On May 11, 12:08=A0pm, "OM ****VA!108" <grimus...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 9 May, 18:41, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 9:19=A0am, Micky Wong <micky...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > Shame! Shame! Shame on China! -- Tibet has stronger self-rule case
tha=
n
>
> > =A0Shame! Shame! Shame! on Wacky Wrong! =A0The Falun Gong mouthpiece
in
> > SCC!!
>
> > > Kosovo / FT
>
> > >http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2db5ed0c-1cff-11dd-82ae-000077b07658.html
>
> > > Tibet has stronger self-rule case than Kosovo
>
> > > By Paul Harris
>
> > > Published: May 8 2008 17:53 | Last updated: May 8 2008 17:53
>
> > > Does Tibet have a right to self-determination under international
law?=
>
> > > There are strong legal grounds to show that it does and that this
righ=
t
> > > is being denied by China. As the recent protests in Tibet and the
> > > disruptions to the Olympic torch relay have demonstrated, Tibet is
an
> > > international problem crying out for a solution.
>
> > > The official position of the Chinese government is that Tibet is an
> > > inalien?able part of the People=92s Republic of China (just as
France =
once
> > > claimed that Algeria was an inalienable part of metropolitan
France).
> > > Those who question this are regularly attacked in the official
Chinese=
> > > media in vitriolic terms as =93splittists=94, and anti-China. If
they =
are
> > > themselves Chinese and live in China they are liable to be
imprisoned.=
>
> > > Most countries recognise China=92s sovereignty over Tibet. The one
not=
able
> > > exception is the UK, which recognises =93suzerainty=94 of China with
> > > autonomy for Tibet, a subtle evasion which happens to be fairly
close =
to
> > > the actual situation of Tibet in relation to China during the last
yea=
rs
> > > of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911).
>
> > > China=92s present control dates from 1950 when it invaded. China
claim=
s
> > > that Tibet was already part of China when it did so. There are
> > > significant historical problems with this claim, but even if it were
a=
> > > strong one it would not justify an invasion. Most countries were at
on=
e
> > > time under alien rule. In 1911 Ireland was under British rule, as it
h=
ad
> > > been for centuries, Finland was ruled by Russia, and Korea by Japan.
T=
he
> > > UN was intended to prevent aggressive wars based on spurious claims
to=
> > > historical rule or cultural identity, which had been the practice of
> > > Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.
>
> > > The key issue is not sovereignty but self-determination. By the time
t=
he
> > > UN was created it was generally recognised that peoples had the
right =
of
> > > self-determination. All states that have become members of the UN by
> > > ratifying the UN Charter =96 including China =96 have accepted the
pri=
nciple
> > > of respect for the self-determination of peoples.
>
> > > In 1951 China and representatives of the Dalai Lama signed the
=9317-p=
oint
> > > agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet=94. The phraseology
of =
this
> > > document shows that someone was looking at it when drafting Hong
Kong=
=92s
> > > Basic Law. It provides that =93the Tibetan people have the right of
> > > exercising national regional autonomy under the unified leader****p
of
> > > the Central People=92s Government=94 (Article 3); that =93the
Central =
People=92s
> > > Government will not alter the existing political system in Tibet=94
> > > (Article 4), and =93will not alter the established status, functions
a=
nd
> > > powers of the Dalai Lama=94 (Article 4).
>
> > > These autonomy provisions were never observed. In response to the
> > > harshness of Chinese rule, the Tibetans rose in revolt in 1958. It
was=
> > > easily crushed by China, and in 1959 the 14th Dalai Lama and 80,000
> > > other Tibetans fled into exile in India. The severity of repression
in=
> > > Tibet since then is well-documented. Tibetan Buddhism was in 1997
> > > labelled a =93foreign culture=94. Torture and ill-treatment in
detenti=
on are
> > > widespread. Tibet=92s natural resources are ruthlessly exploited.
Over=
all
> > > the situation bears similarities to Algeria under the French or
> > > Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan under Soviet Russian rule.
>
> > > Tibet=92s status has been given renewed topicality by the recent
> > > independence of Kosovo which has so far been recognised by 40
countrie=
s,
> > > including all of the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations.
If=
> > > Kosovo has a right to self-determination, the right of Tibet is
> > > infinitely stronger. The catalogue of gross oppression, the
second-cla=
ss
> > > citizen status of Tibetans under Chinese rule and identity of Tibet
as=
a
> > > country are all much clearer than in Kosovo=92s case.
>
> > > Self-determination need not mean independence. The Dalai Lama has
said=
> > > that he favours autonomy for Tibet within China, provided that it is
> > > meaningful autonomy. Real autonomy, however, does not seem on offer.
> > > This is shown by the continuing aggressive denunciation and
> > > misrepresentation of the Dalai Lama by Chinese officials. Unless
real
> > > autonomy is offered, self-determination in Tibet is bound to mean
> > > independence. China may hold down the Tibetans by force for a long
tim=
e,
> > > but, as the example of Ukraine and Russia shows, even hundreds of
year=
s
> > > of repression is unlikely to extinguish the longing for
> > > self-determination among what are, incontrovertibly, a people.
>
> > > The writer is a barrister and was founding chairman of Hong Kong
Human=
> > > Rights Monitor. This is a condensed version of an article
commissioned=
> > > and accepted by the magazine of the Hong Kong Law Society but then
> > > rejected as politically too sensitive
>
> > >http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2db5ed0c-1cff-11dd-82ae-000077b07658.html
>
> > > Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Tibet was a sovereign entity - thats why China had to invade in order
> to make Tibet part of `China.
National boundaries change with the power of the gun. It has been
done for hundreds of years, and will continue to be done in the
future.
At one time, the USSR was a huge powerful nation? Where is it now?
Where is Yugoslavia? National boundaries continue to change. There
is no "sovereign entity", but there is a "power of the gun". A very
powerful "might makes right".
|
