Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

China, Tibet and the real-politick

By Graeme Mills - posted Tuesday, 18 March 2008


Until 1750 civil governors could be appointed from the Tibetan ruling class or from China. From 1750 the governor was always Chinese. This lasted until the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

The Qing Dynasty’s death rattle took about 20 years and in that time China lost much of its power. Helped not a little by Britain peddling opium. Tibet now sensed that China was at an end and its grip on power was finished. The power of the Monks under the Da Lai la Ma, increased.

1911 to 1949 were very turbulent years in China. Looking inward and immersed in its own internal conflict, China lost control of the outlying provinces, of which Tibet was one. Then in 1949 Mao emerged the victor and seized power.

Advertisement

Mao had fought the Japanese (unlike Chiang ki-shek, who lost the support and respect of the people because of this) and had learned the hard way that China could not afford to be divided if it were to be powerful. Being raped by another nation is not pleasant and tends to stick in the mind, somewhat. One of Mao’s first priorities was to bring the outlying provinces, over which China had an historical claim, back into the fold. Tibet was one of those provinces.

It is interesting and informative to note that Mao did not try to extend his reach any further. He had a powerful and experienced army at his command. The West had been weakened by World War II. He could have easily taken many small countries around those outlying provinces. However, he chose only those over which China had a historical claim. Thus not provoking Russia, Britain and America. Although weakened, they were still very powerful.

To understand that strategy, it is best to read Sun Tzu, The Art of War, which counsels a ruler not to extend his (her) lines and concentrate on consolidating power. For the ruler who extends his (her) lines weakens the state and inevitably the extended lines will be cut off, unless they are very, very strong. Let your mind mull over the current actions of America, which is running the around world like a hormonal adolescent, in contrast to the actions of China. Hong Kong was a waiting game for China. And Taiwan? What is 50, 100, 200 years out of 5,000?

Note also, that China took a stand in Vietnam and Korea, but did not push through. The West saw it as the advance of communism. China saw it as the invasion by the West.

Xiaosui, when I first started to talk about Tibet from my eyes, was surprised. For her it was clear-cut. Tibet had always been a part of China. The Monks were a parasitic lot who oppressed the people. She looked around to find a word that described the people of Tibet at that time. The word she found was “helot”. From the ODE - a member of a class of serfs in ancient Sparta, intermediate in status between slaves and citizens. She talks of atrocities being committed on the “helot” class in Tibet by their own ruling class.

China, through its eyes, did not invade, it liberated an oppressed people. Indeed, the average Tibetan welcomed the Red Army at first. However, the Red Army did not understand the close nexus between the Tibetan People and their religion. The Tibetans were no doubt pleased to see the end of any oppression, but did not want to see the end of their culture both secular and religious.

Advertisement

Xiaosui agrees with this; that the culture of Tibet should have been and should be preserved. However, as she points out, that is not the way of the world. That is not real-politick.

The strong, inevitably dominate the weak, which equally inevitably disappear over time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

34 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graeme Mills was born 1955 in a country town. He left for Sydney to go to university and lived there for 20 years before retiring back to the same country town where he now lives. His was mainly in property, finance and development. Graeme holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree (majors in English and History) and a recently acquired Law Degree. He has written two books, both unpublished which he is investigating publishing online. He now has an extended family in China which has given him a whole new focus to life. He set up the BLOGs Dialectic Blue and Kaixin to give vent to this new direction.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graeme Mills

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graeme Mills
Article Tools
Comment 34 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy