update on Clive Hamilton’s book. Kudos to the Australian Parliament for taking a stand.

[Delete] @Baden

At the core of China's claim seems to be that it sees the current situation as a continuation of the relationship between Tibet and the Ching dynasty. That doesn't seem to be correct though as Tibet was not part of Ching "sovereignty" and the Dalia Lama was not a subject of the CHing dynasty. So we see a typical Western concept of "sovereignty" applied to a political and cultural situation that doesn't really fit.

Another approach is a rights-based approach. It is interesting to see that Lenin (and Woodrow Wilson) argued for self-determination. The USSR and early communist China recognised the right of secession. This was later removed from the Chinese constitution (1930s). The right has nevertheless been reiterated over time in several treaties signed and in some cases ratified by China; e.g. the UN Charter, the ICCPR and ICESCR. China at least pays lip service to the following idea of self-determination:

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. — ICESCR

Obviously, taking into account how, for instance, Africa was carved up by colonial powers this raised some issues as people worried about the defragmentation of existing states. Prevalent view for the exercise of self-determination has become that self-determination only applies to: entire populations living in independent states, or entire populations of territories yet to receive independence, or territories under foreign military occupation.

This is a restrictive definition excluding groups of people we'd usually refer to as... well "peoples". It excludes Kurds and various African tribes for instance. We're also confronted with the fact that most states recognise the de jure or de facto sovereignty of China over Tibet, which is a strong argument for the current situation.

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. — United Nations General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

This principle was applied to:

• the Russian invasion of Afghanistan
• the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia
• the occupation of Arab territories by Israel
• Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the former Soviet Union
• the Grenada by the United States
• the Iraqi occupation of Iraq

On the basis of the above, how are we supposed to interpret the independence of Kosovo? We see that the prevalent view doesn't apply unless you'd accept the Albanian Kosovars were under alien subjugation, domination and exploitation. In other words, despite sharing the same country for a long time the Albanian Kosovars were culturally sufficiently different from the Serbs to be considered "alien" from each other resulting in subjugation, domination and exploitation under Milosevic's rule.

Finally, self-determination need not mean independence. Autonomy is key. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly argued for atuonomy instead of independence and this could be supported by the Tibetans (I don't know if they do).

Based on the Kosovo example, I'd argue Tibetans are a separate people from the Chinese with a sufficiently different culture than the Chinese to be considered separate. China will argue primarily that Tibet has been part of China since the 1600s. However, it appears that the political and social relationship between Tibet and the Ching dynasty and Tibet and China since 1950 are different things. This is by definition reflected by the treaty ( Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet) signed by Tibet and China which refers to the Tibetan people as separate from the Chinese but as "returning to the family" of motherland China. It is not clear either how you liberate people within your own country or why a treaty would be necessary to establish a situation that already existed according to the Chinese. That's only possible if Tibet was indeed autonomous from China.

Based on the above, I think a continuation of the relationship between the Ching dynasty and Tibet would be one where Tibet was autonomous. Chinese refusal to accept such autonomy is a "subjugation, domination and exploitation" of the Tibetan people and as such the right for self-determination can be invoked by Tibetans and should be pursued by the international community.

Lowell Thomas used to do a 15 minute weeknight radio program on CBS Radio, back in the 1940s and 50s. I remember listening to him talk about Tibet in the '50s, many times. In the US the same period was dominated by McCarthy's virulent anti-homosexual and anti-communist campaigns (hard to tell which was more important to him from this distance).

Here is a film report he did on a trip to Lhasa in 1949. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjVN4M4l7sc.

[Delete] @Baden

Your video was livelier than mine. Funnier too. Perhaps, possibly, just slightly less factful.

[Delete] @Baden

Of course. If I wasn't agéd I would have skipped over old Lowell in a heartbeat.

Things have changed a lot since 1949. There are now good air, rail and highway connections to Tibet from the east coast of China, the better to dominate the territory. They probably aren't going over the mountains with donkeys, either. Helicopters these days.

So yes, John Oliver would be much more accessible, though less there to access.

Do millennials know where Tibet is? Or what Tibet is? Maybe they think it is a gambling app.

If you are scared of speaking out against an evil autocratic government then don't. Giving up you right to free speech is precisely what they want so I will not, and I hope other people also won't, stop talking and discussing this issue — René Descartes

I agree that people who are lucky enough to have a right of free speech should not give it up, but posting opinions on an internet forum under a pseudonym is not exercising free speech. People can do that in totalitarian regimes too.

Free speech is being able to publicly, non-anonymously, stand behind your opinion and not be legally persecuted for it.

[Delete] @Baden

Tibet is too geographically important for China to let it go. It circumvents Afghanistan and Myanmar, providing more or less direct access to India and Pakistan. The economic potential of the region is a big reason why China took over the region to begin with, as well, and I just can't see China letting Tibet go unless they ensure certain infrastructural guarantees, such as being able to keep trade and supply lines as they are.

I'd also say that Russia is similar to China in its desire for being able to "see" the world completely, without having to look through other countries' borders. China being flanked by deserts and mountainous tundra in the west makes it an east-leaning country, just as Russia is a west-leaning country, in terms of economic output, population, infrastructure, etc. This means that countries like China and Russia will exploit areas that are in their way and that can be taken over. Certainly the rest of the world ought to defend areas like Tibet, or in Russia's case parts of Ukraine like the Crimea, but unless there's enough support for the defense of these places, China and Russia will continue to push their boundaries.

One of you guys mentioned the dwindling interest in Tibetan independence, and I'd say that's the most obvious reason for why no body really gives two hoots about the Tibets, Crimeas, Abkhazias, Kurdistans, etc. of the world. It's disappointing to me, actually, as I think the world would probably be a more globally interconnected and supportive place were there more countries based on the unique cultural phenomena that exist across the continents instead of more conglomerated countries where benign cultures and practices get subsumed, or at worst, destroyed completely.

Based on the above, I think a continuation of the relationship between the Ching dynasty and Tibet would be one where Tibet was autonomous. Chinese refusal to accept such autonomy is a "subjugation, domination and exploitation" of the Tibetan people and as such the right for self-determination can be invoked by Tibetans and should be pursued by the international community. — Benkei

(Y)

[Delete] @Baden

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, everyone took a stand against them. — René Descartes

Well, there was a specific effort from Western powers to vilify as much as they could Saddam's troops. Not that they needed much help, but I remember horrible stories of soldiers throwing grenades in hospital nurseries that were all debunked quickly afterwards.

Yes that is true. I'm just rather upset that no one did anything about China's invasion in the first place in 1950. — René Descartes

Because it would have certainly sparked outright war with China and the USSR. And the Korean War that happened a year after Tibet's fall was in many ways a reaction to Communist aggression, so you could safely argue that "we" did do something about China's territorial expansion, but in Korea, and through the UN, not by ourselves.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, everyone took a stand against them. — René Descartes

Why was that?

When Russia invaded Afghanistan during the Cold War, everyone opposed them. — René Descartes

Not directly, though. Reagan's administration arming the Taliban wasn't direct military intervention in the region and against the USSR.

But the USA and China always seem to be able to get away with invading a country. — René Descartes

How does this follow from what you've been saying?

. I believe that Tibet should be self-governing but I would like to hear other peoples opinions on it. — René Descartes

Kurdistan, Palestine, East Timor, Cyprus, South Ossietia, Hawaii, anymore for anymore????

[Delete] @Baden

Cyprus is divided between the Greek south and the Turkish north.

What value is sectarianism? How about Catalonia, Wales, Scotland - what next? Cornwall, Texas, Shelwig-Holstein? Where does it stop?

Where does it stop? — charleton

When people stop asking for sovereignty?

[Delete] @Baden

So the obvious takeaway from his position was that, contrary to public perception, the Chinese government should have been seen as liberators interested solely in the well-being of ALL Tibetans and not primarily motivated by other, less elevated goals like, for instance, the possible geostrategic importance of Tibet in light of China's regional interests. — Erik

Where have we heard this reasoning before?

Europeans colonizing Africa, maybe?

President George W. Bush deciding to invade Iraq, a country that had not attacked the U.S., maybe?

Etc.

[Delete] @Baden

European colonization, American neo-Imperialism and the Chinese control of Tibet are all bad in my opinion. Hopefully soon enough, both America and China will finally let go of their Colonialist interest just as the European powers have. Although it took hundreds of years for Europeans to do so, and not without resistance. But to me, these examples are all equally bad. To oppress and conquer peoples who do not speak your language and do not have the same culture and who do not want you on their land is not right. — René Descartes

Why do you think it happens?

Is it the result of superstition? The U.S. believes that the stars in the sky are aligned a certain way and therefore we must occupy Iraq?

Or could it be that it is how economic and political actors rationally act in a global capitalist system?

For example, in Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (6th edition), Richard H. Robbins shows how the beef industry in the U.S. was the result of demand in Europe--Americans preferred pork--but for that market to work they first had to get rid of the Native Americans.

We like to make it sound like the behavior of individual and collective political and economic actors on the globe is about ideals, morals (or lack of morals), etc., but let's not forget that there is a global economic system according to which people are all consciously or sub-consciously acting and reacting.

It does little good to beat one's self-righteous chest and call other people and/or their actions evil, immoral, etc. If you want to make a difference, recognize the system that people are acting according to and reform or eradicate that system.

[Delete] @Baden

Are we agreeing or disagreeing? — René Descartes

I don't know.

Why do you think that these invasions, conquests, occupations, etc. that you detest happen in the first place?

Are people superstitious--do they say that it is in the alignment of the stars that they must invade? Are governments bored? Did Bush say to Cheney, "I'm bored. Who should we invade and occupy today?"?

Or is there, like I said, a global system in place and individual and collective economic and political actors are doing what that system requires of them?

You are not answering these basic, essential questions.

[Delete] @Baden

Wales, Scotland — charleton

As I already wrote in an earlier post; self-determination does not equate with independence necessarily. Scots and Welsh have autonomy and there's a system of rules that set out what issues the lower parliaments of Wales and Scotland are to vote on (so-called devolved matters). As long as the UK abides by the rules that were, for isntance laid down in the 2016 Scotland Act, Scots cannot claim their right to self-determination isn't respected especially in light of the recent referendum on the matter.

[Delete] @Baden

Are you sure Self-Determination doesn't equate to independence? — René Descartes

I'm sure that's the accepted legal interpretation. I note that your definitions speak of "countries" and they by definition ought to have independence (sovereignty) from other countries. The issue arises when we're talking about "peoples" and their right of self-determination. Your definitions have nothing to really say about that.

Scots and Welsh are certainly not self-determined as they are ruled by the government and parliament in London. If they were self-determined they would have their own parliaments and capitals and currencies and alliances and laws etc... — René Descartes

This is too simple a picture of the relationship between the UK government and Scotland. The various "kingdoms" of the UK have their own parliaments and the central government cannot rule by Royal Prerogative on devolved matters. They need the agreement from the various lower parliaments on a lot of issues. See for instance: http://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

What I can do. As i said, not much. — René Descartes

Don't buy Chinese goods.

I don't wish to cast aspersions on you personally, this is a general comment, but I find the constant resort to "it's someone else's responsibility to act" somewhat misses the mark.

Sure, you alone not buying Chinese goods because you disagree with their foreign policy is not going make a difference, but since when was it one's moral duty to be on the winning side?