Michecon, real_egal et al; I wanted to add that I've enjoyed reading your posts on this matter and find them enlightening and am not offended. You bring up a lot of good information that I've found educational and helpful for understanding the situation. As I said before I'm very busy with few projects and am just keeping Clutchfans in the background and am posting when I can snatch some time so I can't give you responses that your posts deserves or answer your questions in further detail. I will say though that one thing thas marked this debate particulary from the PRC side is legalism. I believe that legalism is somewhat suspect given the extremely complicated nature of the history, treaty law and the fact that the argument is made so legalistic just shows how murky it is. Moving beyond the legalistic arguments for a moment, as I've said a few times there is a pratical solution to this and IMO its a mistake for the PRC not to take it and also a mark of the extremism of supporters of the PRC position to not even consider it. As has been noted the Dalai Lama is willing to recognize PRC sovereignity provided that Tibet is given more autonomy. Further the Dalai Lama would be willing to allow for open elections in Tibet regarding local government. Under such there's no guarentee that a party antagonistic to the PRC or Han Chinese would come to power in Tibet and its possible a pro-PRC party could win erasing any doubt of PRC legitimacy in Tibet. The PRC has a lot to gain from this arrangement and little to lose and it just seems like pure stubbornness or paranoia about maintaining control to not agree to this sort of arrangement. Supporters of the PRC position often accuse those who support the other side of this issue of being extremist to me the failure to even consider an option that essentially gives the PRC what it wants, sovereignity over Tibet with no questions, is (pardon me for saying this) extreme in the extreme.
I'm not on any Tibetan mailing list but I did help out with the Tibetan resettlement project a few years ago and will freely admit I consider the Dalai Lama a great spiritual leader. As a sidenote I often got the feeling from the Tibetans that I worked with that many of them distrusted me for being Chinese. When I was a board member for the Chinese American Association of Minnesota (CAAM) I tried to get some cross organization dialogue going which was doomed due to mutual distrust from both sides. That failure at finding common orginizational ground was only exceeded by my failure at getting CAAM and the local Taiwanese association to cooperate regarding Wen Ho Lee. So if it makes Panda feel any better I'm distrusted and disliked by Tibetans, PRC Chinese, and Taiwanese.
Thanks. And I've never questioned your good intention in this discussion. Without knowing the detail of what kind of "more autonomy" that Dalai Lamma is proposing for, it's very difficult for me to comment. One thing I believe though, like I said, it's nearly impossible to go back to the Tibet prior of 1953. I believe the election stuff would come along with the political progress made in other parts of China. Without knowing the details, again, it's very difficult to praise, or to criticise PRC not accepting the proposal. Politics, as you know , are very complicated, especially in China, a country still in wanting of rule of law. In my mind, Dalai Lamma would have done much more for Tibet and its people had he not fled. Were he still in Tibet, his words/proposals would hold much more weight. After all, he is the religious leader, and could played a broad roll as political leader. Now he run the risk of history passing him by, that I believe is part of the reason he has had some change-of-mind in his recent years.
I'd welcome open election in Tibet if it's also done everywhere else in China. For many practical reasons (I'll be glad to elaborate if you wish), a limited "democracy" for the sake of democracy in only parts of the country is not inducive to maintaining the unity and integrity of China. The "nationalist" in me deeply suspects the motives behind the calls for democracy in China, especially from those former imperialist countries, where they themselves are not really shining examples. I bet these international benevolent humanitarian interventionists won't shed any tear over China's demise, should it become "Balkanized." There may well be in the more advanced countries idealists like you who are genuinely worried about progress of democracy in less developed countries. My experiences/observations in both China, USA, and other countries in the world tell me without first having a solid economic foundation, democracy is only a mirage and not sustainable. The sentiment from the Americans after seeing "Ha Ha Ha America" pretty much shows the threat from China felt by Westerners is not really about the human rights problems, lack of freedom of speech or democracy in China -- things that are probably of high priority in the minds of "idealists", but the fear of losing privileged status in the new world ecnonomy. The pressure for democracy, IMO, is nothing but a smoke screen in the grand scheme of dividing-and-conquering -- the old trick that was used repeatedly over a weakened China in the not so distant past.
Normally, I only chime in D & D at work. Given the time pressure, especially I sometimes got interrupted when writing things here, there are always lots of mistakes. As much heated as some discussion might be, I still enjoy the forum here, because I do obtain lots of information from other posters here. Except for a very few, most of people are still willing to reason. Because of our biased views, we tend to lean to our trusted sources, or better to say that we choose to believe the information complying with our own views. Therefore, discussion is healthy. I am all for the free and open election, but not in Tibet alone, rather in whole China. I don't think it's realistic right now. If Republican or Democrates were given the right to put themselves on the constitution as the Only ruling party, and they have the sole right to decide whether they will hold open election. I guess they wouldn't, nor do CCP. Economical reform will eventually lead to political reform, that's my firm belief. In the eyes of some Western people, CCP is still the same as 30 years ago, but it's not the case for most Chinese. There is a long way to go, but they did change a lot. With better economical condition, better education, and more informed, average Chinese wants more freedom, and governmental control looses bit by bit as well, although not voluntarily, it's still moving forward. In China, it's not just iron fist now, because CCP is trying to please Chinese people in general. No matter how you slice it, people are feeling better, with more money. There is huge problem in social welfare, health care, farmers, but comparing to 20 years ago, people do see significant improvement. Chinese people as general, are interested in TALKING about politics, but not interested in PARTICIPATING in politics. Because they are afraid of the consequences, winner takes all and loser loses all. It's not something CCP invented, but rather stammed from Chinese history. Look at South East Asia, how big an impact ethnic Chinese make in economy, but how little to none influence they have in politcs. With past 150 years in mind, Chinese people are really afraid of dramatic changes. You cannot expect them to rise up to oppose CCP ruling all of a sudden. From CCP POV, they don't really gain anything by given the Tibetans option to choose, because they will face the delimma whether they should give other Chinese the same choice. Historically speaking, in that long 3000 - 5000 years, you can always find certain periods when certain pieces did not exactly belong to the great China. According to some of the argument here, there is reason enough to be independent. I don't think any government will allow that. If, just a big if, communists didn't defeat nationalists, and China was always an ally of US, people probably wouldn't raise so many questions regarding Tibet. You might say without CCP, there would not be CR, Tibetans would be treated better. I admit that Tibetans were not treated well during GLF/CR, nor was any Chinese. But that should not play any role in the discussion of China sovereignity. Again, I respect people with warm heart, and contribute in community works. Hopefully, you will not be afraid to discuss and argue about matters China related.
Did you hear the news that the Department of Propaganda wasn't even able to shut down a weekly supplement opinion journal of China Youth Daily newspaper? Now that's significant, IMO. I read it from NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/i...&en=c3674ecb36c759c1&ei=5094&partner=homepage
No kidding Without Internet, lots of things happening now were unimaginable. Change might come earlier than people expect, and I welcome that. How many people actually predicted the Fall of Berlin Wall?
Thanks for the reply. I don't really care about the stance of Chinese descendants being anti-China, I was curious to the motive behind such stance. As long as it doesn't have to do with any kind of indecent complex it's fine with me. I asked the question because I feel it's not fair to just focus on Chinese or pro-China posters's stance, often jabbed by terms like "nationalistic" or "inferiority complex", or even being called out as fabricating stories without justification. While slinging around such descriptions is acceptable, I was surprised to see that my mere question regarding motive behind anti-China stance was attacked. If anything, it shows me there's double standard going on. It's nothing new, anyway.
My time is still somewhat limited but I took a little time to do some research and answer a particular challenge made by Michecon that he's raised a few times. I actually found a couple of instances where the ROC unilaterally nullified concession agreements from the Qing and one where the PRC nullified one that the PRC had signed. http://www.geocities.com/treatyport01/TREATY01.html#TERMINATION While the termination was made official following the end of World War II the ROC did terminate those treaties by declaring war unilaterally. It would be logical to presume that if the WWI hadn't ended with a German and Austro-Hungarian defeat China's termination might not have gained official recognition. Also even though the Soviet Union did give up their claim to the treaty rights that was after the ROC had already terminated the agreements since they didn't recognize the USSR. That also goes to my point that successor governments aren't always considered to be bound by the agreements that prior governments were. In this case even Sun Yat Sen's ROC government appeared to agree with that line of thinking. http://www.photius.com/countries/china/economy/china_economy_sino_soviet_relation~7375.html I will agree that this treaty was for all practical purposes dead since relations between the PRC and USSR had been sour since 1958 but it still is an example of the PRC unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty that it signed.
Hey, Thanks for putting in the effort. What you show is--however weak your example is--that ROC, and POC had unilaterally pulled out of treaties. It doesn't suprise me. That happens all the time. Like US unilaterally pulling out of international environmental treaties (or nuclear test treaty, something like that, I can't remember exactly). What you didn't show is that China (or other nation for that sake) has pulled out of a treaty without shoulding the consequences in accordence with the content of the treaty. China could pull out of a treaty, but it won't just be acceptted. In treaties involving territorial claims, or sovereignty, that action usually results in war(s), or be solved by war(s). As your first example testified. If the treaties pertains other minor issues, there will usually some setbacks, economic, diplomatic, etc. As your second example showed (assuming you are right). Using the example in this thread, Tibet could declare independence, or UK could declare Tibet is theirs, or India whoever, but that will result into a war. And things won't settle until the war is over and a new treaty is signed. What I challenge you of, is to find some treaty that China nullified, or pulled out without shoulding any consequence. Or better yet, a treaty that could potentially bring China's sovereignty to question, as you stated, yet the world quietly accept.
I personally believe that the PRC needs to and eventually will democratize. I believe the CCP is somewhat paranoid in this regard but as for China proper need not fear potential defeat. The CCP has succeeded in giving Chinese economic success and rapid development. If they were to allow democratic elections its very unlikely the CCP would lose. While the PRC isn't Taiwan or South Korea but considering their successful transitions from one party rule to multiparty democracy I don't see why the PRC couldn't do it. Further there are several benefits to democritizing and also to allowing regions like Tibet more autonomy (local rule) . For one those would probably be the critical factors for getting Taiwan to reunify. The second is that given the large size and increasing complexity of the PRC centralized government is difficult and inefficient to maintain. By allowing the regions much greater autonomy and localized control bureacracy can be cut along with greater accountability of government to the populace. Back to the situation with Tibet. In this situation the feeling I get is that many Chinese don't want to see Tibet get democracy while China proper doesn't. Fair enough but the precedent is already established with Hong Kong so its not like there are no Han Chinese in the PRC who don't already have a fair amount of democracy. The next point is to remove a major thorn in the PRC's international image. Many of you wonder why people consider the Chinese to be defensive overly nationalistic and having an inferiority complex over the Tibet issue is that frankly that's the way the PRC government and many Chinese sound by refusing any sort of moderation, continually calling Tibetan exiles, slave owners and other such derogatory names or changing the subject by harping on issues like the US history of Native Americans. Again this is a matter of perspective and I understand the history of China enough to understand why this is such a touchy issue but at the same time a little moderation on the issue wouldn't hurt. For instance: While its true the Dalai Lama doesn't wield official power in Tibet now but ignores why the Dalai Lama is so widely revered and respected throughout the World. History isn't passing the Dalai Lama by but its very likely if he didn't leave Tibet he would've ended up the like the Panchen Lama who ended up being not much more than a puppet, and was forced to abdicate. While the Dalai Lama very much would like to return to Tibet his place in history as one of the great moral and spiritual leaders of modern times is safe. Even leaving out politics he will be recognized for making Tibetan Buddhism a world wide religion. While this comment is one of the nicest comments made about the Dalai Lama by a Chinese supporter of the PRC position on Tibet to somehow say that since he didn't stay under the rule of PRC history will pass him by seems petty. The Dalai Lama is and will be an important historical figure with or without the PRC.
As you rightly state the consequences in many cases are war. In which case then you are just arguing that if one party is too weak or too fearful then the other party is free to abrogate the treaty. Of course that's true in terms of the application of raw power but hardly a legal argument. Your challenge was: Which I have answered and now you are moving the goal posts. Twice for that matter. One where China nullified or abrogated a treaty without consequence (actually I answered that already since the Mutual Friendship treaty with the USSR was pretty much defunct since 1959, and also since Germany and Austria-Hungary were pretty much defeated at the time the ROC terminated their treaty rights and at the time Japan was occupying the German Chinese concessions already. Second for a treaty that the world would recognize bringing Chinese sovereignity in question. In terms of what the PRC considers Chinese territory the US defense treaties of Taiwan does that since that treaty states that the US will defend Taiwan in case the PRC asserts its claim to sovereignity over Taiwan by military means. The rest of the World seems to accept that.
Whether it did so legally or not it still unilaterally withdrew. The US legally withdrew from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Accord but that doesn't mean many don't criticize the Bush Admin for unilaterally withdrawing from those treaties. Michecon's initial question wasn't whether it was legal or not but where the ROC or PRC had unilaterally nullified or abrogated a treaty.
Sisir, I will leave democracy issue aside for a moment. Since it takes much lengthy discussion. For the moment, I will just say that I'm never the one against (some form of) democracy. What I don't understand is the "for instance" part. Look who's being defensive, just kidding. What I meant was that you can do better things for your people only if you are on the ground. Go ask Dalai Lamma, I personally bet he would wish he's still inside tibet now. By staying in Tibet doesn't mean he has to be a puppet, or he can't fight for the rights of Tibetans. True, Panchen was a bit soft. But I bet he did some real things for Tibetans. Actually the main thing is, Panchen is too OLD, and he never command as much power as Dalai in Tibet. Believe me or not, history will pass Daila by, by which I mean Tibet will progress with or without Daila. And he COULD do some real thing for Tibet--he's still young and active--were he still inside Tibet. With the progress in China, Daila could make much more impact had he not fled. However, my "passing him by" by no means deny his religious, spiritual roll, or achievement, like you would like to say.
No you misunderstand me. Application of raw power doesn't make it legal. In the ROC case, they were already in a world war. However, subsequent treaties settled upon may lay a new legal ground. No I didn't move the post. You misunderstand me again. In my reply to yours, I clearly refered to the kind of treaties that's not settled, that would make your initial claim true. Otherwise, why are we bringing out all that treaty stuff? Sorry, if I didn't make that clearer. Oh, and I don't understand what TW has to do here? US recognize TW as within Chinese Sovereignty.
Thanks for revealing your true color (j/k), Sishir! That pretty much explains everything you stand on the Tibetan issue. Given I am from the opposite end of this, I can hardly see we would agree on many things in this area any time soon. Now that I am used to your "rhetorics," I must confess I was pretty shocked when I first read your posts in this thread.
I'm reposting this from another thread so as to not derail that thread further. In regard to moral consistency you've often criticized the current US Admin for its arguments for imposing its values on the rest of the World yet you yourself are essentially making the same argument. You're arguing how bad things were in Tibet prior to the PRC taking over to essentially justify the PRC's actions. Therefore your own sanctimony in regard to when supporters of the Bush Admin's policy bring up how bad things were under Saddam belies a moral inconsistency since you do recognize that moral change should be forced onto other cultures. Now I understand that you believe the Tibet to be part of the PRC and so the PRC has the right to force that change yet I doubt that even you can deny that most of this change was done at the point of a gun and the Tibetans themselves didn't volunatarily agree to the PRC system of values.
