From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: New York University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:39:30 GMT

richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>***  To my dear debaters:  I am afraid that I cannot continue our 
>***  debates as I shall be busy for the next while.  I am only sorry 
>***  that Mr. Anonymous couldn't get back to me; he seemed to know 
>***  a thing or two.    

Good luck with your future endeavors - whatever they are. 

> 
>In article 1547 phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng):
>>The key is there are so many people in Western countries tell people in
>>developing countries, such as China, Czechoslavakia, Former Soviet
>>Union etc., about the right to self determination, but this right is not
>>quaranteed in most of the Western countries.  You can not find
>>the law which protest local people to have the right in most of the
>>Western countries.  To tell Chinese about the right to self-
>>determination is only a game of cheating.    Even majority of
>>people in Western countries do not accept the idea of the right
>>to self-determination.
> 
>Well, don't you think you are stooping a bit low here, calling me 
>a cheater?  The majority of Westerners are satisfied that the devolution 
>of the British, German, French, Portuguese, Belgian, Spanish, Dutch
>empires was right.  Colonies belonging to each to of these empires 
>were freed in the last 100 or so years.  Tibet is a colony of 
>China, and as such it should be released.  The Tibetan people have 
>expressed their desire to self-determination.
> 

But once again, Tibet isn't a colony. Tibetans (Hans, Zangs, Huis, Mongolians,
etc) are Chinese citizens and have been for 700+ yrs.

>>>I know.  Most people in the dominant position are uncomfortable with 
>>>any process which may lead to the giving up of powers to a minority.  
>>>Canadians too are uncomfortable.
>>
>>Why should China learn from Canada instead of Great Britain, Australia,
>>USA, Japan, Germany and Franch etc.?  
> 
>China can learn from whatever or whomever it wants.  That doesn't 
>change the fact that Tibetans want their freedom.
> 

Everybody wants "freedom" from the CCP but this doesn't amount to 
independence + old ways of living (slavery + violence).

>In article 1551 EE102@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (Gao Mr ZhiJie) writes:
>> You seemed to be too permissive about the realisation of Tibet
>> Independence ( as your pointer was directed to Chinese rather than the
>> non-democratic CCP leadership ).  IMHO though,
>> since China is changing rapidly towards modernisation not only
>> economically but also politically, you may stand a chance to see
>> a 'democratic vote' on TI matter in your life time.
> 
>That would be great.  (If for you, my "pointer" is pointed to the 
>CCP, fine.  Others here, however, appear to be suggesting that 
>the CCP is merely a footnote in the story, that Tibet is irrevocably 
>China's whether the CCP is in power or not.) 

Nobody is gonna trade territorial integrity with democracy (you end up
getting nothing). Chinese deserve both.

> 
>> We all know that a vote means nothing without freedom and equality
>> of expressing political opinions for everybody. So on your way
>> to that date, be prepared to answer the questions that are bound to
>> be raised by Chinese ( the majority of them are Tibetans )
>> who are currently living in Xizang:
>> * Would the Dalai Lama & Co want to establish a serfdom again?
>>   I note that to date the Dalai Lama still fails to denounce
>>   the slavery system He and His companions represented and did not
>>   offer any apologies to the Chinese in Tibet for the systematical human
>>   rights violations conducted by a group of high class Tibetan
>>   ( privileged layer ) headed by the Dalai Lama when they were in Tibet?
>>   ( If you have got any references, please let the netters know. )
> 
>The Tibetan Government-in-exile, in consultation with constitutional  
>experts around the world, and with its own people, has made very public 
>a model for a future government in Tibet.  Included are all the features
>one expects of a modern democracy.  Documents describing the plans 
>are available to anyone.
> 

We have witnessed at least 2 success stories of oriental countries realizing
"modern democracy" before economic improvement: Phillipines and India. What
are their GNPs? 

>The blueprint for a new government in Tibet includes the Dalai Lama
>only as a spiritual head.  The plan does not include temporal duties.

Like the Iranian guy - what was his name?

>Check the thread, I have dealt with this question in detail.  I have 
>given my definition of "invasion", I have discussed China's invasion of 
>Tibet, and I have pointed out the absurdities of the oft-repeated 
>claim that China has owned Tibet since the Yuan dynasty. 

Yuan Dynasty "invaded" and controlled Tibet; Ming Dynasty replaced Yuan and
succeeded her territories(incl. Tibet); Qing replaced Ming and again controlled
Tibet as part of China. ROC and PRC have both assumed control over that
region though in the reign of ROC, the central gvnmt was often too weak to 
effectively materialize her control not only over Tibet but also the majority
of the provinces.

Above all, historical events are results of time (in the case of Tibet, the
time scale is 700+ yrs) and have to be solved politically not emotionally.
Emotional solutions, plausible as they may seem, are never good solutions.
	
>Bye for now. 
> 

>-- 
>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

Take care.

- Li, Qiang

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china