Comments on: The Tibet Question: Is Self-Determination, as a Principle, Absolute?

By: Raja G

Raja G — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:04 +0000

Though the author has given an indept analysis of the Tibetan Question.
There one area which need to viewed more clearly.
that is Nationhood - here I wish to state that when a cild is born its nationality is establishes even before someone Namees the child.
In othere words Nationality is from Birth.
The Spirit of Nationhood is an undying flame - No supre Power has the right to put it off.
Take the case of erstwhile Jugoslavia - now that country has become many small nations - because the original conglomaration of different Nations into one unit by force could not sustained.
If rulers of the erstwhile Jugoslavia held tight control over the different Nationalitis by sheer force -. But once the power weakens thecountry disintegrated inti various Nations. these are not like Isreal - imposed by the West and US. these are the original Nations.

Similarly - what ever Historical reasons and events the Chinese may quote or show Tibet has bee a free Nation for centuries - enjoying all the benefits of a Sovereign Nation. they had their own culture tradition Laws and Religion. Tibet had its own Currency without anymark of China on it. They had their own Postage Stamps and .
The Communists Forces in China realized that there is weak nation without a fighting regular army nearby with vast potential - and they marched into the peaceful nation andoccupied it -
The entire world watched this blatant colonisation without raisinga ny voic e. - Barring ofcourse some small Nations like El Salvadore and ireland etc.
The Chinese forced lead My Mao were fully aware of the state of the Western world Tired after the World War and also the US in its notorious ideas for keeping the USSR under Check did not bother to interfere Maos taking over Tibet.
chinese occupation of Tibet has been tacitly approved by the US in other words.
Let Compare this with the case of East Timore - the entire western World and Australia came on the scene to See that that country became free.
Now coming to the point of Human Rights and National Aspirations
Tibetans are different Race compared to Han chinese - they have different langusge and religion - But they have subjected to continued oppressiona d suppression by communist Chine for the past 6o years.
Compare this with that of Erithrea. A part of a country called Ehiopia which was supposed to have been ruled by a king from the time of the Pharoas. But the UN and the western countries worked hard to forma new nationa Eritrea.
So the double standard of the West is clearly evident.
Now coming to the question of Human Rights Violations - There west is making loud noise about the Human rights violations in Burma - they have imposed sanctions too.
but there is no such hue and cry about the platant Violations of Human Rights in tibet, whre tibetans are subjected to inhuman treat maent - not allowed to practice own religion - their language and their way of life.
the double standard of the West is blatant -
Take the case of Olympic Boycott in 1980 - the US boycotted the Moscow Olympics - reason - USSR invaded Afghanistan.
Now UK is trying to keep Zimbabway from the forthcoming World Cricket - reason robert Mugabe has suppressed Human Rights there.
Where as all these countries are shamelessly taking part in Beijing Olympics - in the country Human Rights have meaning and Place.
Thousnads of Chinese ar in prison just for raising their Voice against HR.
Many countries includin India are quick to retort by saying Games and Politics cannot be mixed.
I ask all these Nationas Are human beings playing games or just Robots are playing.
It is shame on the entire socalled free Nations if this Olympics is allowed to proceede.
The entire humanity of this period in history will be held to blame if Tibet as a nationad and as a people are allowed to vanish.
IT IS A SHAME ON HUMANITY TO ALLOW CHINA TO HOLD TIBET ANY LONGER

By: Gary Corseri

Gary Corseri — Sat, 10 May 2008 05:20:31 +0000

I come late to this discussion, but this article I’ve just read is a keeper I’ll add to my Favorites, and I believe the important points raised will be discussed for a long time.

Petersen has taken a very complex issue and found the fulcrum for a balanced approach: the fulcrum lies between the natural aspirations for self-determination and the necessity of human rights. Petersen makes a cogent argument for tipping the scale towards human rights.

Self-determination is a worthy goal for all of us, but the West has a tawdry record of it. Colonialism, imperialism and self-determination have not mixed well in the cauldron of Western history these past 500 years or so, and we find the goal, as Hamlet’s custom, “more honored in the breach than the observance.” When neocons and their chicklets chirp about self-determination for Tibet, we may justly wonder from what stink they are trying to divert us.

Human rights is a far better truncheon for Leftists and other humans to beat down the iniquitous. For one thing, it is easier to grasp and better understood. Does every village, every household, every individual have the right to self-determination? In addition to the hypocritical ways self-determination has been preached and practiced in the West, we have some philosophical fine points, such as Rousseau’s social contract, bearing some consideration. To what extent and how often must the principle of self-determination trump other principles?

Petersen intrepidly affirms that it cannot trump human rights. We know this in our guts and on our heads. If a cop beats me on the head, and I have done no wrong, I know with some immediacy that my human rights have been violated. On the other hand, if I am denied the right of self-determination in my District of Columbia, I am less inclined to protest (provided I am well-fed and sheltered, have access to good healthcare, and my children are safe and well-educated–i.e., that I enjoy basic human rights).

Petersen raises another interesting point about larger geopolitical issues. In our crazed celebrity culture these are often overlooked in favor of the cause celebre (pardon the pun) that Oprah, Brad or Angelina have focussed upon that day or hour. So, the cry goes up, “Save Darfur” or “Free Tibet,” and lost in the shell game is the peanut military base or listening post the US empire inserts amidst the distraction. Petersen bids us all be careful: watch the gamester, look up his sleeve. Hidden motives, bad intentions, yea even conspiracies, have been afoot since Jesus walked with Judas. Caveat emptor!

That Petersen has trodden this difficult ground, striving for “a principled approach” in the thicket of “geopolitical realities” is an act of disciplined thought and moral steadfastness.

By: bozhidar balkas

bozhidar balkas — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:06:58 +0000

hp.
independence, ‘independence’ ? which of the two entities symbolized by above symbols shall we we study?
in modern era no people, seems to me, can obtain independence.
a people can obtain ‘independence’, i. e., a protectorate of myriad kinds and degrees of support or tender ‘care’.
but to me, the best is to be interdepended. a political independence is an illusion since politics, music, wars, economy, laws, religion, etc. are aspects of one and the only reality or nature we have. these aspects are inseparable from one another.
thus we can’t talk abt music or music making w.o. having economy in mind. to write songs or play instruments one has to have money and time.
in nepal onemayhave one musician per, let’s say, 10,000 people. in US we may have one musician per 1,000 people.
it appears to me that every land is interdependent to an unknown degree, which is ok with me.
alack, fears/supremacism/greed/hatred are also part of the reality.
and we are not dealing with these aspects. if we do not or can’t soften these feelings, we can expect more bestiality.
and generally speaking, the richer a person or country is the more severe these feelings become. thanx

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:56:05 +0000

what this does to the occupier, i.e., the oppressor. how they lose their humanity. i’ve seen it in my own people.

and this loss of humanity also clearly shows even in relationships within that country — even while they’re united in their disdain and hatred for the other (occupied) people, they show the same disdain and hatred to each other in their own interpersonal, economic, social, etc. relationships among themselves. my actual observations from experience.

and of course, there are other accumulated costs of empire building, whether the “empire” is small or big.

By: Kim Petersen

Kim Petersen — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:29:54 +0000

Thanks Max. You seemed to have caught what the article was about.

bozhidar balkas, please check on the scientific method. In science, scientists seek to “disprove” the null hypothesis. Scientists report their results as probabilities.

Ricky, a referendum result reflects only the sentiment of a people at a particular moment in time. The name “Canadien” was coined by francophones and spread countrywide. Therefore, Les Habitants would not have to give up their name. Besides none of this has relevance to the topic of the article.

MJK, as it looks now, China and India are no longer at loggerheads over Tibet.

Shaham, yes, Canada is definitely firmly ensconced in US Empire.

John Wilkinson wrote: “So, what the writer is saying, oppressed people should learn to get on with their lives and quit kvetching, as long as their oppressors are more numerous and derive some benefit from this arrangement.”

John, I appreciate your taking the time to comment. However, please don’t twist the article’s meaning. This writer wrote that human rights are an absolute — affirmed throughout the article. It never stated that China had a right to oppress anyone. It stated the opposite. In fact, it stated that no state has the right to oppress anyone. Not China nor the US nor Canada nor Israel may abuse human rights. So your interpretation was incorrect. It also invalidates what followed after in support of your wrongful interpretation.

Nonetheless, you later present a hypothetical. It is in incomplete form to be taken seriously. So, if I fill in some of the gaps: if the US and China completely reverse positions — e.g., if China were the sole military superpower and it was aggressing countries around the world, and the Chinese were foreign invaders who stole a land based on a genocide and supported a genocide in Israel against the indigenous Palestinian population, etc. — then of course, my position would hold in reverse regarding the changed role of the states. That is elementary morality John. That is what the article pointed at.

Also, the position of the Great Wall has zero to do with the article and proves nothing about current geo-political reality. Also, if you know the history, there were invasions from the south northwards. In my article, there is no hypothesizing of an invasion through the Himalayas as you fantasize about. The article pointed at what really happened: how NATO moved into the ex-Warsaw Pact states. This is an example of what could be expected to happen in Tibet. Then the US military would be perched above China — an advantages military location. Have you read PNAC’s Rebuilding Defenses? If not, with all due respect, read it and your confusion will abate.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:29:13 +0000

as for the borders — you can dislike them all you want, but they protect — as much as they could, a culture from foreign invasions.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:22:37 +0000

the other thing that’s totally forgotten — what this does to the occupier, i.e., the oppressor. how they lose their humanity. i’ve seen it in my own people. that’s a cost that nothing, no “benefit”, can possibly counterbalance. yes, you get benefits, but you can’t look yourself in the mirror (if you’ve got any decency left, which is doubtful). in this case, there’s no diff btw the govt and the people — they both approve of the oppression of the other people, and they both lose themselves. i’ve seen ordinary people turned into monsters, because of something they themselves really have no benefit from, but they’ve been brainwashed by the elites as to what is “patriotic”.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:05:25 +0000

This thing with security is a red herring. So, it was OK for USSR to occupy Easter European countries, for its security? And yes, they had legitimate security concerns (many past invasions), much more than China vis a vis Tibet (who’s going to invade China through Tibet — Nepal? Or India’s army will cross the Himalayas and then move through vastness of Tibet to invade China?). Ask those eastern europeans how they liked it, how it was to be held back for 45 years, not seeing the light of day, not having the basic necessities or any future for 45 long, dark, endless years, waiting in endless lines, having their lives ruined — to ensure security of a foreign country, which they were not themselves threatening?

Is the Great Wall of China facing south? No invasion has ever come that way. If security were the issue, they’d invade Mongolia, the Russians, their arch-enemy are on the other side. Not that that’s a valid concern anyway — why should one people suffer and be dispossessed because other people have a problem they don’t know how to deal with? Maybe the US should invade Mexico and the Carribean islands, to keep secure from Latin revolutionaries, would that be OK by this argument?

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:48:17 +0000

If America occupied Tibet, there’s no doubt whatsoever what the position of the left would be.

If America bombed Kosovo into submission on Serbia’s behalf, there’s no doubt whatsoever what the position of the left would be.

There are principles, and then there are “other” more convenient considerations. Appealing to your base. Being in lockstep with certain mantras and certain taboos. Not risking the wrath of the blind ones. Having the right thoughts and the right publications on your resume.

So, there’s really no diff btw the left and the right — same motivation pretty much.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:37:46 +0000

And the writer himself points to logical snafus in his argument. Why should the Palestinians suffer, after their land and property have been stolen? So, we’re for Palestinian rights (rightly), but ONLY because America, Israel, etc. are AGAINST them.

But now that the western powers — for their own reasons, and yes they’re hypocritical, when they say they are for self-determination of Tibet, of Kosovo, etc. you CANNOT bring yourself to agree, because that kills your sacred cow, your reason for being — the opposition to America.

So, your opposition to America blinds you to everything else, makes you forget principles, and makes you say it’s OK that somewhere people live in darkness. Because they are oppressed by the counterweight to America, which you love.

The Chinese, the Jews, etc., used to be the oppressed, now they are the oppressors. No nation is good or bad, both states are part of the human condition.

You rail against America, because you feel that you’re oppressed here — your opinions don’t count. By your logic, you should just learn to live with it, the majority likes it the way it is, and you’re injuring majority’s rights by wanting things to be your way.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:27:43 +0000

The acid test for the writer: will you suffer in silence, and let your family suffer in silence, while your culture is being trampled on and suffocated and erased, while you’re being dispossessed, while the natural bounty is being taken to a foreign country, for free, while your kids have no future and have to learn a foreign langauage– because the oppressor is more secure that way?

There cannot be an equal arrangement, when one people comes onto the territory of another and occupies it. Take what they need and discard the rest. Of course they will not treat the others as equals, because there cannot be mutual trust in this arrangement.

By: John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:20:23 +0000

So, what the writer is saying, oppressed people should learn to get on with their lives and quit kvetching, as long as their oppressors are more numerous and derive some benefit from this arrangement.

Why did we abolish slavery, when the majority (white people) benefited, from, e.g., lower ag prices, while a minority was “inconvenienced”? And what about the slaughter of the native population, that was OK because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (and fewer, and fewer….).

Sometime in the future, we’ll unceremoniously dispose of the old people, when their needs become too much of a drag on the needs of the majority. And let’s do the same to the babies, there are too many people on this planet already, the quality of life of the majority will suffer.

“Spock” was a fictional character, not a god, who spoke the words of a writer, a fallible human being. And in any case, he was in this instance talking about himself making a VOLUNTARY decision for HIMSELF, which may have been logical. Maybe if you have a highly contagious, terminal disease, prolonging your own suffering won’t do you any good and it will kill many other people. So, you jettison from the ship. He was not talking about suffering silently in oppression, just because that’s convenient for the oppressors. He was not talking about making this decision for his children, or other people’s children, or other people. Or whole nations, races, etc.

By: hp

hp — Fri, 02 May 2008 03:04:03 +0000

But is it really ‘independence’ when the existence of the new self determined so-called nations are dependent on and directed by the US or Russia or China and are independent and self determined in name only?
You know what i mean. Meet the new boss…

By: bozhidar balkas

bozhidar balkas — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:40:14 +0000

to denk
i’m convinced that whether i and another 5bn people (un)wittingly “endorse” cia’s subversion, cia is under command of US ruling class; thus needs not nor asks our “endorsement”
and the ruling class will, i deduce, continue to issue orders which country is to cry uncle or be destroyed. we can only cry while US marches on. US can be stopped only with warfare or a counter punch.
it is not my responsibilty what a people do after it obtains independence.
at our present ethnic developement, every ethnic group, i know of, wants selfgovernance; that’s good enough for me.
in millenia or eons, ethnocentrism may weaken or evanecse. until that time kosovo (conquered by serbs) and tibet (conquered by china)
deserve at least a modern autonomy but if they reject it, they must obtain independence.
to me, imperialism is antihuman. US, canadain, russian, serb and multitdude of other empires have caused enough bloodshed.
china too is an empire. if it disolves, it would be a step in the right direction.
and i speak as strong socialist. unfortunately, ever ism misteaches, spreads hatred, wages war. so, if i am to condenm US, israel’s , canadian
imperiliasm, i have to condemn chinese imperialism. please, no rationalizing.
for even hitler, with his rationalizations, has ‘justified’ all his crimes. in another words, for me, no ifs, buts maybes, reasons, etc., regarding the right to self governance or other universal human rights. thank u.

By: Shabnam

Shabnam — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:29:01 +0000

please print my post.

By: denk

denk — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:09:47 +0000

what happened here is basically the same as in kosovo, burma, the stans etc.
cia rent a mob started a riot but china get a gang bang by the “international communities”. once again uncle sham has screwed china big time , as in tam 1989.

those who jump on this china bashing bandwagon are unwittingly/wittingly endorsing cia’s “right to subversion”
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17209
and abetting u.s. “great game” to world domination.

By: Shabnam

Shabnam — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:46:18 +0000

“I live in Canada and I know all about this… The whole separatist thing is totally a thing of the past … you see that was 10 years ago… the people nowadays are Canadians more than anything… and if there was a vote it would be at least 65 - 35 for NO.”
Canada is working hand in hand with the US against other countries to destabilize and divide. I wish I could say the same thing about Iraq. The west with the leadership of the US and Israel are giving military training and financial support to one group within the Islamic countries to use them in “divide and conquer” game which has been played repeatedly in destabilization of other power such as Ottoman empire to create puppet states to rule the world. In Iraq, Israel has military and intelligent cooperation with the Kurdish terrorists for decades and the Kurds were used in destruction and soft partition of Iraq. Today, the “Ottoman” of our time is Iran that your government, Canadian, and other “democratic” west are fully engaged in the game of destabilization through their phony “human rights”, “doctors without borders”, labor, women, youth, “the journalist without borders”, NED and numerous other organizations which have been exposed and have no credibility what so ever. What have you done? If Human rights are universal, then rights to scientific and economic development is also
Universal and should not be separated because the close relationship between the two. What have you done when your country, Canada, is fully engaged with other “democratic” west to strangulate other nation to submission according to their selfish interests? What have you done when your government in collusion with the “international community” a phony construct consists of rich countries along with the puppet states that have no control over their own interests to destroy other nation to bring them in “the community”? The underlying problems of majorities of these riots is political oppression which is closely related to economic oppression and this can not be separated from the international economic and political arrangement lead by the “democratic” west. Everyone must know that the US along with other countries, including Canada, is engaged in campaign of lies and misinformation to wage another Zionist war and few days ago one of the servant of the Zionist, Patrick Clawson, deputy director at the Washington Institute for the near east policy, an Israeli think tank and close cooperation with the “Zionist lobby” post a note at Iranian.com
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/the-irony-of-appeasement/

to sell another terrorist group, Mojahedin, listed as TERRORIST by the state department to population of the “democratic” west to be used, like Taliban and Al Qaeda, in their assault on Iran and then like previous groups demonized and later to be eliminated from the political scene to cover up their crimes against humanity.
What are you going to do? Why don’t you let a riot to object to violation of “the international law” and violation of UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS?
http://www.iranian.com/main/2008/violent-past-and-peaceful-present

By: MJK

MJK — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:17:42 +0000

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Did we forget about the billion people to the South?

India!

After the invasion of Tibet, the India China War of 1962 came about. Since then, increased build-up of troops along the border. Incursions of Chinese troops into Bhutan, more influence in Nepal.

The needs of the many were being met when Tibet was an independent nation in 1949. Peace between India, China, and surrounding nations…2 billion plus people.

By: Ricky

Ricky — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:59:09 +0000

I live in Canada and I know all about this… The whole separatist thing is totally a thing of the past … you see that was 10 years ago… the people nowadays are canadians more than anything… and if there was a vote it would be at least 65 - 35 for NO.

Also you might want to know if its as easy to separate if your led to believe…. don’t you think it would just as easy to re-join if they made that mistake 10 years ago… think of what a huge mistake they would of made…

First of all the most prestigious nhl hockey franshinse [Hockey being a religion up here] is the Montreal Canadiens… Montreal being in Quebec of course. Now these guys date back to December 4, 1909… and they have always been the Montreal Canadiens… there is great pride… they would have to change the name of that franchise and that would take a lot. That franchise is a part of Canada as the New York Yankees is for the US and baseball and as much as Manchester United is for England and soccer. Might sound a little silly but that is a very powerful force.

Also… do you know if they had their own government do you know how bad it would be over there… they would have insane inflation rates. They would go into a recession… On its own, Quebec would be a weak, second-rate nation, with only one city of economic consequence, Montreal…. and if a problem ever arose… do you think the rest of canada would help them.. I think not… it would destroy years of history and hard work to get where they are to day… But you see it would never happen and once again even if it did 10 years ago… I bet that wouldn’t of lasted for long I guarantee you. People would get big time reality check and see what am I thinking… Today they are more canadian than anything else. It won’t ever happen… I guanantee you. No Canadian province, not even Quebec, has the right unilaterally to declare itself independent.

By: hp

hp — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:18:39 +0000

Coming soon? Sikhistan?