Graeme,

This is a well-articulated and polite article which emphasises the need for a pace of slow (even snail's pace) reform. However the concluding remarks, including the statement "do not ask for the impossible: accept that Tibet is a part of China" is ill-considered at best. The only people who can legitimately decide that Tibet is part of China is the Tibetans themselves. On that matter they haven't had much choice.

In which case the only moral cause is to support Tibetan self-determination; not Tibetan independence, not Tibetan integration - but self-determination.

I think that self-determination will work for Tibet if it also will work for the original peoples of Australia. That is, if Australians are willing to give up one-quarter of the landmass of Australia, at the very least, to the Aboriginal peoples, to govern autonomously and without interference from the national government, then Australia will be on good grounds to demand that China do the same.

Canada has done so with Nunavut. Australians might do well to follow suit.

Lev,

What is the point of self determination if China simply sends enough migrant Han Chinese to Tibet to ensure that any vote would be in Chinas favour.

Do you think it’s reasonable in that circumstance to say that Tibet has really chosen is own future?

Or do you think Tibet should be for the Tibetans?

Best regards

Hi Paul,

The right of self-determination means the right of nations to determine what state they live under, not necessarily merely the population of a particular region.

For example the Kurds are a nation, but they do not have a state. The Kurds too also should have the right to establish their own state if they desire.

I find it ironic, and not in a good way, that the supposedly Marxist-Lenninist government of China completely and utterly ignores Lenin's own comments on this matter ("[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state").

You stress the need for polite and respectful engagement with China over the Tibet question. I am interested in your thoughts about how to move to a mutually respectful dialogue between the Chinese and the Tibetans.

At the moment it strikes me that the Chinese government feels no need to treat the Tibetans - or their principal representative, the Dalai Lama - politely and respectfully. The Chinese attitude seems to be very much that the Tibetans are "lower" and so do not deserve respect. We have heard much about how the Chinese have brought the backward Tibetans the gift of their superior civilization and culture for which they have shown only ingratitude.

Within Chinese culture is there an effective means for telling those with this attitude that they are out of line?

Graeme

I am not quite sure what respect Mao showed the Tibetans when he sent the PLA in.

How do you show respect to a dictatorship whose rule is perpetuated through fear and repression?

I think as Lenin said nations have the right to self-determination. Tibet is a nation, despite your comments to the contrary, and should have that right.

The Olympics have a long history of supporting dictatorships or bolstering imperialism. From Paris to London to Nazi Germany to Mexico to Moscow and Los Angeles (for example) and now to Beijing.

Show me how to reason with a dictatorship, a dictatorship bent on the cultural genocide of the Tibetans. If the choice is between a Tibetan monk fighting against the PLA or the PLA, I'm with the Tibetan monk.

Graeme you preaching to deaf ears, people are too eager to stand on the side of "the suppressed" without knowing the facts. I'm a UK photographer for the popular Chinese travel website findchina.net and travel extensively throughout both China and Tibet and I know exactly what you are talking about it is very difficult to explain to my friends and family as the mindset of different cultures.
I do sympathise with the Tibetin's and cringe when when political opportunists and presumptuous liberals jump and the opportunity to incite this violence. They really don't know what they are doing however at the end of the day the same people who they profess to care about are the same ones that are dying its a shame the Tibetan people are lovely and deserve only to be given hope when its a realistic possibility and in the mean time the billions China is poring into developing Tibet while their future is being decided really cant hurt, their infrastructure really needs it. Come on people if you want a do some good in the world make a donation to the millions of Asian orphans who knows your popular opinions could have made them one in the first place.

Once again, it seems that there are few people who would agree that Australia should give up one-quarter of its territory to its indigenous peoples. The fact that no one has yet agreed that it should seems to prove this fact. The response to such proposal in previous instances has been that the Aboriginals don't deserve self-determination because they are somehow less organized, or less populous, or less cohesive, or otherwise less of a nation.

However, if Canada can give Nunavut to its northern indigenous peoples, then this argument does not work, since the Inuit are, if anything, even less populous both in absolute terms and relative to the Canadian population as a whole, and more sparsely distributed, as well.

Nunavut was made possible because Canada has been especially generous, and also because most of the area spoken of is in the frigid north which was not already a province. (Nunavut was carved from the Northwest Territories.) However, the principle on which Nunavut was given over was the same as that advocated for the Tibetans: Self-determination as to control over historical territories.

By rights, therefore, the indigenous people of Australia should be given a chance to fully and autonomously "own" almost all of Western Australia in which their ancient settlement pattern could be found. Would all of Australia readily accept a referendum in which most of Western Australia was given over to them? Would Australians willingly evacuate Perth, for example, if the indigenous people decided that the presence of white Australians was "cultural genocide"?

Answering this question should answer the question of whether China should be expected to give up Tibet on similar terms. Moreover, Australia is, by population, a much smaller country; in theory, all Australians could be eventually evacuated to New Zealand. To those who are making demands of China: If a resurgent China in twenty years were to insist that indigenous people be allowed to self-determine on the question of whether not just Western Australia, but all of Australia, should be returned to them to avoid "cultural genocide," what do you think Australia's response would be?

I am equally unsure what type of respect can you show it to Dalai Lama, the man who conspired with the CIA in the armed uprising, before losing Tibet to China. He has absolutely no right to demand anything from China if he still has some little honor left.

Passy,

You are an unbelievable hypocrite. Your support for a two state solution for the Tibetans but not for the Israelis shows you to be a bigot.

A one state solution (as per your suggestion for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is exactly what China is trying to achieve in Tibet by moving tens of thousands of Han Chinese into Tibet to change the political situation on the ground.

However you are in great company. Hamas also believe in a one state solution for the conflict, funnily enough because it would deliver ultimate control of all the land to them.

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

Sounds an awful lot like the one China policy with religious dressing if you ask me.

What's The Deal,

I agree with self-determination of indigenous nations. Note the plural; yes, they ARE less cohesive than the Tibetans and even a modicum of understanding of aboriginal cultures would reveal that to you. There are actually several hundred aboriginal nations throughout Australia.

From various legal implements which have provided some sense of self-determination (including initially the Wiki and Mabo decisions), there does not seem to be many who demand separate aboriginal countries; although there is calls for sovereignity, which I agree with.

This seems to differ significantly from the situation in Tibet. There it seems there is a genuine body of people who want an independent state. Of course the only way to determine this would be a free referendum of Tibetans on their future.

Paul,

Israel is a country, not a nationality (and Judiasm isn't a nationality either, it is a religion). The Tibetan however are nationality and a country, but one who have been unable to determine their own state.

And you really should know by now that Islamist movements are not the be-all and end-all of those who support a single, democratic and secular state in Palestine. It is quite disingenous of you to keep suggesting this when in your heart you know it is false.

Paul L calls me a hypocrite for supporting Tibet but not Zionism. SO be it.

Do Afrikaners have the right to self determination? No. The solution - one state - was appropriate. This stopped the rule by one group over another.

A one state solution for Palestine does the same - it is the answer to Israeli apartheid in the region. (In addition, Paul L, Tibet's right to self determination is not at the expense of, or genocide of, another people.)

Tibet is culturally and ethnically and linguistically different to China. They had no say in their incorporation into China (other than the feudal Dalai Lama supporting the CCP, even if uneasily, for some time.)

The struggle for Tibetan independence (i.e. their right to self determination)is part of the struggle for democracy across all of China.

Lev,

I appreciate your response.

I must say that I cannot understand whether self-determination is divisible or not, and that is one of the problems with the Western concept of it. China is itself a Third World country, and by rights it should be able to determine its own fate, and yet this runs up against the idea of self-determination for groups within it. I have a fundamental disagreement with the encouragement of self-determinism where issues have already been decided by overwhelming practical means.

Let me cite, for example, the U.S. Civil War. The question decided there wasn't just whether there would remain slavery within the United States; in fact, one could argue that that wasn't even originally the issue. The issue, rather, was whether any state or group of states could secede from the Union by force. The answer was decided, by force, that the answer was in the negative.

Progressive movements, on the other hand, as well as various founding documents of the internationalist movement represented by the United Nations deny that historical precedent of this kind should overrule the right of self-determination. But whether this actually should be so is quite a different matter, for the divisibility of self-determination poses innumerable problems for both national and international stability.

Ironically, the defense of the continued occupation of Aborginal lands based on lack of cohesiveness seems still another instance of the misuse of divisibility -- this time to divide the indigenous population and deny them overall control over their historic territory. Or one could say that division in another sense only goes so far.

That divisibility is used one way where convenient, and another where it is not, strikes me as a reason that arguments in favor of Tibetan independence based on self-determination are essentially illusory and based on a chauvinistic predicate.

Whats the Deal,

China’s invasion of Tibet occurred in 1950-1. To compare this with Australian settlement in 1778 is absolutely ridiculous. If you want to go back to the 16th or 17th centuries to show Chinas ownership of Tibet then you could almost redraw the borders of every country on earth and make outlandish claims of ownership.

Further to suggest that 2% of the population deserve 25% of the land is also ridiculous. Canadian precedent is irrelevant. Aboriginal people are entitled to the land that they lived on and have maintained a connection with under the recent land rights legislation. Many groups have been granted land rights on this basis.

Self – determination has been public policy for aboriginal people for the last 30 years. It has so far miserably failed the Aboriginal people.

Your question >> “Would Australians willingly evacuate Perth, for example, if the indigenous people decided that the presence of white Australians was "cultural genocide," is as preposterous as it is false. The Tibetans aren’t asking for all han Chinese to leave Tibet, they are only asking for the right to rule themselves. They after all form a significant majority in their own land. China, on the other hand is busy shipping han Chinese to Tibet to change the geopolitical facts on the ground.

Lev,

And it is disengenous of you to neglect the fact that such a one state secular democratic country is impossible in the foreseeable future due to the support among Palestinians for Pan-Islamic fundamentalism( read extremism ) ie Hamas. Can you point to a secular democratic country in the middle east with a muslim majority that doesn’t persecute Jews >? Any one-state solution will mean the end of Jews in the Middle East.

It is an artificial construct to suggest that the Jews are not a nation of people. Surely a nation is defined as such if the people who live in it believe it to be so. And they most certainly do. Any other definition leads to the conclusion that Australia is not a nation.

Paul L., "Australians" didn't settle Australia; rather, the British came over with their settlers and took over the place -- without any legal claim at all. The Chinese at least had a legal claim (see, for example, http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html ) for hundreds of years.

Now, does law count for anything, or doesn't it? Or is this "self-determination" of yours just some airy-fairy nonlegal thing that serves anyone's purpose who wants to define it for himself?

Ain't it a legal fact, self-determination? And if it is, then doesn't a colorable claim under law for the purposes of annexation count?

Yes, I do believe it does.

Britain had no colorable claim to annex the entire continent of Australia, and yet it did. Merely by force of arms did it take over the entire continent. But force of arms cannot withstand the legal basis upon which self-determination is based. Thus, white settlers out of Australia!

<<Further to suggest that 2% of the population deserve 25% of the land is also ridiculous.>>

So Tibetans are how much a proportion of China's population as a whole, hm?

<< Aboriginal people are entitled to the land that they lived on and have maintained a connection with under the recent land rights legislation. Many groups have been granted land rights on this basis.>>

Good, and good. Now let's give them ALL the land they're entitled to, which is at least Western Australia, mate.

<<Self – determination has been public policy for aboriginal people for the last 30 years. It has so far miserably failed the Aboriginal people.>>

Oh, so self-determination for the Tibetans ('cause it don't affect Aussies), but no soup -- er, no self-determination for aboriginals, 'cause it ain't worked. Okay, gotcha. Convenient, too.

<<The Tibetans aren’t asking for all han Chinese to leave Tibet, they are only asking for the right to rule themselves.>>

There are in fact Tibetans who say that the Chinese are swamping their stomping grounds and want them to go away.

I have deliberately placed myself on the other side of the argument on this question. I hope it is, rather, dialectic and will, one day, be heading for synthesis. Also, I do not pretend to be an expert. The two articles were just trying to present another view.

I am surprised at the responses. It was with trepidation that I looked at the comments this morning. I had been away. I quietly expected to be torn apart by a pack of dingos. Rather, there were good questions and well-reasoned responses.

My call has always been to keep our minds open. As to the 5 points, it seemed to me that to have any hope of moving forward you had to have dialogue with the Chinese Government. To do that, you need to have the Chinese Government at the table.

‘What’s the deal’ – yes to the basic premise that to be consistent we should consider the issue of how the Aboriginal peoples have been treated in Australia and on what basis should their original sovereignty be recognised.

‘Lev’ – there is an historical argument, which no doubt can be debated, that Tibet did choose to be a part of China. Any measure of self-determination can only be achieved if China is at a negotiating table. But, if you are really really small then prodding a bloody great dragon in the bum and telling it you have to do as I demand, seems the wrong way to go about it. Real politick. Referendum – shouldn’t a referendum on that issue include China? A referendum that only includes the Tibetan people would be like a referendum on Aboriginal Independence that only included Aboriginals. We assume the answers would be clear-cut in both cases, but perhaps not.

DB = Graeme Mills

Response Part II

‘Bilk’ – The people I speak to in China do have respect for the Tibetan peoples and certainly wish no-one any harm (and yes, it is not a representative sample, but it is very well educated). The history of conflict in Tibet has gained much publicity, but most people just got on with their lives. For many, their lot did improve. From what I understand, the general view is that if the monks stuck to praying there would be no issue, it is just that they want their power back and wander into politics.

‘Passy’ – Mao is no longer there and many Chinese were glad to see him go. In the brief space of the Article, I tried to show that China has moved on.

‘photojack’ – yes, I do give that impression, but I have tried to just argue for an open mind on the issue by presenting a different perspective to the mainstream, and, thankyou! I was looking for comment from someone who has actually been there.

‘I do sympathise with the Tibetin's and cringe when when political opportunists and presumptuous liberals jump and the opportunity to incite this violence.’

I have labelled ‘presumptuous liberals’ wombats. Cute, slow, dim-witted and essentially pointless.

Clarian call – given my current credentials, I don’t suppose you can call me anti-China. So, consider this. China could send 24 million people to Australia and not notice. They could send 28 million people to Australia and not notice. The issue of the dilution of race and culture is an interesting one and began when trans-migration began, I suppose. Will our species eventually evolve into one race and one culture? Is that good or bad??

We may never know, as I fear we will eat ourselves out of house and home first.

DB = Graeme Mills

Paul,

It is incorrect to suggest that self-determination has been Australia's policy for the past 30 years. It certainly was not under the Howard government, as even a casual review would indicate. What has been a policy for the past 30 years is a contradictory combination of interventionist, assimilationist and self-determination policies. Although I will largely agree with you on the question of the provision of land rights (the misfortune of the Yorta Yorta claim perhaps being an exception).

Further, as I have previously said on multiple occassions, I do not support the immediate establishment of a one secular democratic state solution in Palestine, for the very reasons you have stated (along with those who want a biblical Jewish state from the the Nile to the Euphrates). Please don't make me repeat myself like this.

A nation is not determined simply by the assertion of people that they are a nation (c.f., "Queer Nation" or even "Bastard Nation"). It is established by universally shared linguistic relations. As you have correctly implied, there is no "Australian nationality" per se. For the Anglophones and their descendents, we are an English colony. We are also a country of migrants from southern Europe and more recently from southern Asia. Australian is not a nationality - but Australia is a country.

Whilst I realise that in the colloquial sense, the terms 'nation', 'country' and 'state' are used interchangeably, it is not the case in the social sciences where precision is required, although more recently in academia the traditional use of 'nationality' has become fallen out of favour of the term 'culture'. Nevertheless this precision also helps explain why nationalist tendencies arise within countries.

Db

Thanks. My point about Mao was that the Chinese took Tibet by force of arms without asking the Tibetans.

I understand your point about prodding the dragon. One of my colleagues from a certain part of China has been telling me about the repression he faces just to organise ina seemingly non-political way.

Nevertheless the dragon is not monolithic. It is made up of different classes each with different material interests. In fact the CCP, like ruling classes everywhere, is a tiny minority.

Prodding the dragon may produce an upsurge in struggle in China itself, an upsurge that can see Tibet gain its independence or autonomy or whatever it is Tibetans want.

And you ask if we could eventually become one people. My memory is that Marx wrote that when nation states disappeared and labour was free to move around the world (he envisaged a world where production occurred democratically to satisfy human need) the world's population would meld. That seems to make sense to me.

ClarionCall

I’m not going to re-argue terra nullius with you, however it would seem to me that the British in 1788 had much more belief that they were abiding by the law than the Chinese did in 1951. The people’s liberation armies’ invasion of Tibet cannot reasonably be equated to the first fleet. Not unless you have a real flair for the dramatic.

The Chinese legal claim is disputed by the Tibetans, as you would expect. Chinas’ claims to Tibet evolve from events in the 17th and 18th centuries. As I said to Whats the Deal, if we redrew maps based upon the borders and ethnic groupings from the 17th century virtually every country would have disputed ownership. The website you directed me to is blatant Chinese propaganda, and it’s appallingly written. Might as well have directed me to Big Hu’s blog.

Self determination for the Tibetans is absolutely a different concept to that which Australia’s aborigines have sought. Australia’s aborigines are Australian for a start. The Tibetans don’t consider themselves Chinese. So we are talking about the difference between self determination for a nation state and self determination for a diverse indigenous people (with no history of nationhood) within the society in which they live. Further the Aborigines don’t want their own country, they just want to be able to live their own lives within our country.

I thought you actually were intelligent until you suggested we give the Aborigines Western Australia. What a moron, mate. Are you talking about ethnically cleansing all the eastern seaboard and central Australian states of Aborigines to move them to this supposed Aboriginal land? Did you condsider the fact that Aborigines who live in FNQ have no interest whatsoever in WA? They have no connection with that land.

But tell me why you haven’t signed over your own back yard yet? I bet you’re not from WA, that’s for sure. Why not give them Victoria, I can do without it? Or NSW?

Lev,

When the majority of Jews and the majority of Palestinians want to live in a single country I’ll support that.

In preparation you would obviously have monitored extensive media coverage and reliable databases. You claim disrespect and verbal abuse during debate is considered a time honoured sport for the West. You describe China debate as calm, measured and respectful, requiring time to get things into perspective.

Is it possible that there are two China's?

Let's take a simple example of calm, measured and respectful. The last NPC included numerous vitriolic outbursts by delegates against various individuals and leaders. These outbursts included internationally respected individuals such as the Dalai Lama and others that disagree with CCP policy. Public record shows that Mr Rudd is only one of many who have been calling for dialogue for a long period of time, including the Dalai Lama. Rudd's is just another voice, but possibly at a most opportune time.

When it comes down to improvements in freedom of speech, the second China appears to emerge more often. Let us take the latest case.

The BBC reported the April 3 conviction of prominent Chinese activist Hu Jia. The Beijing Number One Intermediate People's Court Convicted Hu Jia on charges of “inciting subversion of state power” for criticising the ruling Communist Party and sentenced him to three and a half years imprisonment.

Hu has been internationally recognized for his long campaign against environmental degradation, religious freedom, and democratic rights in China and rights for HIV and Aids sufferers.

Han was arrested during pre Olympic crackdowns on activists that included the arrest of land-rights activist Yang Chunlin and housing-rights activists Ye Guozhu and Wang Ling. None were in Tibet.

Do you consider people dedicated to such humane causes as so dangerous to be given such sentences? Or is it just to keep them in prison during the run up to and including the Olympics? You must also be aware of the hundreds of others who have been caught up in the recent raids and for whom calls are being made for quick trials.

None of the foregoing is personal vendetta against you or your article Graeme, just statements of verified plain facts to bring balance.

Arthur Thomas

You describe China debate as calm, measured and respectful, requiring time to get things into perspective.

I didn't actually.

I have followed Online Opinion for some time just as an observer. At times enlightened by well researched articles and at other times, disgusted by blatantly biased and ill informed opinions.

I was enlightened by the recent appearance of articles and responses by Arthur Thomas and was getting to like the guy. His response to Graeme Mills "What to do About Tibet" was spot on. His article "Who is to Blame for the Tibet Uprising" was interesting but the paragraph on "conquering nature" stopped me in my tracks when he referred to the planned diversion of the Brahmaputra. I can only assume that this was written on the 1st of April as an attempt to outdo Richard Dimbleby's 1957 April Fools Day spoof "The Spaghetti Tree Festival."

No one in their right mind, and not even China would consider such a lunatic plan. If Tibet was a disaster in credibility and public relations for China, diverting the lifeblood of north east India and Bangladesh would be sheer lunacy, genocide and abuse of human rights on an unheard of scale. Come on Arthur, get real. China really can't be that stupid!

Arthur, to spoil what had been such a realistic article up to that stage is unforgivable and you plunged in my estimations.

Cyclops

Arthur T

You could not see the positive changes in China. In your eyes, Chinese government and all Han are evils. Unfortunately I am one of them, although I never feel I have any superiority in China comparing with our ethnic minorities.

Freedom of speech is still a issue in China although it is improved recent years. However I am also very disappointed by western media. I start to realize nowhere I can find a truth. Western media is not restricted by government like China. However it is driven by looking for sales points which could lead more revenue. So they create an issue and a evil - China.

They do need to lie about since there are lots of problems in China (a developing country). It is enough for just giving all negative images without one good.

I do not understand what you appeal for changing human rights of China for. 96% of Chinese are racist (Han)as you said in your "Who is to blame ...". And thank you, you let me know who I am.

Graeme Mills just want you give Chinese government a time other than instant change. He also suggest everyone should look at it in both sides. From his article, I can see he is trying to understand and know more about China. For me his comments and suggestion are more positive.

NathanC I couldn’t agree more China is changing at impressive rate and certainly for the better. besides if you want you could pick holes in any government by its very nature, unfortunately for China its success has dragged it into the limelight and will have to forgo the perils of fame. I'm am ashamed that the west is not as Hospitable to the Chinese as they have always been to me. In the west we don't leave the politics to the professionals and any old idiot can have a go, No offence Mr Brown.

NathanC >>"Western media is not restricted by government like China. However it is driven by looking for sales points which could lead more revenue." ...<<

You absolutely underestimate the west media and some west govt, at the same time, you also underestimate the China and Chinese people, quite frankly, although you are Chinese.

"What to do about Tibet?" If you want the answer, you have to look beyond the current affair. It is not the point of media fairness. It is the global power struggle. Even the Tibetan riot is just part of the PLOT.

Actually, Chinese govt and Chinese people kept alert on west media, or west govt indeed, but they are waked up by manipulated Tibet riot. They are not alert enough. So, they concluded: give up illusion, prepare confronting.

I am a bit surprised that China has developped to a stage that some west powers want to destabilize China urgently.

It is also a natural scenario which welcomed by most of the world. Other major power/area such as middle east, Russia, Africa all welcome the confrontment between China and west, or China shares more responsibility to balance west powers. Of course, it is Japanese best wishes if there is a war between USA and China.

So, do not angry, keep calm, all these incidents actually are natural certain choice of the current world.

NathanC & Photojack

Thanks, I think the current attitude of the west as reflected in the media is appalling. Xiaosui just asks, why? As one respondent said, it will only make the Chinese peoples support the government and unite against such blatant hostility. Even Kevin Rudd is being forced to pander to the ‘noise’, it seems.

It seems we just can’t shake those colonialist attitudes, and/or, I suspect there is a tinge of fear that the yellow peril will finally come and get us. I shake my head.

Romany, if you read this – thanks for your comment in the other Article. I never was good at learning when to stop

As the writer admits, China has been building its empire for thousands of years, and its people understandably have developed a strongly imperialist mind-set; after all, as G.B. Shaw pointed out, the policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul usually has the full support of Paul. The sense of outrage at Tibetan unrest and Olynpic protests is reminiscent of British outrage at Irish demands for independence, or Belgian outrage at the Congo's, or South African outrage at Namibia's, Portuguese at Mozambique and Angola's, etc. etc. etc. Ho bloody hum. So think all imperialists.

The marriage of a daughter of a Tibetan king surely, if anything, holds the king hostage as surely as putting him in the emperor's dungeon, so let's not go on about eternal friendship and mutual love.

History has been far more up and down, even for the Chinese Empire - both Tibet and Turkestan have had long periods of what we might call independence, long periods under a range of outside invaders, such as the Han Chinese, the Mongols, incursions from Persians, Kazakhs, long periods of civil war, until the Chinese 'finally' conquered them in the nineteenth century (at least up to the 1911 Revolution, forty and fifty years later) followed by forty years of independence. But to claim some five thousand years of unbroken imperialist control of these vast lands is drawing a bit of a long bow.

People have the right to choose self-determination and/or independence, the Irish, the Khoisan, the Bolivians, the Inuit, the Maori, and the people of Turkestan, Tibet and Taiwan, the Aboriginal people across Australia. But the price is standing on their own feet, sacrificing any benefits from the colonial masters or central powers in exchange for the freedom to run their own affairs. The Tibetan people should have the right to choose, just as the Aboriginal people here should. I would suggest that while the Tibetan people (or people in Turkestan) would choose freedom, the Aboriginal people would choose the security of a constant flow of benefits from the Canberra. That would be their choice.

Loudmouth

People have the right to choose self-determination and/or independence in proper way. Killing should not be allowed. If you are able to look at the entire event, the mobs started it with killing innocent people. If Aboriginal people of Australia to claim their right in such way, would you still agree and give your understanding?

Another question, who should represent of Tibetans. Is it Dailai Lama or Tibetans people who are current living in Tibet. West people should go there to listen their voice if they want to give their judgments. Photojack who has been there. He should know more about it. Some western supporters in Paris and Landon who even can not point out where Tibet is on a map. How people can believe their suggestion is good for Tibet and Tibetans.

Aboriginal people of Australia won the understanding and supporting from majority of Australians. They finally got their rights/apologies last year. Please note the happy ending is not achieved in one day. Could you give China time to do it as well?

People who is seeking independent or self-determination should go back to China. They would be successful if you can gain understanding and support of local people. I could not trust some people who claim their rights in China when they are drinking a beer in overseas. It is same to Aboriginal of Australia.

Hi Nathan,

Yes. But would they ? My wife is Indigenous, and over forty years, I have not really seen any enthusiasm for unfunded independence. We went to live in a 'community' for four years in the seventies, packed in our jobs, packed up the kids, and off - and all because we fervently believed in self-determination. More fools us.

But it was put to the vote - at every ATSIC election. In Adelaide, only 7 % of the adult population even bothered to vote at some ATSIC elections, so where is the enthusiasm ? It's not really a goer, except as a sort of rhetorical bogey-man to scare the white middle-classes.

But it does appear to have more support in Tibet, total independence, undunded, entirely on their own. Different ball game, Nathan.

Joe

DialecticBlue,

What is colonialist about pointing out oppression? Only an idiot communist would suggest that it was colonialist to out oppression. The Chinese media have been unable or unwilling to show the people of China anything which the regime decrees as adverse to it’s interests.

It is astounding arrogance to suggest that it is racism on our part that we are offended, and say so, by the blatant and disgusting actions of the Chinese Communist gov’t. The killing, bashing and locking up of Tibetans is routinely carried out, whilst being withheld from the Chinese people. Even the Prime Ministers speech in China, in Chinese is apparently not available.

NathanC,

No one thinks that Han chinese are evil, only the CCP. Tell me why if a couple of Han Chinese are killed does that make it OK to kill hundreds and lock up tens of thousands of Tibetans in retaliation?

Photojack

In the real world we take criticism. Mahathir Mohammed always had critical things to say about Australia, we didn’t like it but we didn’t censor every reference to it either. Until the Chinese gives up authoritarianism altogether they will always be a backwards country. Its nice they treated you so well, pity you can’t actually say that for anyone who has an opinion not shared by the CCP. Hu Jia was jailed for 3.5 years for merely speaking his mind. How many innocent people are doing forced labour in prison camps? How many Falun gong practitioners have had their organs harvested? Its disgusting and no amount of rose colured lenses will make the ugliness diappear

Joe,

Thanks for your response. They (Aboriginal people)would not. My point is they can claim their rights in peaceful manner. Killing innocent people in order to get attention should not be allowed and encouraged. Do you agree? It is my point.

My second point is who has rights to ask. Is Dalai Lama or Tibetan people in Tibet? My answer is Tibetans in Tibet have more right to claim. What is yours? In other words, unless we go to Tibet, we won't find out the answer.

-->"But it does appear to have more support in Tibet, total independence, undunded, entirely on their own..."

From current media I find the majority of protesters are western. Are they moral people as they claimed? Do they really concern about Tibet and Tibetans as they claimed?

Your answer might be Yes. If you have a time, please look at this vidio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twHzXN3kNTs

You may tell something differently

Hey I'm not going to pat them on there backs for the methods they use however it works and with such a large "unmonitored society" that has to be an achievement, Truth is In China I would feel safer walking around Beijing with a Dalai Lama T shirt than I would carrying the Olympic torch through London. Do not think for one moment that one side of the equation is completely blameless there are many religions and movements within China that are free to practice and have opinions they have simply not needed to stir controversy to gain recognition you got to ask yourself what have they done that makes them stand out. Does China ban the Tibetan monks from practicing their religion not at all they subsidise them and they even receive a healthy state pension for their effort to preserve what the Chinese government sees as a Valued cultural heritage. You make it sound as if we live in some kind of Utopia in the West, I could as easily say the Chinese people take to many of their freedoms for granted. Nobody denies that china uses a heavy hand, what your failing to see is that is what the vast majority of Chinese want and believe is necessary so that their children can be safe and have a future who are we to stand in the way of their democracy and security. That all said yes we do need to voice our concerns and put pressure on all governments to keep them in check in a way that have a positive effect. And that would be my gripe "where is the positive effect". You need to "tame" China not prod and tease it. I think the masses are to stirred up and want blood not reconciliation.

Hi Paul,

”Self determination for the Tibetans is absolutely a different concept to that which Australia’s aborigines have sought. Australia’s aborigines are Australian for a start. The Tibetans don’t consider themselves Chinese.”

Please don’t be so sure. Many Tibetans in Tibet do consider themselves Chinese, as do many people of other ethnicities (my own relatives included). They are very different from the radicals you see in the West. These radicals are mostly children of the exiles from Kham (of its Western Sichuan part) and Amdo (Qinghai, Yunan, North West Sichuan) areas, where the communist land reforms in the 1950s were implemented more severely than in TAR proper (all ethnic autonomy regions were given relatively ‘softer’ treatment as part of the ethnic policy at the time). This is why the exiled Tibetan government stresses on the autonomy of “Greater Tibet” which is a lot larger than TAR, in fact it’s over 25% of China’s territory. This concept of “Greater Tibet” has made any negotiations with the Chinese government (yes, Dalai Lama’s family members have held numerous meetings with the Chinese government over the years) very difficult.

My point is, the overseas Tibetans don’t speak for ALL Tibetans. And the rioters certainly don’t represent all Tibetans, just as the LA, Parisian rioters don’t represent the entirety of their own respective communities. Though of course I don't deny there must be many underlying issues in Tibet.

To go back to your analogy, I don’t think the aboriginal people consider themselves Australian more than the Tibetans (in Tibet) consider themselves Chinese. Why else did Cathy Freeman run aboriginal flag first and most, before she ran the Australian one? People have layers of self definition – and I think that’s a great thing.

To Paul (continued):

“Further the Aborigines don’t want their own country, they just want to be able to live their own lives within our country.”

I haven’t done any survey on this but assume what you said is true, isn’t it sad that these peoples whose lands were completely annexed from them are now silent on the issue? Considering over 90% of their languages are now lost, when most Tibetans outside of Lhasa still use only Tibetan and little or no Chinese (go visit one day and see for yourself) – who should accuse whom of “cultural genocide”?

If you ever travel to China and speak to the people on the streets, you will find most of them actually support the current government. No one is saying it’s perfect, but people acknowledge and appreciate the progress the government has made in the past 30 years. If nothing else, to lift 1.4 billion people (Tibetans included) out of dire poverty is an improvement to the most basic human right in itself.

And it’s arrogant to assume that Chinese people are all brainwashed. Yes the Chinese media is mostly state controlled, but people have long learnt how to get around the system, especially in this day and age. If the propaganda was all that successful there wouldn’t have been so many immigrants coming out to the West, chanting "democracy" and "freedom" along the way. Mind you, many of these immigrants’ long held fantasies about the West have been dealt a severe blow by the recent blatantly one-sided media coverage.

Loudmouth
>>The marriage of a daughter of a Tibetan king surely, if anything, holds the king hostage as surely as putting him in the emperor's dungeon, so let's not go on about eternal friendship and mutual love.<<

This marriage is really historic and for eternal friendship.

Let's look at the history. Since 634, Tibetan king Songtsen Gampo(Song zan gan bu) sent envoy to China's Tang Dynasty to plead marriage with princess. After a couple of refusal, Songtsen Gampo brought heavy betrothal gift pleaded marriage again, companied by 200,000 army in west of Song Zhou, Si Chuan. And intimidated he would attack China if refusal. Naturally, marriage was refused by powerful Chinese emperor. Later, Songtsen Gampo really attacked Song Zhou, Si Chuan province, China. Chinese emperor immediately sent 50,000 troops to enforce local defence force and made a joint attack on Tibetan troops. Songtsen Gampo quickly suffered a severe defeat and fled.

But, interesting enough, Songtsen Gampo sent envoy to offer a pology and again plead marriage with princess. This time, surprised a lot, Chinese emperor agreed the marriage. It is a mark of respect and for eternal friendship. In 641, historic marriage realized.

Considering that defeated Saddam Hussein pleaded:" George W Bush, if I marry your daughter, Iraq will be American sincere ally !". LOL

Tibet simply advanced 1000 years as Pricess brought a lot of techniques into Tibet. Since then, Tibet created his own characters, ended letterless history. And at that time, not many Tibetans were Buddhist, Songtsen Gampo advocated Buddhism and built Jokhang Temple partly because Chinese princess was a Pietistic Buddhist.

Hi Cyclops.

Re your comment on the diversion of the Brahmaputra into North western China.

Unfortunately, the planned diversion of Brahmaputra waters is no April Fool's Day spoof; I only wish that it were.

It is an integral part of the western route of the South to North Water Diversion Project, that is in turn part of China's overall water strategy. It is also a key component within China's overall Himalayan Strategy.

Arthur Thomas
16 April, 2008