h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

1.Did China "invade" Tibet in 1959?

Tibet was part of China long before 1959. Therefore, what happened in 1959 was not a "foreign invasion" but a social change within China.

Evidence: Check US foreign policy, even before 1959, the US recognized Tibet as part of China. This video made by the US government in 1944 clearly shows that Tibet was part of China. Look at 3:43

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tOtVQ7cNWY

2. Was the social change justified?

Before 1959, Tibet was ruled by a feuderal theocracy, where 95% of the population were enslaved.The central government of China wanted to abolish slavery in Tibet, but the slave masters refused. That is why they were driven out of China.

Evidence: paper by mainstream US political scientist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tOtVQ7cNWY

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

It certainly didn't "invade" "Tibet" "in" 1959, it invaded Tibet in 1949.

http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white1.html

Tibet was recognised both internally and internationally as an independent state, something that was both fact and law. The only country that refused to recognise this was China itself.

"Evidence: Check US foreign policy, even before 1959, the US recognized Tibet as part of China. This video made by the US government in 1944 clearly shows that Tibet was part of China. Look at 3:43"

A video proves nothing since such media is prone to error. Find me a genuine copy of a US government document that states that the United States recognised Tibet as an integral part of the Republic of China before 1949, back this up with further evidence (ie that the US refused to recognise Tibet's claim to independence, that there was no exchange of ambassadors etc) and you might have a point.

Oh, and I hate to nitpick like this, but the United States isn't every other country in the world so their internal view on the Chinese situation would hardly confirm Chinese claims. The UN (who did represent nearly every nation on earth) recognised Tibet's de facto and de jure sovereignty.

"2. Was the social change justified?

Before 1959, Tibet was ruled by a feuderal theocracy, where 95% of the population were enslaved.The central government of China wanted to abolish slavery in Tibet, but the slave masters refused. That is why they were driven out of China."

You're moving the goalposts; this isn't about whether the pre-invasion Tibetan political situation was just (it wasn't, as I and other people have to point out to the more wooly-headed sometimes) but whether China (ruled by another illiberal and undemocratic government) had any legal or moral right to occupy and annex what was internationally-recognised as a sovereign state. The answer, legally and morally, is no.

And why all the backing-up claims by going on about the opinions of Americans? You must have a skewed view of the West if you think that makes them hold any weight.

You say "Tibet was recognised both internally and internationally as an independent state, something that was both fact and law."

Can you name some of the countries that recognized Tibet as an independent state? If you cannot, stop fooling people by your cheap lies.

I can give you a long list of countries that did not recognize Tibet as an independent state, which include the US, the UK and France.

"You're moving the goalposts; this isn't about whether the pre-invasion Tibetan political situation was just (it wasn't, as I and other people have to point out to the more wooly-headed sometimes) but whether China (ruled by another illiberal and undemocratic government) had any legal or moral right to occupy and annex what was internationally-recognised as a sovereign state. The answer, legally and morally, is no."

As I said, if you want to say "Tibet was internationally-recognised as a sovereign state", please provide a list of the countries here. If you cannot, you lost all credibility. I can give you an incomplete list of the countries that recognized Tibet as part of China, the US, the UK and France.

As I said, because Tibet was part of China before 1959, what happened in 1959 was not a foreign invasion, but a social change within China. That is why I discuss whether the social change is justified. By the way, it also tells a lot about who the Tibetan exiles are, why they hate the Chinese government and whether their stories are objective.

Please notice that the video made by the US government was dated 1944, which was before 1949.

Actually Britain, whilst never formally recognising Tibetan independence, recognised de-facto Tibetan independence (which the Tibetans had asserted themselves) and the British embassy in Washington argued that Tibet was "entitled to exchange diplomatic representatives with other powers". That is a de facto recognition of independence.

Tibet considered re-joining China but only with its own consent and only with genuine autonomy. Mao's China met no such conditions they simply invaded and imposed Mao's brand of Marxism on the country.

"If you cannot, you lost all credibility"

You have none here, I promise you. Do you and your friends really think you're persuading anyone of the arguments of the Chinese government with these silly little posts?

"what happened in 1959 was not a foreign invasion, but a social change within China."

No, it was an invasion. "Social change" isn't something that comes at the head of an army.

"and whether their stories are objective."

I presume you're having a laugh. Nothing the Chinese government or its minions say is remotely objective. You're wasting your time trying to persuade citizens of free countries (which these forums constitute in the vast majority) that the Chinese government is anything but totalitarian and its news output is anything but propaganda. Have fun trying but you're wasting your time.

"Can you name some of the countries that recognized Tibet as an independent state? If you cannot, stop fooling people by your cheap lies."

I admit I was wrong in stating Tibet was internationaly recognised as independent but I was mistaken, I didn't lie. And please stop being aggressive; your argument isn't convincing anyone as it is, being rude it just going to make people ignore you.

"1.Did China "invade" Tibet in 1959?

Tibet was part of China long before 1959. Therefore, what happened in 1959 was not a "foreign invasion" but a social change within China."

Going back to your original point, let's go over the evidence shall we.

1) Tibet asserted de-facto independence in 1912 and acheived it, it was no longer a de-facto part of China.

2) Great Britain acknowledged Tibetan de facto independence, as I mentioned earlier. This proves that Tibetan independence was not an empty claim.

2) In 1949, China *invaded* the territory with an army and fought battles against the Tibetan army. This was an invasion, not a "social change". Calling it a social change is wafer-thin propaganda which no one is going to believe.

So, in conclusion, your original claim is entirely false.

Oh, and the Chinese forces which invaded Tibet in 1949 were not internationally recognised as forces of the legitimate government of China (most countries recognised the Republic of China as being the legitimate government), so if you're going to put so much emphasis on international opinion then you can't claim the Red Chinese forces (as I believe they were generally called back then) were a legitimate invading army.

1) By Wikipedia definition, de facto means "in fact or in practice but NOT SPELLED OUT BY LAW". When you say "Britain recognised de-facto Tibetan independence", you are actually saying Tibet was not independent by law. This is contrary to your claim that "Tibet was independent by international law".

2) I will tell you why there was the so called "de facto independence".

If you have been to Chinese restraunt, you may know Szechuan cusine. I think no one will think that Szechuan was not part of China. But during the period you talk about, Szechuan also had de facto independence. So were Guanxi, Northeast China and many other areas. At that time, China had foreign invasion and warlords fighting each other. The central government lost effective control over many areas, but this did not mean that these areas were independent. Tibet was no different than other regional warlords.

3) Let me show you what the so called "de factor independence" means from the perspective of objective non-Chinese historians.

Goldenstein, who is an preeminent researcher on Tibet and who is married to an Tibetan exile, says

"...[Britain] instead adopted a policy based on the idea of AUTONOMY FOR Tibet WITH THE CONTEXT OF CHINESE SUZERAINTY, that is to say, de facto independence for Tibet in the context of TOKEN SUBORDINATION TO CHINA. Britain articulated this policy in the Simla Convention of 1914.[16]"

"Nehru responded bluntly: "The Government of India will continue the policy of the British period in considering Tibet OUTWARDLY A PART OF CHINA but internally independent... ["Shakabpa wrote 'internally independent' but Nehru certainly said 'INTERNALLY AUTONOMOUS'," according to Goldstein in footnote 86, and the Tibetans' response following]." The Tibetans replied: "Because Tibet is independent please do not talk about 'internal autonomy' under China..." Nehru was a bit irritated by this and reply sharply to the Tibetans that IT WAS NOT ENOUGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT TIBET INDEPENDENCE: such status had to be proved according to the law."

I admit Chinese government is not particularly known for telling the whole story, but the things I show are not from the Chinese government. They are from the video made by the US government and from western historians. These things clearly show that Tibetan exiles are distorting the truth. Again, I suggest that you show your evidence, rather than than singing empty slogans like "free Tibet".

>>1) Tibet asserted de-facto independence in 1912 and acheived it, it was no longer a de-facto part of China.<<

it wasnot tibet "acheived" it but british made it "acheive" it. you must need to read the formal reply on Oct. 1912 from the Repulic of CHina. you will found the centre govenment of CHina never agree whit the british unreasonable demands. Tivet was always a part of CHina.

>>Great Britain acknowledged Tibetan de facto independence, as I mentioned earlier. This proves that Tibetan independence was not an empty claim.
<<
Great Britain acknowledged tibet independence? what was the other countries? do you think that TIbet came a independent country only needs the Great british acknoeledged? this is a very very very large joke. you can only mention that you are saying a ridiculous joke but nothing.

>>In 1949, China *invaded* the territory with an army and fought battles against the Tibetan army. This was an invasion, not a "social change". Calling it a social change is wafer-thin propaganda which no one is going to believe.<<


this is your Great Discovery that you may report it in Nature or Science,you have changed the history of Tibet. Paharps Dalai Lama will give you lots of his own gifts including his serfs. haha


you mentioned nothing but your limited knowlegde.

Using military force by itself is not contradictary to social change. Don't forget the US abolished slavery only after a bitter war between the South and the North because the South refused to abolish slavery. So was the situation in Tibet. When the central government wanted to abolish slavery, the slave masters resisted with military force. The central government then used military force to abolish slavery.

>Don't forget the US abolished slavery only after a bitter war between >the South and the North because the South refused to abolish slavery. >So was the situation in Tibet. When the central government wanted to >abolish slavery, the slave masters resisted with military force. The >central government then used military force to abolish slavery.

This is a dumb argument. At the time of the civil war, the confederate states were an integral part of USA. On the other hand, Tibet was an independent land, china just stole it, fair and square.

Slavery in this case is irrelevant for your argument.

Also, slavery exists in china even TODAY (just last week, a whole load of child slaves were discovered by china's own police. And YOU chinese trying to point fingers at USA? There ought to be a limit to lying.

Oh god, I thought you guys had all gone away. Appears I was wrong.

>>Tibet was no different than other regional warlords<<

Tibet was very different. It had a unified state and defined borders, it had an internationally recognised currency and postal system. It exchanged ambassadors with other nations (including the legitimate government of China at the time, the Kuomintang). It had a common culture and religion. It had existed as a strong nation-state many times in the past.

However, as often happens when a nation has a regional hegemon for a neighbour, it was conquered. When said hegemon weakened, Tibet regained its freedom and when said hegemon recovered, it was reconquered. The same story has been repeated around the globe countless times.

>>3) Let me show you what the so called "de factor independence" means from the perspective of objective non-Chinese historians<<

In this whole chunk you are confusing legality with actuality. It was impractical for the UK and USA to confirm legally Tibetan independence because they were fighting a war in the 1940's and they had allies to think of. One of these allies was the KMT who, while themselves recognising that Tibet was independent really (as witnessed by the ambassador living in Lhasa), didn't want to put that to paper.

The quote you gave from Goldenstein proves this: "TOKEN SUBORDINATION" - i.e. "We know you're not really part of China, but can you just pretend you are? Pretty please"

In fact, the whole quote you've just given basically proves our point, so thanks for that. It shows that Tibetan officials met with the Prime Minister of a major Asian power, who considered them to be de jure independent at the very least and, depending upon your interpretation, de facto independent too. It also shows that the Tibetans were able to negotiate treaties with the British, the undisputed superpower of the time.

Now, you might want to get that foot seen to - I've heard that shooting yourself there can be rather painful.

>>Tivet was always a part of CHina<<

No, Tibet wasn't. Say it as many times as you like, it'll still be false.

>>Great Britain acknowledged tibet independence? what was the other countries? do you think that TIbet came a independent country only needs the Great british acknoeledged?<<

In 1914, Great Britain was, without question, the dominant power on the globe. Its currency was the basis for international exchange rates, all time on the planet was made with reference to the time in London (as it still is), and English was the international language of diplomacy. Regardless of whatever other nations thought, the Tibetan claim was strong enough that the most powerful nation on earth accepted it. China's rebuttal is somewhat irrelevant since it wasn't even a third-rate power at the time.