Is Tibet just TAR or more?
Ian Inman
my guest book by one of your regular's, Yugaung and the comments made by
others on the actual area of Tibet, I felt a few brief comments were called
for.
1) Yugaung made comments in my guestbook about various pro-Tibet groups
being funded by the American National Endowment for Democracy. In this, he
seems to have a point, an organisation that in the past seems to have funded
groups within former Eastern Block countries in such a way as to help nudge
along the fall of Communism. If I were a member of one of the pro-Tibet
groups, I would not be happy about being funded by this organisation.
This or any other organisation has no right to interfere in the internal
affairs of another sovereign state - that includes NATO in Kosovo (where it
suddenly looks as though we've been backing the wrong side all along) and
the Americans and British continued interference in the internal affairs of
Iraq and the Israelis in Palestine.
Yugaung, as regards the National Endowment for Democracy, I agree with you
completely.
But by definition, this also means that China has no right to be interfering
in the internal affairs of Tibet, which was a separate entity. If this is
not legally the case, why did the Chinese delegate at the Conference of
Simla accept Tibetan sovereignty? This definition gives Tibet independance
at least since 1913. Thus the intervention of 1950 was the interference of
one nation in the affairs of another.
2) As to the actual borders of Tibet. Is Tibet the T.A.R. or a greater
Tibet encompassing parts of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and a little bit of
Yunnan? We could go really crazy here and include Himalayan parts of
India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and tiny fractions (literally a few square
miles) of the far north of Burma and Pakistan - i.e. wherever Tibetans live
in a majority.
If this view was taken worldwide, then basically there would be territorial
disputes galore, with countries claiming territory which they have never
actually governed or have in the past recognised as part of another country
- hence the problems in the Balkans with the Albanians. The truth of the
matter is that continuous political control from Lhasa was only properly
praticed over an area not too far removed from the current TAR - yes, the
Chinese redefined the border and there are bits outside the TAR that should
probably be inside and vice versa. But to avoid a long winded argument on
the issue, Lhasa never really properly controlled parts of Qinghai / Amdo or
the Tibetan parts of Sichhuan (i.e eastern Kham) - control was either at a
local level or intermittently with the Chinese (as discussed in this
newsgroup and elsewhere). This being the case, no wonder Simla was too
hard to stomach for the Chinese.
3) However, the above does not excuse the Chinese taking the whole of Tibet.
Yes, there were border issues to resolve before 1950 and the ongoing
arguments as to whether Tibet should be part of China or not could have been
avoided had this been settled at the negotiating table - Simla was a missed
opportunity, after which the situation was allowed to fester up to 1950,
because no-one gave a monkeys - mediation by a third party could have
settled matters peacfully.
The situation was not helped prior to 1950, due to Tibetan (i.e. Khampa)
attacks on Mao's communists during the long march - it appears this left
'unfinished business' in the eyes of Mao, which might be why the whole of
Tibet was taken over and not just the disputed areas. I have seen two
sources of information to support this supposition, one was a televison
programme, the other a website - and I wish I could remember what they were!
4) I'll finish with a further comment about my own country, Britain. In
Scotland, a sizeable number of people are looking become independant. So
they make a break for it. I have two options, let them go or use force or
other means to push them back in line.
If the English were to opt for the latter, it would increases in security,
constant unrest and possible violence, which would eventually become a drain
on resources and drag both us and the Scottish down. Alternatively, I
could accept their descision in good grace and wish them all the best. We
could then live peacefully as neighbours, co-operate and work together to
each other's mutual benefit.
Yugaung in corresponding with me drew an analogy with Tibet being just as
much part of China as London was part of the UK. Yes, China is a very old
country, but so was Tibet. London has never not been part of the United
Kingdom, but here I'll say as I said with Scotland - if somewhere does not
want to belong, we have to consider the consequences of forcing people to do
what they don't want to do.
5) I am not someone who has jumped on the Tibet bandwagon, because it was
fashionabe to do so. My involvement is due to visiting Tibet and seeing
for myself. When Tibetans keep taking foreigners aside and saying things
that are different to what they say to the Chinese, they are trying to tell
the world something - one thing was clear, they did not consider themselves
Chinese.
The one thing that really got me annoyed was the treatment of our group on
our last day in Tibet - a half empty hotel in Zhang Mu claimed to be full (I
knew, as I'd been allowed to use their toilet) and would not allow us in as
soon as they realised that we had a Tibetan guide. If that doesn't count
as racism, then nothing does.
The Chinese in Beijing, Xi'an couldn't have been nicer, a little reserved,
but decent people - shame about a few of their kinsmen living in parts of
Tibet.
Just my penny's worth.
Ian (alias Beefy)
---------------------------
http://uk.geocities.com/beefnetuk
--
Posted from p...@nyota.unn.ac.uk [192.173.1.81]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Yu
<C7170A92B50FD4119013...@central.unn.ac.uk> :
>But by definition, this also means that China has no right to be interfering
>in the internal affairs of Tibet, which was a separate entity. If this is
>not legally the case, why did the Chinese delegate at the Conference of
>Simla accept Tibetan sovereignty? This definition gives Tibet independance
>at least since 1913. Thus the intervention of 1950 was the interference of
>one nation in the affairs of another.
China, even at its darkest hours, had never recognized Tibet as a sovereign state.
Evan Chan the Chinese representative at the Simla Conference (1913-1914) was given the title of
"Tibet pacification commissioner", a title granted to show China's sovereignty over Tibet.
Some of you will argue that by sitting down with Dalai Lama's representative
was a prove that China recognize Tibet independence.
That is why it is so dangerous even to sit down and talk with the
Dalai Lama today. You never know what claim they will make out of it.
Even shake hand with these people can lead to some ridiculous claim later on.
With the vast CIA propaganda machine they can always make something up.
>2) As to the actual borders of Tibet. Is Tibet the T.A.R. or a greater
>Tibet encompassing parts of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and a little bit of
>Yunnan? We could go really crazy here and include Himalayan parts of
>India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and tiny fractions (literally a few square
>miles) of the far north of Burma and Pakistan - i.e. wherever Tibetans live
>in a majority.
>
>If this view was taken worldwide, then basically there would be territorial
>disputes galore, with countries claiming territory which they have never
>actually governed or have in the past recognised as part of another country
>- hence the problems in the Balkans with the Albanians. The truth of the
>matter is that continuous political control from Lhasa was only properly
>praticed over an area not too far removed from the current TAR - yes, the
>Chinese redefined the border and there are bits outside the TAR that should
>probably be inside and vice versa. But to avoid a long winded argument on
>the issue, Lhasa never really properly controlled parts of Qinghai / Amdo or
>the Tibetan parts of Sichhuan (i.e eastern Kham) - control was either at a
>local level or intermittently with the Chinese (as discussed in this
>newsgroup and elsewhere). This being the case, no wonder Simla was too
>hard to stomach for the Chinese.
>
>3) However, the above does not excuse the Chinese taking the whole of Tibet.
>Yes, there were border issues to resolve before 1950 and the ongoing
>arguments as to whether Tibet should be part of China or not could have been
>avoided had this been settled at the negotiating table - Simla was a missed
>opportunity,
Missed opportunity for whom?
Under the Simla Treaty the evil British Empire stole 90,000 sq. km of territory
from Tibet.
That piece of land annexed by British India is now renamed Arunachal Pradesh.
Large number of Indians now settles there and marginalized the ethnic Tibetans.
The Anglo-American led and funded Tibet Activists are completely silent
on the real cultural genocide in Arunachal Pradesh today.
This again showed that their real aim is to fix China.
They don't really care about Tibetans.
>4) I'll finish with a further comment about my own country, Britain. In
>Scotland, a sizeable number of people are looking become independant. So
>they make a break for it. I have two options, let them go or use force or
>other means to push them back in line.
>
>If the English were to opt for the latter, it would increases in security,
>constant unrest and possible violence, which would eventually become a drain
>on resources and drag both us and the Scottish down. Alternatively, I
>could accept their descision in good grace and wish them all the best. We
>could then live peacefully as neighbours, co-operate and work together to
>each other's mutual benefit.
>
>Yugaung in corresponding with me drew an analogy with Tibet being just as
>much part of China as London was part of the UK. Yes, China is a very old
>country, but so was Tibet. London has never not been part of the United
>Kingdom, but here I'll say as I said with Scotland - if somewhere does not
>want to belong, we have to consider the consequences of forcing people to do
>what they don't want to do.
How the English will handle Scotish independence depends on what that
crumbling empire can afford. You can salvage some pride by claiming
the moral high ground.
Tibet is very important for the over all security of China.
The Anglo-American Alliance want to weaken China especially because western
China is link to the oil rich Central Asia.
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
Francis POON
Tibet. Yes, many Tibetans don't want to be identified as Chinese for many
reasons. One of them is being fashionable with the world's attention on
Tibet. The other one is probably racism as you mentioned. And of course
there are many others too. But the Tibetans can be made to be proud of
being world people. They don't need to be either Chinese or even Tibetans.
They can be just world people and that would satisfy them. One of the ways
by which this can come about is to make Lhaza another Hong Kong. The people
in HK have no sense of nationalism or racialism, which is a very good thing.
Being able to identify ourselves with the common denominator of economic
productivity lessens the chance of conflicts. I am quite certain that the
English ruling class in UK is more delighted with the HK Chinese than the
stubborn IRA or the rebellious Scots. The Tibetans can well do the same
thing. They can turn themselves into an army of corporate employees and
things will work out for them in the future with economic development. Back
to the old days, there was quite a bit of racism in HK too. For example, a
Chinese man was not allowed to take a British woman as a wife until he had
been able to prove that he was in a financial position to support her, while
a British man was free to do whatever he had wanted to do with a Chinese
woman or a Thailand girl. Things are different now. The western women love
to come to HK to dig gold. And the whole process of transformation has been
without revolution or any arm conflicts. No one got his ass whipped with
cattle prods. HK now is filled with people of all sorts of races. As long
as they go by the common denominator of economic productivity, they will
just be fine. I don't see why the same thing cannot happen in Lhaza. Those
Tibetans that pull you aside and tell you different sorts of things than
what the Chinese tell you are not doing anyone any favor, unless of course
they offer a higher rate of exchange for your US$ or British pounds than
what you get from the state run banks. In conclusion, Tibet does not really
'belong' to the Tibetans. After all, you claim that Tibetans are everywhere
in that part of the world and it will be dangerous for them to claim all
that territories as theirs and not allow others to come in for doing
business.
The Tibet Buddhist organizations can be rather militant. In some way they
even rival Talibans in Afganistan. I am sure none of us wants to have a
situation in which the normal ways of life of the eocnomically productive
and consuming human beings be interfered by feudalistic pracitces. Also,
an autonomous Tibet would choose their own language if they are given the
chance to. That is rather detrimental to the economy of scale of production
as far as printing school textbooks and government announcements are
concerned. Canada is already having so much problem with its bilingual
policy. I see no reason why it should be allowed to start in China. Even
the Chinese and North Koreans are trying hard to learn English in order to
come in play in the global village. The Tibetans should learn about their
own language at their own expense. If one day they become affluent people,
I am sure a lot of American college graduates would love to learn Tibetan in
order to get a good job in a Tibetan corporation. And these college
graduates would not mind the redundant practice of spiritual meditation too,
as long as they get good pay from their Tibetan bosses. No independence for
Tibetans, but a higher degree of autonomy is warranted along the lines of
increasing economic productivity.
FP
FP
an Inman <ian....@unn.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:C7170A92B50FD4119013...@central.unn.ac.uk...
Ian Inman
here for a few days.
Ah well, back off to my first love, the Sunderland footy (soccer)
newsgroups.
Ian (alias Beefy)
Ian Inman
using the pretty poor replacement for www.deja.com and it appears that you
lot have been more responsive than I thought. If I'm slightly off topic
here, sorry, the external server that I found is not too great and I can't
read and reply at the same time without a complete mess of open windows
resulting.
Two quick observations (as I'm off on holiday):
1) There's no way Tibet or Lhasa could ever be a 'Hong Kong' type city, due
to it's location - although the Tibetan plateaux is brilliant from a
military strategic point of view (China can keep a beady eye on India and
Pakistan who are a threat), economically and geographically Lhasa is too
remote. It will always be a backwater and I can't see many people wanting
to do big business deals where they are going to be incapacitated for up to
four days while they acclimatise. Therefore bar long term resource
extraction, which is in the hands of the Chinese and foreign companies
anyway, I don't see how a big 'Tibetan Corporation could sustain itself. I
assume you were being slightly sarcastic Francis. Tis okay, I enjoy a bit
of sarcasm.
It's not about money, it's about people having control of their own lives.
2) I wish Yu would not be so paranoid about the 'Anglo-American Alliance'.
I feel he is unable to distiguish between the governments and the ordinary
people of those countries, whose opinions are often very divergent. Put it
this way, we elect them, then they go away and ignore us for four or five
years until they need our votes to keep our jobs.
The lack of democracy in China may be more to do with the top dogs there
wanting to keep ahold of the priviledged positions for themselves and their
closest allies and families. The only reason that China would not function
as a democracy at the moment is that there are areas that do not want to
belong and would probably try to break away given half a chance (Tibet, East
Turkestan, Inner Mongolia - though the latter case may now be a lost cause
because of resettlement). If China were to save itself a lot of face and
let these areas go, the core area remaining would function quite sucessfully
as an economic superpower and modern society.
The resources required to secure these areas must be greatly in excess of
the natural resources available (anyone any figures), meaning economic
development must be held back within the main parts of China to finance a
continuing Chinese presence and Chinese settlement. Bet you that if the
money wasn't there (or ther were other major problems), those people that
have resettled would soon return east.
Regards,
Ian.
---------------------------------
Phil
>
>
>
> 1) There's no way Tibet or Lhasa could ever be a 'Hong Kong' type city, due
> to it's location - although the Tibetan plateaux is brilliant from a
> military strategic point of view (China can keep a beady eye on India and
> Pakistan who are a threat), economically and geographically Lhasa is too
> remote.
HK is an anomaly.
For one thing, it is a 'borne free' society: very few of its inhabitants
are descendent from the original population prior to British rule.
Rather, they are, or are the descendents of, immigrants from elsewhere:
those who had "the get-up-and-go", got up and left... for HK. Even
better(for economic growth) is that HK drew heavily on the populations
of eastern/southeastern China, which had developed a centuries-old
mercantile and entrepreneurial culture. One would fully expect many
Shanghainese refugees to go about setting up their own small businesses
at the first opportunity; it would be far less expected of, say,
Sahraoui refugees.
For another, HK had developed a socioeconomic culture in which, because
of the colonial nature of the place, the pool of opportunities for the
dynamic and ambitious had excluded most of the population from
participating in political power. If you were a bright and ambitious
ethnic Chinese, your chances of social promotion were mostly restricted
to success in business.
Next, it had a colonial government which was favorable to business, and
set up its structures accordingly. This is highlighted by the stark
contrast between HK governed by the British, and Macao, run by the
Portuguese.
Then, HK also has the immense advantage of being a first-class port
astride major international shipping lanes. Its people had long been
exposed to influences from the world at large; the low shipping and
transaction costs favored business in a way one could not expect of
remote, landlocked Tibet. Because maritime shipping is particularly
cheap when compared to overland transportation, you can ship goods from
HK to Stockholm for less than shipping goods from Lhasa to the coast
(after which goods from Tibet would still have to pay for shipping to
Stockholm if they were to be sold there.) HK, in effect, has two
hinterlands: the Chinese mainland, and the coastal areas within easy
reach of navigable waterways. Tibet does not have that advantage.
> It will always be a backwater and I can't see many people wanting
> to do big business deals where they are going to be incapacitated for up to
> four days while they acclimatise.
FP suspects there will be "a lot of American college graduates would
love to learn Tibetan in
order to get a good job in a Tibetan corporation." Yeah, right.
How many is "a lot" of college graduates? Depressingly (IMO) few study
Japanese - and Japan is a $ 4 trillion dollar economy. If Tibet as a an
economic territory could develop to where the Czech Republic was in 1996
- somewhere in the order of $ 100 bn: you still would have an economy 40
times smaller than Japan's today.
Unless the Tibetans were lucky enough to have an immense windfall, they
would have to work their way up to such a level of economic output.
There's hardly much of an incentive today to get hordes of students from
an economy with an est. per-capita GDP of some $ 33.8 k/yr to take up
the study of a language from an entirely different language group - and
one with a completely different writing system - for commercial reasons.
Let's assume the Tibetans have a per-capita PPP GDP of $ 1000 (estimate
figure for PRC as a whole was $ 3800 for 1999). Somehow, they manage to
achieve a sustained economic growth rate of 20% p.a.; meanwhile, the US
economy returns to growth rate of 2.5%, closer to the historic trend. By
the time the Tibetan GDP catches up with where the US is now: in 19
years, the US per-capita GDP itself will have increased to $ 54 k. Of
course, many economists (including Greenspan and the folks at CBO)
expect the US growth rate to be higher, and no society of any size has
ever managed a sustained growth rate of 20% - indeed, economies growing
at rates in the 10% range often run into severe problems, not least of
which is the risk of runaway inflation.
That said, let's just run with those figures. For young graduates, what
is important is the pool of available opportunity. Let's asume that in
those 19 years, the US population grows by slightly over 1% p.a. to only
about 350 m - the projections are actually higher. Meanwhile, the
population of Tibet reaches, say, 30 m. Young graduates would have the
opportunity of tapping into an American economy of about $ 19 trillion,
without having to spend years learning a difficult foreign language, as
they would purportedly have to do in order to tap into a Tibetan economy
just shy of $ 1 trn.
Put yourself in the shoes of an American graduate: you can either stay
at home in your own community and tap into a local economy 19 times
larger, or emigrate half way around the world after having spent a
substantial amount of time learning a language spoken by no more than
three quarters of the population of Spain - time in which you therwise
could be earning money, or learning some other merchantable skill more
easily applicable closer to home.
Then again, not only is it immensely unlikely that the Tibetan economy
reach such a size so rapidly - it is even less likely to do so without
engaging in external commerce conducted with members of linguistic
communities far richer and far more numerous than the Tibetans
themselves. Even if the Tibetan economy could pull off the unprecedented
feat of growing to a $ 1 trn economy in 2 decades, it is even less
likely to do so without its managers and captains of industry learning
the languages spoken by its trading partners. More likely, its
multinationals are likely to adopt the international business lingua
franca, English, as is increasingly the case for multinationals. Many
would be expected to make Chinese their language.
Hence even less of a need for Americans to learn Tibetan for reasons of
career.
> Therefore bar long term resource
> extraction, which is in the hands of the Chinese and foreign companies
> anyway, I don't see how a big 'Tibetan Corporation could sustain itself. I
> assume you were being slightly sarcastic Francis. Tis okay, I enjoy a bit
> of sarcasm.
I don't think he was being sarcastic. His post was quite consistent with
the body of his postings in t.p.t.
>
> It's not about money, it's about people having control of their own lives.
>
>
> The lack of democracy in China may be more to do with the top dogs there
> wanting to keep ahold of the priviledged positions for themselves and their
> closest allies and families. The only reason that China would not function
> as a democracy at the moment is that there are areas that do not want to
> belong and would probably try to break away given half a chance (Tibet, East
> Turkestan, Inner Mongolia - though the latter case may now be a lost cause
> because of resettlement).
There is no reason why in a democracy they would be given half a chance,
unless it were acceptable to the rest of the population of China... in
which case, it would not be a problem anyway.
In a representational electoral democracy, the Tibetans and others might
find themsleves with a lot of power: imagine a senator from Tibet
holding up the Chinese budget in protest over Pooncorp's plans to turn
the Potala into a 5-star resort... Or a Uighur Nationalist Party holding
the balance of power in a hung parliament...
> If China were to save itself a lot of face and
> let these areas go, the core area remaining would function quite sucessfully
> as an economic superpower and modern society.
>
> The resources required to secure these areas must be greatly in excess of
> the natural resources available (anyone any figures), meaning economic
> development must be held back within the main parts of China to finance a
> continuing Chinese presence and Chinese settlement.
Not necessarily. The figure of "$ 700 m p.a. in subsidies to Tibet" has
been repeated on this n.g.; but that is a gross figure, not a net one.
The contribution of Tibet to the PRC economy is not available.
How impressive is that $ 700 m "subsidy"? At current prices, it's
roughly equivalent to 10% royalties on 1 m bbl/d of petroleum. Another
way of looking at it, is that it would amount to under $ 0.6 per [PRC]
capita per year, part of which goes to non-Tibetan immigrants - and some
of which could have had to be spent on them anyway if they had stayed
back home. At times it might save the PRC treasury money to entice
immigrants to move into Tibet, rather than have to fund the liabilities
of loss-making SOEs shedding personnel.
Tibet, as can be expected from such an interesting geological patch, is
reputed to have plenty of natural resources: precious metals, uranium,
hydrocarbons, borates, and probably a lot more. To the extent the
resources are exploited by Chinese (and foreign) companies, much of
Tibet's output is likely to be recorded in other tax jurisdictions.
For all we know, Tibet might be a net contributor to the PRC economy.
Phil
>
>
> 1) There's no way Tibet or Lhasa could ever be a 'Hong Kong' type city, due
> to it's location - although the Tibetan plateaux is brilliant from a
> military strategic point of view (China can keep a beady eye on India and
> Pakistan who are a threat), economically and geographically Lhasa is too
> remote.
HK is an anomaly.
Sahraoui refugees.
to success in business.
Portuguese.
It will always be a backwater and I can't see many people wanting
> to do big business deals where they are going to be incapacitated for up to
> four days while they acclimatise.
FP suspects there will be "a lot of American college graduates would
career.
Therefore bar long term resource
> extraction, which is in the hands of the Chinese and foreign companies
> anyway, I don't see how a big 'Tibetan Corporation could sustain itself. I
> assume you were being slightly sarcastic Francis. Tis okay, I enjoy a bit
> of sarcasm.
I don't think he was being sarcastic. His post was quite consistent with
the body of his postings in t.p.t.
>
> The lack of democracy in China may be more to do with the top dogs there
> wanting to keep ahold of the priviledged positions for themselves and their
> closest allies and families. The only reason that China would not function
> as a democracy at the moment is that there are areas that do not want to
> belong and would probably try to break away given half a chance (Tibet, East
> Turkestan, Inner Mongolia - though the latter case may now be a lost cause
> because of resettlement).
There is no reason why in a democracy they would be given half a chance,
unless it were acceptable to the rest of the population of China... in
which case, it would not be a problem anyway.
In a representational electoral democracy, the Tibetans and others might
find themsleves with a lot of power: imagine a senator from Tibet
holding up the Chinese budget in protest over Pooncorp's plans to turn
the Potala into a 5-star resort... Or a Uighur Nationalist Party holding
the balance of power in a hung parliament...
If China were to save itself a lot of face and
> let these areas go, the core area remaining would function quite sucessfully
> as an economic superpower and modern society.
>
> The resources required to secure these areas must be greatly in excess of
> the natural resources available (anyone any figures), meaning economic
> development must be held back within the main parts of China to finance a
> continuing Chinese presence and Chinese settlement.
Phil
>
>
> 1) There's no way Tibet or Lhasa could ever be a 'Hong Kong' type city, due
> to it's location - although the Tibetan plateaux is brilliant from a
> military strategic point of view (China can keep a beady eye on India and
> Pakistan who are a threat), economically and geographically Lhasa is too
> remote.
HK is an anomaly.
Sahraoui refugees.
to success in business.
Portuguese.
It will always be a backwater and I can't see many people wanting
> to do big business deals where they are going to be incapacitated for up to
> four days while they acclimatise.
FP suspects there will be "a lot of American college graduates would
career.
Therefore bar long term resource
> extraction, which is in the hands of the Chinese and foreign companies
> anyway, I don't see how a big 'Tibetan Corporation could sustain itself. I
> assume you were being slightly sarcastic Francis. Tis okay, I enjoy a bit
> of sarcasm.
I don't think he was being sarcastic. His post was quite consistent with
the body of his postings in t.p.t.
>
> The lack of democracy in China may be more to do with the top dogs there
> wanting to keep ahold of the priviledged positions for themselves and their
> closest allies and families. The only reason that China would not function
> as a democracy at the moment is that there are areas that do not want to
> belong and would probably try to break away given half a chance (Tibet, East
> Turkestan, Inner Mongolia - though the latter case may now be a lost cause
> because of resettlement).
There is no reason why in a democracy they would be given half a chance,
unless it were acceptable to the rest of the population of China... in
which case, it would not be a problem anyway.
In a representational electoral democracy, the Tibetans and others might
find themsleves with a lot of power: imagine a senator from Tibet
holding up the Chinese budget in protest over Pooncorp's plans to turn
the Potala into a 5-star resort... Or a Uighur Nationalist Party holding
the balance of power in a hung parliament...
If China were to save itself a lot of face and
> let these areas go, the core area remaining would function quite sucessfully
> as an economic superpower and modern society.
>
> The resources required to secure these areas must be greatly in excess of
> the natural resources available (anyone any figures), meaning economic
> development must be held back within the main parts of China to finance a
> continuing Chinese presence and Chinese settlement.
Phil
>
>
> 1) There's no way Tibet or Lhasa could ever be a 'Hong Kong' type city, due
> to it's location - although the Tibetan plateaux is brilliant from a
> military strategic point of view (China can keep a beady eye on India and
> Pakistan who are a threat), economically and geographically Lhasa is too
> remote.
HK is an anomaly.
Sahraoui refugees.
to success in business.
Portuguese.
It will always be a backwater and I can't see many people wanting
> to do big business deals where they are going to be incapacitated for up to
> four days while they acclimatise.
FP suspects there will be "a lot of American college graduates would
career.
Therefore bar long term resource
> extraction, which is in the hands of the Chinese and foreign companies
> anyway, I don't see how a big 'Tibetan Corporation could sustain itself. I
> assume you were being slightly sarcastic Francis. Tis okay, I enjoy a bit
> of sarcasm.
I don't think he was being sarcastic. His post was quite consistent with
the body of his postings in t.p.t.
>
> The lack of democracy in China may be more to do with the top dogs there
> wanting to keep ahold of the priviledged positions for themselves and their
> closest allies and families. The only reason that China would not function
> as a democracy at the moment is that there are areas that do not want to
> belong and would probably try to break away given half a chance (Tibet, East
> Turkestan, Inner Mongolia - though the latter case may now be a lost cause
> because of resettlement).
There is no reason why in a democracy they would be given half a chance,
unless it were acceptable to the rest of the population of China... in
which case, it would not be a problem anyway.
In a representational electoral democracy, the Tibetans and others might
find themsleves with a lot of power: imagine a senator from Tibet
holding up the Chinese budget in protest over Pooncorp's plans to turn
the Potala into a 5-star resort... Or a Uighur Nationalist Party holding
the balance of power in a hung parliament...
If China were to save itself a lot of face and
> let these areas go, the core area remaining would function quite sucessfully
> as an economic superpower and modern society.
>
> The resources required to secure these areas must be greatly in excess of
> the natural resources available (anyone any figures), meaning economic
> development must be held back within the main parts of China to finance a
> continuing Chinese presence and Chinese settlement.
Phil
>
>
> 1) There's no way Tibet or Lhasa could ever be a 'Hong Kong' type city, due
> to it's location - although the Tibetan plateaux is brilliant from a
> military strategic point of view (China can keep a beady eye on India and
> Pakistan who are a threat), economically and geographically Lhasa is too
> remote.
HK is an anomaly.
Sahraoui refugees.
to success in business.
Portuguese.
It will always be a backwater and I can't see many people wanting
> to do big business deals where they are going to be incapacitated for up to
> four days while they acclimatise.
FP suspects there will be "a lot of American college graduates would
career.
Therefore bar long term resource
> extraction, which is in the hands of the Chinese and foreign companies
> anyway, I don't see how a big 'Tibetan Corporation could sustain itself. I
> assume you were being slightly sarcastic Francis. Tis okay, I enjoy a bit
> of sarcasm.
I don't think he was being sarcastic. His post was quite consistent with
the body of his postings in t.p.t.
>
> The lack of democracy in China may be more to do with the top dogs there
> wanting to keep ahold of the priviledged positions for themselves and their
> closest allies and families. The only reason that China would not function
> as a democracy at the moment is that there are areas that do not want to
> belong and would probably try to break away given half a chance (Tibet, East
> Turkestan, Inner Mongolia - though the latter case may now be a lost cause
> because of resettlement).
There is no reason why in a democracy they would be given half a chance,
unless it were acceptable to the rest of the population of China... in
which case, it would not be a problem anyway.
In a representational electoral democracy, the Tibetans and others might
find themsleves with a lot of power: imagine a senator from Tibet
holding up the Chinese budget in protest over Pooncorp's plans to turn
the Potala into a 5-star resort... Or a Uighur Nationalist Party holding
the balance of power in a hung parliament...
If China were to save itself a lot of face and
> let these areas go, the core area remaining would function quite sucessfully
> as an economic superpower and modern society.
>
> The resources required to secure these areas must be greatly in excess of
> the natural resources available (anyone any figures), meaning economic
> development must be held back within the main parts of China to finance a
> continuing Chinese presence and Chinese settlement.
Francis POON
Ian Inman <ian....@unn.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:EA4427915520D511902C...@central.unn.ac.uk...
WHY is it necessary to have a Tibetan Corporation for the sake of its being
a "Tibetans" company?
This is like having to set up or maintain a corporation that is "state
owned" for national pride.
>
> It's not about money, it's about people having control of their own lives.
Do you think a "Tibetan Corporation" means controlling of their own lives?
The PRC government at this time is in a great hurry to get rid of its state
owned enterprises in order to have control of their own lives in the sense
that they will not be drowned together with those debt-ridden business
entities.
>
> 2) I wish Yu would not be so paranoid about the 'Anglo-American Alliance'.
> I feel he is unable to distiguish between the governments and the ordinary
> people of those countries, whose opinions are often very divergent. Put
it
> this way, we elect them, then they go away and ignore us for four or five
> years until they need our votes to keep our jobs.
>
> The lack of democracy in China may be more to do with the top dogs there
> wanting to keep ahold of the priviledged positions for themselves and
their
> closest allies and families.
Thank you for advising us of such profound truth. Babies come from the
women's bodies and not the men's.
FP
Francis POON
Phil <mrph...@slip.net> wrote in message news:3AC7DA...@slip.net...
<snipped>
> Tibet, as can be expected from such an interesting geological patch, is
>
> reputed to have plenty of natural resources: precious metals, uranium,
>
> hydrocarbons, borates, and probably a lot more. To the extent the
>
> resources are exploited by Chinese (and foreign) companies, much of
>
> Tibet's output is likely to be recorded in other tax jurisdictions.
This, as I repeated many times elsewhere, is probably the key to
jump-starting the economic development
of Tibet. Just imagine all that spill-over impact from the unemployed
mining engineers from BC of Canada who go over there and get hired by
international companies. And among these engineers many of them are either
single or have their previous wives having gone for greener pasture with
other employed men. Their consuming power is undoubtedly awesome by local
standard and widely spread over the lonely city of Lhaza in bars and
table-dancing clubs that could even take on the out of work older table
dancers from Vancouver at wages not affordable in Canada. All in all these
activities will add more tax to the state revenue of Tibet. Not only that,
the presence of these Canadians will change the consumption pattern of the
natives more towards the direction of the international community. Thus
rather than using their disposable income to buy incense, which is burned
off into the air anyway, or buy lama shit for the sick, the natives will be
attracted to go into Cecily Incorporated from Vancouver and drink beer, eat
chips and burgers, and will smoke Rothman Special instead of the locally
made camel shit, and will visit modern clinics or hospitals and take
aspirins, etc.. It is only when the Tibetan natives become like "us",
speaking a language that we understand, adopting similar kinds of life
habits and consuming items that we make, then the economy of scale becomes
achievable. In doing so, the native Tibetans will be given a chance to
join the corporate army of multinationaals, and be led out of their state of
underdevelopment or economic oppression. In this process, wider scope of
political freedom will be enjoyed. The other alternative is for the UBC
students to wave banners in state banquets hosting the PRC representatives
and get themselves iron-fisted by the RCMP, or for the Tibetan natives to
stay in reservation camps reminiscient of those in North America where the
native Indians are allowed to die of alcohol overdoze. Which alternative do
you think is more along the line of the Taoist philosophy: "wise men follow
the path of least resistance"?
FP