Tiananmen 2.0

[Skeddan]

Thanks for this Chinahand . To try and answer your questions -

 

Skeddan, I don't hold your world view about the difference between countries under occupation and internal affairs. States are constructs...

..

you think the legal relationship between Tibet and China is crucial - but crucial to what? Whether the Chinese are justified in being oppressive in Tibet?

States may be constructs, but so are companies, trusts, and other non-natural 'legal persons'. They nevertheless exist and their relations with each other are governed by various principles, practices, and provisions of international law

 

IMO the question of status is important because actions of an occupying power are subject to provisions of international law - e.g. Geneva Convention etc. Rightly or wrongly occupation law affords protections to the populace that do not apply in its internal affairs. The difference in status could, for example mean that an otherwise permissible action is a war crime or crime against humanity. If it is an internationally wrongful act, it would be incumbent on other states to make some response, and which they would be within their rights to do.

 

I certainly don't think being an internal matter means the Chinese are justified in being oppressive in Tibet - it's relevance is to whether or not China is acting within its rights. If it is an internal matter, then while the general public might express criticisms, the position that governments and UN might take is quite different and very much more limited. Short of actual genocide they might even claim to be powerless to act.

 

Maybe a bad analogy, but it might be seen as akin to the difference between a stranger who abducts a child and then assaults them by smacking the child, whereas the parent who smacks the child would be 'within their rights'. Personal views as to whether or not smacking is acceptable or justifiable are not relevant in terms of what action can be taken.

 

The status of Tibet makes a difference to the question of whether China is acting within its rights and its actions are permissible - or whether these are actionable as they contravene China's international obligations.

 

A non self-governing territory (NSGT) such as those under colonial powers also has a kind of sovereignty. Also under UN Charter peoples have an inalienable right to resort to armed struggle to free themselves from colonial domination and foreign subjugation. The local citizens within a country do not have any such right to resist - big difference. Following from this are differences in the support that other states can or should lend to such movements - and their duty to ensure the subjugating power respects principles of international law, involvement of Red Cross etc. It's a totally different ballgame which is played by different rules.

 

You mention Kosovo, which is an interesting comparison. From the little I know of this, Kosovo's succession seems to be a departure from normal rule of territorial integrity that prohibits such succession. I'm not 100% convinced it was legitimate or that recognition of Kosovo was not potentially a wrongful act. However if succession and recognition is warranted by virtue of abuses etc. then perhaps by same token EU etc. should recognise Tibet's right to independence. (Then again, as you noted, states under occupation are in a different situation - another reason why the question of Tibet's status is relevant). Interesting whether Kosovo's independence might have contributed to unrest in Tibet and may prove to be de-stabilising elsewhere - e.g. it might encourage Chechnyans etc.

 

From the little I know at present, I'm somewhat inclined to the view that Tibet was a sovereign state that has come under subjugation of a foreign power - and not some legally anomalous 'Chinese dependency'. I'm also inclined to think that this is a question that China and the West find it convenient to not delve to deeply into, preferring to fudge it and keep the wriggle room - and so avoid having to confront China over this.

 

Whatever the status is, I have no doubt that the question of status does make a difference, and IMO 'wriggle room status' is just avoiding pinning down an answer to this question.

[bluemonday]

[La_Dolce_Vita]

States may be constructs, but so are companies, trusts, and other non-natural 'legal persons'. They nevertheless exist and their relations with each other are governed by various principles, practices, and provisions of international law

 

IMO the question of status is important because actions of an occupying power are subject to provisions of international law - e.g. Geneva Convention etc. Rightly or wrongly occupation law affords protections to the populace that do not apply in its internal affairs. The difference in status could, for example mean that an otherwise permissible action is a war crime or crime against humanity. If it is an internationally wrongful act, it would be incumbent on other states to make some response, and which they would be within their rights to do.

 

I certainly don't think being an internal matter means the Chinese are justified in being oppressive in Tibet - it's relevance is to whether or not China is acting within its rights. If it is an internal matter, then while the general public might express criticisms, the position that governments and UN might take is quite different and very much more limited. Short of actual genocide they might even claim to be powerless to act.

 

Maybe a bad analogy, but it might be seen as akin to the difference between a stranger who abducts a child and then assaults them by smacking the child, whereas the parent who smacks the child would be 'within their rights'. Personal views as to whether or not smacking is acceptable or justifiable are not relevant in terms of what action can be taken.

 

The status of Tibet makes a difference to the question of whether China is acting within its rights and its actions are permissible - or whether these are actionable as they contravene China's international obligations.

 

A non self-governing territory (NSGT) such as those under colonial powers also has a kind of sovereignty. Also under UN Charter peoples have an inalienable right to resort to armed struggle to free themselves from colonial domination and foreign subjugation. The local citizens within a country do not have any such right to resist - big difference. Following from this are differences in the support that other states can or should lend to such movements - and their duty to ensure the subjugating power respects principles of international law, involvement of Red Cross etc. It's a totally different ballgame which is played by different rules.

 

You mention Kosovo, which is an interesting comparison. From the little I know of this, Kosovo's succession seems to be a departure from normal rule of territorial integrity that prohibits such succession. I'm not 100% convinced it was legitimate or that recognition of Kosovo was not potentially a wrongful act. However if succession and recognition is warranted by virtue of abuses etc. then perhaps by same token EU etc. should recognise Tibet's right to independence. (Then again, as you noted, states under occupation are in a different situation - another reason why the question of Tibet's status is relevant). Interesting whether Kosovo's independence might have contributed to unrest in Tibet and may prove to be de-stabilising elsewhere - e.g. it might encourage Chechnyans etc.

 

From the little I know at present, I'm somewhat inclined to the view that Tibet was a sovereign state that has come under subjugation of a foreign power - and not some legally anomalous 'Chinese dependency'. I'm also inclined to think that this is a question that China and the West find it convenient to not delve to deeply into, preferring to fudge it and keep the wriggle room - and so avoid having to confront China over this.

 

Whatever the status is, I have no doubt that the question of status does make a difference, and IMO 'wriggle room status' is just avoiding pinning down an answer to this question.

 

From point of view I think it is a little unhelpful to put much weight on the legal/international status of Tibet. We are talking about the oppression of people who are reacting against that oppression. If everything hinges on legality then it could be said that China is quite entitled to do with Tibet as it pleases and is justified in 'putting down' the violence in any way it can. But the incorporation of Tibet into China could be seen to be an occupation or an act of colonisation, but the Chinese government wouldn't see it this way.

The situation is the similar as to what happened in Chechnya, which is legally part of Russian. The Chechens wanted independence. The Russians brutally put-down the insurgency of the First Chechen War and some Western countries 'offered their concerns'. Britain and the US was told to mind its own business, as it technically was an internal affair. In any case, as soon as the Chechen started making terrorist attacks the West's attitude changed. I remember the strange affair on the Isle of Man when at work of having a one-minute silence in memory of the children killed at Beslan.

Though what about the situation in Zimbabwe, as again the situation in this country is an internal affair but the UN and EU have condemned the government very openly.

[Freggyragh]

Weren't those Moscow Olympics boycotted because the horrible Ruskies had invaded Afganistan? Five years into the horrific occupation of Iraq and the British media is pointing the finger at the Chinese? Beating up Civil Rights campaigners? Internment? Suppression of language and culture? Discrimation on the basis of religion? Shooting peaceful protesters in the back? Political Censorship? Sounds like China has a huge Northern Ireland thing going - I bet they refer to it as 'The Troubles' in the Beijing papers too. Don't we know enough to realise that there are two sides to this story.

[thesultanofsheight]

Weren't those Moscow Olympics boycotted because the horrible Ruskies had invaded Afganistan? Five years into the horrific occupation of Iraq and the British media is pointing the finger at the Chinese? Beating up Civil Rights campaigners? Internment? Suppression of language and culture? Discrimation on the basis of religion? Shooting peaceful protesters in the back? Political Censorship? Sounds like China has a huge Northern Ireland thing going - I bet they refer to it as 'The Troubles' in the Beijing papers too. Don't we know enough to realise that there are two sides to this story.

 

Lets face it the Chinese own the worlds financial system. Nobody is going to follow through on anything, even Brown won't meet the Dalai Lama despite his current promises that he will. The western economy is f**ked and China can do or say what it wants as it and the Middle East are the only places holding real cash anymore. It can do what it likes and the UK and the USA know that - oops is that another US bank that needs chinese money to stay in business for the next 12 months?

[bluemonday]

Britain called for a resumption of negotiations between China and Tibetan representatives yesterday after Gordon Brown announced that he had spoken to the Chinese Premier and would meet the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, in May.

Times Article

About time.

[Chinahand]

The Chinese authorities are coming back hard against the biased Western coverage of the riots in Tibet.

 

There has been a very nationalistic back lash against Tibetans in the Chinese blogosphere (why aren't the Tibetans greatful for the Han providing prosperity and civilization - that sort of thing) and the official media are portraying the Western news coverage as unreliable.

 

It is interesting comparing the before and after photos:

 

 

Link

 

My understanding is that there had been several peaceful demonstrations organized by monks in more isolated monastries, these had been broken up - with some, though maybe not excessive force. There was then an other demonstration by monks - but this time in the old town of Lhasa. As it was broken up the general Tibetan population protested and a riot broke out aimed at the Han Chinese population. This was a pretty standard, nasty sectarian riot with the Tibetans the agressors against the Han. The interesting thing is that the security forces didn't know how to react. It is a regular problem in China, the command and control is not there and people wait orders allowing things to get out of control.

 

The ethnic divisions are strong in Tibet with alot of distrust of the millions of Han migrants who have been encouraged to come into the area - the deliberate policy of Han-ification of Tibet is reaping its deserts!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I watched the news today and thought it absolutely shocking how the protesters were treated in Greece. One woman lay in the road and was heavy-handedly dragged across the road. Then there was a man holding the Tibetan flag and shouting, but the security thugs just grabbed him, headlocked him, and then kicked him to the ground. From what little I saw, these are non-violent demonstrations in Green, yet the security services are given a free hand to use violence simply to keep the Olympic torch chugging along.

[bluemonday]

It struck me that the chinese guy making the speech seemed to be addressing a political rally judging by his tone. Apparently Greece is worried that demos will upset the chinese hence the strong arm stuff. I wonder what Greece wants to sell the chinese...............

[Chinahand]

Some Chinese students are really pissed off with what they percieve to be the West's attitude towards Tibet

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Some Chinese students are really pissed off with what they percieve to be the West's attitude towards Tibet

 

Maybe that might spark some interest to understand why. But why is there so much support and outcry over Tibet and not for self-determination in Chechnya, genocide in Sudan, and oppression in Burma, for example. Is it simply because the riots have come at the same time as the Olympics? Or because of China's international standing?