In 1903, the British wanted to take over Tibet. To justify the invasion, the British told the lie that Tibet had obtained lots of rifles from Russia . In one of the most inglorious episodes of the British Empire Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India, sent troops under Francis Younghusband to invade Tibet in order to create a buffer zone against the Russians. The pretext was that Tibet was being armed with Russia-manufactured weapons. The mission ended with the massacre of Chumik Shenko when the rifle-bearing British mowed down hundreds of Tibetan Buddhists, debarred by their religion from killing their enemies .



They found just two rifles in Tibet.

The analogy is not quite correct since Iraq did have a history of violence and war.

Unlike Tibet (i guess, not totally sure).

The Tibetan army did their best to resist: they were completely inadequately armed of course. As to the claim for Tibetan peacefulness; one of the Chinese justifications for Tibet being part of China is that much of China was part of a Tibetan empire.

The analogy fails on numerous levels.

First, and most importantly, one single use of one single rifle can't kill a million people, which some of the worst sorts of WMD could, so the magnitude of the threat is incomparably smaller for a rifle.

Second, Iraq actually had had WMD, had used them, had lied about them, so the only question is how recently, and most people sincerely believed that they were there.

Third, under the terms of its surrender in the first Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy the weapons, not make any more, and cooperate fully with inspections, and we had been trying to get verification that they were all gone for a dozen years before invading.

Funny how no one on this board is pissed off at China for taking over Tibet.

China for taking over Tibet

That is a very tricky issue, that deals more with ideology rather then reality. Tibet never was independant of China.

Tibet was so independent of CHina. How long does it have to be separate for before it gets counted as separate? 300 years? Or can the UK take over the USA again cos its only been 230 years?

I am pissed off at China for taking over Tibet, but seeing as I am not in charge of the most powerful nation in the world (TM) I cant do much about it. PLus you dont see many Chinese on these boards saying "we brought civilisation to Tibet". - yeah, and murdered tens of thousands of citizens and let nearly a million more starve to death, plus denied them the right to vote, of free assembly etc etc.

(aside- if the USA wanted to knock off dicator states, why not start with Burma, I cant think of anybody in the world who likes their military junta.)

Tibet was so independent of CHina. How long does it have to be separate for before it gets counted as separate? 300 years? Or can the UK take over the USA again cos its only been 230 years?

Show me how and Tibet was indepedant of China?


1720 Under suzerainty of the Qing (Chinese) Empire.

24 Mar 1856 - 7 Sep 1904 Makes tributary payments to Nepal.

3 Aug 1904 - 23 Sep 1904 British occupations of Lhasa.

7 Sep 1904 Convention of Lhassa accorded commercial agents to Britain in the cities of Gyantse, Gartok and Yatung.


7 Sep 1904 - 1947 Under British influence.

Apr 1906 - Feb 1908 British occupation of Lhasa and Chumbi valley.

24 Apr 1906 Britain recognizes Chinese suzerainty by Treaty of Peking.

28 Oct 1912 Dalai Lama rejects inclusion in the Republic of China.

Jan 1913 Nominally independent (Kingdom of Tibet), de jure still part of China (officially from 8 Mar 1913).


3 Jul 1914 By Convention of Simla, all of Tibet, Inner and Outer,
recognized by Britain as "state under the suzerainty but not the sovereignty of China."


7 Oct 1950 Chinese invasion and occupation.

23 May 1951 Annexed by China


The Dalai Lama then accepted the fact that Tibet was part of China in 1959-58 I believe. Never has Tibet been considered as a independant state seperate of China. Suzerainty if you don't know the meaning. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=suzerainty%20)

su•ze•rain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (szr-n, -z-rn)
n.
A nation that controls another nation in international affairs but allows it domestic sovereignty.


Which is very ambiguous indeed...basically a state within a state, a vassal state. Only nominally not legally independent. Also to my knowledge the Chinese have never accepted the fact that Tibet is independent. Also what I find disgusting is all this anger over Tibet, yet the same situation exists in East Turkistan. It’s very rich imo…

My, arent we patronising tonight. I note in what you posted, that essentially theres been several times when its been trying to break free from china, yet never quite managed it, due in part to British involvement (what a surprise.)
So, do you think the legitimate tibetan independence movement should be given its way?

So, do you think the legitimate tibetan independence movement should be given its way?

I don't have that strong of a position really to determine such an idea. But the question becomes what is Tibet? Is it a province or a state? It's sort of the same with Taiwan, what are they? They are/were states/provinces in limbo and as a result they have very dubious claims, as do the Chinese. It is the ambiguity of the situation that causes the problem here. For instance a Chinese can argue that since Peking never really accepted the independence of Tibet, it was British interference that made this “sense of nationalism”. A Tibetan can also successfully argue that Tibet is a distinct entity within China, and was independent of Peking’s rule. I think an accurate (or somewhat accurate) comparison would be Canada before 1931’s Statue of Westminster. Domestically it controlled its own affairs, but was not officially recognized as a state independent of the UK, considering Canada wasn’t allowed to establish embassies anywhere, not even the US. Some will contend that Canada was independent of the UK btwn 1867-1931 but was it a state in the conventional sense or was it a vassal? Like Tibet, Canada did not dictate her own foreign policy, London did. Canada got it’s independence from the UK really in 1931, and 1982! The Chinese did not acquiescence to Tibetan independence, and instead tightened it’s grip on the vassal state. It’s a mess to say the least.

Ahh, the canada between 1867 and 1931 is probably closer to the suzerainty thing with Tibet. My dictionary definition of suzerainty essentially allows the lesser country (state, whatever) internal autonomy. I think we can safely say that any agreement about that was broken by the red china hordes taking control of the place.

My dictionary definition of suzerainty essentially allows the lesser country (state, whatever) internal autonomy.

Yes that is true, but really what does that really mean? Does that mean it is a state? Or can it be classified as a rogue dependancy/province? Can a state be a state whilst not being recognized as a state?

. I think we can safely say that any agreement about that was broken by the red china hordes taking control of the place.

One can say, nor do I nessecarily disagree. But one can also say that China was merely exherting it's soverignity over the region. Remember China never accepted Tibet as a state seperate that of China proper, so were they wrong in exerting their power on what is legally Chinese land? Reminds me of the Boer War in a sense…

ARgh, we all know that IR tends to be written by the most powerful anyway.
Suzerainty was more a specific feudal term to do with doing homage for something held from the liege lord, I think, yet I dont see quite how it applies here. I mean has China actually physicaly occupied the tibean plateau before 1950, or did it just defeat a defending army and then recieve supplicaiton of its king?
Another point ot note might be how long can a country's claim to being an entity unto itself (cultural, "racial" etc.) last for, given that somebody above pointed out tibet used to have its own wee empire, so I think we can assume it was an autonomous entity then.

ARgh, we all know that IR tends to be written by the most powerful anyway.

That's the luck of the game unfortunately before the UN. You signed on to it; you are thus bound to it.

Suzerainty was more a specific feudal term to do with doing homage for something held from the liege lord, I think, yet I dont see quite how it applies here.

The British were very intelligent when dealing with other empires, or peoples. The British purposely put in words that are semantically meaningless, and all it does is essentially is to confuse the other side into acquiescing out of frustration. It worked
“wonders” here in Canada with the natives.

I mean has China actually physicaly occupied the tibean plateau before 1950, or did it just defeat a defending army and then recieve supplicaiton of its king?


Does it really matter? If the Lama had accepted the rule of China indirectly or not, China was given authority. The question is really what type of authority is that, to which extent?

Another point ot note might be how long can a country's claim to being an entity unto itself (cultural, "racial" etc.) last for, given that somebody above pointed out tibet used to have its own wee empire, so I think we can assume it was an autonomous entity then.

Tibet did have its own empire long ago, and it sucked huge parts of modern China. But we don't expect the Roman Empire to come marching all over again do we? Today as it stands the majority of the population of Tibet are Han Chinese, so what do the Tibetans have now? It is admittedly a VERY complex situation to say the least.

correction:

Weapons of Mass Distraction

I mean has China actually physicaly occupied the tibean plateau before 1950, or did it just defeat a defending army and then recieve supplicaiton of its king?


Does it really matter? If the Lama had accepted the rule of China indirectly or not, China was given authority. The question is really what type of authority is that, to which extent? There is the question of the moral right of China to occupy Tibet, and the question of what the Tibetan view of "sovereignty" was. Inner Mongolia and Tataristan are now parts of China- essentially because their natives once ruled China!
It's customary to deride the first British ambassador to China because he wouldn't kowtow to the emperor acknowledging- purely formal- superiority. If he had, would the Chinese navy be blockading Dover now?

They found just two rifles in Tibet.

Can that be true? In the whole of Tibet only two rifles were found? Is that even possible? I know that they're buddhists and all, but two rifles?

"Second, Iraq actually had had WMD, had used them, had lied about them, so the only question is how recently, and most people sincerely believed that they were there."

most people are stoners, the UN have not found any WMD in iraq, America has no justification for meddling any more and should go home

Maybe so, but we found plenty of rifles... :p

"The British were very intelligent when dealing with other empires, or peoples."

Huh? Weren't they responsible for the borders of Israel/Palestine, and India/Pakistan/Kashmir ... in other words, the two most likely sources of apocalypse in the world?

Huh? Weren't they responsible for the borders of Israel/Palestine, and India/Pakistan/Kashmir ... in other words, the two most likely sources of apocalypse in the world?

That was at the decline of British power and influence, you should have seen what the Brits did here in Canada. The Brits didn't decide the borders of Israel/Palestine that was the UN. India/Pakistan had decided on their own that they should be two independent states, and the only issue btwn the two is Kashmir and that had nothing to do with the Brits. The Hindu "King" of Kashmir joined Hindu India regardless of the fact that the majority of the population was Muslim. The British merely couldn’t afford the costs of empire anymore and just wanted to leave both areas.

Thersites

Tibet, and the question of what the Tibetan view of "sovereignty" was. Inner Mongolia and Tataristan are now parts of China- essentially because their natives once ruled China!

This is why I find the angst over Tibetan independence to be not only disingenuous but ignorant. Just look at these:

Inner Mongolia:

23 Apr 1934- Mongols in Inner Mongolia establish autonomous Mongolian
Federation (or League).
22 Dec 1935- Independence declared.

East Turkestan
1928 – 1944- Autonomous from Chinese central government.
12 Dec 1933 - 6 Feb 1934- Islamic Republic of Eastern Turkestan (in rebellion, also known as Uighuristan or Turkish Islamic Republic of
East Turkestan).
16 Jan 1943-Re-incorporation into China declared.
12 Nov 1944 - 16 Jun 1946- East Turkestan Republic (in rebellion)
Jun 1946- Reincorporated into China
1 Oct 1955- Creation of Xinjian-Ughur Autonomous Region.

Yet we complain about a country that never even asserted it’s independence?

Really? Jack Straw would disagree.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2481371.stm

Really? Jack Straw would disagree.

The Balfour Agreement was instrumental in establishing Israel, and as for Kashmir, the British didn't do anything to exacerbate the problem, but they didn't do anything to solve it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2481371.stm

But hey, the French have also never gotten enough blame. The Treaty of Versailles was the single most important cause of World War II, and they've continued to exert a paternalistic, psuedo-imperal influence throughout Africa while at the same decrying the United States' attempt to exert a paternalistic, psuedo-imperial influence throughout the world.

The Balfour Agreement was instrumental in establishing Israel, and as for Kashmir, the British didn't do anything to exacerbate the problem, but they didn't do anything to solve it.

Doesn’t he know that the Balfour declaration was actually rescinded by the UKin 1939? The Brits officially pulled her support for Zionism after the 1939 White Paper, and thus defacto giving it to the Arabs. The UK couldn’t do much in Kashmir anyways; it was independent of her control. The king of Kashmir was given the opportunity to choose and he choose India. Yes the UK’s imperialism has caused seriously problems internationally with odd borders, and creating pseudo-states. Mr.Straw is partially correct, but it was the UN who decided Israel/Palestine, and the UN also passed a resolution pertaining to Kashmir that has not been respected (a Kashmiri referendum). Britain deserves blame surely, but not as much as you assert.

Undecided - okay, that's what I was wanted to hear.

The king of Kashmir chose India after Pakistan invaded.

A apporiately timed article on Tibet/China:

Tibet's future is in the spotlight following the Chinese government's publication of an uncompromising policy paper that rejects the Dalai Lama's vision of greater autonomy for the territory and gives the exiled spiritual leader little or no room to maneuver. For the 68-year-old Tibetan leader, time is running out if he wants to solve the Tibet Question during his lifetime.
-----------------
The release of the paper, "Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet", raises a serious question of what options are left for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile community as they struggle to find an acceptable way to return home to what China calls the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR).
----------
Exiled Tibetans are torn between what many see as the "sell-out" being proposed by the Dalai Lama and their dream of independence for Tibet.
---------------
Beijing is anxious to crush the last challenges to what it sees as its territorial integrity.
---------------
The 30-page paper on Tibet issued by the Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China calls on the Dalai Lama to "look reality in the face" and accept the existing autonomy that the Tibetan Autonomous Region enjoys.
------------------
since the Dalai Lama fled in the wake of the Lhasa Uprising against Chinese troops in 1959, decades during which "a feudal serfdom under theocracy, one even darker and more backward than medieval Europe" was turned into a "modern socialist people's democracy".
-----------------
Claiming Tibet has been part of China for more than 700 years, it says Tibet has "broken away from imperialism" and that the Tibetan people enjoy full political rights of autonomy and full decision-making power in economic and social development. It highlights what it says were the "leaps and bounds" made in moving from a closed, manorial economy to a modern market economy.
-----------------
But the paper's real message is its call for the Dalai Lama to reject not only independence - clearly unacceptable for Beijing - but also abandon any special deal on Tibet that the Tibetan leader was proposing along the lines of the "one country, two systems" principle that China says it applies to Hong Kong and Macau, with the ability to run its own internal affairs.
-------------------
For many Tibetans, the Dalai Lama's own rejection of independence for Tibet and his adoption of the "Middle Way" of autonomy in the 1980s was a sad climb-down from his earlier position.
--------------------
Exiled Tibetans claim Tibet was an independent country until it was forcibly taken over by communist China, citing its de facto independence from 1911 to 1951, when there were no Chinese in the territory.
----------------
Beijing's policy document appears to be part of a growing propaganda offensive against the Dalai Lama, the man they call a "separatist" and a "devil".
------------------
Raidi, who has long played an important role in the local communist government of the Tibetan region, said the paper comprehensively and objectively showcased the ethnic autonomy system in Tibet and "renounced the fallacy released by the separatist clique", referring to the image of Tibet - plagued by human rights abuses and lack of political and religious freedoms - portrayed by the Dalai lama and his exile government.
----------------------
Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy...This human rights group makes clear that the paper's description of the last four decades in Tibet as "glorious" is "total whitewash". They call the human rights situation of the Tibetan people grim and "a well-known fact". The report ignores the destruction, torture and killing during the 1966-76 Chinese Cultural Revolution that affected all of China and does not describe what are, in effect, police state conditions in Tibet today, the center says.
--------------------
The Tibetan exile government has alleged that the Chinese authorities have carried out "genocide" since they took over Tibet in 1951, claiming a death toll of 1.2 million Tibetans and citing attempts to stifle or eradicate the culture and religion.
-------------------
The Tibetan exile government has alleged that the Chinese authorities have carried out "genocide" since they took over Tibet in 1951, claiming a death toll of 1.2 million Tibetans and citing attempts to stifle or eradicate the culture and religion.
-----------------
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FE29Ad05.html

And so much more...

The king of Kashmir had the job because the British rewarded one of his ancestors by making him king of Kashmir, despite most of thge population not sharing his religious beliefs.
"When Mr Balfour gave the land of israel to the jews, he did not know that anyone already lived there."- Dean Inge