China's Far West provinces (inc. Tibet)

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I've kind of wondered why no one has taken that issue to the U.N. under the ruberic of decolonization.

That wouldn't work - Tibet was a conquest not a colony of China. Besides that, the entire Free Tibet strategy has been predicated around non-violent global protests (a friend of mine is one of the main organizers).

What I found fascinating with the limited video that they got was that it seemed to be a performance; possibly because of the unique opportunity of having a Western camera crew there (the video is on the CTV site). What with an independence movement starting up in the Uigher province, a lot of social strain between Beijing and Shanghai, radical shifts in the demographic balance and the Olympics coming to town, I suspect that things will get "interesting".

[SteveMetz]

Hi Steve,



That wouldn't work - Tibet was a conquest not a colony of China. Besides that, the entire Free Tibet strategy has been predicated around non-violent global protests (a friend of mine is one of the main organizers).

What I found fascinating with the limited video that they got was that it seemed to be a performance; possibly because of the unique opportunity of having a Western camera crew there (the video is on the CTV site). What with an independence movement starting up in the Uigher province, a lot of social strain between Beijing and Shanghai, radical shifts in the demographic balance and the Olympics coming to town, I suspect that things will get "interesting".

I'm not following--most of the colonies that the UN got hot and bothered about were conquests at some point in time. The fact that Tibet has not been portrayed that way reflects--in my opinion--the idea that only Europeans and people of European descent can be colonialists, racists, etc. So what I'm getting it is a political strategy that would burst out of the mental confines of this old 1960s conceptualization.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I'm not following--most of the colonies that the UN got hot and bothered about were conquests at some point in time. The fact that Tibet has not been portrayed that way reflects--in my opinion--the idea that only Europeans and people of European descent can be colonialists, racists, etc. So what I'm getting it is a political strategy that would burst out of the mental confines of this old 1960s conceptualization.

Ah, okay I see what you are getting at. You are definitely right about the political problems with calling non-Europeans/non-whites "colonizers", but that is only part of the problem. Another part is when the conquest took place - 1950-51, which is not generally accepted as part of the "colonizing period".

Given the convoluted history between China and Tibet, the closest actual analog to a justification for the conquest is exactly the one used by Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait - "historic association", although Tibet was never actually part of China, while Kuwait was part of Iraq (about 1000 years ago...). This type of post-colonial conquest was pretty much accepted at the time for reasons of political expediency that have not really disappeared (i.e. tensions between the big players).

On another level, there has been a lot of pressure for China to open up for business since the 1970's and, today, too much of the North American economy is built on cheap Chinese goods. Calling for China to "de-colonize" Tibet would a) PO the Chinese for calling them colonialists and b) PO the Chinese for interfering in their "internal affairs" - I doubt that many in the West are willing to do that .

Just getting back to your point about the racialization of the term 'colonialist", you're absolutely right. The Chinese, actually the Han, have been doing this for a long time, including all the usual "worst practices" - e.g. cultural genocide, language imperialism, etc. Take a look at their Anthropology - it's based on that of Lewis Henry Morgan and is decidedly culturally eugenicist in nature.

[davidbfpo]

I am sure that the presence of Western tourists, with camera phones and internet / phone access is the only reason anyone knows quickly of the rioting. Whether the Chinese will review tourist access to Tibet is a moot point. Shutting down internet and phone access I fear would be relatively easy.

Secondly there has been reporting that the native Tibetans are being outnumbered by the incoming Han Chinese. I recall Tibetans may already be in a minority.

Third, any insurgency needs weapons, preferably firearms and I doubt if Tibetans have access to them.

Once the tourists are gone we will rely on press reporting (unlikely) and those who exit carrying stories.

Sadly Tibet is a lost cause and I've not even thought about power politics, Olympics etc.

[Beelzebubalicious]

[QUOTE=davidbfpo;42595]Third, any insurgency needs weapons, preferably firearms and I doubt if Tibetans have access to them.[QUOTE]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed previously, but to what extent can an insurgency be considered as such w/out the use of weapons? Can it be done through the media, non-violent protests, etc? Is Richard Gere a weapon of propaganda in the hand of tibetan "insurgents"?

[Ray]

Beelzebubalicious,

That is real food for thought.

The concept of a ''bloodless insurgency"!

One wonders if it could be equated with Mahatma Gandhi's "Quit India" movement!

[Beelzebubalicious]

Here's a quick and dirty google search paper related to this subject:

Insurgency--What's in a Name?
An Integrated Look at Non-violence, Terrorism, Guerrilla Warfare, Revolution, Civil War and Coups

http://paladin-san-francisco.com/inindex.htm

I haven't read it, but the author quotes Clausewitz, so it must be okay...Here's one quote:

There are many familiar examples of non-violent insurgency: Ghandi's resistance to the British; U.S. Civil Rights marches; the refusal of American colonists to buy goods from England; the boycott of Captain Boycott by Irish peasants (from which the practice got its name); the 1926 British General Strike and the 1963 political prisoners' strike in Vorkuta, U.S.S.R. Another outstanding recent example was the 1968 Czech response to the Soviet invasion. That involved nearly-spontaneous resistance; advance planning and leadership were nil. Nonetheless it subverted some of the best Soviet troops, made them politically unreliable and weakened the Red Army's control over the population.

[davidbfpo]

[QUOTE=Beelzebubalicious;44373] Third, any insurgency needs weapons, preferably firearms and I doubt if Tibetans have access to them.

Forgive me if this has already been discussed previously, but to what extent can an insurgency be considered as such w/out the use of weapons? Can it be done through the media, non-violent protests, etc? Is Richard Gere a weapon of propaganda in the hand of tibetan "insurgents"?

A valid point and the examples later cited have some relevance, except when the opponent is a modern totalitarian state. Remove the available imagery, close the borders and expel foriegniers - what impact would the Tibetan rioting have then? By sheer fluke a BBC radio journalist was in Lhasa when the rioting started and did a very revealing report two weeks ago (sorry not aware a web link).

Peaceful and non-violent campaigning alone do not work. Alongside the Captain Boycott episode was a level of actual and threatened violence (see Stanley Palmer's Police and Protest in England and Ireland 1780-1950).

davidbfpo

[Ray]

How far would the Chinese concept of Legalism be the explanation of their actions in Tibet and Xinjiang?

Legalism was a pragmatic political philosophy, with maxims like "when the epoch changed, legalism is the act of following all laws", and its essential principle is one of jurisprudence. "Legalism" here can bear the meaning of "political philosophy that upholds the rule of law", and is thus distinguished from the word's Western sense. The school's most famous proponent and contributor Han Fei believed that a ruler should govern his or her subjects by the following trinity:

1. Fa (Chinese: 法; pinyin: fǎ; literally "law or principle"): The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken are systematically predictable. In addition, the system of law ran the state, not the ruler. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.

2. Shu (Chinese: 術; pinyin: shù; literally "method, tactic or art"): Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behaviour might help them getting ahead; except for following the 法 or laws.

3. Shi (Chinese: 勢; pinyin: shì; literally "legitimacy, power or charisma"): It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself or herself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trends, the context, and the facts are essential for a real ruler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalis...ese_philosophy)

I have quoted Wikipedia since it sums up the issue.

Other reads:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/LEGALISM.HTM

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/chinese_legalism.html


Given that this is the underlining principle, and the fact that they will ensure the writ of the State with all its power irrespective of the world opinion, is there any chance of insurgency succeeding in Tibet or Xinjiang?

From a geostrategic standpoint, the pace at which China is moving toward becoming a superpower is dangerous to Western interests as also to countries on China's periphery.

A walkthrough of various forums indicates a sudden 'assault' in hordes of Chinese bloggers and posters and many, in true Communist doublespeak, indicate that the Tibet issue is but a western plot to undermine China and its growing power and international acceptability. Their contentions do indicate a high affinity to the concept of Legalism of Chinese thought.

Therefore, apart from Taiwan, should there not be more focus on the Tibetan and Uighur aspirations so that they achieve their goals and at the same time, divert China's resources and attention?

The Chinese are said to be planning to draw on the Caspian oil to feed her industrial needs and the pipeline is to pass through these areas. Therefore, any unrest in these areas would be in the best interest to ensure that there is a slowdown of Chinese aspirations to become a world power.

Interesting that it maybe, is it feasible?

[Asterix]

By sheer fluke a BBC radio journalist was in Lhasa when the rioting started and did a very revealing report two weeks ago (sorry not aware a web link).


davidbfpo

Excuse the first post.

Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet (CNN) .
Which was also in The Economist: Trashing the Beijing Road (The Economist)

[tequila]

I'm not following--most of the colonies that the UN got hot and bothered about were conquests at some point in time. The fact that Tibet has not been portrayed that way reflects--in my opinion--the idea that only Europeans and people of European descent can be colonialists, racists, etc. So what I'm getting it is a political strategy that would burst out of the mental confines of this old 1960s conceptualization.

I think this theory that the UN only gets involved in decolonizing white-owned colonies is pretty wrongheaded. More relevant is the fact that China has a seat on the Security Council, just as Russia does vis a vis a similar "colony" in Chechnya. For examples of UN intervention in a nonwhite colonial situation, see Western Sahara, East Timor, etc.

[SteveMetz]

I think this theory that the UN only gets involved in decolonizing white-owned colonies is pretty wrongheaded. More relevant is the fact that China has a seat on the Security Council, just as Russia does vis a vis a similar "colony" in Chechnya. For examples of UN intervention in a nonwhite colonial situation, see Western Sahara, East Timor, etc.

Did the UN actually call/condemn Western Sahara and East Timor as "colonialism"? I honestly don't know. My point is that how an issue is portrayed plays a major role in how the world sees it and responds to it. China has succeeded in having Tibet depited as a purely "internal" matter. If that could be shifted, Beijing would face different pressures.

[tequila]

Did the UN actually call/condemn Western Sahara and East Timor as "colonialism"? I honestly don't know. My point is that how an issue is portrayed plays a major role in how the world sees it and responds to it. China has succeeded in having Tibet depited as a purely "internal" matter. If that could be shifted, Beijing would face different pressures.

I don't think so, because both Morocco and Indonesia did not view Western Sahara nor Timor-Leste as colonies, but rather as integral parts of the nation - just as Russia views Chechnya and China views Tibet. Britain never viewed Nigeria as an integral part of the United Kingdom, OTOH.

Also as to why no one ever took Tibet to the UN Special Committee on Decolonization - see China's seat on the Security Council.

There is an informative post on tensions within the Tibetan independence movement here. One wonders about the movement's future once its charismatic leader passes on.

[SteveMetz]

I don't think so, because both Morocco and Indonesia did not view Western Sahara nor Timor-Leste as colonies, but rather as integral parts of the nation - just as Russia views Chechnya and China views Tibet. Britain never viewed Nigeria as an integral part of the United Kingdom, OTOH.

Also as to why no one ever took Tibet to the UN Special Committee on Decolonization - see China's seat on the Security Council.

There is an informative post on tensions within the Tibetan independence movement here. One wonders about the movement's future once its charismatic leader passes on.

Most of the "non self governing territories" which the UN Special Committe on Decolonization is concerned with are administered by Security Council members. I mean, there is no value is starting a discussion of the U.N.'s flaws here, but when it is interested in promoting the independence of Bermuda, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Somoa but is not concerned with Tibet, it's hard to take it terribly seriously.

[marct]

Savage Minds has an interesting story about the Tibet Resistance.

For five decades, the People’s Republic of China has been proclaiming the death of the Tibetan resistance. In the 1950-60s, they discursively denied the existence of the Tibetan resistance army by referring to them as “high class separatists” and “rebel bandits.” Since then, they have attempted to curb any resistance by immediately putting down protests through arrests, beatings, imprisonments, disappearances (remember the 11th Panchen Lama?), and deaths. The PRC has done everything they can to give the impression that resistance in Tibet—armed or peaceful, coordinated or everyday—is a rare and unwise exception to their benevolent rule, is conducted only by monks or members of the “Dalai clique,” and is not representative of the majority of the Tibetan people who love the Chinese motherland.

Much more at the link.