From: richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter)
Subject: Re: Conference: Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the Future
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Distribution:  world
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:25:49 GMT

In article 1488 lix@yangtze.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li) wrote:
>        It is evident that Mr. Richter's expertise has not extended
>        all the way to the history and geography of the Himalayas.
>        Let's give him some help.

I'm listening.

>        1.  China has owned Tibet at least since the Yuan dynasty
>            (1279-1368), long before Chris Columbus and his fellow
>            "discoverers" started to destroy the Indian communities
>            in Central, South, and North America.

Mongolia takes over China in 1280 and suddenly China "owns" Tibet; I
don't understand the logic.  But so what does it matter whether one 
power held one territory or another hundreds of years ago?  The 
Tibetans briefly occupied the capital of China at one point when the 
capital was situated in western China.  

What matters is what the Tibetan people want now.  The Tibetan people 
want control of their own country.  The Chinese people want Tibet as a 
colony.  

I have a question: If China so irrefutably "owns" Tibet, then why does 
China carry on with the charade of calling Xizang the "Tibet 
Autonomous Region?"  How can China "own" Tibet and then say Tibet is 
"autonomous?"  

>        2.  Tibet was universally recognized as part of China even
>            during the years of the decline and fall of the Qing dynasty,
>            namely 1840-1911.  British and Russian documents always
>            agreed on this point.  If Tibet were not part of China,
>            it would have been idiotic for either Russia or Britain to
>            pretend otherwise.  It would have been much easier to
>            simply declare Tibet unclaimed property and then grab it.

Both Russia and Britian were hankering for influence in Tibet but were 
resisted.  Eventually, the Younghusband expedition forced its way 
to Lhasa to force a deal with the Tibetans.  I guess the Brits were 
being "idiotic."  China, Britain and Tibet negotiated the Simla 
Convention as equal partners in the early 1900s.  Were the Chinese 
"idiotic" also?

>        3.  During the year 1911-1933, when China was badly beset by
>            civil wars and Japanese aggression, Tibetans who supported
>            Thupten Gyatso, a.k.a the Dalai Lama XIII, tried to assert
>            independence from China.  No foreign state accepted their
>            claims.  Standard maps published in Britain and the U.S.
>            continued to show Tibet as part of China.

I suppose Japan has a historical claim over parts of China since it 
once held Manchuria and other areas.  Do you think that there might be 
"standard" Japanese maps from the 1930s and 40s that show Japanese-
occupied areas as belonging to Japan?

>        4.  Whenever China grows stronger, you will hear more noises
>            from the West about how Tibetans deserve independence,
>            why Tibet should not be part of China, how Tibetans
>            are superior to the "Chinese" (and therefore not Chinese),
>            etc.  It happens with predictable precision. Strange
>            but true.  It happened during the years of KMT ascendancy.
>            It happened during the consolidation and growth of CCP
>            power on the Mainland.  It kind of makes you wonder.

Sounds like paranoia.  But this is the first I have heard anyone suggest 
that Tibetans are superior to Chinese.  Funny that a Chinese should 
suggest this.  Anyway, if there is a cogent point here then bring 
it out.  

>        5.  Sikkim was annexed by India and received the wonderful
>            title of "the youngest (or smallest) State in the Union
>            of India".  It used to have a king, married to an
>            American socialite.  If you don't believe what you read
>            here, check the back issues of National Geographic.  One
>            of the least discussed consequences of the American defeat
>            in Vietnam is India's takeover of Sikkim.

I've checked some facts, and I am grateful to those who have kindly 
filled me in on what happened in Sikkim.  Apparently, at the invitation
of Kasi Lhundup Dorjee, a minister of the former kingdom, Sikkim 
joined the Indian union.  I speculate that the Sikkimese felt 
threatened by the Chinese, especially after the Yanks left Vietnam.  
Remember, China invaded Ladhak in the early 1960s and has held parts 
of it ever since.  If I were a Sikkimese I would have worried too. 

>        6.  Sikkim was part of Tibet.  That's why it has a traditional
>            Chinese name: Zhe-Meng-Xiong.  The British persuaded its
>            rulers to leave the Chinese realm.  The result had been
>            disastrous for the people of that place.  A unmistakably
>            Sino-Tibetan community has since been destroyed and its
>            remnants are now under the sway of Hindus there, who were
>            originally bussed in as paperless immigrants.

Well, with a Chinese name already in place, when do you think China 
will take over Zhe-Meng-Xiong?  China has already had success against 
India in taking parts of Ladhak, so what is holding China back?

>        7.  Nepal was time and again saved from the same fate only
>            because a couple of CCP armies had marched into Tibet during
>            1950-51 and have stayed there ever since.  They may not have
>            been liberators or saviors of the Tibetans, but they certainly
>            provide the only effective deterrent against India ambitions
>            in Nepal.

See below.

>        8.  Bhutan is an independent Sino-Tibetan country.  Its King
>            and people are quite unsympathetic to the Tibetans who
>            support the present Dalai Lama XIV. The full story of
>            Bhutan and its people's resistance to Indian encroachment
>            and the "Tibetan Refugees" who tried to kill their King
>            and take over the country deserves a Ph.D. thesis.

This is deliberately misleading.  You should know that there are very 
close ties with the Tibetan refugees in Gangtok.  Shamar Rinpoche's 
general secretary, Topgyal, recently married the Bhutanese king's 
aunt.  Maybe *you* should do a Ph.D. thesis on this. 

>        9.  In sum, like it or not, Bhutan and Nepal have maintained
>            their sovereignty only because China has asserted and
>            enforced its claims to the north of their borders.  If
>            the followers of the Dalai Lama should ever succeed in
>            detaching Tibet from China, both Bhutan and Nepal, in
>            rapid succession and followed closely by a supposedly
>            independent new state named Tibet, would be incorporated
>            into the Union of India. Tibetan would then become a dying
>            language and Buddhism would suffer a far worse fate than it
>            may have suffered so far in Tibet.  Why so?  Please ask
>            the Buddhist majority of Sri Lanka.
        
You have this reversed.  China has long had designs on Bhutan and 
Nepal.  In fact, it occupied those countries briefly during the Qing.  
China considered Bhutan to be its vassal state, until the Brits made 
Bhutan a British protectorate in 1910.  China invaded Nepal in the 
late 1700s with an army of 70,000 men and occupied Kathmandu.  Nepal 
too became a vassal state, until the Brits pushed China out by the 
early 1800s.  

Not only that, China has long held designs on Burma, Vietnam and 
other areas.  It occupied Burma and Vietnam for a while in the 
18th and 19th centuries.  

As for the preservation of the Tibetan language and Buddhist religion 
in Tibet, China's policy has done great damage since China invaded
in the 1950s.  The Tibetan language enjoys second class status in 
Tibet, as Chinese is the primary medium of instruction and most good 
jobs are impossible without Chinese.  Buddhism came to Tibet from 
India; it is hard to fathom how a "threat" from India would damage
the religion (certainly not any more than China has damaged it by 
plundering thousands of monasteries -- an act for which it now 
grudgingly admits was wrong).  

Never has India expressed any desire to take over Tibet.  I challenge
you to make that claim on soc.culture.indian.  Tibet and India have been
relatively peaceful neighbours for a very long time indeed.  

>        10. No attempt has been made here to discuss whether Tibet
>            should or should not go independent. It is really beyond
>            the scope of this note.   Nor does it even begin to
>            address the question of the consequences China as a
>            nation might suffer in that event.  Its modest aim is
>            simply to point out the very obvious.  Learned readers
>            should decide for themselves whether it would be desirable
>            for any country or place to stay out of the Union of India.

I hate to say it but this suggests that you have no credible argument 
against Tibet winning its independence.  The Chinese position is 
fundamentally and morally bankrupt.  The Tibetan people have suffered 
very greatly under Chinese rule.  The Tibetan people do not want to 
be colonized by the Chinese.  The Tibetan people want control over 
their country.  The Tibetan people want China out.  The Tibetan 
people want independence. 
-- 
Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641