Tibet is, was, and will always be part of China?

[Rainbow]

I am afraid that (even) if we divide all the planet Earth's land to all interested bodies and create thousands of new states around, we will find 1 (at least) guy disappointed that would claim some rights to something, while a time factor becomes irrelevant.
That is us, Mankind :-)

[InTheFlesh?]

Come on.

Its obvious that China should get out of Tibet. The only reason its not one of the hellish trouble spots like Palestine or Chenya is that the Dalai Lama has operated under a non violent policy for the last 50 years. The Chinese government is brutally opressing the Tibetan people, most live under fear and repression, there's something like 1 chinese soldier to 20 tibetans.

Whether or not at frequent points in history the British or American government was involved in colonial brutality, which, lets face it, they were, does not mean that we have to stand for it anymore.

I can't believe that my students union at the university I'm at is too wrapped up in some unrealistic mission to end the iraq war and end the palestian conflict to even pay any attention to this.

[grandpa]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? Come on. Its obvious that China should get out of Tibet.

The basic precepts of self-determination should be applied in all cases. If people wish to be left in peace, leave them in peace.

Grandpa h.

[D Sretenovic]

Kosovo is, was, and will always be part of Serbia!

[InTheFlesh?]

Well look, America was part of Britain. But that group of people saw fit to rule themselves and overthrow the British.

I think the issue in Tibet is less to do with maps and flags, but to do with autonomy and freedom.

Tibet was part of the Chinese country but for large amounts of time it ruled itself under a Tibetan government. The Chinese invasion in 1951 enforced chinese rule on a country.

Like the wikipedia citation states the Dalai Lama was up for living under a Chinese government as long as the Tibetan people had autonomy, and this is what it is about, the lack of freedom for Tibetan people.

[Domino]

You are all now colonies of America!

[Nono]

Quote by: fushigi I've never seen them more nationalist.

What? Even more so than after this or that Japanese official visited this or that shrine, or some dingbat figher pilot managed to kill himself by ramming a US patrol aircraft?

By all accounts (from a range of disinterested sources) Tibetans don't wish to be part of China. On the contrary.

So what could be more simple?

And the fact that Peking has reacted to Tibetan nationalism now and in the past with the usual brutality shows that it simply isn't worthy of the imperialist role.

[D Sretenovic]

And the fact that Peking has reacted to Tibetan nationalism now and in the past with the usual brutality shows that it simply isn't worthy of the imperialist role.

Don`t you get it? What you see as ``brutality`` is just an ordinary response from one country`s institutions to a movement that threatens to damage its security and integrity from inside. Protesters in Tibet are breaking the law, they are becoming violent, aggressive and are calling for parting of a sovereign country. By state defense terminology, they are rebels and thus should be stopped.

Furthermore, the whole system of International law is based on certain rules, the most important one is, that one country should recognize other, acknowledging its borders, and vice versa. Certain countries did brake this rule by recognizing ``state`` Kosovo as independent- the consequences are left to be seen in next 5, 10, or 20 years, but the secessionists around the globe are already, rightfully asking why they can`t get their country as well.

By our experience in Serbia, those secessionists never stop until they get what they want, and that`s a state of their own(that`s why they are called secessionists ). In former Yugoslavia, during Tito`s quest to strengthen friendship with Albanians, Kosovar Albanians had all possible rights, one country can offer to a minority. In some cases, they were even positively discriminated, and had more rights than the Serbs, and still, all they wanted was- independence, independence, independence...
And that story will always end like that. More autonomy they get, bigger is their hunger. During all that time, they use violence, force and threats, as their weapons, which is a crime, by itself, and that`s the reason why they should be threated and arrested like any other type of criminals.

Giving country to anyone who suddenly gets an urge to have it is Utopia. If countries` rulers thought differently, right now the number of states would be doubled, and it ain`t gonna happen, although it is now more likely than before Kosovo independence recognizition.
Nono, I don`t know if you are from Switzerland, or from U.S.A., doesn`t matther, I`m almost positive you wouldn`t be so tolerate if there were similar unrests in your area. If you would, congrats, but the people leading your country, I see them having the same attitude as Chinese.

[grandpa]

Quote by: D Sretenovic Don`t you get it? What you see as ``brutality`` is just an ordinary response from one country`s institutions to a movement that threatens to damage its security and integrity from inside.

No, I don't get it.
What security? What integrity? A totalitarian government cannot have much of either.

In what way are China's repsonses "ordinary"? How is the Tibetan movement more threatening than the Chinese government?

A cursory investigation into China reveals it as a threatening entity. I suppose it's "ordinary" in the sense that all governments are threatening, but beyond that...

Grandpa h.

[D Sretenovic]

OK, my opinion is that we can think about this topic from two points of view, subjective and objective.

Me, for example, as just an average, ordinary citizen, I can say ``It doesn`t matter if my country is few square kilometers smaller or bigger, it is more important that people live in peace``. But I can`t see any politician, who can take the liberty and responsibility to talk like that, or act in that way. To all of today`s countries, and its` representatives, preserving width of borders is unquestionable, there are no possible compromise on that matter .

Besides, we all know that in similar situations, the countries who are now supporting some secessionist movements across the globe, they would, or they will do all it takes to restrain secessionists in their countries.

That`s why some of the countries` leaders I find hypocritical. If they weren`t, they would come up with some resolution in UN, for example, saying every numerous minority, in every country, has right to self-determine itself, and create a country of its own. But they, the West politicians don`t do that. They`re calling Kosovo case an isolated case, and if they had courage, or if China was less powerful country, they would involve in Tibet struggle for independence, as well, and call it, again- isolated case. And they would call it like that, over and over again, until getting in same position, when they can say- you know the rules, you know the law.

I see their need, but why would we here be hypocritical? In my opinion, these kind of stuff should be discussed in a more general way, beyond national` elements. The question is: Do the large groups of minorities have the right to self-determine, or not? If they do, it should be a general rule, no exceptions. If they, can not, it should also be a general rule, no ``isolated cases``.

[grandpa]

Quote by: D Sretenovic OK, my opinion is that we can think about this topic from two points of view, subjective and objective. Me, for example, as just an average, ordinary citizen, I can say ``It doesn`t matter if my country is few square kilometers smaller or bigger, it is more important that people live in peace``.

But borders and politicians are not "objective." They are subjective. In fact, citizenship itself is subjective, depending on one's personal point of view. It's like my being an atheist; so much depends on beliefs (or the lack thereof) that are, after all is said and done, subjective. If I defend my rejection of citizenship and my being in favor of self-determination, it's still subjective. I'm expressing my beliefs, as unflawed as I may think they are. The same is basically true of Tibetans. Objectivity in politics or ideology is a bit of a myth, or a cop-out and a rhetorical technique.
It's like arguing people ever can "live in peace" with an oppressive ogre like China on the world stage. It's an illusory statement.

Grandpa h.

[D Sretenovic]

I`m just saying: There should be an universal, solid rule, every country should stick to, about people`s right to self-determine. Yes, they should have that right. No, they shouldn`t have that right.

USA was a scenarist of Kosovo declaring independence, their assistance was a key reason why the Albanians from Kosovo were refusing negotiations with Serbs; they promised Albanians independence, no matter what happens. But, when it comes to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, areas in Georgia, owning as much right as Albanians to declare independence, USA say it can`t be done.

I think that those double standards make a big part of mess in international community. International law suffered some serious injuries, lately, and we all know the importance of this system in preserving relative peace between nations...

[grandpa]

Quote by: D Sretenovic I`m just saying: There should be an universal, solid rule, every country should stick to, about people`s right to self-determine.

But things aren't self-determined by a giant "one world" state, and shouldn't be.

Grandpa h.

[D Sretenovic]

But things aren't self-determined by a giant "one world" state, and shouldn't be.

Say again?

[grandpa]

Quote by: D Sretenovic Say again?

What you say about a universal standard regarding statecraft presupposes a world state, and I object to that idea. In fact, I object to states generally.

Grandpa h.

[The Decider]

Quote by: D Sretenovic [b]Don`t you get it? What you see as ``brutality`` is just an ordinary response from one country`s institutions to a movement that threatens to damage its security and integrity from inside. Protesters in Tibet are breaking the law, they are becoming violent, aggressive and are calling for parting of a sovereign country. By state defense terminology, they are rebels and thus should be stopped.

I would expect a Serbian apologist to defend China's official story of its Tibet problem. After all, if China fights "lawbreakers" in Tibet, why can't Serbia do the same in Kosovo? Chinese propaganda and Serbian propaganda have the same goal--suppression of ethnic minorities no matter the cost in lives or international reputation. Unfortunately for the Serbians, the world doesn't need their markets. We do need China's. So Kosovo will remain free despite Serbian protests and tantrums. Tibet will not.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Decider I would expect a Serbian apologist to defend China's official story of its Tibet problem. After all, if China fights "lawbreakers" in Tibet, why can't Serbia do the same in Kosovo?

Well, China's official story is a little different than Serbia's. Kosovo has actually been engaged militarily, and, to my knowledge, they actually committed acts of terrorism against Serbia. The Tibetan movement is considerably less violent, at least from what I understand.

But yes, both illustrate the same fundamental problem.
Chinese nationalists say something like, "Tibet and elsewhere will be decided on China's national priorites alone, not some pressure group's."

Here's a decent link for news updates:
Canada Tibet Committee

Grandpa h.

[InTheFlesh?]

Surely there's something strange about justifying China's actions as lawful and for the protection of the country. Most of the opression is totally against all sorts of Human Rights, which apply to all humans, freedom fighters, terrorists, criminals, rebels who ever.

Plus, hate to bring in an extreme example, but the good old Stalin purged millions of Soviets several times because they were percieved as saboteurs or spies or traitors. Threats to the Soviet system, to security and to integrity. So thats alright then?

[grandpa]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? Surely there's something strange about justifying China's actions as lawful and for the protection of the country. Most of the opression is totally against all sorts of Human Rights, which apply to all humans, freedom fighters, terrorists, criminals, rebels who ever.

Well, anything can be done "for the protection of the country." The fundamental question: should "the country" be protected? Also, does the ruling elite represent the country as a whole? Can an entire population be represented by a small group of rulers?

Of course, many of us know that China's government will only make things
worse.

Grandpa h.

[Anmon]

I don't see why China feels the need to hold on to a poor, sparsely populated area that holds no great importance to her, in the face of the growing world condemnation especially with the Olympics here, when you think how much praise she could get by freeing Tibet instead.
So why hang onto Tibet?
The only possible reason I can see is China regards her having some vital role in future plans of expansion to the west.