Taiwan must avoid becoming a new Tibet

[hulaku]

Why is it that the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people, does not live in Tibet? Many people are aware that the Dalai Lama lives in exile and that he has done so for 51 years, but surprisingly few in Taiwan are familiar with the story of why he was forced to flee 51 years ago.

Recently, a Chinese-*language version of the Dalai Lama’s autobiography My Land and My People was published in Taiwan and it is an absolute must for anyone curious about that time in history. More importantly, the book also provides many lessons for Taiwan today as it faces the formidable challenge of rapprochement with China.

What happened in Tibet half a century ago? Why did the country not enjoy peace after signing a “peace agreement” with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a document that is better known as the Seventeen-Point Agreement, in 1951?

Why did Tibet’s capital, Lhasa, later erupt into mass riots and why was the Dalai Lama forced to flee his homeland?

The Seventeen-Point Agreement not only failed to facilitate a sustainable peace, it resulted in exile for many, with more than 100,000 people losing their homes and thousands more their lives.

In My Land and My People, the Dalai Lama says that when he accepted an invitation from India to take part in the 2,500th Buddha birthday celebrations in 1956, he did not want to return to Tibet.

However, then-Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru persuaded the first premier of the People’s Republic of China, Zhou Enlai (周恩來), to personally guarantee that the CCP would not enforce its “reforms” on the Tibetan people.

That was the reason the Dalai Lama was willing to return to home.

However, after only a few years, the situation deteriorated so badly that he had no choice but to flee for India.

If we look at more recent history, in 1979, when paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) said that everything other than independence was open for discussion, the Dalai Lama decided to start negotiations with the CCP for the welfare of his 6 million countrymen in Tibet.

To that end he asked for a high degree of autonomy and gave up on ever gaining independence.

However, in 30 years of China-Tibetan talks, little of substance has been achieved and the CCP still accuses the Dalai Lama of being a separatist.

The CCP has also not wasted time, seizing more and more land in Tibet, encouraging “Han” Chinese immigration and promoting large-scale sinification.

Today there are more “Han” Chinese residents in Lhasa than Tibetans and Tibet is becoming a second Mongolia, where not even 20 percent of the population is Mongolian.

Tibet’s experience in negotiating with the CCP has been a bloody one and this is an experience that Taiwanese must not forget in their own dealings with China.

Some people in Taiwan propose signing a “peace agreement” with China, but with no war between the two countries, why do we need to sign a peace agreement?

If there is a war, how is it that the governments of Taiwan and China continue to exchange friendly words with one another?

The lessons of history are there to be learned: A “peace agreement” with China failed to save the Tibetan people and that is something the Taiwanese public needs to think about long and hard.http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/04/02/2003469541

Some valid points raised here.

[Confuse]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/04/02/2003469541

Some valid points raised here.


the "peace" deal with the lama class was changed as a result of the dalai lama links to the uprising and CIA involvement, the tibetan communists filled the power void afterwards when the lamas went into exile. with regards to taiwan I don't see a connection other than rhetoric to place things in a negative light while taking shots against the communists chinese on both fronts of tibet and taiwan. There actually is still a dormant state of civil war, the peace treaty would be a formal end to hostilities of two opposing factions into the current reality on the ground of two chinese governments, one PRC mainland and the other the remnant ROC on taiwan. The tibet issue is unfortunetely being played as a political football against the PRC in the same way the falun gong is (enemy of my enemy in my friend) , the DPP that want an independent state from both the PRC and the ROC use them against both the communists and KMT nationalists, that's the reason the dalai lama went to taiwan last summer (most dead were aboriginal christians, many people even the buddhists on taiwan didn't like the fact that the dalai lama was allowing himself to be used as a political tool in greater goal against the PRC, they saw it as unhonest.. note the conflict between politician and monk, where a monk isn't allowed to lie or mislead is opposite of a traits of a politician and thus a conflict of you can't be both) , the DPP independence groups used it along with uyghur issues all as a weapon against the PRC and KMT

[Confuse]

the "17 point" peace agreement was terms of incorporation in the newly established PRC over previous official territory of ROC, it was a consolidation of power ( the reality on the ground was that while tibet was still a part of the ROC based upon qing dynasty successor, it was run separately by the lama class in a era of factional warlordism in china with little or no central government control of territorial regions) ... another issue is the internal political war within the tibetan lama government between 1911-1949 in the de facto independent era, where the 13th dalai lama and the 9th panchen lama were at war, where they both died and the succession issue became a factor that the panchen died first and then the dalai, afterwards the dalai lama priests didn't except the new panchen selection (the reason for ROC/KMT troops protection of panchen when meeting with the new 14th dalai lama in 1949) , after the end of WW2 if the civil war didn't happen it would be the ROC moving to consolidate power over ALL of china instead of the communists

[hulaku]

@confuse

Try using paragraphs. It is very hard to read your mails as they appear like a wall of wordsp-)

[Ordie]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/04/02/2003469541

Some valid points raised here.

Comparing Taiwan with Tibet is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

The Republic of China (Taiwan) is independent from Beijing. It has its own economy, armed forces, currency, education system, legal system and integrated with the world economy. In terms of international relations, The Dalai Lama probably visited the White House more times than any sitting president of the ROC since 1978. But it does not deter Taiwan from engaging with the United States regularly.

What makes Taiwan unique is its economic leverage on the mainland. There is approximately 1 million ROC citizens living in the PRC and are the major source for investment monies.

What I see that could be common for both Tibet and Taiwan is the idea of "One China - Many Systems", as in the case with Hong Kong and Macau.

As for Tibet, do not be surprised if the Tibetans will win over the Han Chinese. As long as Tibet is forbidden (politics, religion,& geography) the more seductive it will become.

[Confuse]

Comparing Taiwan with Tibet is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

The Republic of China (Taiwan) is independent from Beijing. It has its own economy, armed forces, currency, education system, legal system and integrated with the world economy. In terms of international relations, The Dalai Lama probably visited the White House more times than any sitting president of the ROC since 1978. But it does not deter Taiwan from engaging with the United States regularly.

What makes Taiwan unique is its economic leverage on the mainland. There is approximately 1 million ROC citizens living in the PRC and are the major source for investment monies.

What I see that could be common for both Tibet and Taiwan is the idea of "One China - Many Systems", as in the case with Hong Kong and Macau.

As for Tibet, do not be surprised if the Tibetans will win over the Han Chinese. As long as Tibet is forbidden (politics, religion,& geography) the more seductive it will become.


the strife between tibetans and han is a political one... for the most part socially and culturally they don't hate each other, it's the lack of understanding the political aspect along with the religious intermix with the political lama class that is the original issue of contention

[Confuse]

@confuse

Try using paragraphs. It is very hard to read your mails as they appear like a wall of wordsp-)



sorry... i write a whole bunch then copy & paste to the page while forgetting to paragraph...

[Eventine]

Tibet’s experience in negotiating with the CCP has been a bloody one and this is an experience that Taiwanese must not forget in their own dealings with China.

Some people in Taiwan propose signing a “peace agreement” with China, but with no war between the two countries, why do we need to sign a peace agreement?

If there is a war, how is it that the governments of Taiwan and China continue to exchange friendly words with one another?

The lessons of history are there to be learned: A “peace agreement” with China failed to save the Tibetan people and that is something the Taiwanese public needs to think about long and hard.Something was lost in translation, as these paragraphs make no logical sense.

The Seventeen Points Agreement was signed right after Mao's invasion of Tibet in 1951. It was a "peace agreement" only in the sense that it represented the Tibetans' total defeat and surrender. I mean, it's not like the Dalai Lama had a choice - the PLA had so utterly thrashed the haphazard army Lhasa was able to muster that they elected to give the surrendered Tibetan soldiers a lesson on Communism before sending them home.

What's the analogy? Sign a peace agreement with the Chicoms, and they'll annex you? Don't sign it, and they won't? As if Lhasa had a choice in 1951, when the PLA was in control of all Tibet. If Taipei Times was at all interested in history, instead of idiotic analogies designed to support whatever platform they're trying to push, then they should realize that the danger Taiwan faces lies not in a peace agreement, but in fighting a war with China and losing, because if that should happen, then Taiwanese really will become the "new Tibetans."

[Confuse]

Something was lost in translation, as these paragraphs make no logical sense.

The Seventeen Points Agreement was signed right after Mao's invasion of Tibet in 1951. It was a "peace agreement" only in the sense that it represented the Tibetans' total defeat and surrender. I mean, it's not like the Dalai Lama had a choice - the PLA had so utterly thrashed the haphazard army Lhasa was able to muster that they elected to give the surrendered Tibetan soldiers a lesson on Communism before sending them home.

What's the analogy? Sign a peace agreement with the Chicoms, and they'll annex you? Don't sign it, and they won't? As if Lhasa had a choice in 1951, when the PLA was in control of all Tibet. If Taipei Times was at all interested in history, instead of idiotic analogies designed to support whatever platform they're trying to push, then they should realize that the danger Taiwan faces lies not in a peace agreement, but in fighting a war with China and losing, because if that should happen, then Taiwanese really will become the "new Tibetans."



the original "peace agreement" sort of became void because of the uprising... people officials from the lamaist government wanted reform from the old serf ways and felt the co-op with the communist government was the way, this put them into conflict with the other elites of the lama class as land and political reforms by the communists removed power and authority of the previous group at the top of tibetan society... add to this CIA intervention, communist dislike of religious/political powers held by the lamas, bring it all to a boil and then get the 1959 uprising