Should Tibet be Allowed Independence?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Just recently, articles have been popping up of recent going-ons regarding the "free Tibet" movement. So, I was wondering if anyone feels that Tibet has a right to independence.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
I'm not sure what the situation is in Tibet right now, but I'll read up on it tonight. If it's anything like Serbia and Kosovo, then yes.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,386
Best answers
0
NO! They do not deserve independence, neither Kosovo does. (PERIOD!)
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
If the independence has legal reasons, then yes, it should become independent. Which wasn't the case with Kosovo, but we don't wanna get off-topic.

Anyway I was reading something about Tibet and ran into this:

In the Tibetan sovereignty debate, the government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Tibet in Exile disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law.
So, the incorporation of Tibet might not be legal according to international law (that same law that some of you said didn't exist in that other thread). Tibet was once a free state, alright. But we still need to look into the real reasons for its independence. What's in Tibet that Tibetians are trying to keep for themselves, if there's anything there?


EDIT: Forgot to say one thing. Even though I might support this independence in the future, I'm generally against pieces of countries becoming independent. And not just because of Kosovo. All it's doing is drawing borders and stirring up conflicts. Rare are the cases in which independence actually serves a good purpose.

And I must ask you, this new Tibet, would it be a capitalistic or socialistic state?
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
It is extremely rare for a nation to become independent under legal reasons. America would be Britain today if the world worked as you want it to.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
It is extremely rare for a nation to become independent under legal reasons. America would be Britain today if the world worked as you want it to.
So tell me why there is a law about it in the international law? If anyone could become independent just cause they say "We're sick of China!" or "We're sick of Serbia" etc. there would be a lot more countries today.

Not to mention that many people usually go for independence than actually try to better themselves and their country as citizens. It's the easy way out, the capitalistic way out.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
Sub said:
Forgive me for being a firm believer in self-determination.
There's nothing wrong with self-determination. I agree that people should have the right to change their political status, their economical development and what not.

The problem is that people don't do that. It's called apathy, they don't give a ****, they let the politicians decide because the masses (most of them) are either ignorant or careless, or both.

Again, it's capitalism. A while ago I was talking to an american about healthcare. I was making a point that socialized healthcare is superior to privatized healthcare. He made an opposite point. Then he said "Why should I care? Why should I pay so some fat jackass could be saved from a heart attack, only to later on choke on a drumstick?"

A lot of people think that way. In my opinion, that's wrong. That's why I'm pro-socialistic, in socialism people actually have a feeling of belonging to a group and contributing to it. You know, being actually USEFUL for society. That's near impossible in capitalism, as the big tycoons that own factories, restaraunts and what not just sit on their asses while other people work to bring home the bread and have 1/10 of his paycheck, just because he owns the place.

That's why I asked whether Tibet was going to be socialistic or capitalistic, if it ever becomes independent.

EDIT: Thanks for posting that article, I saw that they mispelled Milošević's name (Molosovich, lol). I corrected it.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
In the 1950's, Tibet was invaded by China. China was able to easily defeat the Tibetan army and easily occupied the country. The Tibetan government was pressured into signing what is known as "Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet", which is an agreement that gives China power over Tibet. The agreement basically gave China complete control over Tibet.

There's more information, but that's all the information I have at the moment.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
I found something about this issue.

China and Tibet, 1950-1991​
Some people believe that ruthlessness and expansionism are temporary features of totalitarianism. Past Soviet foreign policies, they say, sprang from legitimate security needs, especially the Soviets' determination to prevent, once and for all, future invasions of their homeland. Although this view cannot be readily dismissed (because it deals with motives, not with observable actions), I believe that expansionism and ruthlessness are not incidental features of totalitarianism. Theoretical considerations which lead me to this belief will be reviewed later. Here I should like to lend this belief empirical support by briefly considering two other case histories of totalitarian foreign policies. I shall take up contemporary China first, then move on to ancient Sparta.
In 1950, a year after the communists had assumed power in China, they invaded Tibet, their smaller and weaker neighbor. Since then, Tibet has ceased to exist as an independent nation. This was a flagrant violation of Tibet's rights for self-determination. However, with an international order governed by anarchy and brute force and with a backward theocracy ruling Tibet, it may be unfair to blame China for trying to build an empire of her own, improve her national security, or modernize and improve the lot of the Tibetan people. So I shall confine my remarks to Chinese occupation policies after organized and armed resistance to the invasion ceased.
Once they took charge, the communists ironfistedly imposed a Maoist brand of totalitarian hell on the deeply religious Tibetans. A few dry statistics speak for themselves.
"In Tibet, 100,000 political prisoners toil in Chinese labor camps . . . more than 50 anti-Chinese uprisings have flared in 25 years. A half-million Chinese occupation troops-one soldier for every 12 Tibetans-keep order. . . . [By November 1983], at least 35 leading dissidents were executed in public, 3500 more were arrested."<sup>44</sup> In 1959, nine years after the Chinese takeover, a nationwide uprising was followed by an escape to India of some 100,000 refugees, including Tibet's political and spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. The Chinese occupation led to "an estimated one million Tibetans dead from imprisonment and starvation. Tibet's 6254 monasteries . . . [are] gutted and in ruins; the Tibetan people themselves vehemently anti-Chinese." "A flood of Chinese immigrants has moved into Tibet, taken the best land for destructive, collectivized agriculture, decimated the already scarce forests, and wantonly slaughtered Tibet's once abundant wildlife."<sup>45</sup> As usual, the mass killings can be gleaned from population statistics, which "reveal a disproportionate dearth of males in Tibet."<sup>46</sup> The Dalai Lama summed up the situation: "The Chinese claimed that they came to Tibet to 'liberate' us from the past and modernize the country. In fact they have brought the greatest suffering to our nation in its 2100 years of history."<sup>44</sup>
I doubt it's this harsh, though. There's bound to be some exaggeration on Tibet's side. I'm not saying I'm siding with China or anything, but if it's this bad, China would've likely gone back to the Middle Ages' standards. While the conquering indeed happened, I doubt that so many monasteries were destroyed (even though anyone who wrecks even a single monestary should be anally raped), and 100,000 people arrested. I need more information, from both sides of the story, to be able to judge this properly.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
If the independence has legal reasons, then yes, it should become independent. Which wasn't the case with Kosovo, but we don't wanna get off-topic.

Anyway I was reading something about Tibet and ran into this:

So, the incorporation of Tibet might not be legal according to international law (that same law that some of you said didn't exist in that other thread). Tibet was once a free state, alright. But we still need to look into the real reasons for its independence. What's in Tibet that Tibetians are trying to keep for themselves, if there's anything there?


EDIT: Forgot to say one thing. Even though I might support this independence in the future, I'm generally against pieces of countries becoming independent. And not just because of Kosovo. All it's doing is drawing borders and stirring up conflicts. Rare are the cases in which independence actually serves a good purpose.

And I must ask you, this new Tibet, would it be a capitalistic or socialistic state?
"International" law is a joke--anyone involved in either politics or law will tell you the same. Why do you think the US gets away with essentially breaking the Geneva Conventions treaties we signed? Because no one has the authority--either political will or military strength--to stop it.

The US barely participates in the International Criminal Court, and aside from the UN's Security Council, pretty much ignores the UN (despite paying over 1/5th of its budget).

I'm sorry that you're apparently "anti-freedom," but the reality is that most causes for independence are against abusive, tyrannical or semi-tyrannical governments--just like Serbia--and England of yore. All of the major powers of the day (The US, England, France, China, Russia) have undergone countless revolutions and declarations of independence over the centuries. Like Sub said--who are you to deny other people the right of self-determination you selfishly reserve for yourself?

Tibet deserves internationally recognized independence. So does the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan.") The current Chinese government is one of the most evil, most corrupt governments on this planet. They oppress their billion-plus population, censor every attempt to dissent, execute children, mentally handicapped people, political dissenters, persecute ***s--the list goes on. We deal with them mostly for economic reasons, in the hope that as they become more affluent, they'll start adopting more democratic processes (as the rich of China gain more political power, as often comes with wealth).
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
"International" law is a joke--anyone involved in either politics or law will tell you the same. Why do you think the US gets away with essentially breaking the Geneva Conventions treaties we signed? Because no one has the authority--either political will or military strength--to stop it.
And that's exactly why Kosovo became independent.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
4,022
Best answers
0
NO! They do not deserve independence, neither Kosovo does. (PERIOD!)
You don't live there.

You have no right to say that they do not deserve independance.

I believe that they do. China has oppressed them for far too long now. Every resistance or demonstration is met with overwhelming violence.

It's immoral and inhumane.
 
King of the Hello Kitty Fanclub
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
1,675
Best answers
0
NO! They do not deserve independence, neither Kosovo does. (PERIOD!)
Dude, you're just saying that because of the whole Kosovo thing, if that had never happened you wouldn't have any piece in this discussion.

Anyway to the subject at hand, I believe that if a piece of land is able to support itself and has reasons for becoming independent then they have a right to do it.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
And that's exactly why Kosovo became independent.
Kosovo became independent because the Serbian government denied them self-determination. The percentage of population warranted it, and your government denied it to them. It's as simple as that.

It's the same reason the USA declared independence from England.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Latest news:

China ordered tourists out of Tibet's capital Saturday while troops on foot and in armored vehicles patrolled the streets and confined government workers to their offices, a day after riots that a Tibetan exile group said left at least 30 protesters dead.

The demonstrations against Chinese rule of Tibet are the largest and most violent in the region in nearly two decades. They have spread to other areas of China as well as neighboring Nepal and India.

In the western province of Gansu, police fired tear gas Saturday to disperse Buddhist monks and others staging a second day of protests in sympathy with anti-Chinese demonstrations in Lhasa, local residents said.

The protests led by Buddhist monks began Monday in Tibet on the anniversary of a failed 1959 uprising against Chinese rule. They turned violent on Friday when demonstrators burned cars and shops. Witnesses said they heard gunshots on Friday and more shooting on Saturday night.

The eruption of violence comes just two weeks before China's Olympic celebrations kick off with the start of the torch relay, which passes through Tibet. China is gambling that its crackdown will not bring an international outcry over human rights violations that could lead to boycotts of the Olympics.

Beijing's hosting of the Olympics in August has already brought scrutiny of China's human rights record and its pollution problems.

But so far, the international community has reacted to the crackdown in Tibet only by calling for Chinese restraint without any threats of an Olympic boycott or other sanctions.

China's official Xinhua News Agency reported at least 10 were killed Friday when demonstrators rampaged in Lhasa, setting fire to shops and cars.

"The victims are all innocent civilians, and they have been burnt to death," Xinhua quoted an official with the regional government as saying.

The Dalai Lama's exiled Tibetan government in India said it had confirmed Chinese authorities killed at least 30 Tibetan protesters but added the toll could be as high as 100. There was no confirmation of the death toll from Chinese officials and the numbers could not be independently verified.

China maintains rigid control over Tibet, foreigners need special travel permits to get there and journalists rarely get access except under highly controlled circumstances.

Streets in Lhasa were mostly empty Saturday as a curfew remained in place, witnesses said.

China's governor in Tibet vowed to punish the rioters, while law enforcement authorities urged protesters to turn themselves in by Tuesday or face unspecified punishment

Tourists reached by phone or those who arrived Saturday in Nepal described soldiers standing in lines sealing off streets where there was rioting on Friday. Armored vehicles and trucks ferrying soldiers were seen on the streets.

"There are military blockades blocking off whole portions of the city, and the entire city is basically closed down," said a 23-year-old Western student who arrived in Lhasa on Saturday. "All the restaurants are closed, all the hotels are closed."

Plooij Frans, a Dutch tourist who left the capital Saturday morning by plane and arrived in the Nepali capital of Katmandu, said he saw about 140 trucks of soldiers drive into the city within 24 hours.

"They came down on Tibetan people really hard," said Frans, who said his group could not return to their hotel Friday and had to stay near the airport. "Every corner there were tanks. It would have been impossible to hold any protest today."

Government workers in Lhasa said Chinese authorities have been prevented from leaving their buildings.

"We've been here since yesterday. No one has been allowed to leave or come in," said a woman who works for Lhasa's Work Safety Bureau, located near the Potala Palace, the former residence of the Dalai Lama. "Armored vehicles have been driving past," she said. "Men wearing camouflage uniforms and holding batons are patrolling the streets.

Tourists were told to stay in their hotels and make plans to leave, but government staff were required to work.

Some shops were closed, said a woman who answered the telephone at the Lhasa Hotel.

"There's no conflict today. The streets look pretty quiet," said the woman who refused to give her name for fear of retribution.

Xinhua reported Saturday that Lhasa was calm, with little traffic on the roads.

"Burned cars, motorcycles and bicycles remained scattered on the main streets, and the air is tinged with smoke," the report said.

In the western Chinese province of Gansu, several hundred monks marched out of historic Labrang monastery and into the town of Xiahe in the morning, gathering hundreds of other Tibetans with them as they went, residents said.

The crowd attacked government buildings, smashing windows in the county police headquarters, before police fired tear gas to put an end to the protest, residents said. A London-based Tibetan activist group, Free Tibet Campaign, said 20 people were arrested, citing unidentified sources in Xiahe.

"Many windows in shops and houses were smashed," said an employee at a hotel, who did not want either his or the hotel's name used for fear of retaliation. He said he did not see any Tibetans arrested or injured but said some police were hurt.

Pockets of dissent were also springing up outside China.

In Australia, media reported that police used batons and pepper spray to quell a demonstration outside the Chinese consulate in Sydney. The Australian Associated Press reported that dozens of demonstrators were at the scene and five were arrested.

Dozens of protesters in India launched a new march just days after more than 100 Tibetan exiles were arrested by authorities during a similar rally.

And in Katmandu, police broke up a protest by Tibetans and arrested 20.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_re_as/china_tibet;_ylt=Ah_3UGvvr..rpYWHIXMCjBGs0NUE
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
If I were China, I'd stay the hell away.

Those Tibetans know kung-fu. D:
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
I hope Tibet gains its freedom. I also hope Kosovo remains free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top