The New Aristocracy in Tibet

According to a report on an investigation in the events that started on 3-14-08, there is a new aristocracy that has taken over in Tibet.
This is covered by Fool’s Mountain: Blog For China in a posting entitled: “Chinese think tank investigation report of 3.14 incident in Tibet

Two remarkable points are that the investigation was conducted by Han Chinese and instead of parroting the Party line and fiercely decrying anything that didn’t match, they actually reported what they found. I guess I was used to the normal “Tibet belongs to China“. How refreshing and one point for hope that more minds might become a little less rigid in the future.

The second point is that the leadership seems to be bound at the hip with the Party in Beijing. Who could have guessed.

For Freedom,
Freedom’s Herald

2 responses to “The New Aristocracy in Tibet

  1. MatthewTan

    MatthewTan Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    The issue of whether Tibet was an independent nation-state or not, before the PLA “invasion”, is not on the discussion table for debate. It was not for debate in the United Nations in 1949 when Tibet tried to apply for UN membership. It was not for debate in 1950 when the Tibetan local government first made complaints against Chinese “invasion”. It was not for debate in 1959 when the Dalai Lama repudiated the 17-point Agreement. It was not for debate in every subsequent UN discussion on Tibet (1961, 1965, 1989).

    It was also not for debate in 1946 when the Tibetan local government sent a delegation to the Chinese National Assembly to discuss about Tibet’s politcal status and to make a weak attempt to gain independence.

    It was also not for debate in 1940 when the Dalai Lama was confirmed in the sitting-on-the-bed (or enthronement) ceremony. Approval by the Chinese government was sought so that selection by divine lottery could be dispensed with. Contemporary Western news commentator Alastair Lamb noted that it appeared that the Chinese government’s approval was necessary for legitimization of the Dalai Lama. Similarly, it was not for debate when the 10th Panchen Lama was likewise confirmed and installed by the Chinese Nationalist government in 1949. And the Panchen Lama called upon the Communists to “liberate” Tibet after they won the civil war in China. And to the very last days, the Panchen Lama remained faithful to China.

    It was not for debate in 1934 when Huang Musong put up posters all over Lhasa signifying that Tibet was part of China. What was debated was the boundary, extent and the kind of autonomy for Tibet as part of China. The issue remained in limbo since the Simla Convention in 1914, and continued till the Communist takeover. Much of this time, the 9th Panchen Lama was serving in his capacity as the Pacification Minister for the Western Regions under the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. It was not for debate when Tibet made its first half-hearted attempt to assert its “independence” in 1942 by establishing the Foreign Affairs Office, when Chiang Kai-shek ordered the Tibetan government to liaise with the Central Government ONLY through the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission (MTAC), and this they complied until July 1949 just before the Communist takeover of China. The MTAC office in Lhasa was physical evidence that Tibetan affairs were domestic and not international affairs of China.

    According to Tsering Shakya in his article “Tibet and the League of Nations”, the 13th Dalai Lama made several secret inquiries about Tibet gaining admission to the League of Nations. He said that that Tibet’s “independent” political status will settled if Tibet was a member of the League of Nations. But, the 13th Dalai Lama did not pursue it, and there was LACK OF POLITICAL WILL on the part of Tibetan local government to assert political independence. (Tsering Shakya did not discuss the possibility that China would block Tibet’s admission just like the PRC block ROC/Taiwan today. Most probably Tibet would never be successful in gaining admission since China claimed all Tibetan territories).

    So, what was the political status of Tibet? It was defined by a series of international treaties after British invasion of Tibet in 1904, viz. the 1904 Lhasa Convention, 1906 Peking Convention and 1907 Anglo-Russia Convention; and before 1904 China signed international treaties on behalf of Tibet as its sovereign/suzerain master in the year 1876, 1886, 1890 and 1893.

    Read the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 for all the international treaties China signed on behalf of Tibet,
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14718a.htm.

    The issue is as clear as daylight.

    There is no debate, and there was no debate, in government circles.

    All these silly debates came from Dharamsalem and its NGO support groups, and private individuals.

    What count is not what these people say, but what Governments of the world say, and what the United Nations’ stand is. So, wake up and ask the the Dalai Lama to wake up.

    And get REAL if you do not know what is REAL yet !

    The fact that the Chinese Central Government was weak and not able to enforce its rule by military outreach in the midst of competing warlord regimes, civil wars and Sino-Japanese wars does not nullify the legal status and historical fact that Tibet was part of China. From the perspective of China, the Tibetan local government was just another warlord among the many warlords.

    And if rule by military outreach was what you asked for, you already had it in October 1950, when the PLA took over Chamdo and marched towards Lhasa. ( I said here that Tibet had asked for it, because they killed their peace envoy the Living Buddha Geda Lama, and they refused or procrastinated when asked to come to Beijing for negotiation).

    And if rule by the iron fist is what you ask for today by instigating protests and riots, you will certainly receive what you ask for. This is real politics. Not Mother Theresa missionary outreach.

    I repeat: The political status of Tibet is not for debate, and the United Nations has effectively closed all debates by not even discussing it in 1949, 1950, 1959, 1961, 1965, 1989. Tibat was and is part of China, period.

    The type and form and extent of autonomy or no-autonomy is negotiable, but China will have the final say. If the Dalai Lama wants to make demands and negotiate, he has better know his own limitations. Otherwise he will get nothing and make his resting place outside Tibet. And he has better appreciate it that the door for dialogue with China is still open, and make the best use of it and not waste time.

    [All the above information can be found in Western-sourced historical writings. No use making allegations that people who are pro-China on Tibet issue are brainwashed by the Chinese government. I am born and bred and educated and worked in Singapore, not China. ]

  2. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however, there is no proof that indicates that the PRC is entitled to the lands conquered by the Manchu Dynasty, nor the Republic of China.
    Mao gave them autonomy and that’s why there are autonomous regions, but in name only.