As regards the situation in Τibet, I’ve said elsewhere that history is a slippery ally when forced into the service of contemporary political disputes.
Let’s set aside the Mongols for a moment. They ruled an empire that stretched from Korea to Kiev, so one could use the Khans to make all kinds of territorial claims. Yuan (1279-1368) rule was extremely short in duration anyway, and most of the territories outside China proper were beyond Ming (1368-1644) control for nearly 300 years.
The Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) is a good place to start as the Manchus did maintain garrisons on the Τibetan plateau while administering the region through local elites. The Qing rulers, great patrons of Lamamism, consolidated their rule by maintaining cultural and religious ties with Τibet beyond mere military occupation. They also–generally but not always–ruled with a light touch, allowing relative autonomy in religious and cultural matters, which suited the situation quite well. The Qing Dynasty was, after all, a large, multi-ethnic empire, and maintaining order and peace in outlying territories was the utmost concern.
The problem is that the PRC is a nation-state, and the demands a nation-state places on its people are different than those of an empire. It is not enough that Tibetans merely pay taxes and not revolt, they must also identify with the nation-state first and foremost, with other cultural and religious aspects secondary to the demands of modern state building. Empires want to be respected, nation-states want to be loved. That’s a sticky wicket the Qing never had to face.
It’s not surprising that when we look at the world’s hot spots we see the legacies of colonialism and decolonization. As empires give way to new forms of political organization there is resistance and tension. Modern states attempt to preserve the territories bequeathed to them from empires of old, while subject peoples seek greater autonomy and even independence.
Unfortunately, history is a poor arbiter of who gets what, and too often (as in the case of Τibet) history becomes warped and carved, tugged and torn, by states and separatists, to suit the political demands of a contemporary crisis.
My own views on the situation are consistent with my views on China in general: I believe the citizens of Τibet, as with those in the rest of China and the world, should be free to speak and write and criticize without fear of censorship or government suppression, and to demonstrate peaceably if necessary. They should be able to worship and participate in cultural practices as they see fit, to be educated in the language of their choice, and to be able to pursue these rights in free, unbiased, and independent courts. When those are accomplished, whether Tibet remains a part of the PRC, becomes an independent state, or ends up something or somewhere in between, is a matter for the Tibetan people and the PRC government to then resolve peacefully through dialogue and negotiation.
Corrigenda:
Venezuela – 517, 947
Non-OPEC – 2,989,479 (OPEC -2,013,603)
ScottLoar,
Matt Ridley is a great author. I also have a suggested reading for you. Selfish Genes by Richard Dawkins, if you really want to understand the prime animator of human affairs.
cao meng de – it is indeed wu ming like “no name” or “anonymous,” but i chose it a couple of years before zhang yimou’s movie came out.
as for scott “america does not control the [puppet] government of iraq” loar, my sole response is merely to point out to those watching this thread to the number of american military bases (or military presences in foreign bases, or american carrier fleets) scattered across the globe, and their proximity to major oilfields. i don’t have the time to engage in a mindless flamewar with someone so disconnected from reality.
Why, when the Manchus fell from power, weren’t the other peoples that made up the former Qing, such as the Mongols, Tibetans, or Uighur, “entitled” to rise up and declare their independence as well, like the Han did? That was a question I often wondered when studying early 20th century Chinese history.
What I always found odd was that many early 20th century revolutionaries like Sun Yatsen and Zou Rong, possessed an obvious, often vitriolic disdain for the non-Han groups of the Qing dynasty. Many of Sun Yatsen’s early speeches focused heavily on the “otherness” of the Manchus, and how Han Chinese were oppressed by them. Yet when the Qing disintegrated, and the Han majority assumed power, there seemed to be an about-face. The groups which had long enjoyed privilege under the old Qing order, such as Manchus, Mongols and Tibetans, were no longer cast as the “other,” but rather as belonging to China — a “China” constructed by the Han majority. No longer did Sun emphasize the alien nature of the Manchu, they were now an integral part of his republic.
@Everlasting
good question. The answer is ….. that is politics for you
[...] For another, “History,” in the service of competing claims in the here and now is a tricky ally. When it is used to forecast the future it can be even trickier. At the very least, when history [...]
Perhaps I am missing something as regarding what “history” is and “part of” is. but as chronicle of events, say history, may present disputes as to what happened. Then the historian must engage in evidence weighing, credibility, authenticity, and can give his opinion, draw a conclusiong, as to a “fact” Booth shot Lincoln, Mudd’s involvement was as a doctor facing an injured stranger. Asking the question “is Tibet part of China?” calls for an opinion only as “part of” hasn’t been defined. Then whatever opinion is given “it is” “it is not” “it is unclear” is used to justify, legalize, recognize whatever [it is early saturday morning and there are fireworks out side and I've not had quite enough caffeine to want to engage this in any final way] that the current Chinese state has legal authority over the territory and people/s present in the territory. That is a legal point and that’s a bit different. Call me naive on this but don’t call me any other names! Happy Belated New Year/s [Western and Chinese]. I came across this blog and it is of interest to me as Tibet, Taiwan, Gaza, the Hawaiian Islands [relax] and praps others present legal sovereignty issues that can easily be discussed at one sitting. My lens is history and international law.