Global Politics, Current Events
The Tibetan Question
There’s violence in Tibet in most recent days and they are not merely trifling. In fact, deaths were reported in the capital city of Lhasa just about a week ago and just hours ago,
the ceremonial lighting of the Olympic torch in Athens was so untowardly blighted by a man that had suddenly appeared with a banner in hand, seen on live TV worldwide, in protest of the recent violent crackdown of the Chinese government troops of protesters in Tibet. To be sure, the fast-approaching Summer Olympics in Beijing becomes now an all too ominous stage for Tibet protest and this has gotten the extreme ire of the Chinese government, especially China Premier Wen Jiabao.
Now, this latest spark of conflict in Central Asia had intuited a number of why’s and how’s in my mind. Such question as to why Tibet had gone into absolute territorial control of China and how a reasonably distinct nation—with an auspiciously unique culture and ways of life—becomes subject to the sovereignty of a neighbor country.
As a matter of fact, Tibet is one location that is wider than Western Europe and had in fact been once an empire by itself, encroaching towards India and western part of mainland China. In my mind, Tibet had always been a separate existence form China where Tibet is not China or China is not Tibet. It’s like Mongolia. Mongolia was never part of China even if for once it had ruled the whole of China thru the Manchu Dynasty.
Nepal and Bhutan are fully sovereign countries even though they are small in size and despite that they are similarly situated near China. Yet Tibet had been incorporated into the territorial delineation of China ever since troops from the People’s Liberation of China had marched into Lhasa in 1959, with guns and munnitions, starting an occupation that had seemingly ripened into full annexation when in 2007, the Dalai Lama himself—the spiritual and known leader-in-exile of Tibet—had publicly renounced his desire for a the grant of sovereignty to Tibet but merely greater autonomy in terms of cultural and religious practices. This renunciation had of course caused so much surprise and amazement from the international scene and many Tibetans in exile in many parts of the world had not taken such declaration with approval.
But perhaps, to fulfill the core Buddhist faith of peaceful means, the Dalai Lama had actually accepted China’s sovereignty over Tibet. Or perhaps, it might have been just a simple act of desperation on his part at that time.
Despite of that, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao had most recently lambasted the Dalai Lama and accusing him of inciting the recent uprising and protest action in Lhasa, unduly sullying the spirit of the Summer Olympics that Beijing would host this coming August.
Now finally, one very interesting question is on why does China becomes so interested in a land that is almost bare such as Tibet, where arable lands are scarce and there are no known mineral deposit there like oil or gold?
This urgent desire for clasp in Tibet by China might be reasonably pointed out towards security concerns, where a disruptive Tibetan population, one that is hugely characterized by serfdom and almost nil economic activity, could pose numerous hazards to the integrity of the China sovereignty. But upon being aware that the relatively small Tibetan population could in no way harm the Chinese state, security reasons, as one main cause for annexation, could not thereon be fully justified.
So now there remains a hugely unresolved Tibetan question.
Toe Says —
Thanks for this brief on Tibet Major Tom. What is happening is very sad because Tibet used to be a peaceful country.
I watched 7 Years in Tibet
and it is very beautiful.
Made on March 25, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Major Tom Says —
To Toe: It was one very good film; an ultimate classic. It was one movie I watched more than once…
Made on March 25, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
bw Says —
It does have strange parallels with the Soviets invading Afghanistan whose terrain is slightly better than the moon and Britain sending out a powerful armada to liberate the Falkland Islands that had no wealth except for a few thousand grazing sheep. The cost - money and lives far outweighs the benefits of winning the conflict.
Oh well, I guess nations are like humans too. They hate it when their property is encroached upon by their neighbor.
Made on March 26, 2008 @ 1:42 am
Major Tom Says —
To BW: That’s what I was always saying to my students back at teh university, that ’states are like humans’ too, especially in their relations with other states. And China here, in my premise, is just like a man who wants it all despite of everything, even towards the machiavellian conduct of violence just to merely grasp a land that is mostly not of its own roots and culture.
Made on March 26, 2008 @ 7:18 am
pining Says —
It’s so sad that the Chinese premier accused the Dalai Lama (of all people) of encouraging the Tibetan people to rebel. It doesn’t make sense at all.
Made on March 26, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
barrycade Says —
is china’s interest in tibet similar to its interest on Spratlys?
Made on March 28, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Major Tom Says —
To Pining: It’s a wild suspicion I am sure–when they couldn’t point it out to anyone else.
Made on March 30, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Major Tom Says —
To barrycade: Apparently there’s the difference where unlike that of it’s control over Tibet, China have not as yet physically took hold of the Spratleys and that accordingly, China’s interest in the South China Sea islands are primarily of economic in nature, where it is suspected to hold sizable oil deposits.
We just hope that China should not be as forward in its claim to Spratleys like it had on Tibet, which it had virtually annexed and assimilated into its formal territorial domain ever since the 1950’s.
Made on March 30, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
Ferdz Says —
Oh I am so affected by this. When I was in China headed to the Northern Province in Sichuan, I and my friend was asked to go down the bus on a checkpoint and asked to head back the city. Turns out no foreign National was allowed on places with Tibetan Community. And the Tibetan Abe Prefecture was at the place we were going. So disappointing.
Now my impression of Tibet is like our Mindanao. Watching the local China news, it would seem that those protesters are just a minority. Most of the Tibetans are quite satisfied with their lives under Chinese there since they are free to practice which ever religion they believe. But then again, this is “China” news, I’m not sure if they are moderated just like their internet.
For China, I had seen their preparation for the Olympics and they wouldn’t want to screw it up.
Made on March 31, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
snglguy Says —
The Chinese government is doing what it believes its inherent right to take back what was historically theirs. Tibet, for them, is part of China since time immemorial. This is what that country has been saying about the Spratly islands too.
Made on April 1, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Major Tom Says —
To Ferdz: I’ve that particular account back at your blog; buti na lang wala you didn’t push through towards Tibet for I heard foreign nationals were physically attacked there, being caught in the latest tumult.
Made on April 1, 2008 @ 7:16 am
Major Tom Says —
To sngle: China claims to have sighted the islands that is within the Spratleys sometime within the 1600’s and historical notes says that they were just “made known” about it after one chinese voyager have sighted it while on a faraway sea voyage. But they haven’t really had physical control over it in the historical past, even upto now. Their strongest rationale–as I’ve read once before—that teh Spratley’s belong to them just because it is within the South China Sea.
In the case of Tibet—it should be admitted that way back in the near stone ages, both Tibetans and Chinese could trace a common ancestors among the Zhoung people who live in caves and wandered through western part of China. But that was too long time ago. Remember, Arabs and Jews are both semites and came from the main ancestor named ‘Shem’, but nobody says they should be one country.
Tibet was once an empire and had been a distinct nation in the pre-industrial ages. Even the names of their people and locations ain’t Han Chinese at all, but more on a unique terminology akin to Nepal and Bhuttan and towards the Indian culture.
Made on April 1, 2008 @ 7:30 am