Roughan on Tibet
March 30th, 2008 at 12:30 pm by David FarrarJohn Roughan in the Weekend Herald looked more closely at Tibet. He notes:
It has been strategically important to China for centuries. The economy is dirt poor, the people tribal and deeply loyal to a Buddhist theocracy which was actually installed from Beijing by the Mongol empire 800 years ago.
Thereafter the Dalai Lamas held absolute power except for periods when Tibet was ruled by monk regents or by agents sent by the Chinese government.
Early last century, after the fall of China’s last imperial dynasty, Tibet enjoyed de facto independence for 37 years. In 1950, with the advent of communism, it was incorporated in the Chinese state.
So far, so good. But then Roughan makes what I think is an unfortunate comparison:
It is curious that we unquestioningly support secession movements everywhere but at home. Independence seekers have only to raise their flag in Kosovo, Kurdistan, Chechnya, Darfur, Taiwan or Timor, and our sympathies are with them. Part of this reflects our dislike of the state they would escape.
We are not quite as sympathetic to rebels in Kashmir, Quebec or Catalonia. But even there we find it hard to understand the determination of nations to keep a disaffected region.
Catalonia is a province of Spain. Spain is a democracy, and doesn’t shoot protesters. And Catalonia has significant autonomy from Spain. Plus the Catalonian independence party got only 14% of the vote in the last elections. And polls show only 32% of Catalonians favour independence
Likewise Quebec is a province of a democratic Canada. Canada doesn’t oppress Quebec, which has very significant autonomy. And the Quebec independence parties have not won a vote on secession. If they do, then they will
Kashmir is basically a territorial dispute with Pakistan, than a real secessionist movement. It can’t be solved by secession – it needs more than one country to agree. Interestingly the only poll done in Kashmir shows 61% wanting to stay Indian citizens.
Now when was the last time there was a vote or even a poll in Tibet? Tibet is ruled by a repressive regime, that gives no opportunity at all for self determination. That is why so many support them – Roughan to be fair does refer the dislike of the state they seek to escape as a factor.
Roughan then asks how we would feel about a Tuhoe nation in the Ureweras:
We might never have been to the Ureweras, have no plans ever to go and not much idea of what the nation might lose, but we would fight for its integrity. Why then is it so hard to credit China’s attitude to Tibet, Sudan’s to Darfur or, closer to home, Indonesia’s to East Timor?
Again, China, Sudan and Indonesia (to a lesser degree) are repressive undemocratic regimes that enslave or kill in their conquered territories.
As for Tuhoe, I’ve never seen any evidence that a majority or even a significant minority of Tuhoe want independence. Tame Iti is not all of Tuhoe.
I’d also point out that sensitivities over borders are somewhat different in small islands, compared to large continents. In Europe and Asia most countries already have multiple neighbours. In NZ we have none – we have no land borders to worry about. So a new country would be a massive change for us.
But what if the Chatham Islands wanted independence? Would any of us give a damn? I doubt it.
Tags: Catalonia, China, East Timor, John Roughan, Kashmir, Quebec, Tibet, Tuhoe
March 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
It certainly would be interesting to give Tuhoe their own nation, perhaps a binding referendum from the Tuhoe people is needed to see if they want their own nation.
I would even be prepared to give them say, $2 billion to start up all the services and governance structures a nation needs. Of course the UN would be expected to help them with this as they do in other new nations.
But i think the result in about 10 years time, would be that the Tuhoe nation is bankrupt, and begging to come back into the NZ fold.
I’d suggest we’d have cordial relations with them as a nation, no reason why not really, unlike Roughans assertion we’d fight to keep it integrated into NZ. Why would we fight for an area of NZ that has no real value to us, and in all reality wouldn’t cause us any problems if it was seperate.
So others can see where I’m coming from with this, I have no problem with tribes/races gaining their own nations, if they can meet the sustainability test. As in they can if given adequate set up funding, provide services to their people, and take taxes from them, without outside support.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Vote to support the push for Chatham Islands independence. Help us get free from the tyranny of Labour and the stupid socialistic laws that even National supports. Our website will be up and running on Tuesday morning. Come and vote in our poll for independence. It is time for us to be free! http://www.free-the-chathams.tk
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The bots have allready registered http://www.free-the-chathams.tk
dot tk is of course Tokelau ( who are allready “free” but broke and still dependent on the NZ taxpayer)
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
DPF:
I thought you missed the truly revolting passage in Roughan’s column:
Anyone who see a ‘point’ in state-sponsored thugs torching hospitals and schools in a fit of pique because they don’t approve of the results of a democratic vote cannot be taken seriously. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, I don’t think Roughan or the Herald would be quite so sanguine if the last act of an outgoing Labour government was to start demolishing every public building and piece of infrastructure built in Auckland over the last nine years just to spite the ungrateful peasants.
What a fuckwit.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I second that,
Roughan is apparently a fuckwit.
And i also support Tuhoe independence as long as they can define a sensible boarder, win a referendum (good luck there) etc. I’m not so keen about giving them 2 billion… that would be awfully generous of us.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
GNZ I was being generous with figures as I have no idea how much it will cost to set up a Tuhoe Nation, but I was thinking of roughly the people in that areas tax payments for the last 20 odd years would be a fair amount, which i guess would roughly equal 2 billion.
Besides they’d need to develop a defence force, police, health system, justice system, education, governance structures etc, all of which are quite costly i imagine.
Also I can’t see any other maori tribe having the same leg to stand on with this, as Tuhoe are the only ones not to sign the treaty, and haven’t had a payment for past wrongs. Other tribes I can’t imagine would be prepared to give up what they have gained for nationhood, and also paying out for breach of contract etc.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Can we hold a poll and see if the rest of NZ wants to cede from Tuhoe.
I for one would vote yes.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
watch out the Chinese could set up a nice military base in the Ureweras and the Chatham’s are surrounded by a large ocean bed.
I think you people are having a moral dilemma all our western history is based on expansion and subjugation. right now our dear leaders are busy deciding how Iraqi and afghan people will live their lives. We made most of the countries borders around this world and supplied their guns and supported their oppressive regimes.
Iran (no matter what we think about their elected leaders) is under threat even by following the rules we made.
Do any of you even flinch when reports of missile strikes on “militants” in Sudan or elsewhere come in? The US is executing people with out trial and killing innocents but that’s OK?
No I don’t like what is happening in Tibet but we in the west have squandered any good will we had all to feed our consumption. Keep the oil coming and give us someone to sell our guns to.
The greatest gift the west had to give the world was democracy but we really never saw fit that anyone other than ourselves should have it especially if we didn’t like the outcome but every time we stepped in to save the “good” and stop the “bad” we lost a bit of our integrity and now we will pay for it.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
> Again, China, Sudan and Indonesia (to a lesser degree) are repressive undemocratic regimes that enslave or kill in their conquered territories.
what, is this comment from DPF himself? in what year are you talking abou this? in 1989 a peaceful protest (backed by the US government) turned into a riot and the country was on the edge of going chaotic, excessive measure were taken at the exceptional time. not many Chinese supported it ans many agree the history will reveal the truth at some stage.
can you name one “enslave” or “kill” in “conquered territories” by the Chinese in the modern history? last time i checked, the Chinese did not initiate a single war to invade another country since the fall of the Qing dynasty. and i don’t even need to remind you what the western world brought China.
> Now when was the last time there was a vote or even a poll in Tibet?
gosh are you really that ignorant on what’s happening in Tibet?
ok i guess i’m done with this topic. i thinks some of you just don’t have even the slightest clue, yet refuse to learn, and insist on prejudgement based outdated and manilpulated resources including DPF himself.
i don’t think some of you really care about democracy in China or Tibet. all you got is a deep fear and disliking towards a “communist” government. and your naive belief that your own tested and failed democracy would work in a country of 1.3 billion people 55 groups and has hardly a penny in the pocket 60 years ago. lmao 3 month to consult whether the council should fly the maori flag? sigh. now you don’t even have control how much u can spend, what can you say and not say in the election year in this very country.
i don’t quite like the Chinese government myself but like many Chinese we want to see it learns and improves itself and many would publicly criticize the government. all you wanted is just embarass it or break it apart and no one cares what will happen to the ordinary Chinese people. how typical.
[DPF: My God you are wrong on so many issues. I have no problems with China being communist - mainly because they are not in reality. I do have a problem with them being a one party dictatorship. The ability to sack a Government you don't like is vital, as is a free media and free access to information.
And as for China's territorial ambitions, well how about the invasions or wars of , Tibet, Korea, India, and Vietnam]
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Lead by example.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:31 am
The UN takes the side of indigenous people and supports the cause of self-determination. The question is, of course, where the nation state is a member of the UN and includes an indigenous minority which seeks self determination. The UN also supports the territorial integrity and independence of nation states under its collective security policy (UN opposition to annexation began in 1949).
In the case of a democratic nation state, the matter can be resolved via referendum (Quebec, Catalonia, Scotland etc). In cases where this is not offered – Ulster (why not allow nationalists to hold Irish passports and claim dual nationality, Basques there is resort to violence. The Basques are the oldest European people – their problem (a bit like the Kurds) is being in both France (Gascony) and Spain.
In the cases Roughan raises – Kurdistan was promised nationhood at the end of WW1. But because this involved territorial issues with Turkey and Iran it never happened (now Syria and Iraq are also involved).
In the other cases, there has been a nation state breakup (of the type which resulted in Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Czecko-Slovakia emerging out of Austrian HRE empire) – Yugoslavia (Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo) and the Soviet Union (Latvia, Lithuania, Byelorussia, Ukraine, Moldovia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekisatan, Tadjikstan and Kazhakstan).
In Russia, a recognised democratic nation state after the breakup of the Soviet Union (the post Tsarist empire which had yet to break up and allow self determination), there was the issue of autonomous regions also seeking the independence given to former SU republics. They include north Ossetia in Russia and South Ossetia in Georgia (similar to the Basques and Kurds) and Chechnya and Dagestan (ethnic and religious differences with Russia).
In the ME, the Ottomon empire break up led to the Arab states and a Jewish national homeland. Again premised on the self determination of the European model of 19th C nationalism.
Han majority China includes many minorities (as does India, which has a territorial dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir – a region denied in the 1940′s the option of a plebscite to form the two states borders – and thus some Moslems preferring rule by Pakistan object to being under the stronger Indian power rule). This is only a serious issue of self determination in the border regions where a viable independence is a possiblity and desired for reasons of ethnicity and culture or religion.
As for Dharfur, it’s not a separatist issue – its the case of an Arab Moslem central government having made a deal with black Christians in the south to end their civil war, has moved on to war on other blacks to the south west via using a militia front which has been seizing territory via murder and rape. It’s a case of a central government asserting an order of rule on behalf of one sector of the population over other groups (a bit like one tribe vs another – Sunni vs Shia and Kurd in Iraq, or empire building within a nation state). The world is not advocating separatism, but an end to genocide (ala Cambodia/Kampuchea and the Hutu-Tutsi matter).
As for East Timor, it was not part of the Indonesian state, it was annexed and the UN said in 1949 it would not accept annexation (after 1949).
As Chinese forces moved into Tibet in 1950 … the status of Tibet as part of historic China is thus a central point of the matter, in terms of international law.
“It is curious that we unquestioningly support secession movements everywhere but at home. Independence seekers have only to raise their flag in Kosovo, Kurdistan, Chechnya, Darfur, Taiwan or Timor, and our sympathies are with them. Part of this reflects our dislike of the state they would escape.”
Self determination is the premise on which nations exist. Of course citizens nations empathise with those seeking their own self government. And whenever those seeking to deny this are seen as oppressing the ethnic groups concerned, all the more so. If there is no oppression (a democratic government), we expect the matter to be resolved by a democratic choice of the people. In the case of Taiwan, support was part of the Cold War, but is now premised on Taiwan being a self governing democracy. We dislike the oppression of people and the denial of their hopes and aspirations. We dislike resort to terrorism.
“We might never have been to the Ureweras, have no plans ever to go and not much idea of what the nation might lose, but we would fight for its integrity. Why then is it so hard to credit China’s attitude to Tibet, Sudan’s to Darfur or, closer to home, Indonesia’s to East Timor?”
Any oppression of a people is an injustice. Oppression is occuring in Dharfur and occured during Indonesia’s rule of East Timor (the annexation was illegal in international law and only “tolerated” because of the Cold War).
In the case of Tibet, should we support self determination? I see it as alike that in Aceh, it involves the central state coming to terms with local autonomy. This is difficult for a one party state, but the future is where the Hong Kong model transfers to Tibet and Taiwan. As Hong Kong reaches full democracy within China, the same model should be offered to Tibet (in a phased process). As for Taiwan which already has this model, with complete independence of China, the issue of return to union depends on Beijing itself becoming a democracy. Within this future design, there is some hope that constructive relations can be developed between the various parties.
As for the issue of the local injustices, which were further exacerbated last year, the issue is not sovereignty but self government – the chieftainship promised to iwi in the Treaty (unless we claim rule by Land War annexation prior to 1949). The one exception may be the Tuhoe, as one iwi not signing the Treaty (and having some territorial integrity left), face the issue of self detemination viability should they ever claim independence (unless we claim rule by annexation prior to 1949).
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 3:01 am
Many states have one what amounts to party government, such as Singapore, Malaysia and much of the Arab world. We have no problems with them muting opposition in their own way, such as locking people up under the internal security ordinances, using religious law to coerce or bankrupting opponents of the ruling party. There is no ability to sack the government in these states (and they are not unique); yet you do not rail against them. The issue of Tibet is clearly an internal issue of China – states around the globe have long since accepted that Tibet is part of China and got on with the business of doing business. Its also a bit of a long shot to claim that China “invaded” Korea, India or Vietnam without putting those incidents into a context. China was not the only state involved in conflicts in Korea or Vietnam, where many nations got involved due to ideology and not out of any great sympathy with the aspirations of the people; the history of the border disputes with India certainly does no credit to democracy in that corrupt state either.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 7:10 am
> yet you do not rail against them.
1) we do rail against them when the approporate situation arises if Singapore slaughtered a few hundred monks I think we would say something.
2) Malaysia and Singapore are reasonably open to media etc so you know about how many monks they have killed
3) Are you trying to say we should be equally concerned about the situation of a couple of million Singaporeans as a billion Chinese?
China is big so it DESERVES more attention.
ok do tell what the context is that justifies the Chinese invading Vietnam after the Vietnam war? or Burma in 56 etc…
In fact I’m wondering if China has a neighbor that it HASN’T tried to invade. The fact that it has had mixed sucess is not much of an excuse.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 7:31 am
Who ‘we’, kemosabe? If you’re saying the New Zealand Government has a long and dishonourable history of being spineless twats (no blood for oil, but all the blood you like as long as buy enough butter and lamb), then I won’t argue with that. But I find it endlessly amusing how its always different where China is concerned. I guess you have a point, Shaun: Why shouldn’t ‘we’ whore ourselves to China with the same avidity ‘we’ always have to whatever squalid thugocracy is waving around a chequebook this week.
Nice to see trade-based hypocrisy and moral cretinism is a wholly non-partisan concern. I guess the least ‘we’ can do is be consistently amoral.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:52 am
You said it, DPF. In most of the examples you mention, a majority of the indigenous people are probably quite happy with their rights as citizens of Spain, NZ, etc…….and in fact, were the violent, terrorist, separists who are a small minority, to get their way, they would most likely create hell on earth for the people they claim to represent. That is one reason why it is a principle that all terrorists should not be regarded as a legitimate representation of “their side”.
Where separatists deserve our sympathy, is when they are subjugated by a non-democratic, human-rights-denying nation, and the separatist movement are implicit supporters of democracy.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 6:08 pm
DPF:
> how about the invasions or wars of, Tibet, Korea, India, and Vietnam
Tibet was an invasion? in 1959 or 1950? Tibet was part of China long before the Qing dynasty, they agreed to join the 1911 revolution by Sun Yat-sen, Tibet was not recognized as an independent country between 1911 and 1950, and Chiang Kai-shek’s has never renounce Tibet is part of China, how would you call that an invasion to a country?
Korea, the North Korea invaded South Korea, there was nothing to do with China until the UN intervened, the American troops reached to Yalu River, the border of China. The Norht Korea asked for help from China, and with support from Russia, the Chinese send troops into North Korea, they pushed the UN troops back to the parallel 38° north, and put the UN and North Korea back on the table for negotiation. you call that invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war
Vietnam, this time US and China has established diplomacy. and Russia was supporting Vietnam to expand. Vietnam invaded Cambodia first. the Caombodia asked for help from China, the Chinese troops attacked Vietnam and forced their troops to draw back from Cambodia, the Chinese then declared cease fire and returned to China. the war didn’t last over 1 month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
Maybe you should also mention India? this time it’s Indian army, with support from the America, launched the attack over the disputed McMahon Line, which was set by the Britains in early 20 centuries, and neither PRC or ROC ever accepted the border. The Chinese troops defeated the Indian army, even retreated back to where they started after the cease fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
that’s what i asked, can you name one war that it’s the China started, and INVADED another COUNTRY? every one of them was initiated or supported by one of the 2 super powers at the time.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 6:24 pm
repost
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Roughan , a GOOD friend of communist red china, thats all
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
farrar says
“Catalonia is a province of Spain. Spain is a democracy, and doesn’t shoot protesters. And Catalonia has significant autonomy from Spain. Plus the Catalonian independence party got only 14% of the vote in the last elections. And polls show only 32% of Catalonians favour independence
Likewise Quebec is a province of a democratic Canada. Canada doesn’t oppress Quebec, which has very significant autonomy. And the Quebec independence parties have not won a vote on secession.”
yous a remarkable person farrar, medals of quixote this year will not dilute previous medallions, there is only one MQ plus bar in the world and that is Rodney Hide, and i dont even think he is aware of that fact.
Vote: