Political rant
Mar. 18th, 2008 10:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lishesquexSo I've been following the news about the China/Tibet situation, and this is probably going to astound and/or piss off a whole bunch of people, but I do not support Tibetan independence nor do I think Western nations should continue to interfere.
It's a huge blind spot among the Chinese - I know, because for all my usual liberalness, when it comes to Tibet, I still feel a small mental block shaped like prejudice in my head. I don't support cultural genocide, of course not. But in the back of my mind there are also the memories of Hong Kong, Macao and Shandong being seized by the British, Portuguese and Germans, and the sorry state of semi-colonial China subjugated to the demands of the Eight-Nation Alliance (i.e. China versus Japan, Russia, UK, France, United States, Germany, Italy and Austria - all wanting a piece of China).
What's Tibet got to do with all of this?
In the 1880s and 1890s Great Britain, strongly entrenched on the Indian subcontinent and intent on seizing small principalities in the Himalayas, was beginning to knock on Tibet's door. In 1893, the British got trading rights at a post just inside the Tibetan border with the stipulation that a British official could be stationed there to oversee the trade. When the Tibetan religious leader and political leader, the Dalai Lama, refused to answer British requests for the further opening up of relations, the British invaded to force negotiations.
The subsequent Chinese invasion must be understood as a response to foreign aggression, and not imperialistic ambitions. Tibet had been a protectorate of China, and the Chinese had always been content with simply exerting their cultural influence on their neighbours without interfering politically.
By the time that the People's Republic of China was established in 1949, India had been independent from Britain for two years, and Britain no longer had a particular interest in Tibet's political status. Thus, in 1950, when it seemed as if the PRC would move to establish direct control, Great Britain and the United States, when contacted by Lhasa, did not respond with any support.
It seems that the Western powers are only concerned with Tibet when it suits their political ambitions. Further proof of this: during the Cold War, the good old USA started training and arming anti-Chinese Tibetan guerrillas in Tibet. This was not good for Sino-Tibean relations. Not good.
You can see why interference today is now met with immense scepticism.
I'm not saying the British or Americans caused the current situation (although indirectly... they kinda did), but given the amount of interference they've had and the disastrous results of that interference (both here and elsewhere *coughthemiddleeastcough*), I think that perhaps it is best if they refrained from it all together.
The Chinese government will liken any international pressure as similar to the bullying of colonial powers in the past, and will thus resist even harder - both to save face, and to regain national pride from past shaming. And they'd have the support of the population too. Most Chinese are intensely aware of the period in China's history known as "carving up the Chinese melon", and any Western interference in internal affairs will be viewed as a continuation of that.
Unfortunately (for Tibet) the reintegration of Tibet has come to symbolise unification and the restoration of former glory (and territories) for the Chinese, and any Western attempts to pressure or shame them (i.e. boycotting of the Olympics) on this matter is going to be met with hostility.
I'm not even going to go into the hypocrisy of countries like Australia and the United States that have a history of treating their own indigenous peoples terribly. So. Please to be minding your own business and fixing your own problems. Kk?
It's a huge blind spot among the Chinese - I know, because for all my usual liberalness, when it comes to Tibet, I still feel a small mental block shaped like prejudice in my head. I don't support cultural genocide, of course not. But in the back of my mind there are also the memories of Hong Kong, Macao and Shandong being seized by the British, Portuguese and Germans, and the sorry state of semi-colonial China subjugated to the demands of the Eight-Nation Alliance (i.e. China versus Japan, Russia, UK, France, United States, Germany, Italy and Austria - all wanting a piece of China).
What's Tibet got to do with all of this?
In the 1880s and 1890s Great Britain, strongly entrenched on the Indian subcontinent and intent on seizing small principalities in the Himalayas, was beginning to knock on Tibet's door. In 1893, the British got trading rights at a post just inside the Tibetan border with the stipulation that a British official could be stationed there to oversee the trade. When the Tibetan religious leader and political leader, the Dalai Lama, refused to answer British requests for the further opening up of relations, the British invaded to force negotiations.
The subsequent Chinese invasion must be understood as a response to foreign aggression, and not imperialistic ambitions. Tibet had been a protectorate of China, and the Chinese had always been content with simply exerting their cultural influence on their neighbours without interfering politically.
By the time that the People's Republic of China was established in 1949, India had been independent from Britain for two years, and Britain no longer had a particular interest in Tibet's political status. Thus, in 1950, when it seemed as if the PRC would move to establish direct control, Great Britain and the United States, when contacted by Lhasa, did not respond with any support.
It seems that the Western powers are only concerned with Tibet when it suits their political ambitions. Further proof of this: during the Cold War, the good old USA started training and arming anti-Chinese Tibetan guerrillas in Tibet. This was not good for Sino-Tibean relations. Not good.
You can see why interference today is now met with immense scepticism.
I'm not saying the British or Americans caused the current situation (although indirectly... they kinda did), but given the amount of interference they've had and the disastrous results of that interference (both here and elsewhere *coughthemiddleeastcough*), I think that perhaps it is best if they refrained from it all together.
The Chinese government will liken any international pressure as similar to the bullying of colonial powers in the past, and will thus resist even harder - both to save face, and to regain national pride from past shaming. And they'd have the support of the population too. Most Chinese are intensely aware of the period in China's history known as "carving up the Chinese melon", and any Western interference in internal affairs will be viewed as a continuation of that.
Unfortunately (for Tibet) the reintegration of Tibet has come to symbolise unification and the restoration of former glory (and territories) for the Chinese, and any Western attempts to pressure or shame them (i.e. boycotting of the Olympics) on this matter is going to be met with hostility.
I'm not even going to go into the hypocrisy of countries like Australia and the United States that have a history of treating their own indigenous peoples terribly. So. Please to be minding your own business and fixing your own problems. Kk?
