Endorsing China's lies cannot change the fact that Tibet is not part of China.
Peter Terpstra
Endorsing China's lies cannot change the fact that Tibet is not part of China
By Jigme Ugen
Tibetan Hopes
During his maiden visit to China, President Barack Obama became the first
American President in history to publicly make an acknowledgement that “we
recognize that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China”. This
recognition of Communist China’s spurious claims of sovereignty over occupied
Tibet, drawn from a cynical cauldron of economic interest and geo-political
considerations, has generated a sense of profound disappointment across the
broader Tibetan community and also among those who cherish values of justice
and democracy.
There was a genuine sense of belief that the President would transfer his
message of change, hope and integrity to America’s somewhat tainted foreign
policy. In the weeks prior to President Obama’s trip to China, Tibetans dared
to hope that at last their struggle for freedom and human rights was
strengthened by a statesman whose commitment to democratic principles and
justice would mean that the rights of the Tibetan people are not ignored or
marginalized. Hand-written letters and artwork from Tibetan children, poured
into the White House imploring Obama to speak-out against the oppression and
injustice inside Tibet. As Air-Force-One departed optimism prevailed that on
this occasion China’s global economic influence would not censor any criticism
of its illegal occupation and violent repression of Tibet.
Such expectancy proved to be cruelly misplaced, as evidenced from the moment
the President addressed Chinese students at a carefully staged event in
Shanghai, in which he significantly avoided any reference to Tibet. The
portents were ominous and given Beijing’s previous public demands, that Obama
issue an acknowledgement that Tibet was part of China, it was clear that such
an arrangement had already been agreed between the two sides. Such knowledge
did not however lessen the distasteful impact and disillusionment at seeing
the President next to Hu Jintao, a man whose has the blood of countless
Tibetans and Uyghurs upon his hands, as he delivered the carefully scripted
recognition that China had demanded, an acknowledgement that the United States
considers Tibet part of China. Although President Obama was simply re-stating
what has been a longstanding official US policy towards Tibet, his words
trampled over the hopeful expectations of Tibetans across the United States
and the rest of the world.
Missed Opportunities
An opportunity to advocate the Tibetan people’s rights, as contained in three
United Nations Resolutions, (No’s 1353, 1723 and 2079) was cold-heartedly
spurned. Within a building, under the shadow of which the massacre of
Tiananmen Square was conducted, there was no room for the political and legal
rights of people to determine their own future Nor could that atmosphere
sustain any spoken reference to the destruction of Tibetan culture or support
for Tibet’s freedom. Such ideals were abandoned in exchange for appeasing
Chinese sensitivities on Tibet. President Obama and his colleagues at the
State Department dismissed the 1991 determination of the US Congress, which
asserted that “Whereas the United States should not condone aggression by
accepting China’s claim to sovereignty over Tibet; Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved…..that Tibet, including those areas incorporated into the Chinese
provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu, and Quinghai, is an occupied country
under the established principles of international law….”
Historical Outline
An ancient country with a rich cultural tradition, Tibet enjoyed the rights
and privileges of a political and territorial sovereign state until its
invasion in 1949 by China. Religion was a unifying force among Tibetans; as
was their language, music, literature, and art. For centuries Tibet displayed
all the characteristics of a fully operating independent nation, minimal
Chinese influence came only at times when China itself was under foreign
occupation during the 14th and 18th centuries (Mongolian and Manchu
Dynasties). Following the expulsion of Chinese forces, from Tibetan territory
in 1911, the 13th Dalai Lama reasserted Tibet’s full independence by using a
binding declaration and engaged in international diplomatic relations by
signing independent treaties with Mongolia, Nepal and the then British India.
Betraying Tibetan Aspirations
Such facts and China’s illegal occupation of Tibet has been cast aside and
replaced by the convincing realities of trade with China and its growing
influence upon the world stage. Which have bewitched successive Presidential
administrations, that have largely remained silent, as Tibetans inside Tibet
faced machine guns and tanks to demand their independence. Barack Obama’s is
no different.
The ultimate aspiration of the Tibetan people for complete independence has
been expressed by Tibetans inside and outside Tibet. The recent historic and
peaceful protests of 2008 in Tibet which resulted in the murder, imprisonment
and disappearance of thousands of innocent Tibetans is a livid reminder of the
genuine aspiration of the Tibetans inside Tibet.
The participation of Tibetans in determining the future status of their
country was formerly recognized as vital by His Holiness the Dalai Lama: “I
have always stated that the central issue is that the Tibetan people must
ultimately choose their own destiny. It is not for the Dalai Lama, and
certainly not for the Chinese to make that decision. It should ultimately be
the wishes of the Tibetan people that should prevail”.
In legitimizing Chinese rule over Tibet, the Obama Administration is denying
Tibetans of their birth-right of self-determination and their inherent freedom
of deciding their own future. Moreover by acknowledging Chinese sovereignty
over Tibet, President Obama has abandoned the ‘Tibetan dream’ of a free
nation, a goal which His Holiness recognized, is shared by a vast majority of
his people, “I also know that every Tibetan hopes and prays for the full
restoration of our nation’s independence” (HH The Dalai Lama March 10-1994).
Abandoning Tibet -A Dangerous Precedent
In agreeing that Tibet is Chinese territory Obama consigns the Tibetan people
to a dangerous and uncertain fate as a so-called ethnic minority under the
mercy of a totalitarian regime’s bloody maw. The much cherished tradition of
the United States in upholding the political and fundamental human rights of
peoples facing oppression is in the jeopardy of being shamefully broken.
Such an act of betrayal by the United States, widely respected as the
‘champion for freedom and democracy’ in the world, has perhaps set into motion
a dangerous trend which could witness the further erosion of existing
international support for Tibet. This although not entirely emphatic, is
arguably an important leverage upon the communist Chinese regime. Observing
the President of the world’s most influential and powerful nation agreeing to
Chinese demands on its supposed sovereignty over Tibet could result in other
heads-of-state following suit with similar acts of appeasement. This would be
very welcome progress indeed for Beijing which has been seeking international
support for its bogus claims over Tibet.
It would also assist China’s determination to eliminate Tibetan national
identity, and invest a troubling legitimacy to the lie that China was
politically and legally justified in its annexation of Tibet. Although meeting
present political and commercial needs regarding US-Chinese relations in
acknowledging Chinese authority over Tibet, President Obama’s comments could
also seriously undermine future options in terms of any human rights dialogue
with China. Future US concerns and criticisms on the human rights situations
inside Tibet and China can now be more effectively and authoritatively
dismissed and evaded by Beijing as a domestic concern of China. US has given
Beijing the leverage to argue even more forcefully, any criticisms concerning
the issue of Tibet as an infringement of China’s national sovereignty, which
the Presidential Administration has publicly recognized.
By complying with, and endorsing, Beijing’s lies on Tibet, the United States
has been left in a more exposed and vulnerable position in its ability to
champion human and cultural rights. Formidable, though such implications are
for Tibet, the articulation that the United States recognizes Chinese rule
over Tibet, was a public affirmation of a policy on Tibet which has defined
and sustained political relations between Washington and Beijing. While there
was an understandable sense of disillusionment, and feeling of abandonment,
the potential isolation and erosion of the Tibetan cause as a political issue
the future status is not dependent upon the utterances of the American
President, no matter how influential or significant the position of the United
States.
The Illusions of Autonomy
Tibet’s future though hostage to political and economic developments inside
Communist China also remains in the courageous and determined will of the
Tibetan people. After fifty-nine years of suffering under the most violent and
oppressive regime and bearing the direct brunt of cultural assault and
aggressive colonization, Tibetans inside Tibet robustly maintain an inspiring
resistance to Chinese occupation.
Their loyalty and devotion to His Holiness the Dalai Lama is inspirational, as
is their sacrifice and patriotism in challenging the military-might of
Communist China. It is important to understand that the political aspirations
of the Tibetan people is not for any form of autonomy, which after decades of
Chinese rule Tibetans know provides no protection of their political, civil
and religious freedom.
As a proposed solution for the question of Tibet autonomy offers no conclusive
or succinct legal definition, as it describes a number of political structure
and arrangements. However its various forms do share one troubling feature.
Any ’rights’, granted to a minority group by the dominant power, are dictated
by that authority; and more worryingly, in terms of guaranteeing and
protecting Tibetan culture, can be removed by that same power. Tibetans sorely
recall that Communist China has extended so-called autonomy to Tibet
previously in 1951, at the time of the so-called 17 Point Peace Agreement
which was signed under duress.
Almost six decades of brutal suppression inside Tibet have given Tibetans
enough reasons to believe that any form of meaningful autonomy cannot be
practiced and is not achievable under Communist China.
Yet despite the forced labor camps, systemic torture, corrosive colonization,
forced settlements of nomads, coercive birth control, the spirit of Tibetan
resistance is burning stronger than ever. As witnessed during the mass
demonstrations of 2008 the demand for Tibet’s just and historic independence
has not been crushed, Tibetans are engaged in a struggle not for autonomy, or
for improved economic or religious freedoms only, none of which will extend
any protection of Tibet’s culture of national identity, but for national
liberation.
Tibetans understand all too well that China’s objectives are more ominous - a
‘Final Solution’ to assimilate Tibet and remove any inkling of Tibetan
national identity. In the face of a ‘life and death’ situation, the just
struggles of the Tibetans for an Independent Tibet deserve concrete support of
world leaders and freedom loving people across the globe.
It is a great sadness that President Barack Obama could not, even in some
small way, have voiced his support for that rightful endeavor.
I personally urge President Barack Obama to seriously reconsider his diplomacy
on Tibet and lend his over powering message of hope and change to the Tibetan
struggle.
The author is the President of Regional Tibetan Youth Congress of Minnesota
and the first Tibetan elected as US Labor leader. He can be reached at:
jig...@yahoo.com
*Acknowledgement: appreciation to Tibettruth
(http://tibettruth.wordpress.com/) for the advice and support
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=26074&t=1&c=4
--
Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:
http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china
fyf...@gmail.com
>
> *Acknowledgement: appreciation to Tibettruth
> (http://tibettruth.wordpress.com/) for the advice and support
>
>
> --
> Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china
Is Hawaii a part of the US, Cook Island a part of New Zealand?
It does not matter whether Tibet is a part of any country at all. The
important thing is how Tibet can
flourish both socially and economically.
You have been perpetuating intellectual irrelevance all along.
Go to an underdeveloped country and teach English for a change. It
does not take much brain...
rst9
Yes
> Cook Island a part of New Zealand?
Don't know.
>
> It does not matter whether Tibet is a part of any country at all. The
> important thing is how Tibet can
> flourish both socially and economically.
>
> You have been perpetuating intellectual irrelevance all along.
He's Wacky Wrong II.
>
> Go to an underdeveloped country and teach English for a change. It
> does not take much brain...
He can't teach English. He's Dutch!!! The Dutch is as dead as the
Hawaiian language.
Jam
"Peter Terpstra" <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote in message
news:1331255.V9SEqChMir@dharma...
> provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu, and Quinghai, is an occupied country
Peter Terpstra
> Did your mother send you to school where they taught history?
In China they have rewritten history, so you have wrong information.
Ten books of history for you:
Avedon, John F. _In Exile From the Land of Snows_, New York, 1984, xii +
383 pages. An account of Tibet's recent history from the perspective of
the Tibetan exile community.
Epstein, Israel. _Tibet Transformed_, Beijing, 1983, 566 pages. Beijing's
view of matters Tibetan.
Feigon, Lee. _Demystifying Tibet: Unlocking the Secrets of the Land of
Snows_, Chicago, 1996, xi + 242 pages. A general survey of Tibetan
history.
Goldstein, Melvyn C. _A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: the Demise of
the Lamaist State_, Berkeley, 1989, xxv + 898 pages. A nonpartisan,
authoritative account by the foremost scholar of modern Tibetan
history.
Harrer, Heinrich. _Seven Years in Tibet_, New York, 1953, xiii + 288 pages.
A classic tale of travel and adventure, told by an Austrian mountain
climber who became a tutor to the Dalai Lama. Recently released
as a major motion picture.
Richardson, Hugh Edward. _Tibet and Its History_, Boulder, 1984, 327 pages.
A British view of Tibet's history, now in its second revised edition.
Richardson was head of the British/Indian mission in Lhasa in 1936-40
and 1946-50.
Walt van Praag, Michael C. van. _The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and
Prospects in International Law_, Boulder, 1987, xxiv + 381 pages. Makes
a thoroughly documented legal case for Tibet's status as an independent
nation.
Good luck with the Study!!!
Peter
Karl Loon
> Jam in <hhcdh6$nj...@reader01.singnet.com.sg> :
>
> > Did your mother send you to school where they taught history?
>
> In China they have rewritten history, so you have wrong information.
As a westerner (like you Peter) reads history written by your fellow
westerner, you of course find it to be unbiased, fair and accurate
because it is written from the same point of view as yours. For
something written not by a western writer, e.g. Prof Ge, all you can
do is to selectively quote parts the coincide with your point of view
and twist the rest.
History is written by the victor. Thus in the U, S. for example, they
talk about how the west was _won_. In the west, they talk about
Christopher Columbus _discovered_ the New World.
Every country _rewrite_ history. Look at how the Japanese tell their
kids what happened in WWII. China and Korea make a fuss about it
every now and then but that does not change anything.
An American president is elected to defend the interest of the U. S.
When he/she perceives that it is in the interest of the U, S. to
support the Tibetan fighters to cause trouble in China, he/she will
support the Tibetan fighters. If he/she perceive that it is in the
best interest to have an embassy in Peking and not in North-west
India, he/she will send the embassador to Peking.
What is the U. S, to legitimize anything?
K. L.
Peter Terpstra
b674-0ee...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
> What is the U. S, to legitimize anything?
You should study better!
Your CCP propaganda makes no goal.