Video: Dispatches - Undercover In Tibet
From Channel 4 British Television:
Undercover in Tibet As Tibetan protesters take to the streets in the biggest and most bloody challenge to Chinese rule in nearly 20 years, Dispatches reports on the hidden reality of life under Chinese occupation after spending three months undercover, deep inside the region. Dozens are feared dead after the recent clashes and crackdown by Chinese troops, but with reporting so rigidly controlled from the region little is known of living conditions inside Tibet. To make this film, Tibetan exile Tash Despa returns to the homeland he risked his life to escape 11 years ago, to carry out secret filming with award-winning, Bafta-nominated director Jezza Neumann (Dispatches Special: China’s Stolen Children). Risking imprisonment and deportation, he uncovers evidence of the “cultural genocide” described by the Dalai Lama. He finds the nomadic way of life being forcefully wiped out as native Tibetans are stripped of their land and livestock and are being resettled in concrete camps. Tibet reveals the regime of terror which dominates daily life and makes freedom of expression impossible. Tash meets victims of arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and “disappearances” and uncovers evidence of enforced sterilisations on ethnic Tibetan women. He sees for himself the impact of the enormous military and police presence in the region, and the hunger and hardship being endured by many Tibetans, and hears warnings of the uprising taking place across the provinces now.
Thanks to blogger A Mao (The Cat) for recommending the link.
POSTED COMMENTS: 46 Responses
couldn’t finish watching it. not a sophisticated propaganda. for one thing everyone knows that there is not a “one-child” policy imposed on the Tibetans. what’s the film maker’s message to deliver when he let that tibetan woman complain about the pain associated with a forced sterilization?
This is from Channel 4? It’s more like a low budget TGIE propaganda film.
So you hire a few actors, record their “grievances” with a camera, find some videos from YouTube, take a few shots of some police cars. Then you put these videos together, add some horrifying narrations, and voila, there you have a “Documentary”.
What a piece of crap!
This is from Channel 4? It’s more like a low budget TGIE propaganda film.
So you hire a few actors, record their “grievances” with a camera, find some videos from YouTube, take a few shots of some police cars. Then you put these videos together, add some horrifying narrations, and voila, there you have a “Documentary”.
Thank you, China Digital Times. You just wasted 50 minutes of my time.
Your selection of materials has been disappointing lately.
Amazing, Tibetans escaping from Tibet used American flag to cover their face. Jesus Christ, Or His Holiness.
Thank you very much for understanding towards the reality!!!
I really appreciate for great news without biased.
Thank you from core of my heart for being realistic on world issue.
Either the Chinese police were too nice or this person was lying about being searched by the Chinese police. The forced sterilization is a big lie. People can watch “one year in Tibet” by BBC. It told a story of Tibetan women gave birth to 4, 5 children. Tibetan’s culture is that when a woman marries a guy with a family of many brothers, she is marrying to all of them; so most of the times, she had children with all of them. In the movie, a woman doctor did suggest the lady stop having child after her 5th one. It’s more a heath issue than forced sterilization. I am Han Chinese searching for truth, because I can’t take Chinese government words at their face value. But I am definitely disappointed with this trashy movie with a bunch of lies.
if you don’t beleive, go to Tibet yourself and find out for yourself. It is impossible to find the real grievances of Tibetans in the current situation as its too strict, too many Chinese spies, cameras etc.
This is a very poorly made propaganda.
Waste of my internet band-with.
CDT, I hope you are not following the footsteps of cnn, bbc,and other anti china media.You are not quite there yet but you are getting close.
Don’t try to fool us.
Be more selective with your material.
Not only freedom: the dark ethnic side better read this very informative piece written by an anthropologist from the link below: Not only freedom: the dark ethnic side of the Tibetan Buddhist revolt
April 28, 2008 by marranci
http://marranci.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/not-only-freedom-the-dark-ethnic-side-of-the-tibetan-buddhist-revolt/#comment-1039
One of those junk-rated propaganda documentary worst than those produced by amatures in one of those You-Tube videos. Their insinuations are all the same~bad, evil, Chinese; just like what they always bad-mouth about Mugabe, Myanmar junta, F.Castro, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Ill & all the rest of humanity not of their same kind.
One question, just how many % the Western world really represents relative to the rest of humanity? A tiny 6%, perhaps. It is just that empty vessel makes most noise & they are being abbeted by the hegemony of their presses/media.
The documentary fails to narrate the images of Tibetan protesters smashing Han Chinese people’s homes and tipping Han Chinese people’s cars as _violence against the Chinese_ but very stereotypically and prejudicially names the Chinese as the Chinese troops in tanks. Many civilian Han Chinese have lived peaceably in Tibet for decades or generations and their tolls are definitely not mentioned. Certainly, there’s deaths on BOTH sides of the protests though, rationally, there probably are MORE deaths of Tibetans(?) just because the Chinese government had the artillery. Just saying though that this documentary is definitely NOT equivocal.
Also, while other commentators called this a “low-budget” documentary, it actually looks rather artificial to me… The Tibetan interview subjects are living in very pristine rooms with straw and tin accessories?? Some of the scenes are clearly sets, and the mountain footage is very fake looking…
It is very unattractive to deny truth. It puts you Chinese in the same category as European Holocaust-deniers. You focus on small details while trying to take attention away from the main crime, brutal occupation and colonization.
Those Chinese who try to question the credibility of this documentary, which had to be shot under dangerous conditions, are engaging in what Edward Said called “blaming the victims.” I would believe Channel Four over any of the appendages of the Ministry of Truth in Beijing any. The Chinese who complain about Western media coverage are like Nazi’s criticising the British and Americans for killing Jews. I wish the Chinese would realise that they have very little ground to stand on given the state of media freedom in their country.
its easy to say all these is biased n propaganda becuz you don’t experience it. You are ignorant and have no access to real information on Tibet.
The destructions of culture and persecution of Tibetans, brutal oppressions since 1950s in Tibet by China are beyond words and description. Tibetans have had suffered untold tragedies and continues to do in present.
All the Chinese citizens who have human warm heartedness will surely sympathise with tibetans as they know how much the CCP has done damage on Tibet and Tibetans.
Tibetans are wonderful people that they still say they have no hatred towards greater Chinese people but CCP’s policies in Tibet and oppression in Tibet.
Dalai Lama is even more compassionate and kind that he always asks Tibetans to show compassion to Chinese, he is also not seeking independence and supports Beijing Olympic.
All these propagandas by CCP to demonize Dalai Lama will backfire on China and does no good at all. The recent statement during the Lhasa torch relay where the CCP boss in Tibet harshly criticise Dalai Lama is clearly politicising the Olympic occasion.
I am optimistic that more Chinese will broaden their views,get more independent information and learn about the true nature and failure of the CCP. In the mean time the CCP leaders also realise all the mistakes and face up to the reality, exercise wisdom and act for a real harmonious society for China.
If the China’s govt is not totalitarian, and respect people’s point of view and care about the people’s well fare and plays responsible role in the international forums, then the respect for China in the world will automatically increase, otherwise suppressing dissidents, persecuting citizens and brutally committing genocide in Tibet will plunge China’s present and future prospect darker and darker in the eyes of its citizens and world.
MANY THANKS
for those complaining about the propaganda aspect of the documentary, are you more comfortable with the propaganda and message from CCP?As one of the commentators mentioned it’s like holocausts deniers.
For the Chinese friends who talk about ‘objective reporting’ why don’t you go to Tibet, try having open conversation(might not get very far thinking that you are a spy) or even try asking some hard probing questions to Chinese officials in China and abroad(u might not have that guts in the first place) to which I expect you to get flowery picture of Tibet or blaming of splittist Dalai lama to which you will come back to the forum and state that there is no problem is Tibet and Dalai Lama is the problem! That’s the deep unchanging hypocrisy, ignorance and chauvinism that some will carry even in the face of truth?
For true Human Right and Democracy,examine more deeply?If not then you are probably not concerned about human right except willing to say “if we get rich in China and powerful I don’t care about human right”,You might only realize the importance when a close relative,friends and family are personally prosecuted by the system.
I am Tibetan. I know that the Tibetans are not happy with the Chinese policy in Tibet, but “forced one-child policy” is not being implemented in the TAR. However, there are lot of other Tibetan areas outside TAR, where this could be a reality. So better to check the reality before jumping onto a conclusion.
Officially, the “one child policy” covers only “nationalities” in China. Thus, in theory, Tibet, regarded as a “minority nationality” is exempt from the provisions of family planning legislation.
Nevertheless, in practice, the Chinese Government has been encouraging Tibetans in TAR to comply with the official Chinese birth planning policy, promoting it through work units and birth control clinics.
You may look at numerous research done regarding this situation.
Best Wishes
Racheal
[...] Undercover in Tibet. [...]
Li Kong and The Manchurian: As a Tibetan I can’t tell you how great it is to read your words after reading all the filth at the top half of this comment section.
Bangow brings up another of the points we Tibetans bring up time and time again…the TAR is only one-third of Tibet!! My father is from the Kham province of Tibet. What has now been annexed into mostly Sichuan province around the 1960’s. So whenever you hear these BS statistics of Tibet and Tibetans, it is NOT the full truth at all. They are not counting two-thirds of the Tibetans! And so yes, in two-thirds of Tibet there is a one child policy!
What has now been annexed into mostly Sichuan province around the 1960’s. So whenever you hear these BS statistics of Tibet and Tibetans, it is NOT the full truth at all. They are not counting two-thirds of the Tibetans! And so yes, in two-thirds of Tibet there is a one child policy!
I don’t know where you learn your history but your description is highly inaccurate Your DL was born in Tibetan are of Gansu and when he become Dalai Lam the then Khasag goverment has to pay 100,000 silver tael to the then Warlord in Gansu in order to allow him to travel to Tibet Cham and Amdo has been incorporated into China proper since Kang Hsi time circa 1800 And Tibet goverment Khasag never exercise sovereignity in those area The fact that many tibetan live in those are is irrelevant to the question of soveregnity For Tibetan to demand that part of Gansu and Sichuan be included in TAR is next to preposterous It akin of Saying Vietnam and Korea should be incorporated back into China because they were once part of Chinese empire Talking about delusion here
Sorry Dalai Lama was born in Tibetan area of Qinghai
George: HH the Dalai Lama was born in Amdo right next to Lake Kokonor. Gansu, Sichuan, Qinghai those are provinces that were enlarged to incorporate Kham and Amdo, in an effort to split the Tibetan people; and yet again blurr the realities that were present pre-1950.
There is one thing that is for sure it’s the political mastery of the various Chinese Imperial-Republic-Communist governments. They were always overstating their influence to the rest of the world. And unfortunately for Tibetans now, Tibetans then only cared about inner peace and enlightenment, and not the slightest in the political interests of the world.
Post-1950 all the actions in the Tibetan Plateau by the PRC have been typical colonialist tactics. Lying, cheating, stealing, oppressing, murdering, etc.
Where do I get my information from? I’m Tibetan…where do you think I get my information from. I have access to first-hand knowledge and experiences…to both post-1950 and pre-1950. So you can state all the dates and names of Emperors/warlords you want. I know where the allegiance lies in the minds, hearts and blood of the Khambas and Amdowans…Tibet Proper. As exemplified in the hundreds of protests all over Kham and Amdo.
The Tibetan Plateau is just as the name implies, Tibet. You can even clearly see Tibet from satellite pictures on google. Go to maps.google.com and type in Tibet. Anyone can clearly see the geographic separation between Tibet Proper and China Proper. Everything West of the cities Chengdu and Xining is Tibet Proper. These major historic Chinese border towns were trading posts for Tibetans and Chinese to do business and trade goods. Many Tibetans would generally travel once a year to these cities and Mongolia, East Turkestan and even middle easter countries to do business.
No matter how much the PRC, or any other Chinese government, tries to rewrite or twist and turn history, you can do nothing about the strong Tibetan character. Currently the options as I see them for the PRC is to either continue it’s dispicable colonialist rule in Tibet and suffer the consequences of constant unrest and emminent mass rebellion, or grant true and genuine autonomy to Tibet Proper. And to begin the healing process for the Tibetan people HH the Dalai Lama must be allowed back in Tibet to his proper seat in the Potala Palace.
Hmm, here is where I must differ with you, sr. My understanding of provinces like Qinghai is that they were historically contested regions home to many different peoples, and that their demographics shifted throughout history (and continues to shift). Looking at the demographic information for Qinghai, for example, it seems that the province has a mixed population throughout - Tibetan, Han, Hui, Mongol, etc. In some areas, Tibetans predominate. In other areas, Han Chinese do (and it’s not just the areas around Xining, either - look at the information for Haixi and Golmud). But even discounting these two dominant populations, there are still significant populations of other minorities such as Hui and Qiang and Tu.
In that respect, and given the fact that historically, various parts of Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan have been governed by both Tibetan and Chinese states (and non-Tibetan, non-Chinese states) over the centuries, it seems that it would be inaccurate to say that it is *only* Tibetan (and therefore a non-contestable part of Tibet Proper). Indeed, if Tibet was to split from China tomorrow, I’m not sure many of the people living in Haixi, for example, would want to be governed by Lhasa, and given that there appears to be significant concentrations of Tibetans and Chinese living alongside each other there, a potentially dangerous partition event might result.
One idea behind the modern concept of self-determination is that political borders should be based on contemporary realities, rather than historical claims. Thus, people living in a region should be able to decide what country they’re a part of, regardless of which country that region might’ve been included under in the past. As you might imagine, this creates a number of problems - the Kosovo vs. Serbia issue, and the South Ossetia vs. Georgia issue, as well as numerous territorial dispute issues, are present day examples.
Turning the Tibetan self-determination issue (which is usually argued from the perspective of Tibetan people deciding who will govern them) into a territorial issue (ie the proper boundary between China and Tibet) therefore makes it more complicated and multi-faceted, in my opinion, since you now have to deal with the possibility that non-Tibetans living in the area would not want to be governed by Tibetans (should they not be allowed to self-determine, as well?) and that China’s claims to many of these areas is stronger than its claim to the TAR (since it’s been governing most of Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan for centuries and much of that territory was not under the 13th Dalai Lama’s government when he declared Tibet’s independence).
In fact, this is part of why I think the situation outside of the TAR is harder to resolve with a simple declaration of independence, and that independence may not be the best solution to this whole ordeal. Nation-states require clear cut, defensible borders in order to have stable relations, but what would be those borders be in this case? If you simply cut straight through Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan, many non-Tibetans in the area might be upset - not to mention a great number of Chinese who believe that these provinces have been their territory for centuries. On the other hand, if you include only the TAR and western Kham, Tibetans outside of these areas might be upset. Calls to “reclaim lost territory” could thus become a major problem for both sides, setting the stage for potential territorial wars.
It seems as though a “multi-ethnic state” solution would be preferable here, as it would account for the demographic diversity of the region and would prevent, ideally, different minority groups from being marginalized by the majorities in their areas.
eventine,
that’s been a very reasonable argument.
It has to be said, though, that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania did become independent of formerly Communist Russia regardless of the large numbers of Russians who had been settled there. So it is possible.
Furthermore you write:
“Nation-states require clear cut, defensible borders in order to have stable relations, but what would be those borders be in this case?”
Well, I’ve passed through the Erlangshan tunnel (Chengdu-Kangding), and I would say: who can ask for a more distinct natural border? Surely, the Tibetan plateau is one of the most distinct areas in the world…
If China were only looking for “clear cut, defensible borders” why do they keep posturing over Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state south of the Himalayas?
“It has to be said, though, that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania did become independent of formerly Communist Russia regardless of the large numbers of Russians who had been settled there. So it is possible.”
Indeed, but then there’s South Ossetia, Abhkazia, and the Ukraines… Russia is again extending its influence over those areas, and it’s using Russian and Russia-friendly populations to achieve that end. The Soviet Union collapsed due to its own weight, but after a period of internal chaos, it seems that Russia is again on the ascent - this plays into what I’ve been saying: for an *enduring* solution, something mutually satisfactory is needed, or else the region is just going to become contested once more.
Some Tibetan activists believe that Tibet should simply declare independence, claim these lands, and throw back the Chinese if they try to contest it, but that plays into what I said a while ago - does present day Tibet have the means to fight the PRC over territory? Would any other power intervene on Tibet’s behalf?
It seems a difficult proposition, practically speaking, unless China completely collapses and does not recover for some time. Even then, however, historically much of Qinghai, Sichuan, and Gansu have been taken over by local Chinese warlords striking out from China’s strongholds in the area. Without an agreement with China, Tibet would have to depend on its military to control the region, and that seems like it would require substantial strife and bloodshed - and an uncertain outcome.
“Well, I’ve passed through the Erlangshan tunnel (Chengdu-Kangding), and I would say: who can ask for a more distinct natural border? Surely, the Tibetan plateau is one of the most distinct areas in the world…”
But are there Chinese, non-Tibetans, etc. living on the other side of this border? If so, then the present day realities may not match the geographical barriers.
“If China were only looking for “clear cut, defensible borders” why do they keep posturing over Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state south of the Himalayas?”
I suspect there’s a number of reasons, but none of it justifies the claim. Reportedly, though, the Chinese leadership is showing more flexibility in settling a border with India. Whether anything will come of that, though, is anyone’s guess.
eventine, I would be very interested to know where you are getting your data on population diversity for each province, and whether or not the source you retieved the data states whether it is current or pre-1950. Unfortunately any data coming out of the Tibetan Plateau that has not been done covertly has undoubtably been heavily scrutinized by the PRC’s many government departments and officials. And honestly if it doesn’t lean in their favor they will not allow its release. Or they will control the access of information so that the data accumulated can not possibly be accurate.
Though I am not denying the fact that currently there is a large population of non-Tibetans on the Tibetan Plateau post-1950. Perfect segway into the definition of colonialism.
I can tell you for sure their were NO Chinese permanently living in Kham pre-1950. My father was born in a Tibetan village just West of Chengdu. I’ve heard many stories from him and my grandfather. The currency, language, judicial system, religion, schools, etc were all Tibetan and all had allegiance to Lhasa. So I can guarantee you that prior to 1950 roughly the entire western half of Sichuan was not governed by China. Unfortunately I dont have access to first hand experience with the governance in Amdo pre-1950, but I would be very certain that you would hear the same thing from an Amdowan. A large portion of Amdo is very dry and desolate. And as a previous poster here or mabye on a different post stated the Chinese do not like it, and would not voluntarily move there.
I understand from your statement that historical claims should be put aside and the current realities need to be considered. That is a admirable stance and apparently bilaterally empathetic. Though I am a bit hesitant seeing how it might set a dangerous presidence for China and there massive overpopulation. There are many Asian countries all around China and beyond, that have huge populations of Chinese. Who’s going to stop the PRC from wandering down South a little bit to Vietnam or Thailand. This on top of how China was/is trying to legitimate it’s rule in Tibet by the fact that Kublai Khan and his family had control of Tibet for a few generations around the 12th Century. This is an extremely outrageous and pathetic claim and one that should be discussed at the UN. What’s stopping these PRC thugs from trying to take a little more of the old Mongol Empire…Poland maybe. The first time I heard this I thought I was going crazy, I could not believe it. Turns out these PRC supporters are just crazily diluginal. Oh and to answer your question jh, China is claiming Arunachal Pradesh because during a relatively recent meeting between a Chinese official and Indian official in India, the Chinese official heard that the 5th DL was born in this area. So they then learned that this was part of Tibet during this time and so now believe that it is “an inalienable part of China”….what a joke. Sorry I’ll try to stay on point.
I think in a perfect world the self-determination issue would be definitely the way to go. Though self-determination is a word that I guarantee is not in the vocabulary of the PRC, or they might have the word but they probably changed its definition.
This “multi-ethnic state” sounds great in theory, but is this not what we have already and it is just not working out. And in my opinion, without a complete overhaul of the PRC’s policies of chauvanism, oppression, cultural genocide and rediculous attitudes towards HH the 14th DL I just do not see this being a healthy or even Humane multi-ethnic state. And to all the Chinese living in the regions of Kham and Amdo now; though I have lost complete faith in the PRC i have not lost faith in the common Chinese person. The key is educating them about the true history that was lived by the Tibetan people and Tibetan land. Though this is just past history it might help them understand the anger and frustration and sadness all Tibetans feel to some degree. And if they dont leave, then maybe they can just live in peace in a healthy and humane multi-ethnic community built on understanding, communication…under the commpassionate local governance of Lhasa of course :)
The clear-cut defensible border that is needed for stable relations, prior to 1950, has ALWAYS been the natural, clear-cut and very defensible border of the Tibetan Plateau.
Tashi delekh
sr, that is a very reasonable post, and I will dwell on it. I should point out, though, that the political situation prior to 1950 was not that clear cut. When talking about the PRC’s invasion of Tibet, people typically mean Mao’s invasion of the 13th Dalai Lama’s independent state, which was situated around the TAR. Qinghai, Gansu, etc. were under the control of various Chinese warlords at the time, some of whom were loyal to the ROC. Now, their populations could very well have been predominantly Tibetan then, but the actual borders of the provinces have been shifting for quite some time before that.
Thus, when stating that prior to 1950, the clear-cut defensible border of Tibet was the de facto border of the Tibetan Plateau, you must account for the much earlier conquests of the Qing Dynasty and its results on the region. The Qing, however, ruled the Tibetan cultural areas mostly through local Tibetan leaders, who had independent control over matters of law, culture, etc. Therein lies one possibility for meaningful autonomy, in which Tibetans would once again govern their own people in such important matters, while the Chinese would govern theirs.
As for the concept of irredentism (which you brought up as the possibility that the PRC may continue to claim areas through Chinese migration), that is a facet of historical reality that has never quite gone away. It is interesting to note that self-determination is actually criticized, at times, on the grounds that it might justify irredentism. Indeed, a number of international laws established around the concept of state sovereignty are designed to guard against irredentist arguments.
Both are relevant to the Tibetan issue - on one hand, Tibetans should absolutely have self-determination, but on the other, should Tibetans become independent, they would like to have sovereignty over their new nation. But then the non-Tibetan populations come into play, and negotiations (or conflicts) over borders will have to ensue with the Chinese nation. Furthermore, if indeed China’s population continues to migrate westwards (or southwards, or northwards, or even eastwards), then future irredentas are almost inevitable.
Unfortunately, I do not have a satisfactory answer for you with regards to how irredentism should be dealt with (it is still a contentious issue). But let me give you one common answer. To begin, the history of human civilization is such that no borders were ever sacrosanct. The Chinese built the Great Wall to keep out their northern neighbors but, in a twist of fate, it now lies well within China itself. Human migration is a fact, and so is our instinct towards being territorial. Much of the conflicts throughout history have been struggles over land and resources. If I were more cynical, I’d refer you to the Chinese saying - “big fish eat little fish, and little fish eat shrimp” - and state that this is simply a fact of nature: borders will shift, and stronger tribes will win out over weaker ones. Certainly, that has been the case for a very long time.
But I’m not that cynical. Rather, I believe that the modern world has been moving closer towards creating a system beyond the “might is right” paradigm of tribal relations. Part of this has to do with the sovereignty laws I mentioned earlier, but part of it also has to do with a more flexible environment of trade, immigration, and national identity. For example, whereas historically, states have often had to conquer in order to secure the necessary resources for their peoples’ wealth and prosperity, today the free market system substitutes for much of that, and allows resource-poor countries like Japan to become wealthy through the talent of its citizens.
In relation to irredentism, one could argue that the multi-ethnic concept of statehood is a way of getting around countries claiming territories based on their ethnic components: if we accept that states are multi-ethnic, then their territorial borders are not so much based on ethnicity as they are based on politics. Politics can be worked out through international law, which requires states to respect one another’s borders and decries violence as a means of solving disputes. Thus, states would not, under this framework, be able to claim irredentism based on migrants because it would be accepted that ethnicity is not analogous to territoriality. Therefore, the PRC would not be justified in demanding that Malaysia, for example, cede part of its territory to China just because ethnic Chinese occupy it.
Perhaps you see now why I’ve argued for multi-ethnic statehood - it solves a number of problems and turns what might otherwise be a territorial conflict between ethnic states into an internal debate within one state. This internalization of the issue helps reach a peaceful resolution, because when people see each other as fellow countrymen, they are more willing, typically, to give ground than if they saw each other in an “Us vs. Them” manner.
Of course, this is not the end of the story - there is always the danger of marginalization that groups perpetually face in states not of their majority. That is an argument *for* ethnic nationalism, but whether the argument is strong enough to trump what I said earlier, is difficult to say. I will maintain, though, that any solution that creates greater cooperation, understanding, and identification between groups is preferable - the trick is how to achieve this through *consent*.
And that’s the one constancy, I think, in this whole debate - that whatever solution is reached, it should be based on consent, which requires self-determination. Some Chinese may feel that assimilating Tibetans into one big Chinese family will be conducive to the “greater good,” but to do this through force is both morally wrong and socially infeasible. Tibetans will not become Chinese if, in their hearts, they do not want to be. Unification cannot be achieved through coercion - it must be achieved through the development of mutual friendship, trust, and empathy.
The day the Chinese government realizes this is the day China will be able to move forward as a multi-ethnic state. I can only hope that the realization comes soon, for there has already been too much suffering.
“And that’s the one constancy, I think, in this whole debate - that whatever solution is reached, it should be based on consent, which requires self-determination. Some Chinese may feel that assimilating Tibetans into one big Chinese family will be conducive to the “greater good,” but to do this through force is both morally wrong and socially infeasible. Tibetans will not become Chinese if, in their hearts, they do not want to be. Unification cannot be achieved through coercion - it must be achieved through the development of mutual friendship, trust, and empathy.
The day the Chinese government realizes this is the day China will be able to move forward as a multi-ethnic state. I can only hope that the realization comes soon, for there has already been too much suffering”.
Self determination is slippery concept and just open a can of work with no end Sofar the concept has been used selectively to advance western interest
Why is Kosove must be independent and not Abkhazia and Ossetia
the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the resulting nightmare in Balkan doesn’t show the wisdom of “self determination” when you think of it it is quite comical country like Slovenia and and Croatioa all want independence then with equal fervour join EC in other word surrendering part of their sovereignity to Higher authority. And who would decide which disgruntled group has the right for independce Can anyone do it? Then it will empowered any disgruntled group or anyone with grievances to look for independence as salvation.
You will create instability and dispute that will eventually lead to big war
No “self determination” by itself is not sufficient right for independence
and Make no mistake about China determination to guard their teritorial integrity They went to war twice even against stronger foe to maintain their teritory And all those talk about diintegration is just Hallucination and self denial for people who always lie to themselves because they believe that somehow the west is going to help them achieve their goal. And the west keep perpetuating this lie when they don’t have the slightest interest to help Tibetan other than advance their aim to break up China But 6 million is not going to change the destiny of 1.3 Billion dynamic,prospering, advancing and ON THE MARCH TO RECLAIM IS RIGHTFULL PLACE IN THE WORLD
John, you wrote:
“the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the resulting nightmare in Balkan doesn’t show the wisdom of “self determination” when you think of it it is quite comical country like Slovenia and and Croatioa all want independence then with equal fervour join EC in other word surrendering part of their sovereignity to Higher authority.”
That is an interesting example of yours. As I happen to be of European descent, I suggest you study these cases more thoroughly. Maybe you can find the opportunity to travel there and look for yourself…
Yes, the disintegration of Yugoslavia was a nightmare. Nevertheless, it was not a Western plot but it was the inhabitants of these former Yugoslav provinces that ruthlessly fought each other. What did it show?
That decades of Communist rule could not keep together what did not want to be together anymore. These people had distinct identities which were not honoured by the Communist government of former Yugoslavia.
A more enlightened policy than the Communist one of repression and forced assimilation may have prevented the dreadful break-up. Unfortunately, Communist policies are usually driven by ideology and not realities on the ground…
Now, pretty much all of the countries that have come out of this break-up want to join the EU. Why is that, you wonder?
Because the EU is a *voluntary* union of democratic countries with freedom of movement, prosperity and rule of law.
Naturally, after their previous experience that is exactly what those Balkan people aspire, too (as did the Polish, Czech, Latvians, Lithuanians…).
Maybe you can find some material and study these developments in more depth.
Why?
Because you may have noticed that they apply just as much to the PRC as they did to the USSR or Yugoslavia.
It is only a suggestion of mine. But, please, don’t just keep replying that Tibet has always been a part of China and so on and so on. It is a simple historical fact that Tibet has not been part of China since the beginning of time, which is the literal meaning of “always”…
If I look at Europe, I can say that borders shifted - sadly violently most of the time - until people preferred joining a mutually beneficial union voluntarily.
The Dalai Lama and the Tibetans are still prepared to live in a union with the Chinese. How much longer will the CCP be an obstacle to a *mutually* beneficial and *voluntary* union?
eventine,
In summation, I think you and I could easily agree on many issues.
One thing I would like to point is that the warlords you talk about were merely bandits that would make money off of locals and mostly upper-class travelers by robbing them and asking for ransoms. Simple thugs and most were small time bandits.
The Qing Dynasty is a good example of the soveriegnty of Tibet and it’s people. This is the ONLY past, truly, Chinese Dynasty that invaded Tibet and had any shred of influence. And yet, during the less than 70 years of this time Tibet was completely and genuinely autonomous. The lives of the Tibetans and internal government of Tibet did NOT change at all.
Just think….If the PRC would have instated this type of relationship instead of the dispicable colonization policies that have been in place for 50+ years, I’m sure a majority of Tibetans and Chinese would be great friends.
John, do you realize what you are saying when you say “ON THE MARCH TO RECLAIM IS RIGHTFULL PLACE IN THE WORLD” ? Is this a translational misunderstanding. First of all you sound like Hitler or something. Second, to reclaim any “place” in the world you must ALL look inside yourself first and find peace with yourself. No amount of “marching” or conquering will get you what you are looking for.
sr:
Thanks, and I do agree with much of what you said, as well.
Keep up the good fight.
The Qing Dynasty is a good example of the soveriegnty of Tibet and it’s people. This is the ONLY past, truly, Chinese Dynasty that invaded Tibet and had any shred of influence. And yet, during the less than 70 years of this time Tibet was completely and genuinely autonomous. The lives of the Tibetans and internal government of Tibet did NOT change at all.
Just think….If the PRC would have instated this type of relationship instead of the dispicable colonization policies that have been in place for 50+ years, I’m sure a majority of Tibetans and Chinese would be great friends.
In the past, Manchu like any other Chinese dynasty allow some form of autonomy to Tibet but the some Tibetan aristocracy just abused this generosity by seeking independent. Plus the remoteness and backward state of Manchu goverment doesn’t allow for deployment of large occupying troop.
But as soon as China regenerate itself after long civil war, road were built to Tibet and The treachery of Dalai Lama forced the central goverment to impose direct rule over Tibet.
China has no problem with other minority They more or less accept China authority. In Fact in Mongolia, the Mongol make up only 20% of total population in inner Mongolia. Xinjiang is 50% Han
John, you are a joker…
The Mongolian population in Inner Mongolia has dropped to 20% and the Uighur population of Xinjiang to 50% because of massive Han settlement since the founding of the PRC.
Initially these places, as Tibet, were more or less inhabited by their native populations only.
And as you say: “They more or less accept China authority.”
The Uighurs who don’t accept it get locked up just as the Tibetans do.
Don’t get me wrong. But just imagine the Japanese had been successful in their occupation of China and had since filled up the country with Japanese, taking all relevant positions in politics and business, turning the Chinese language into a second language only and making Chinese second-class people in their own country.
How would you as a Chinese have appreciated that?
You can talk like you do because you belong to the majority. But for once, imagine being on the other side…
John you said: “The treachery of Dalai Lama forced the central goverment to impose direct rule over Tibet”….this is one of the main reasons why you and the PRC are just a joke to humanity in the world. The world knows the Dalai Lama and so do I. I have seen him talk publicly and in private many times. Plus I’ve read nearly all his books that he has written or been associated with. You saying this thing is like saying Jesus Christ was a devil worshipper. It just doesn’t make ANY sense at all. The world feels sorry for you and rolls it’s eyes after you say such things. Have some self-respect and tell the truth for once.
Hmm, jh, I understand what you’re trying to say but I think massive Han Chinese migration into Inner Mongolia actually happened under the Qing and the ROC, who were trying to populate the region in an effort to strengthen their hold against Russian expansionism.
When the PRC took over China in 1949, Inner Mongolia was already pre-dominantly Chinese. The numbers I have from “Mongolia in the Twentieth Century” suggests that in 1947, the Han Chinese population was at ~4.8 million, and the Mongolian population was ~800,000 - just under 15%.
So, in fact, the PRC was not the culprit for Han Chinese growth, here. This growth is also not *that* surprising - Han Chinese have been settling in Inner Mongolia for centuries (due to its proximity to China, unlike Tibet) and it is only the constant warfare between the northern nomadic tribes and the Chinese that kept them from becoming a dominant majority. Once the Manchus established control over Mongolia, effectively ending the nomads’ military control of the area, and opened up the region to migration, the Han Chinese population soared. Under the PRC, both populations (Han & Mongolian) grew tremendously but the ratios between them stayed pretty much the same.
eventine,
I’m still very interested where you are getting these numbers. Not that I whole-heartedly dont believe the numbers you are stating but it would be interesting to note.
And the Chinese claim of populating this region to strengthen their hold against Russian expansionism sounds like ‘a kettle trying to tell the pot is black’ scenario. I mean moving some troops in to the region maybe, but moving hunreds of thousands of people? Sounds strange. Actually sounds like maybe this is something they might say about the population tansfer of Chinese into Tibet one or two hundred years from now, only because of British or CIA aggression. Smells of a farce dont you think?
I mean what is the REAL purpose…There are Han Chinese descendants all over Asia. You name it they are there. Tibet was literally the last place there was never a Chinese influx, until the late 1960’s and 70’s. Is this what John was talking about when he said Chinese people were going to “march to reclaim their rightfull place in the world”. Are they trying to start a new brand of “conquering” by sheer numbers of people spread all over the place like jack rabbits?
Or is it that they are so unhappy with the society of their own people that they are just constantly trying to get away from themselves?
Am I off the deep end on both of these late night theories or is one correct, or mabye both.
sr, the numbers are from the book I quoted - “Mongolia in the Twentieth Century” by Stephen Kotkin and Bruce Elleman. Their numbers are, I believe, based on historical Chinese census data - which Chinese states have been carrying out sine long before the PRC was established.
As for the rationale for Chinese migration, I think I would rather differ to the historians, here. The Qing did indeed have a policy of encouraging Han Chinese migration towards the end of its rule, largely because it was worried about losing control over its underpopulated territories during a time of rapid expansion by European empires. The ROC continued this policy for many of the same reasons, and so did the PRC.
There is no need to suspect a conspiracy of Chinese migrants marching off to conquer Asia - the Han Chinese migrations were never that organized. Rather, historically the migration of Chinese all over the world were based on circumstances at home - times of war, natural disaster, and the lack of economic opportunities. Chinese migrated to other parts of the world for many of the same reasons other Asian peoples migrated. The only exceptions to this rule were what I stated above - during certain periods of time, the government in charge of China did indeed use migration as a way of defending its territorial claim; these periods were well-documented, and I don’t think historians will interpret the PRC’s population policy vis-a-vis Tibet more erroneously than they did the Qing’s or the ROC’s. Give them more credit - it’s their job, after all.
Thanks for your details on Mongolia and your thorough discourses in general, eventine. It’s a pleasure “listening” to you, king of the elves!
Based on the “neutrality of your observations” (that is from my point of view, naturally ;-), I suppose you are not a Han Chinese (although it is possible, of course).
Do you have any first-hand knowledge whether there are historians inside the PRC that share those views?
jh, thanks, I am no expert, but do try to keep myself informed on the subjects I discuss :) As to your question, since I have limited knowledge of Chinese academic writing I cannot give you a proper perspective on the Chinese history scene, but I do know of writers like Wang Lixiong (Woeser’s Chinese husband), whose works can be read in translation, and who support the Tibetan cause. I would also point you out to a trend of dissent that seems to have emerged recently, in which Chinese academics have written open letters to the Chinese government challenging their policy on Tibet. So in that respect, yes, I do think there are academics inside the PRC who share a more balanced view.
I would also encourage you to visit English-language websites like chinahistoryforum.com, where people who are more fair-minded about the facts of Chinese history gather. While they would not necessarily engage in a thorough discussion of the Tibetan issue (since they focus on history rather than current events), they can probably tell you more about the recorded history of various ethnic groups in China.
Wang Lixiong and their ilk are in minority and has no following in China The aging dissidents like our webmaster here is completely unknown and irrelevant. They just voice in wilderness The western press try to exagerate their importance and magnify it hundred time Read Phew survey 86% of population back up the goverment
John, I know and I appreciate that the Chinese government has the support of the Han Chinese population. In fact, if they were smart they would call elections right now! ;-)
The Tibetans, Uighurs, dissidents and others as you say are a minority who don’t support the government.
In a democratic country with human rights and the rule of law that would not matter very much, in communist China it makes all the difference!
@SR before you continue your diatribe against China you better brush up on Chinese history Yes Chinese history forum is good site to learn about Chinese History. Just because the name inner mongolia doesn’t mean it was originaly populated by Mongolian. Mongol show up late in history circa 11 century. China was in inner mongolia long before that. Being so close to Chinese heratland, Chinese spread north, east,south from the original Homeland in Shanxi
But it is contested by the nomad. First the Khitan they founded the Liao dynasty.They in turn are defeated by the Yurchen who founded the Jin Dynasty. But all of them give up their nomadic life and choose to settle north of great wall and embrace Chinese culture.Then come the Mongols turn. At the end of the Mongol Yuan dynasty they were beaten but instead of returning to Outer Mongolia,they choose to settle in Inner Mongolia The Ming in their wisdom allow them to settle in inner Mongolia
The Uyghur wasn’t even originally in Xinjiang. Their homeland is Central China but around 8 century Their kingdom was destroyed by the Kirghiz and being close ally of China they were allowed to settle in Xinjiang. But they never formed Kingdom instead they formed city states. Like Tibet China never exercise direct control until Qing Dynasty. To guard the border Kang Hsi send his kin the Xibei to populate and developed the land during peace and to form Militia and repel the marauding Kosakh Russian which they did. splendidly And until today their dscendant nummbering 300,000 still live in Illi Xibei autonomous regions .China followed the practice by sending demobilized troop after the korean war to developed Xinjiang. They are known as Bing Tuan the settler soldier. These people literally make the dessert bloom and founded almost all the modern city in Xinjiang Beside the Han there is also Kazakh and Hui
John, I am impressed with your knowledge of Chinese history. What you quote may be right - it may be wrong, too. How can we say for sure now what happened then?
The Chinese have a history of civilization that they can generally be proud of, no question. And nobody wants to take it away from them.
But the question is a different one:
what to do about the gross violations of human rights in Tibet?
And if a people are thoroughly fed up with the rule that is imposed on them, and if there is no democracy to vote them out, what to do?
The US has shown us once again the power of democracy, the CCP is still only showing the power of the gun…
Owing to the apparent decline of American-style capitalism, however, “universal values” associated with U.S. democracy have been discredited within the majority of CCP members. Even before the onset of the financial tsunami, several noted conservative cadres had assailed the concept of “universal values,” saying that these were but “sugar-coated bullets” to lure China to morph into a capitalist country through “peaceful evolution.” These conservatives are echoing a speech made by the president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Chen Kuiyuan, in the summer. Chen indicated in his much-quoted CASS talk in July that “we must establish self-respect and confidence in our own people.” “We must not engage in blind worship [of the West] and we must not extol Western values as so-called universal values,” the ideologue said (CASS.org.cn, September 2). Orthodox theorist Feng Yuzhang added that eulogizing “global values” amounted to “an advocacy of all-out Westernization, which is an effort by [Western powers] to change the socialist order in China” (People’s Daily, September 10; Open Magazine, October 2008).
Contrary to what you might think of me I do believe that eventually some kind of democracy will come to China Ensuring goverment is accountable to its people is the goal that China should strive. But at the present stage of Economical and social development I don’t believe it is advisable for China to wholesale import western democracy. I believe that when the economy advance further Tibetan too will enjoy the fruit of higher living standard and They too someday will enjoy human right and Just be patient
John, Your history could very well be correct, but considering the incredible amount of BS “history” that has come out of China with regards to Tibet, I would be willing to bet that the people of Inner Mongolia and certainly East Turkistan (Xinjiang) will have a much different story. Although I am a science major, I do love history and would love to hear about the history of China Proper. But when it comes to history about supposedly “autonomous” regions annexed by the Han controlled PRC, I will get my history from the mouth of someone who actually lived there.
“I believe that when the economy advance further Tibetan too will enjoy the fruit of higher living standard and They too someday will enjoy human right and Just be patient” ….Please John, really? I do appreciate your hopefull words, but give me a break. We have outright colonialism and all the evil that comes with it (look that up in your history books) going for 50+ years in Tibet at the hands of Han PRC thugs, and your talking about being patient. Please, Tibetans have been nothing but patient for long enough!! Pangs of the Nazi officer dragging another emasciated Jew to the showers, saying ‘just be patient I’m sure things will change’. Obviously difference of outright genocide and cultural-genocide, but you should get the point.
…And yes democracy has it’s flaws for sure. But tell the truth, you are absolutely amazed at the symbol of opportunity and greatness here now in America.