The simmering Tibetan resentment boils over; what China doesn't understand
Not since the crackdown in 1989 has Tibet (er... the Tibetan Autonomous Region) been so unstable. Reports out of Lhasa indicate the city is in lockdown. The Washington Post picks it up from here:
Hundreds of protesters swarmed Tibet's capital Friday, clashing with police and setting fire to shops and cars in a spasm of violence worse than any there in nearly 20 years. Doctors reported dozens of injured streaming into hospitals, and there were unconfirmed reports of several deaths as Lhasa descended into what one witness called "a state of siege."
By nightfall, armored personnel carriers had rolled into the center of the city. "The army is everywhere," said one hotel worker, who added that he was afraid to go outside.
This text and hundreds of filed stories like it are now circulating the globe, along with photos like we've posted here, less than five months ahead of the Olympics - that moment when China was to show itself off as a modern and responsible citizen capable of leading the world.
The protests in Tibet are a PR nightmare. The problem is, since 'capturing' Tibet in the 1950s (I'm being polite), the Chinese government has used only band-aid solutions to calm unrest; read: violent crackdowns. It happened in 1959 and again in 1989, with sporadic disturbances in between. By some estimates, more than 2 million Tibetans have died as a result of the Chinese occupation.
China has made an historical claim to Tibet, one that has been debated ad nauseum. I'm not about to wade into that complex labryth of theories, as it seems somewhat unimportant. I'll explain this later.
What we do know is that Tibet was independent at the time China invaded in 1950. If it was part of China prior, of course, then there would be no need to "invade" in the first place. Following Tibet's "liberation", Mao attempted to bring his "religion is poison" mantra to the people -- and the Tibetans were a particularly tough sell. After wining and dining the Dalai Lama in Beijing, the Tibetans' God King had to flee to Dharamsala in the late 1950s. He hasn't been back since.
Now, I understand why China is in Tibet. I've had Chinese tell me that this is the way of the world: countries need resources, so they invade other, weaker regions to take them. Western countries have been doing that for centuries. And, at the moment, Tibet is now governed as a part of China. China won: it took control of Tibet, it put its military there, it has largely Han-icized Lhasa, and it has built a train which will bring millions more Han Chinese into the region to pacify it.
But here's the thing China needs to understand: this resentment, which boils over into violence from time to time, isn't going away. I mentioned earlier that whatever Tibet's past, it is only marginally important to Tibet's future. That's because Tibetans are not Chinese: they speak Tibetan, have Tibetan culture, share Tibetan traditions, eat Tibetan food. Regardless of whether they were once ruled by China, India, Russia, or independent, they are a distinct ethnic group. More importantly, they are religious, and their highest religious figure, the Dalai Lama, is reviled by their Chinese rulers and banned from their territory.
China wants to pacify the region and make the Tibetans embrace China. They have done this by pouring in economic aid and development and modernizing the region. It is increasingly open to tourism. But what China fails to grasp is these are secondary concerns to a deeply religious people: they want autonomy, they want to pray, they want to see their leader. And this can not be wiped out by tanks or troops or bullets or economic aid.
China will no more get Tibetans to abandon their love of the Dalai Lama than they could get Catholics to abandon the Pope. People will die for their religious beliefs, something China, as a secular country, finds difficult to comprehend. In a money-driven society, they seem to find it hard to fathom how development and modernity can't seem to make people happy, and in this case, pacify them.
This is to say that, almost 60 years following the invasion, there is still unrest in Tibet. China still needs to rule it with a firm hand. A whole generation of Tibetans has died since the invasion, and new generations have grown up still resenting the Chinese for marching onto their land and taking away their autonomy. More generations will follow.
So what can China do?
China has to understand the dynamics at play. Religion and autonomy are important to the Tibetans; so is the Dalai Lama. China needs to engage Tibetans and find some common ground. They need to be treated with respect, and perhaps they will return the gesture.
The Dalai Lama has stated on numerous occasions that he no longer seeks independence for Tibet. Rather, he is looking for a Hong Kong-style autonomy. I think that would be difficult to achieve. Hong Kong is surrounded by an international border, has its own 'central bank', its own currency, its own laws and regulations. I think that, perhaps, it's too late for Tibet to go down that path.
Rather, Tibetans need to be put in charge of their own affairs, political persecution needs to end, and there must be a mechanism to see the return of the Dalai Lama before his death. China needs to understand if it treats Tibetans well, and makes certain concessions on issues of importance to them, there will be no need to burn down Chinese shops and throw stones at police. Tibet will be more prosperous under Chinese rule; of this, I have little doubt. But China will continue to receive a diplomatic black eye - year in and year out - as long as it continues to rule with force.
Categories
Tibet1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The simmering Tibetan resentment boils over; what China doesn't understand.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/276
Here's hoping so. There is a big chasm separating China's view of itself, and the way it's viewed outside of its borders. This discrepancy was highlighed recently with the Tibetan dispute, and now the Chinese government appears to be understanding... Read More
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/14/tibet.china2?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
http://www.tianya.cn/New/PublicForum/Content.asp?strItem=worldlook&idArticle=150767
The "you Westerners do it too" argument seems pretty superficial to me. Sure a lot of western countries took over other, weaker countries, and some still do- but many westerners oppose this, and this opposition has led one way or another to the end of many of these efforts end. Exactly where would this argument be if Obama is elected president of the US and then pulls the US out of Iraq?
You won't find many, if any, Americans who support the Iraq war as a way for the US to gain resources- in the US as in Europe that sort of tactic has long been rejected by the public. I find it disturbing that Chinese people still feel the need to use such an argument.
You can't argue moral equivalence when you find excuses for your country's oppression of others, while many people in other countries actually try to oppose the same kind of policies.
cam,
"By some estimates, more than 2 million Tibetans have died as a result of the Chinese occupation.
"
If you don't have reliable sources, please stop make this kind of groundless claims. By some estimates, by who? When was it made? How was it calculated? Is it a hearsay? I suppose that you must have tried really hard not to spell out that trendy word starting with a "G".
What was the population of Tibetans in China in 1950s? What is the population now? FYI:
Year 1953 1964 1982 1990
Tibetan 2,775 2,501 3,848 4,593
(Chinese Nationality Statistics, 1949–1990)
I guess it must have been a pretty hard job to cause "more than two million" people's death and have a sizable population growth in the meantime.
Wait a second, "The figures provided by the Chinese government are false", oh, yeah, no comment then.
In case you have a lot of faith in the figures provided by Tibetan Government-in-Exile, which has not been active in the places, where those "G" figures are supposed to be related to, for 50 years, that is your choice ("freedom of speech?").
Anyway, political correctness is often more important than facts for some people.
J B,
I think Goldstein was right to point out that the heart of the Tibet question is about "control of a territory — about who rules, who lives there, and who decides what goes on there".
The fact is that there is no international consensus about "when a people is justified in demanding self-determination or when a multiethnic state has the right to prevent secession".
@ cc:
It is true that there is no international consensus on secession. But there certainly is a general consensus that every defined ethnic group (by which I mean defined both in terms of territory and in terms of culture/language/ethnicity/whatever) *does* have the right to self-determination: the ability to govern itself as it sees fit. In general, this does not refer to secession, which is only a very last resort; but it does refer to real autonomy. Basically, as long as a group can be satisfied with less than independence, independence is not legal unless the larger state agrees; many of the current arguments surrounding Kosovo, for example, is whether a framework for autonomy could have been found that keeps Kosovo within Serbia but with near-complete self-governance. Russia, Serbia, etc. say one can be found; Kosovo and its supporters maintain those bridges were burned long ago.
But almost nobody denies the right to self-determination, by which I mean the right to autonomy. And it's fairly clear that Tibet doesn't have that right now. Tibet may not have the right to secede, as long as a satisfactory solution can be found in which Tibet remains Chinese; but it certainly should not be faulted for demanding the ability to govern itself.
Population of China before WWII was 450 million. Population after was 500 million. No Chinese killed by Chinese during WWII, and certainly non in Nanjing, whose population also grown by 1945 since the beginning of WWII. Same goes for Tibet, right ?
We have no idea whether other estimates are right, but we all know that all Chinese government estimates are just Pictures of South China Tiger. Or is it Tibetan goats now ?
Hu killed thousands of Tibetans in 1989. He is going to do that again 2008. Hu is going to be as glorious as Mao, and will be enshrined in Communist Chinese history for ages. I am also certain that his status in history will change in the future.
Oh, by the way, since the Japanese didn't killed 2 million in Nanjing, so it is totally all right too ?
Since Tibetans are considered Chinese by the Chinese government, and it is totally all right for Chinese killing Chinese - just like in Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward and all other "Class Struggles" - Killing Tibetans must be a legitimate sport in China.
However, Japanese killing Chinese is totally not good.
"Population of China before WWII was 450 million. Population after was 500 million."
When? 1931 or 1937 before WWII?
When 1945 or 1949 after?
Where is your source?
I think there is too much emotionalism whenever the Tibet issue is discussed. That does not help.
codfish,
I think we can find some common groud here that some sort of autonomy can be discussed and should be arranged. However, I don't think this is what the rioters want, at least from looking at their slogans and what they did.
If the Chinese government sees there are different voices from Tibetans, some asking for "autonomy" whereas others demanding "Tibet independence", "all Han, Muslim and etc. Chinese out of Tibet", and the absorption of territory of three other provinces into the Great Tibet, I think that only makes them even more relectant give more autonomy.
codfish,
"as long as a group can be satisfied with less than independence, independence is not legal unless the larger state agrees"
I think your statement above is fundamentally flawed. You are suggesting that the legality of independence of a group of people is determined by whether or not the same group of people are satifsfied with an arrangement less than independence.
If they are unsatisfied with anything less than independence (e.g. Albanians in Kosovo), independence becomes legal? If the Serbs in Kosovo are unsatified with anything less than independence from the newly independent Kosovo, does that make their struggle legal as well. The list can go on and on.
This legal/ illegal argument seems almost as pointless as the history argument, at least in this context.
Legally, China may be under no obligation to give the Tibetans more autonomy. None of us are experts in international law (I don't think so, anyway) and the law isn't necessarily right.
I think the issue here is moral. What we have here is a situation where a people with their own distinct culture, language and religion, living in an easily defined geographic area, have been controlled by a far larger and more powerful ethnic group who never held as thorough control before 1949 as they have since, who have driven out almost all of their religious leadership, have imported and implemented disastrous economic and cultural policies (ie, Cultural Revolution) and finally appear to be set on diluting their culture. Tibetans are left in a situation where they remain poor, while new Chinese immigrants gain wealth. They have no voice, no recourse in a system designed and controlled by the Chinese, feel discriminated against and fear that they may disappear as a unique cultural group, or at least become a minority in their own region.
Such a situation is as untenable in Tibet as it is with blacks in the US, Arabs in Israel, Albanians in Kosovo, and so on, and if the law fails to address such a situation, then there is clearly a problem with the law.
J B,
I don't think there is anything, other than agreeing to independence, that the Chinese government can possible do that won't be critisized by people like you.
"The issue here is moral." Is it moral to attack and kill innocent Han/Hui/non-Tibetan Chinese? So easy to paint a black and white picture whenever morality is mentioned. Riding on a high moral hourse doesn't resolve the problem.
And you have been in Tibet when? How is your Chinese, sir? And your analysis is based upon what training and background, please?
Perhaps English teachers and blogger-who-want-to-be-more should stick to what they know best--teaching English is one of those---instead of trying to substitute their views (which are uninformed in any event)for people who have been there, do keep abreast of issues for years, and have not simply arrived in China hoping to find fame and fortune.
Just because you have a blog that deals with China does not make you an expert on issues confronting China. No one cares about your opinion if that is all it is.
Mr/Ms Know-it-all strikes again, and beats him/herself in the foot with a bullet.
Did an English teacher rape you when you were young, SCW, or perhaps play "special games" that you could not tell Mummy or Daddy about? You seem to have some issues in that regard... I hope that you resolve them, and by doing so, play your own small part in the promotion of a harmonious society.
Anyway... how is your Tibetan, sir? They don't actually use putonghua all that widely in the Autonomous Region, they have their own language. But, I guess you already knew that.
You f**k-wit.
If you had ever been to the TAR as I have, you would know that Mandarin is the language, though not of choice. I was also referring to reading the Chinese press and watching Chinese-language broadcasts--not Channel 9.
My issues are about people who have no background at all in China but arrive to educate people about what they should really think about the world, call themselves "professors" or "consultants" and blog away as if anyone cared what they thought.
What do you think China should do? No one cares what you think because this is a subject that I am sure you have not an ounce of background in.
Why not learn the language, study the culture, the administrative structure, the complex history and all of that before you go off and tell us your insights? Because you are not in China for that; your agenda is focused on attention and fame, like so many other frauds--the "professors" with BA degrees teaching young things English; the backpackers who just cannot find themselves but, hey, the beer is cheap; and the "consultants" and "editors" who are losers back home and leerers of young women while their visa lasts. No, just sit there and tell us all about China---a country you have not a clue about. Tell us all about what Beijing's policies should be, and how to save China, help China, form US policy. It is truly nauseating.
I especially like one of your previous posts where you said you did not know all that much about Premier Zhou. But that did not stop you from rendering an opinion, did it? Shameless.
Your parting comment represents other parts of your profound analysis featured elsewhere on this blog quite nicely. Well done that: when in doubt, curse the truth-teller.
"China wants to pacify the region and make the Tibetans embrace China. They have done this by pouring in economic aid and development and modernizing the region. It is increasingly open to tourism. But what China fails to grasp is these are secondary concerns to a deeply religious people: they want autonomy, they want to pray, they want to see their leader. And this can not be wiped out by tanks or troops or bullets or economic aid."
How on earth would you know? Based on readings of back-issues of The Economist?
Shen Congwen,
I appreciate your comments on this post, as I appreciate your point of view on all of our posts. I'm not sure what your background is, but to me that is irrelevant: all people are entitled to their points of view.
And in that vein, so am I. For your information, I am not an English teacher in China and never have been. Prior to arriving here I was a public relations professional with the Province of British Columbia government in Canada. I've also worked extensively as a reporter in Vancouver. Since arriving in China, I've worked at CRI, CCTV 9, helped launch China's first regional all-English TV channel in Guangzhou (where I hosted its flagship news program), developed the news department at Jongo.com in Shanghai, a web portal, and now work as a TV host with Tianjin TV. I've lived in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, and spent months in Shenzhen, Tianjin, Hong Kong, and Macao. In the spaces, I've written for several overseas publications, studied Chinese (yes, I studied the language and culture), and worked in public relations. I now own my own PR company.
But really, this is neither here nor there. Whether I'm an English teacher that clings to my visa looking for girls or head a company here, my opinion matters just as much as your's does (and, I might add, I'm still not sure what your qualifications are either -- but this is irrelevant).
The exchange of ideas is how countries and peoples progress. This is my opinion, and I'm happy to debate it with you. I'm happy to be in China during this time in history, where my small voice is read by a few people, from time to time, on this blog. And I welcome your voice as a vital part of the discussion as well.
You also mentioned the Zhou Enlai post. That was written by Paul, and not myself. And I will spare you the details, but Paul has an impressive resume and currently hosts a flagship national current affairs program on Chinese radio. This doesn't make his opinion more important than your's, but it's welcome nonetheless.
China-bashers worldwide have a major hard-on right now. Images floating around on CNN, BBC, and other purveyors of nonsense show scenes of local Tibetans cracking Han skulls, and vice versa. Even Xinhua puts the death toll at about 100.
But what is it all for? Is that little 43-year-old punk bitch Bjork really that influential?
Unlikely.
Is it not the case that the TAR needs China just as badly as China needs the TAR? Do the good citizens of Tibet really want to wander the hills and plateaus forever tending sheep, etc?
To digress slightly, coming from Ireland, I know all about bigger, more powerful regimes cracking down upon the little guy for no apparent good reason. But to every dark cloud comes a bright and silver line: If I was not a “native” speaker of English, I and my family would likely still be picking potatoes out of the ground.
My point: Some say the Han Chinese took Tibet by force, but many others say it was “peacefully liberated”. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in betwixt. But for some silly reason, I doubt that any President Dickie Gere could make things too much better there. Presuming, of course, that the actor would take his interest in that issue any further once the camera lights go dark.
PS: if any1’s lukin for Englsih classez, drop an emil to : whire_trash_cunt@yahoo.com – I’ll be happy to oblige.
@ Shen Congwen
I thought you were dead? WTF?
You seem more prejudge mental (sic) in your new life.
Balboa,
Happy St. Patrick's day! Glad to know that you are from Eire. Are you working in China?
Tim,
It seems that you "disappeared" yourself after making numberous claims.
"No Chinese killed by Chinese during WWII, and certainly none in Nanjing". That is not true, unfortunately there have been many Chinese killed by Chinese. However, has that anything to do with Tibet? It seems that you are so desperate to score on something.
"We have no idea whether other estimates are right, but we all know that all Chinese government estimates are just Pictures of South China Tiger. Or is it Tibetan goats now?" So, what are you talking about? If none estimate (both others estimates and Chinese government's) is realiable, then what are your claims based on?
"Hu killed thousands of Tibetans in 1989."
Tell us your source. Tibet-Government-Exile or Richard Gere? Sorry, TGE's credit is no higher than Chinese governement's. You better ask DL, has he got himself off CIA's payroll.
"He is going to do that again 2008." I don't think he or the Chinese government wants to do what you are telling them to do. The reason is that they are not stupid (or at least not as stupid as what you would like them to be). What can they achieve by killing Tibetans? To pump more enery into your guys for dancing around and bashing them? Having said that, I do think there are certain elements in the Tibet Independence movement who would like to see bloodshed, more bloodshed than what has happened. Their perceived profit is not hard to imagine, e.g. Olympic boycott and sanctions etc. People's lives are expendable. (Nevertheless, I don't think DL is one of them) In fact, they have succeeded to some extent. If mobs are running around with machetes, robbing, burning, beating and killing, what do you expect the actions from the Chinese government or any responsible government in this world? In fact, I don't think the Chinese government's actions have been swift enough to protect innocent people's property and lives.
"Hu is going to be as glorious as Mao, and will be enshrined in Communist Chinese history for ages. I am also certain that his status in history will change in the future."
I think you have lost your mind somehow. You must have read too much CR stuff.
"Oh, by the way, since the Japanese didn't killed 2 million in Nanjing, so it is totally all right too ?"
The Japanese did not kill 2 million in Nanjing, you are right. However, they killed 300,000 in a few weeks according to Chinese figure. The exact number is hard to know. Other sources suggest the death toll ranges from 200,000 to 300,000. You can find zero death toll as well from some Japanese sources.
killing is not alright. However, you have to look at the circumstances. The intention of the Japanese in NJ was to rape and murder and to terrify the population. If you really think the Chinese government has been having that killing desire in their mind since 1950s, I don't understand why there are still a few million Tibetans left in China now.
There are certainly many people lost their lives in 1959. However, if you want to compare that with what happened in NJ in 1937-38, I make no further comment in this regard.
Facts are facts. Riding on a high moral horse does not necessarily make whatever you say/claim factual. Emotionalism helps nobody.
A PR analyst does not equal a political analyst. Why not simply confine yourself to those subjects you know something about--media and such? Have you ever been to Tibet? Studied its history beyond a textbook? Analysed Chinese policies and shifts? Know the background of the party secretary there? I think not. And so why judge Chinese policies?
I have no expertise on the situation in Darfur, and so I have no comment on that. Others are not so restrained and end up looking foolish.
Yes, have your opinion and your blog, and others may comment. I have no complaint there. But to pass one's self off as an informed commentator or when those who comment think that their opinion is worth something even though they know nothing about the situation is truly unfortunate.
There is so much fraud among bloggers based in China--Peking Duck, Longbow Papers, others--it makes many very angry.
Good luck with your blog, but please stick to material worth reading because it is informed by study and analysis.
Congwen,
I make no claim to be a political analyst, or a PR expert for that matter.
However, there is a large PR component to this crisis (namely, China's image) and I commented on that in the post.
Again, one's qualifications doesn't exclude one from offering opinions, and nobody is twisting your arm to read them.
@ cc:
You are correct; my word choice of "legal" was probably not the most appropriate. I'm trying to figure out what would be better; perhaps "tenable"?
For example, you mention that if accept Kosovo's independence because the Albanians there refuse anything less than independence, then we must also give the Serbs of Kosovo independence if they make the same claim. My response is that Kosovo's independence is (debatably) tenable; there are enough of them to be a functioning political and economic entity. The same cannot be said for the northern regions of Kosovo where Serbs live. However, this doesn't mean that the Serbs of Kosovo, as a distinct minority group, don't have the right to self-determination; they do, and this is specifically safeguarded in the agreement that Kosovo's government has made with the European Union.
I know this is weak. But the problem is that, like with so much other international law, most of this stuff is decided not via logic or precedent but rather because it's acceptable to the international community. So it's really hard to go from one case to another, and say "secession is legal here but not here."
But let's go back to the issue of what is and is not tenable. I use this term in pretty much every sense: based on size, based on economics, based on political and cultural sentiment. For example, let's look at Scotland, Quebec, and the Basque Country: three regions, each with active secessionist movements (heck, the pro-independence party is or has been the government in each of these three), each possessing a democratic government and an explicit right to self-determination recognized by the UK, Canada, and Spain, respectively. All three of those larger countries are opposed to secession, and all three have said that unilateral secession is illegal (though they've left the question of negotiated secession more ambiguous, and in the case of Canada at least have even said that it would be legal if both parties agreed). Yet it is extremely rare for a poll in any of these regions to show anything near majority support for independence (the Basque Country being the most debatable of these, but even there I think this is true). People are satisfied with the autonomy they possess - not everyone, but enough. And perhaps these places will become independent in the future, but perhaps not. Support for Quebecois independence, for instance, has declined substantially in the last 10 years.
So the point is that it *can* be possible to reach a point like this, where most people on both sides of the issue are satisfied. In these cases, secession is not legal. But if this is not achievable (assuming other criteria - size, geographical compactness, etc.) are met, secession becomes acceptable to the international community. I guess that is as close to "legal" as it's possible to get on a subject like this.
I hope that makes my viewpoint on the matter clearer, and shows why I think we should first reach a point where Tibet (by which I mean the Xizang Zizhiqu, not that plus bits of Sichuan, Yunnan, Qinghai, and Gansu) enjoys this autonomy, and only then even think about independence.
"One's qualifications doesn't exclude one from offering opinions."
Perhaps, but why then bother to offer them? What is the point of an opinion unless it is wel-informed?
And you did not stop at talking about China's image; you went on to comment about what China should do--as if every CP official had the same view---something you would know is not true if you bothered to do any research on the subject, in Chinese.
@ cc:
Thank you, sir/madam, for the festive greeting. Isn’t it marvelous that we on the Emerald Isle chose a religious day to celebrate our nationality, rather than the date on which we actually achieved independence? Maybe our forefathers were back then worried about hurting the feelings of the British people forever more ;-)
@ Shen Congwen
Your previous comment indicates that you have contempt for people whose postings render them foolish-looking. I suggest that you invest in a large piece of aluminium-coated glass, and have a good old gawk into it.
In the meantime, may I suggest that you do not waste your thenar muscles repeating the same message over and over, i.e., that “nobody cares what you think”? Aside from the fact that there is no ‘you’ (rather this thread is composed of a number of viewpoints put forward by different people, something that seems to have gone over your head, judging by your comments), you might appear a little more sane if you actually posted a worthwhile opinion.
Oh yeah, I forgot that you loath those things.
Codfish (and others),
My opinion is that the notion of self-determination and X-independence is not always a black-white picture as it is often painted.
Your suggestion of the use of "tenable" injects better flexibility into the circumstances than "legal". However, it also results in serious problems of ambiguity/subjectivity. A few questions immediately pop up:
How do you define what is tenable? Who define it? Accordng to what standard do we define it? Is the standard fixed for every case present or in the future should it arises? If the stardard can be flexed, who make the adjustment through what precedure to what extent?
In addition, please allow me to say, the term of "internatioal community" has be abused by the mainstrem media/government in the west to an extent that is approaching propoganda.
Remember, we have 6 billion people (approx.) on this planet. We have 200 or so nations/regions. We have numberous nationalities, races and ethnic groups, etc. When some people say, for example, "X independence /self-determination is "tenable/acceptable" for the internation community", apart from the problems associated with "tenable" pointed out above, what does this "international community" consist of? By a proportion of the world population, nations/regions, nationalities, ethnic groups and even NGOs, etc? We are told all human beings/nationalities/ethnic groups/etc are equal, aren't we?
Kosovo got independence not because of the acceptance of the "international community". It is a result of power struggle. Serbs lost because their foes in this regard are too powerful in comparison. The Albanians are just pawns in the game, lucky pawns nevertheless.
It is an illegal case, pure and simple, according the UN charter on which all the supporting countries of the case have signed. Legal clauses perhaps are too simple to cover all sorts of situations, but they can at least provide a clear standard that we all can see and measure things with.
Apart from the numerous factors in the case of Tibet(also Taiwan), the key reason for which Tibet independence is not visible is that China as a whole is still powerful enough in comparison. If China was as weak as it had been in 1800s, Tibet/Taiwan independence would certainly have got their way.
Perhaps I have asked too many questions and presented too many problems to which I myself have no solutons so far. Nonetheless, I just like to punch a tiny hole on the balloon of myth.
@ cc:
Yes, I know that the flexibility of "tenable" makes it hard to define any hard and fast rules about what will and will not be accepted in the future. As I mentioned, this *is* both extremely ambiguous and extremely subjective. And no, I don't like it any more than you seem to. Like you, I'd like my international legal regimes to make some amount of sense.
Sadly, we don't live in that kind of world.
I'm not putting forward what I think *should* be the standard for secession. I'm trying to explain what the standard currently *is*, and the sad truth is that there isn't a well-defined standard. I'm doing the best I can; if you have a better approximation based on the evidence, I'd love to hear it.
Similarly, I'm not saying I support Kosovo independence; I'm explaining why Kosovo's "independence," or whatever state it's currently in, is seen by much of the world as legal. (Though I would like to point out, while we're in the myth-bursting business, that it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that Kosovo vs. Serbia is ONLY a case of proxy conflict between great powers. If Serbia hadn't done what it did in the 90's, I really doubt the US would have been interested at all.) In point of fact, I think you're right that based on the previous standard, Kosovo should not have the right to secession, since not enough attempt was made to find a tenable version of autonomy; but since the governments of the US, Germany, and many other countries appear to disagree with me, I have little choice but to adjust my standard to fit this new piece of evidence.
In linguistic terms, I'm trying to be a descriptivist; if I am coming off as a prescriptivist, please forgive me.
And what do I mean by "international community"? Simple: I mean the governments of the 190-odd countries that are members of the UN (plus, I guess, the Vatican, which does have a certain amount of clout). I don't mean people, I don't mean media, I don't mean national groups. I mean the governments of independent states. There should be a particular emphasis on the West, and on the Permanent Five; but at a certain level, it does include them all. (Remember, for example, that a majority of the General Assembly comes from the developing world, and before you say that the GA has no power, recall how the PRC got into the United Nations. It sure wasn't through a vote of the Security Council.)
The "international community", using this terminology, is an extremely exclusive club, and only it can decide who its members are. At times, its criteria seem a bit ludicrous; remember that Somalia, which hasn't had anything approaching a unified government in nearly two decades, is a full-fledged member, while Northern Cyprus, which (regardless of what you think of the Cyprus conflict) has defined borders, a permanent population, and a democratically-elected government, is not. Monaco, where many officials, including (I believe) the entire judicial system, are actually French citizens, counts; Taiwan doesn't. There is no list of criteria for statehood that you can draw up that includes every UN member state while excluding every other region with a claim to statehood... except the criterion "Is a UN member state".
So I think you're going for a lost cause in looking for any "clear standard that we all can see and measure things with". I'd love to have one. But since the members of this club value their exclusivity very highly - China and other developing countries as much or more than the members from the West - I don't think we're getting one any time soon.
codfish,
In terms of international politics, might is right, to a very large extent. This is my unfortunate description of the current/past/future? world order. There have been numerous "eras" in the history of this world, American, British and Dutch etc. In fact, there has been only one era, era of mighties.
On the issue of PRC's UN membership, there is some interesting backgroud.
PRC did get into the UN and its Security Council in 1971 following a vote in the General Assemby (Resolution 2758). However, you better do not overestimate the power of the GA.
Correct me if I am wrong. As far as I know, PRC was not admitted to the UN and its SC as a new member. It was admitted as a replacement representative of China' seat. The difference may seem subtle, but it is very important because new membership of the UN requires a vote of the GA "upon the recommendation of the SC". Without the recommendation of the SC (ROC was a member then), no new member can be admitted as the issue won't reach the GA.
ROC was the founding member of the UN. It is still acknowledged by the UN. What has changed is that PRC is the representative of China now as a successor state of ROC (ipso jure). China, under the name of either ROC or PRC, was never expelled from the UN, therefore there wasn't any issue regarding admitting new member state, which would have required the recommendation of the SC.
The above may seem to be merely a matter of wording, but it shows where the power lies.
I'm aware. The point is that, in rare cases, the GA is able to get around the power of the SC and do things on its own; this was one of them, and it shows that the larger power of the developing world in the GA can occasionally be relevant. Sometimes directly, as on the issue of China's membership; sometimes only symbolically, as with the "Zionism is racism" resolution. But symbols can be important.
Of course, most of the time, might is right, and the Security Council and especially the Permanent Five have the most power. This is why the standards we make have to change in response to their behavior; because they can break any standard they see fit. And this is as true for the nondemocratic members, China and Russia, as for the other three. (It's Russia's veto that's keeping Kosovo out of the club for now, for example.)
I feel like we're actually agreeing on most of this, and just debating over tiny points. But then, what else is the internet for? :)
How funny is this: people who are not lawyers talking about international law as it applies to China.
Thank you so very much for the enlightenment.