From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: What About Tibet?
Date: 25 Aug 92 09:58:13 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin


To get back to the original point, I do believe that the Chinese
government owes Tibetan Chinese an special apology for its "Han
chauvinism".

In article <1992Aug23.184610.1077@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
>1) If you all claim that Chinese atrocities to Tibetans never occured
>as published in foreign press, why not open the area for free information
>gathering?

Is anyone on NetNews opposed to opening up Tibet to foreign
journalists?  (This is not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in net 
consensus on this.)

>2) Why do you all believe in the Chinese government publication about
>Tibet while totally rejecting those in foreign press? 

I tend not to believe anything about Tibet that is written by anyone
with a significant political interest in the matter.  This includes
both the Chinese government and the Tibetan government-in-exile.  If
there is a report in the foreign press, I try and see if the report
can be traced to either of the two sources, and if it can, I tend to
discount it.  Most of me information comes from Western writers such
as Melvin Goldstein, who seems reasonably objective on the issue.

>3) If the Chinese government can committ gross human right violation
>to its own fresh and blood (The Tienanmen Incident), Why do you find
>it's incredible that the Chinese government will be even more harsh
>to the 'babarians' out west?

If you argue that the Chinese government is performing humn rights
abuses in Tibet and these abuses ought to be stopped, then you won't
get too much complaint.  If on the other hand, you argue that these
abuses are grounds for independence, then you have a flame war.

After all, no one seems to be suggesting that TAM is grounds for
Beijing independence.  Why must abuses in Tibet be grounds for Tibet
indpendence?  History has quite clearly shown that political
independence is not a solution for human right abuses because it
generally replaces one set of oppressors with another.

The general picture I get of Tibet is a place that could easily become
another Ireland, and that wouldn't be good for any one.

>I'm sure that Tibetans will not agree. There's a stone inscription in 
>Tibet portraying the agreement between a Tibetan king and a Chinese
>King recognizing each other national soveriegnty

The idea of national sovereignty did not exist in East Asia before the
1850's.  To try to describe the relationship between the Chinese
emperor and Tibet in political terms that did not exist at the time is
generally a useless exercise.

>Why does the Tibetan need the Chinese recognition to be able to call 
>themselve a nation?

Political reality.  There's no way (short of a complete breakdown in
the central government which is very, very unlikely) that any
political arrangement concerning Tibet can exist without the consent
of the Beijing government.

Beijing seems to be willing to agree to any arrangement short of
independence.  I'm hoping for everyone's sake that it's possible to
create system by which you can get Tibetan self-rule under nominal
Chinese sovereignty.  If not, then you'll see the situation degenerate
into another Ireland or Yugoslavia.  After the fighting starts,
everyone will blame each other for what happens, but by then it will
be too late.

The goal I think is to turn Tibet into another Catalona.  

>They existed as they existed, that should be enough to get respect to be an
>indepentdent nation. 

The political reality is that it isn't.  No government I know of does
not recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.  The only way that this
would happen would be a total breakdown in the Central Government
(like Yugoslavia and Soviet Union), and for various political and
economic reasons, that possibility is very unlikely.  (Part of the
recent flexibility in the the position in the Tibet
government-in-exile may be due to the fact that they started to
realize this.)

>Why can't they demand independence now? What if the Mongol claim that
>China used to be part of Mongolia?, I'm sure none of you would go with
>that. 

Actually you are wrong.  If Mongolia claims that because Mongolians
are Chinese, there ought to be a union between the two states, I don't
think that many Chinese would object, provide that new state is
democratic and respects human rights.

>What if Thailand claims Southwesthern China as China claims Tibet?  

If Thailand claims part of China, then many Chinese would object 
because that would be splitting the country.  If Thailand claims
that it and China ought to be one state, then again I don't see
many Chinese objecting.  (Everyone else in Southeast Asia would.)

>The prosperous Nan-Choa kingdom (in present day
>southwestern China) was also of Tibetan people; can they claim back
>their land?

The Chinese view is that they have their land.  You can think of China
today as the successor to Nan-Chao that includes a lot more territory
to the East.

>Of course not, it's ridiculous to do so.

No it's not.  As I've pointed out, Chinese would not object to a union
with virtually any East Asian state provided that the new state
respects human rights, and that China is not split in the process.

The reason is simple.  Any state that unifies with China (even as
conquerors) becomes Chinese.  Genghis Khan was Mongolian.  His
grandson Kublai Khan was more Chinese than Mongolian.  Had the
Japanese won World War II, they would have become Chinese within two
centuries.  

By the way, this is the reason why you will never see a Pacific
Economic Community similar to the European Community.  If one were
ever formed, then within a century, all the different places in the
Pacific Community would within one or two centuries become Chinese.

>Why can't we open our heart and see the sufferring of the Tibetan people. 

Chinese will suspect your motives if you imply that Tibet ought to be
independent.  If you were to talk about the oppression that the
Chinese government has imposed on Tibetan Chinese, and how as Chinese
we must take steps to improve the situation of the minority Chinese,
then you will get a sympathetic reaction.  I've never been flamed for
saying that the Chinese governments attitude toward Tibetan Chinese
has been really, really bad.

If you are unwilling to phrase the situation in Tibet in such
language, then the disagreement between us really doesn't involve
human rights.

>They have existed uniquely as a nation for so long, why can't they continue to
>exist as such?

No Chinese I know objects to Tibetans existing as a unique sub-group
of Chinese, just like Guangdong people and Shanghai people are unique
sub-groups of Chinese.

Is this unacceptable to you?

If it is unacceptable, please explain why.

>I ask that my
>intelligent Chinese friends, collectively as a nation, search their
>souls and learn how to respect themselves as a nation. 

The great fear in the Chinese mind is that foreign powers will come
and divide up Chinese into tiny competing factions.  (Look at the
political arrangment of the Arabs to see the situation that Chinese
are afraid of.  If the Arabs were to be politically unified, they'd
immediately become a superpower.  As they are, they are not too
politically powerful.)  As long as you recognize this fear, and take
steps to avoid invoking, you can get things accomplished.  You could
probably piece together some sort of political arrangement that will
give Tibetan Chinese near total autonomy and put an end to human
rights violations there.

If on the other hand, you choose to ignore this fear, all that will
happen is that people will start shouting at each other and nothing
will get accomplished.  Eventually, people will start killing each
other and you will get another Ireland, Lebanon, or Yugoslavia.  Some
feel that it is more "moral" to divide political conflicts into good
guys and bad guys and to ignore historical context.  If this route is
taken, people may end up congratulating themselves on their "moral
superiority"

but not a damned thing will be done to help the Tibetans...........