value in this discusssion.

[partyzanpaulzy]

What China has done in Tibet is similar to what Turks have done in Kurdistan. Turks have sent army into Kurdistan, also they want to gain much more bigger influence in their former controlled areas and much bigger control over their "own" land (one of possible reasons to them to getting into EU).
China sends more and more Han chinese into Tibet and islamic freedom-like regions (1 big north from the Tibet, 1 smaller near Nepal), also China tends to gain more influence in the region and whole world (Asia, Pacific, east Africa are their main areas of the interest).
This is what USSR was doing (controlling bigger part of Eurasia and some African or Latin American countries), Russia tends to continue in this politics.
Empire won't let Tibet be free, if Tibet will claim independence, some western countries (the Czech Republic, Bolivia, Georgia, Ukraine) will acknowledge this, but Russia, India (and other countries of Shangai Cooperation) will be against, politicians from EU and the USA (money are money) will tell some words, but won't be against in law.
But any Chinese separastic region will do this, because ethnic chinese have been sent there to overnumber native inhabitants... This is also what Russia has been afraid from China to do on the Far East (send chinese to Siberia and claim independence), because this worked in Kosovo, for example.

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 04 February 2009 - 19:51.

[The Wandering Jew]

The influx of Chinese in Tibet makes them a minority, much like the scenario in Sri Lanka with the Tamils. I am not after for the independence nor its continual serfdom, what I am worried about is that by the time Tibet gains (if ever) its independence, chances are, they're no longer Tibetans (just like what happened in many ancient tribes, like the Assyrians for example).

Controlling the Chinese migrants is one of the steps to alleviate the problem. If the migration cannot be stemmed, what I propose (for now) is that the Chinese governement pattern Tibet as what the Americans did to Puerto Rico.

partyzanpaulzy, on 5 Feb 2009, 3:49, said:

... This is also what Russia has been afraid from China to do on the Far East (send chinese to Siberia and claim independence), because this worked in Kosovo, for example.

Seems reminiscent of Tom Clancy's The Bear and the Dragon.