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.