On Why The Free Tibet Movement Is Flawed
Living in Australia now, I am at present inundated by the full extent of the Australian Press’ backing of Tibetan independence from China.
But my personal opinion on this runs contrary to this nation’s media. I’m not sure what the majority of Malaysians’ stand are on this, but I get the feeling most are pro-China, mainly due to the fact that Malaysians under Dr Mahathir has been indoctrinated with the concept of non-interference in a nation’s internal matters.
My motivation in writing this post also came from replying to the_earthinc’s admirable (but flawed) support for a free Tibet.
Anyway, I think that Tibet is part of China. It was a region that was conquered by the Mongols in the 13th century and was incorporated into the Chinese dynastic line as part of the Yuan Dynasty. First off earthinc said that we must differentiate the Mongol Empire with the Chinese Empire, and that since the Mongols conquered Tibet, and not the Han-Chinese, Tibet cannot be considered to be a part of the present Han-Chinese borders. This is only nominally true, as very early on after his successful conquest of the Chinese Empire, Kublai Khan considered himself to be a ‘Chinese Emperor’ instead of a ‘Mongol Emperor’. Furthermore, the successive dynasties of the Ming, Qing (ok a Manchu group here, but definitely part of the Chinese Dynastic line), Republic of China, and People’s Republic of China governments have all not relinquish sovereignty over Tibet. And as brutal as this sounds, nor has Tibet managed to successfully gained independence, either through bloody wars or through gaining recognition from the UN.
Pro-Tibet people must understand the stubbornness of the Chinese government in not giving an inch in regards to what they perceived as Western interference on its internal matters. To them (and me) it is akin to asking a country to give up one of its states! Here I must make something clear: My support for Tibet being part of China has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with supporting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Notice the attempts by the world (ie Western) media to mesh these two issues together, equating the CCP = brutality = brutalising Tibet = ergo we must help free Tibet from the brutal repression of the CCP. Wait a minute… I know that the CCP supports the ideology of a party-state political structure, but when did the West started doing the same? Hence my emphasis on China’s legitimate claim over Tibet originating far before the CCP regime. Instead, it started during the Chinese Dynastic times.
Also, why did the Western-led international community only started protesting China’s claim towards Tibet after 1949? When Tibet unilaterally declared its independence in 1912, did any other country recognised its claim of independence? No. So why the about-face after 1949? I am inclined to believe that it was more because of the US-led aversion towards China’s new Communist govt than anything else, and thus wanted to destabilise it.
We must then question the motives for the West in their seeming zeal in the Tibetan cause. Nobody does something for nothing. Why does it seem more palatable for the US politicians to engage in wars with Arabic states as oppose to North Korea, for example? Might securing oil supplies play even a small part in their decision? Likewise, the claims that the West has their own agenda in supporting Tibetan independence. Not only is China now a rising super-power, but even more horrifying to the US, it is also a Communist country. Hence having a pro-US independent Tibet right at the doorstep of China will be a great thing to have.
On the brutality that the CCP inflicted on the Tibetan protesters, simple, I condemn it. I also condemn the Tienanmen Square Massacre of ‘86. And every other instances when the CCP brutalised dissidents. I want China to democratise itself. Democratic avenues of elections and referendums are the best way to let out steam and dissent in a country. Once China has been throughly democratise, and if Tibet is still in a state of unrest, I then advocate holding a referendum there to determine the true will of the majority of Tibetans. And not just what might be the noisy minority’s.
Why is the Free Tibet Movement flawed apart from the chinese dhynastic historical reasons you gave?
You’ve also failed to define the specific objectives of the free tibet movement. Is it independence, autonomy or cultural protection?
Comment by shag — April 25, 2008 @ 3:58 am
My first line answered your second question. Protest groups in Tibet clearly states they want Tibet to be independent, opposing what their Dalai Lama wants, which is just a guarantee of its autonomous status and preservation of the Tibetan culture.
As to your first question, why does it have to be some other reason? The main thrust of my argument lies in historical context. Subsequent Chinese govts did not relinquish Tibet. And if we want to expose the West’s hypocrisy in this as well, when Tibet unilaterally declared independence in 1912, why didn’t the Western-influenced UN back that claim? The world had no problem recognising Tibet as being part of China until 1949, when the CCP assumed power. Then the Western-led group let their aversion of communism sway their stand on this and conveniently tried to obscure the fact that Tibet has been part of China since the pre-CCP days. They instead made the issue of Tibetan independence into a world referendum on the brutality of the CCP, which reprehensible as it was, actually has nothing do with the issue of China’s sovereignty over Tibet.
Comment by sigma — April 25, 2008 @ 4:29 am
Not all groups claim independence. Just as not all Chinese accept that the cultural revolution was the fauld of the Ganf of 4.
I’d say the only most official position is the Dalai Lama’s. In which case history supports his position.
Comment by shag — April 25, 2008 @ 6:32 am
I’m thinking a referendum is a good idea, but realistically, it doesn’t sound like something the Chinese government would agree on.
Just a question that I don’t have an answer to that popped into my mind when I read your arguments (I have no inkling of Chinese/Tibet history btw).
If Tibet declared Independence in 1912, why did it take 38 years for China to finally decide to militarily reclaim Tibet?
During this 38 years, what had the Chinese government done to administer Tibet? If there wasn’t any, assuming you were Tibetan, wouldn’t you have assumed that your country was already independent?
Just looking at things in a human point of view rather than a historical point of view.
Comment by Klaw — April 25, 2008 @ 7:23 am
That’s really a misleading description of what I said.
You said earlier than Tibet has always been part of China. I only proved that it is not so. You are taking it out of context by ignoring the first point that started the exchange.
Comment by Hafiz — May 5, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Ok I’ve reread my stuff and here’s what I think the problem is between us.
On your point saying Tibet has not always been part of China, I’ve already countered that through debating about the when does one draw a line on territorial gains. I tend to think irregardless of China’s territories prior to the Yuan Dynasty, post Kublai Khan’s reign Tibet has been integrated into China.
On your point saying various dynasties and govts have various degrees of control over the territories surrounding China, ok that might be a legitimate point. But the thing is it’s a very hazy assumption saying PRC govt was not entitled to Tibet in 1949. ROC has always claimed sovereignty over Tibet before the PRC. When the Communists defeated the KMT, they took over all of its previous lands, including Tibet. The problem arises at this point when the Tibetan leaders in 1949 maintained they had some kind of semi-independence from the fall of the Qing till the rise of the PRC. However, the problem with this is that not only does the Communists dispute this, the KMT disputed this as well evident in the fact that Tibet was included within ROC’s borders.
Comment by sigma — May 7, 2008 @ 5:24 am
No. You are running away from the main point.
You said that Tibet has always been part of China, which it not true. It is only true if the first existence of China included Tibet. But we all know China existed side by side with Tibet before the Mongol invaded China as well as Tibet.
All things that I mentioned after is to prove the point that the statement “Tibet has always been part of China” is wrong.
Even if we agree that Kublai Khan integrated Tibet into China, that still does not make the statement “Tibet has always been part of China” as true. Even if we agree that Kublai Khan integrated Tibet into China, there would be an implicit agreement between us that Tibet was not part of China before Kublai Khan executed the integration.
Like I said earlier, the statement “Tibet has always been part of China” is downright false. And what you have done in you entry is to incorrectly describe my point and then saying my position is flawed while in fact, you have misunderstood my disagreement with your initial comment on “Tibet has always been part of China” on my blogs.
Comment by Hafiz — May 8, 2008 @ 8:19 am
I haven’t seen so many red herrings in one post forever. It matters not one whit whether Tibet historically belongs to China, whether the West has ulterior motives in promoting Chinese independence, or whatnot. The point is, if Tibetans want to be free, they have a right to self-determination, regardless of what the West, China or anybody else thinks. If Hong Kong wants to secede from China, and a majority of the Cantonese support it, they should be free to go. If East Malaysia wants to leave Malaysia, they should be free to go.
Personally I don’t know if the optimal outcome should be secession. At some point, too much fragmentation is harmful to efficient governance, etc. But I think it’s ridiculous to reject the Free Tibet cause out of hand simply because of anti-interventionist sentiment, or because a nation has historically belonged to one particular state. The Tibetans should be free to choose; if China wants to keep Tibet, it has to convince Tibetans to stay, not force them.
Comment by johnleemk — May 10, 2008 @ 12:20 am
johnleemk: Red herring?
All this talk about everybody entitled to freedom of choice is nice and dandy, but it doesn’t reflect the realpolitiks of things.
First off, when did I say the Tibetans have to be ‘forced’ to stay within China? What I did say was all this noise coming from Tibet atm (and more from the outside) could very well just be reflecting the will of the minority. I advocated a referendum to settle the issue. On this point, my position does not differ either from you or from earthinc.
It would be incredibly naive to discount the very real interventions from other powers in world affairs. If you think that the will of the people would always prevail, I would have to ask you to reconsider. Superpowers choose sides in every conflict in history irregardless of the true will of the majority of people involved in them, and prop up the side which serves as their allies. The sudden and huge amount of Western interest in Tibet only after 1949 makes me highly suspicious of their intentions. Like I’ve said, there were hardly any interest in Tibet’s affairs prior to the PRC’s assumption of power in China.
Comment by sigma — May 11, 2008 @ 8:18 am
I think you’re having trouble distinguishing between positive and normative statements. Positively speaking (i.e. stating the facts as they are), of course self-determination is not a particularly prevalent concept in foreign policy, the rhetoric and bluster of some democracies aside. But normatively speaking (i.e. stating the facts as they ought to be), I see no reason at all to deny Tibet the right to decide whether they should remain with China.
The majority of your post focuses on what are fundamentally irrelevant issues if you really believe in self-determination. The West’s hypocrisy and Chinese history have nothing to do with whether Tibet should have the right to decide to stay or leave the Chinese polity; they are purely red herrings distracting from the fundamental issue of self-determination. You said yourself that you support Tibet remaining within China because of those two reasons, which is at odds with your claim to support self-determination.
Comment by johnleemk — May 11, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
No. To understand my post you first have to read the earthinc’s.
My post was a reply to his. Earthinc believed that Tibet at some point in time was an independent entity. He then viewed the 1949 takeover by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as unfairly annexing Tibet. He thus believes that China (under the CCP)’s rule of Tibet is illegitimate.
It is because of this reason I brought up history into my debate with him.
The trouble is that you seem to have missed this point. My post serves to support my stance in the argument of whether Tibet can legitimately be claimed by China: I say yes, pro-Tibetans like the earthinc says no, while you seem to say that it doesn’t matter.
It is only in the final paragraph that what you think this discussion was about converges with what I wrote. I advocated a referendum because I do want to see the will of the majority prevail in Tibet. But I want it to be on the Tibetan people’s own terms. And not influenced and dictated by Western superpowers which have their own dubious agendas to fulfill.
So on this grounding, I do not think including western interference in this matter to be a red herring. I think it is something that is definitely worth evaluating.
Because like I’ve said, what makes you so sure that pro-Tibetan independence movements in Tibet and around the world are supported by the majority of ordinary Tibetans? They might very well be supported by just small groups of ex-Tibetan political elites, backed considerably by Western powers. In fact, for all their claimed advocacy of democracy, I don’t think I’ve yet to read in the papers any Western countries at least suggesting that China hold a referendum for the Tibetans to decide for themselves what they want. No, instead those powers have done exactly what they accuse the CCP govt of doing, and are just blindly demanding China to ‘release’ Tibet irregardless of the will of the Tibetan majority. Forgive me then if I find their sanctimonious criticisms hard to swallow.
Comment by sigma — May 12, 2008 @ 6:32 am
Honestly no one likes to be opressed and made to toe the line. They lose the dignity and power of their own life. The Dalai Lama had been replaced with a puppet Dalai Lama, so can you really blame the Tibetans for being slighted? Don’t get me wrong, my tone may be Pro-Tibet but in essence i only disagree with the way China is treating Tibet. Thank you.
Comment by Dheepan — May 12, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
I know that’s the reason you’ve raised the issue of history. I am saying that it is completely irrelevant.
I don’t see why you keep blaming the West whenever the issue of Tibet comes up. There are certainly Western interest groups pushing for Tibetan independence; I don’t think that has any bearing on whether the Tibetans should have the right to decide for themselves what to do, which is precisely what independence implies.
If Tibet is free, that means Tibet has the right to choose whether to remain independent or be part of China. That’s all there is to it. I support a referendum because it makes more sense than first cutting Tibet off when they might decide they still want to be part of China, but honestly, if China will free Tibet, more power to them and everyone involved. A free Tibet is one free to choose for itself. You seem to assume that if Tibet is independent, it means that the Tibetans will have no choice in the matter of their political allegiance, which is the height of ludicrousness. Only when Tibet is free can they really decide whether they should be politically sovereign or part of China.
Comment by johnleemk — May 13, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Now your argument is going in a bewildering circle. Lemme get this straight, are you advocating that Tibet FIRST secede from China to become ‘free’, and THEN hold a referendum on whether it wants to remain independent or rejoin China? What the???
Logically the better option should first be that the referendum is held while Tibet is still part of China. AND the purpose of me bringing up Chinese history becomes clear when linked to this regard. Because I’ve felt that Tibet has been part of China since circa 1200s.
My primary beef is that the Western world is peddling misleading images of an overwhelming majority of Tibetans wanting to separate from China. There have been research on this which shows that a lot of poorer Tibetans actually prefer to be part of China, if just for economic reasons. So let’s settle the issue with a fair referendum. Not with a unilateral Western-influenced secession attempt which disregards the Tibetan people’s majority will.
Comment by sigma — May 14, 2008 @ 5:11 am
The Tibet problem began a long time ago. Lets not forget the various little events not known to outsiders that happened between China and Tibet and the Dalai Lama decades ago. Look at the history, look at the contracts signed between the Dalai Lama (representing Tibet) and the Chinese gahmen, look at the Tibetan rebels (of the Tibetan aristocrats).
The Dalai Lama is not exactly an innocent person. The Chinese gahmen trusted him to rule Tibet and bring prosperity/developement into Tibet. He was invited to attend various national conference/congress, he toured the country witnessing the progress of China with top Chinese leaders. It was a trust that was betrayed.
Also, one of the problems in Tibet now is a racial one. Too many Han Chinese are migrating to Tibet due to business and economic opportunities. The Tibetans don’t like this. So they make noise lah. And the gwailos also make noise together-gether.
Far too many people are simply swayed by the Western media and are protesting for the sake of protesting.
“Free Tibet!”
Why free Tibet? “Because China is evil”.
Hasn’t China brought development and does its best to help Tibet? “Huh? Errr… free Tibet anyway!!”
Comment by iamyuanwu — May 14, 2008 @ 10:10 am
As much as you can claim that Tibet is rightfully Chinese because the Mongolians invaded it (uhm, then China is rightfully Mongolia’s?), the crux of it is that 1) Tibet had all the trappings of a fully independent and sovereign state before the People’s Liberation Army invaded it - a clear violation of sovereignity, 2) Tibetan culture is culturally distinct from Han Chinese culture, 3) China has been highly abusive of Tibetan ways, even after Mao Zedong kicked the bucket, 4) Tibetans want a high level of autonomy or independence, which is only fair considering the circumstances.
It is, however, unfair Tibetans *today* has to remain tightly within the grips of authoritarian China only because their ancestors were invaded. Because, if that is the matrix for invasion and subjugation, Vietnam ought to be part of China as well.
Comment by Rajan R — May 23, 2008 @ 3:36 am
Rajan:
China was part of Mongolia UNTIL the Ming took over and kept all of the Mongolian’s past territories in China.
1. Disagree. Historical records have never shown an instance where Tibet was recognised by the world as being independent.
2. Irrelevant. Penang has a Chinese majority, cause for secession? So many other countries have diverse cultural content, not a valid reason for secession.
3. One govt at a particular time in China’s history doesn’t warrant secession of a historical part of China.
4. Agreed, but only after a referendum confirms that secession is the true will of the majority of Tibetans.
Invasion and subjugation is a natural (albeit painful) method of nation formation in the past. Southern China was not part of early China, yet it is now. Vietnam won its independence, so kudos to them for their strong leadership then. Can’t say the same for Tibet atm.
Comment by sigma — May 23, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Sigma, if you honestly believe that Westerners can sway Tibetan public sentiment at home and abroad to such an extent that we cannot fairly gauge Tibetan sentiment, then how about the fact that China shoots whoever openly protests its control of Tibet, and won’t permit an open discussion of this in China? Who has greater control over the realm of public opinion? Given the choice between commie China holding a referendum and independent Tibet holding a referendum, it’s pretty obvious what makes more sense. If China would be fair to Tibet and permit an open debate, as I said, the situation would be completely different. But China is not permitting an open debate, so how can the Tibetan people judge for themselves?
Comment by johnleemk — May 27, 2008 @ 6:40 am