China's Far West provinces (inc. Tibet)

[marct]

CTV news had some fairly graphic video of Tibetan "insurgents" operating in Gyanzu (sp?) province last night. What with mass arrests in Lhasa over the weekend and an increasingly nasty dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government, it looks as if the younger generation of Tibetans may do more than practice non-violent resistance to the Chinese. Indeed, the Dalai Lama actually offered to resign if things went to open conflict and since his successor was kidnapped by the Chinese quite some time ago, things could get very interesting.

[SteveMetz]

CTV news had some fairly graphic video of Tibetan "insurgents" operating in Gyanzu (sp?) province last night. What with mass arrests in Lhasa over the weekend and an increasingly nasty dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government, it looks as if the younger generation of Tibetans may do more than practice non-violent resistance to the Chinese. Indeed, the Dalai Lama actually offered to resign if things went to open conflict and since his successor was kidnapped by the Chinese quite some time ago, things could get very interesting.

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

[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"?

[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.