Why I’m for Tibet being part of China, and against the Chinese Communist Party’s actions
By CHAN SHIJUN
Living in Australia now, I am at present inundated by the full extent of the Australian Press’ backing of Tibetan independence from China.
But my personal opinion on this runs contrary to this nation’s media. I’m not sure what the majority of Malaysians’ stands are on this, but I get the feeling most are pro-China, mainly due to the fact that Malaysians under Dr. Mahathir has been indoctrinated with the concept of non-interference in a nation’s internal matters.
Anyway, I think that Tibet is part of China. It was a region that was conquered by the Mongols in the 13th century and was incorporated into the Chinese dynastic line as part of the Yuan Dynasty.
In my debate with a pro-Tibet supporter, he raised the issue that we differentiate the Mongol Empire with the Chinese Empire, and that since the Mongols conquered Tibet, and not the Han-Chinese, Tibet cannot be considered to be a part of the present Han-Chinese borders.
This is only nominally true, as very early on after his successful conquest of the Chinese Empire, Kublai Khan considered himself to be a ‘Chinese Emperor’ instead of a “Mongol Emperor.”
Furthermore, the successive dynasties of the Ming, Qing (ok a Manchu group here, but definitely part of the Chinese Dynastic line), Republic of China, and People’s Republic of China governments have all not relinquish sovereignty over Tibet. And as brutal as this sound, nor has Tibet managed to successfully gained independence, either through bloody wars or through gaining recognition from the UN.
Pro-Tibet people must understand the stubbornness of the Chinese government in not giving an inch in regards to what they perceived as Western interference on its internal matters.
To them (and me) it is akin to asking a country to give up one of its states! Here I must make something clear: My support for Tibet being part of China has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with supporting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Notice the attempts by the world (Western world) media to mesh these two issues together, equating the CCP = brutality = brutalising Tibet = ergo we must help free Tibet from the brutal repression of the CCP.
Wait a minute… I know that the CCP supports the ideology of a party-state political structure, but when did the West started doing the same? Hence my emphasis on China’s legitimate claim over Tibet originating far before the CCP regime. Instead, it started during the Chinese Dynastic times.
Also, why did the Western-led international community only started protesting China’s claim towards Tibet after 1949? When Tibet unilaterally declared its independence in 1912, did any other country recognised its claim of independence? No. So why the about-face after 1949? I am inclined to believe that it was more because of the US-led aversion towards China’s new Communist govt than anything else and thus wanted to destabilise it, or in the very least harass it.
We must then question the motives for the West in their seeming zeal in the Tibetan cause. Nobody does something for nothing. Why does it seem more palatable for the US politicians to engage in wars with Arabic states as oppose to North Korea, for example? Might securing oil supplies play even a small part in their decision?
Likewise, the claims that the West has their own agenda in supporting Tibetan independence. Not only is China now a rising super-power, but even more horrifying to the U.S., it is also a communist country. Hence having a pro-US independent Tibet right at the doorstep of China will be a great thing to have.
On the brutality that the CCP inflicted on the Tibetan protesters, simple, I condemn it. I also condemn the Tienanmen Square Massacre in 1986. And every other instances when the CCP brutalised dissidents. I want China to democratise itself. Democratic avenues of elections and referendums are the best way to let out steam and dissent in a country. Once China has been throughly democratise, and if Tibet is still in a state of unrest, the I advocate holding a referendum there to determine the true will of the majority of Tibetans. And not just what might be the noisy minority’s will.
–
CHAN SHIJUN is a contributing writer for theCICAK.
Shijun (aka sigma) is a social-democratic homo-sapien. Currently residing in Sydney, Australia, he is suffering from sambal withdrawal due to his inability to find any Down Under. Visit his site.
If you liked this article, here are some related posts:
Responses || Discussion || Debates || Commentaries
Post your opinion
Does your comment encourage responsible, intelligent discussion?
All comments are moderated for impersonations and defamatory, racially, sexually and religiously offensive content.
By the way... since you're sharing your comments, get paid for it.
- The rise of left-wing politics in Malaysia
- Fuel price hike in Malaysia: Bane or blessing?
- Malaysia’s first LGBT weblog
- Kick the overspending, underachieving habit, Malaysia
- The best thing Pak Lah has done: Drastic reduction of petrol subsidies
- FFF2008 announces competition winners!
- Different races all loving each other?
- Part 2, Analyzing Malaysian Parties: Should DAP compromise its principles?
- Why I’m for Tibet being part of China, and against the Chinese Communist Party’s actions
- Is Islam, Judaism and Christianity still relevant today?
Subscribe via RSS
Latest News
Register to receive the best articles, comments, and competitions in your inbox!
Part 1: Creating a new manifesto for Malaysia
Malaysia has a government that treats the constitution as nothing more than the toilet paper that adorns your bathrooms. They run roughshod on it, treating it like joke, a document of whimsy and games. Thus, as a result...Young Malaysians, here are ten steps to become better citizens
A very basic list of things that twenty-something’s can do as citizens.The hunt for subversives: Malaysian Government arrest Bersih, Hindraf activists and lawyers
Does the "Malaysian way" condone detention without trial, arbitrary arrests, tear gas, water cannons, violence and lies?Adultery does not justify battery
How far would you go if your lover cheated on you? Be honest.
Comment of the week
I defend my right as a Malaysian to talk about anything that concerns Malaysia.
Powered by FireStats
Well, apparently in “China”, the different dynasties through history encompassed different regions of varying sizes and ethnicities included. I do not know which dynasties included which regions, but basically “China” was a collection of ethnicities who were organized by particular emperors’ rules. I think that if a region wanted to disengage from the dynasty, they would, they would refuse the culture and moral codes and they would be self governed. The rulers had power but they were still doing jobs mainly and people valued the services… This is my impression. My impression of the CCP is that it used a lot of indoctrination and false information propaganda to maintain leadership. It is a total bully and is too corrupt to do good things. It seems to me all of it’s decisions are to harness peoples minds and power.
Check out my blog, it’s about China and these types of issues…
Peace.
Was this a good comment?
After decades of repression by China, Tibetans are crying out to the world for change.
If Tibet was not annex by China, may be Tibet might have turned out to be a benevolent semi-feudal theocratic kingdom like Bhutan or in a not so ideal scenario it might have become a turbulent corrupt monarchy like Nepal.
The reality is that Tibet is firmly under Chinese control and is going to remain that way. The Han Chinese will soon be the majority people in Tibet. Tibetans will soon be relegated to a subservient second class “minority” in their own country. The Han Chinese settlers will benifit more than Tibetans as China is focused on urban business development, rather than rural and social programmes in Tibet.
Tibet is not Kosovo or Gaza. It has the misfortune to be located next to a country of one billion plus Han Chinese who are going through a prolonged phase of massive resource-hungry economic development, combined with visceral nationalism. There is no way they will tolerate any serious degree of autonomy for Tibet, whether that be political, economic, religious or cultural. They are control freaks.
It is sad to know that the prospects for Tibetan independence/autonomy are grim.
Beijing will now impose a complete news blackout on Tibet and there will be mass arrests. Then, after the Olympics, the executions will start.
I know and I hope China does care about its international reputation.
My heart is for the People of Tibet and the Dalai Lama The Advocate of Peace.
Was this a good comment?
until the tibetans get proper education, they can never know what is good for them. but then again, maybe they enjoy being serfs to the dalai lama and his monks. maybe they are happier that way. who are we to impose capitalism on them. the west will always preach about human right even if they are or was the number one violator at some point in their history.
Was this a good comment?
I sort of agree with Shijun, but sort of not as well.
See, the first thing about China-Tibet is that I’ve always believed Tibet to be an independent country in itself. It might be due to my ignorance, or lack of knowledge of Chinese history (my bad, especially me being Chinese..), but in the 21 years of my life, no one has ever pointed out my “misunderstanding”.
So for me, I don’t see the riots as a fight for independence on TIbet’s part, but more of a fight for freedom from China’s advance in TIbet. (good, now I’m going to get shot for sure..)
It sort of comes without saying as well, that I’m against what the Chinese govt is doing in Tibet. I’m also against the Tienanmen massacre. I’m against “no human rights”, to put it simply.
But to be honest, I don’t see how China can actually be fully democratised. With such a huge population, there’s bound to be a million and one different takes on how the country should be run. And instead of creating a peaceful and fair country, democratising China might end up to be an even bloodier event than any that has ever happened in China.
In the HardTalk interview not too long ago with Dr Mahathir, he mentioned that a democratic system is good, but that doesn’t mean that it works everywhere. And I don’t think it is a system that would work in China. A less brutal Communist rule would probably be the way to go, if it makes any sense.
Anyway, was a good article. Very good read.
Was this a good comment?
To begin with, China’s communism isn’t communism at all. The current coastline cities development is born out of capitalism and along with it both the good and bad aspects about it.
Thus CCP is merely a for-show governance system perpetrated by the corrupt and powerful to stay in power, it’s merely an updated version of the Chinese dynasties but the concepts are pretty much the same.
However, that does not mean that i support Tibet’s indepedence.
There are far too many vague historical references we can draw, but all would point to the same direction: Tibet has been, for a longer time than any Western nation would want to admit, a part of China, and there is no viable reason whatsoever for them to declare otherwise other than the ones pointed out recently by Western powers.
The truth is, as ShiJun has eloquently pointed out, no matter the cause of Tibetian indepedence being humanitarian or not, the Western agenda to push this issue at this juncture is far too obvious: China is a threat, or a “self-created-threat” by the Western powers, and if China should bow to Tibet’s wish for indepedence now, the only thing that displays is a Western victory covered in the false name of human rights and freedom.
Sure, they should be killing people and they shouldn’t be suppressing uprisings with extreme violence, but let’s put it this way: if Western powers suddenly realize that Malaysia is this human rights deficient nation and suddenly shows support for one of our trouble states, say Penang, to pursue an indepedence, and say this is time of political turmoil where the ruling government is corrupt to this core and the people are distressed…
how do you think the people of Penang would react?
how do you think the government would react?
how do you think the world is going to look at M’sia?
but hey, wouldn’t you want to ask what is it the AngMo and Mat Salleh nation bosses what is it they really want with Penang? and what is it they really want with Malaysia?
It took Nelson Mendala and over 50years of struggle before apartheid was demolished, what did the Western power did then? Did we have worldwide riots? Did we openly condemn South Africa’s ruling power on every media available then?
Was this a good comment?
“Sure, they SHOULDN’T be killing people and they shouldn’t be suppressing uprisings with extreme violence, but let’s put it this way: if Western…”
sorry, typo error
Was this a good comment?
Hey Michelle, your opinion on Tibet’s originally being independent from China is shared by that blogger I was debating with which led me to write this up in the first place.
The thing is, if you’re talking about Tibetan independence, then where do we draw the line when it comes to ‘legitimate conquests’?
How do modern states come into existence as they are anyway? If you disregard the Yuan and Qing Dynasty’s conquest of Tibet (I left out the Ming because there are some who dispute the extent of its hold on Tibet), then why not disregard the whole Southern China as well from being a part of China? After all when Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi first unified China, China consisted only of its Northern provinces.
We must do well to distinguish between criticizing the sins of the Chinese Communist Party from the sins of China as a nation. China has been in existence for 2130 years before the CCP was even formed. Unfortunately, most Western leaders are trying to obscure this fact and has reasoned that the sins of the CCP towards Tibet warranted enough to call for the Chinese nation to give up a part of its territory.
Michelle what you’re referring that China should stick to is not actually communism, but authoritarianism, ala what is practiced in Singapore and Malaysia (although weaker now in the latter). It was also applied to South Korea and Taiwan during their formative modernisation years. This is an interesting topic, the so called ‘Asian Values’ which i might write on at a later time. Marxist Communism in fact has already died in China right when Deng Xiaoping uttered “It does not matter whether the cat is black or white, so long as it is able to catch mice” . What’s left and preserved by the political elite there is the Leninist authoritarianism power structure.
Democratising China is not as difficult as most people think. I mean, large viable democracies already exists in today’s world anyway in the form of the USA, India, Indonesia. So why can’t China adopt the same system? I feel a federalism model for China would be ideal, with high degrees of autonomy given to each province. This is since China is such a populous country and it would be easier to govern this way instead of through a centralised power structure.
Was this a good comment?
sigma/Shijun
First, I have to say that my lack of knowledge in Chinese history has lead me quite in the wrong direction on this one. Maybe I should change my perception of Tibet a bit.
But I do see where you’re coming from. It would be quite difficult to draw a line, especially now since the issue has been blown quite out of proportion. I don’t think this issue was meant to be this big, had it not been for the interference of foreign media.
I think the issue now is whether or not Tibet was independent when the riots started, because it is, for now, the only way this issue can be resolved. If Tibetans remain adamant that they were an independent country, then in no way would they want to be “part of China”, but if they were part of China anyway, then it would be quite a different scenario.
But it’s going to be difficult, because I don’t see China relenting on “losing one of it’s states” as you put it, and nor do I see Tibet giving in, as they are being quite fired up with the rest of the world (especially the US) gearing them on.
Your suggestion that China apply the federalism model seems like a fair one. And Tibet would probably be a good way to start. Giving TIbet it’s autonomy, like how Hong Kong is at the moment would actually solve most of the problems that the Tibetans are rioting for at the moment.
Or at least, that’s what I think. I’m starting to have small bubbles of doubt in my head, what with my lack of general knowledge.
Was this a good comment?
Agree with phang on this. Clearly Tibets independence has got to do more with Western intentions in the region rather than the well being of Tibet itself.
IWe can clearly see how certain western powers work. Lets look at Serbia and the push for Kosovos independence. Do we see the same resolve for Scotlands independence? Or Northern Ireland or the Basque region? The United States boldly supports the break up of nations it finds a threat. We have to wonder how it will react if lets say Alaska or Texas decides to break away. Will the administration in Washington comply?
Was this a good comment?
I won’t get drawn into the debate about whether the support for Tibetan independence is a product of an overproductive imagination of Western diplomats but I’d like to draw some parallels contrasting the parallels brought up in this post and the subsequent comments.
There is a presumption of Chinese sovereignty over the part of Tibet currently known officially as the Tiber Autonomous Region when the official name itself suggests that it is merely suzerainty - perhaps in its latter form. Looking at the history of China, Tibet (both larger Tibet as well as the part of Tibet nominally under Chinese protection or control) and India, a lot of the current arguments on both sides of the divide don’t really work - except perhaps for the position taken by the Dalai Lama’s administration which seeks a fully autonomous Tibet rather than a fully independent Tibet. Part of this lies in the fact that the modern nation state did not exist in that part of the world then - at least not until the late 19th century.
Tibet retroceded from the larger Mongol empire upon the collapse of the Yuan Dynasty and proceeded to become at various stages either a protectorate or provinces (most of the outlying regions of Tibet were administratively separated and incorporated into provinces) of the successor governments of China. The rump that remained unincorporated (either into China proper or India) eventually became a semi-independent protectorate that retained a Chinese governor with most of the local administration in place.
Such was the case until geo-political developments in the first two decades of the twentieth century brought a fracture to the status quo and the Chinese government lost de-facto control of Tibet for most of the first half of the century. It was only after the collapse of the republican government in mainland China to the communists that Tibet was again militarily reintegrated into China. Interestingly, Tibet was viewed as an autonomous region both during the ROC era (despite the Nanking government not having any de-facto control of the territory) as well as in the current PRC era.
So any comparison to the organic relationship between China and Tibet to Malaysia and Penang or the US to Alaska is quite misleading. If I were to use a contemporary situation as a comparison, a more accurate would be the relationship between the US and Puerto Rico or Guam with the only main difference being that Tibet is physically contiguous with China.
China’s primary beef with the Dalai Lama’s administration is not because they see the Dalai Lama as an independence agitator (although that was the case in the past and still remain a subsidiary cause of concern) but because of the extant of the Dalai Lama’s claim for Tibetan territory (which includes territories previously annexed by China like parts of modern day Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, Yunnan and Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region as well as some parts that are currently in Indian territory) that ought to be given wider autonomy than what is given to the Tibet Autonomous Region today.
Was this a good comment?
sigma,
you might want to reconsider your statement
“Democratising China is not as difficult as most people think.”
in a country with 1.3 billion people, most of them uneducated and lack the knowledge on economics, politics, and government administration are BOUND to fall prey to demagogues. Then China will repeat its history….destroying themselves after being in the forefront of development. What China needs now is a benevolent dictator who can build and strenghten its institutions, put in place the building blocks and develop a common goal. Then only can they talk about democracy.
Of course you and i are assuming that they want modern development and a capitalistic system. Some maybe happier just being religious peasants even after being exposed to western education. This is reality. You cant please everybody because we are inherently different in terms of thought. Maybe the tibetans just want to be religious serfs who are blindly loyal to the dalai lama and his monks.
Therefore, democracy is not for every nation. You have to consider the ability of its people to think for themselves and the greater good of society.
Was this a good comment?
to impose something a nation is not ready for will lead to chaos.
Was this a good comment?
Borders are so steeped in subjective interpretations of history as to be almost arbitrary. The important thing here is not whether the Chinese are being asked to let go of one of their states, but whether or not the Tibetans want to be a part of China. It seems like they don’t, and they’re willing to fight and die for this. History pales in the face of this kind of present. If we’re going to fight for individual liberties, then it stands to reason that secession ought to be a right available to those who want it. The Western motives are irrelevant. The way I see it, to believe in individual democratic liberties while not believing in a democratic right to secession is incoherent.
Was this a good comment?
Some postings here are so naive and narrow minded in their logical expression that you find it hilarious. Fine it’s a freedom of choice, freedom from repression, freedom of speech, freedom of freedom..etc. If the world is so beautiful, maybe we should be seeing a thousand more countries being caved out from the current number of nations. It’s equally fine if they have some singular noble objective of fighting for the Tibetans. But before they speak out, they should first take up the challenge to fight for the Iraqis, the rights just to live a day longer before they are butchered by their great ‘moral’ champions, U.S and U.K. Otherwise can we consider this group of minnows as nothing but empty drums who made the most noise.
Was this a good comment?
JJMan - in one statement you have managed to condemn others for their naivete whilst counseling them to take the naive path.
Firstly, it doesn’t matter if this world isn’t perfect. Of course the world isn’t perfect. If you’re trying to go from that to an argument that we should tolerate repression and forced assimilation, then that’s quite a leap. ‘The world is not perfect’ explains why my toaster is broken as much as it does why Tibetans are unhappy. It’s a hopelessly general premise from which to start, and if you choose it as your main premise then you’re counseling complete lack of action, with regards to everything - in other words, don’t get out of bed, don’t clean your house, don’t care for your loved ones, don’t argue about international crimes - they’re all cut from the same cloth. Instead of this, much better to acknowledge that the world is not perfect and that we are painfully finite and yet to assert that we will fight that imperfection and finiteness knowing all the while that it’s futile. So what if it’s futile? As Camus said, “a determined soul will always manage.”
As for where you’re counseling for naivete, the hypocrisy argument is naive and irrelevant to the China-Tibet issue. It’s completely ad hominem. It doesn’t matter what the US and the UK are doing where, the merits/demerits of Tibet’s case for independence stand on their own. This dogged search for a ’singular noble objective’ in third parties who have outlined a stance on this issue is a spectacular waste of time.
Was this a good comment?
Very interesting read but I feel the article is rather contradicting. The Chinese Communist Party political interests and policies on Tibet is unjustified. I don’t claim to fully understand the geographical aspects and history on the two countries that dated back in the 13th century but it is clear cut that Tibetans do not wish to be part of China.This writer S. Somiah makes a valid point that “Tibetans will soon be subservient second class minority in their birth country”. If anything else, they already are considered as second class citizen in their own country.
My take on the issue is Tibet should not be make part of China and leave the Tibetans alone.
Was this a good comment?
totally agree with shujin.
Was this a good comment?