PDA

View Full Version : Tibet, The 'Great Game' And The CIA


quirk
04-01-2008, 10:19 AM
By Richard M Bennett

Given the historical context of the unrest in Tibet, there is reason to believe Beijing was caught on the hop with the recent demonstrations for the simple reason that their planning took place outside of Tibet and that the direction of the protesters is similarly in the hands of anti-Chinese organizers safely out of reach in Nepal and northern India.

Similarly, the funding and overall control of the unrest has also been linked to Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, and by inference to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) because of his close cooperation with US intelligence for over 50 years.

Indeed, with the CIA's deep involvement with the Free Tibet Movement and its funding of the suspiciously well-informed Radio Free Asia, it would seem somewhat unlikely that any revolt could



have been planned or occurred without the prior knowledge, and even perhaps the agreement, of the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) at CIA headquarters in Langley.

Respected columnist and former senior Indian Intelligence officer, B Raman, commented on March 21 that "on the basis of available evidence, it was possible to assess with a reasonable measure of conviction" that the initial uprising in Lhasa on March 14 "had been pre-planned and well orchestrated".

Could there be a factual basis to the suggestion that the main beneficiaries to the death and destruction sweeping Tibet are in Washington? History would suggest that this is a distinct possibility.

The CIA conducted a large scale covert action campaign against the communist Chinese in Tibet starting in 1956. This led to a disastrous bloody uprising in 1959, leaving tens of thousands of Tibetans dead, while the Dalai Lama and about 100,000 followers were forced to flee across the treacherous Himalayan passes to India and Nepal.

The CIA established a secret military training camp for the Dalai Lama's resistance fighters at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, in the US. The Tibetan guerrillas were trained and equipped by the CIA for guerrilla warfare and sabotage operations against the communist Chinese.

The US-trained guerrillas regularly carried out raids into Tibet, on occasions led by CIA-contract mercenaries and supported by CIA planes. The initial training program ended in December 1961, though the camp in Colorado appears to have remained open until at least 1966.

The CIA Tibetan Task Force created by Roger E McCarthy, alongside the Tibetan guerrilla army, continued the operation codenamed ST CIRCUS to harass the Chinese occupation forces for another 15 years until 1974, when officially sanctioned involvement ceased.

McCarthy, who also served as head of the Tibet Task Force at the height of its activities from 1959 until 1961, later went on to run similar operations in Vietnam and Laos.

By the mid-1960s, the CIA had switched its strategy from parachuting guerrilla fighters and intelligence agents into Tibet to establishing the Chusi Gangdruk, a guerrilla army of some 2,000 ethnic Khamba fighters at bases such as Mustang in Nepal.

This base was only closed down in 1974 by the Nepalese government after being put under tremendous pressure by Beijing.
After the Indo-China War of 1962, the CIA developed a close relationship with the Indian intelligence services in both training and supplying agents in Tibet.

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison in their book The CIA's Secret War in Tibet disclose that the CIA and the Indian intelligence services cooperated in the training and equipping of Tibetan agents and special forces troops and in forming joint aerial and intelligence units such as the Aviation Research Center and Special Center.

This collaboration continued well into the 1970s and some of the programs that it sponsored, especially the special forces unit of Tibetan refugees which would become an important part of the Indian Special Frontier Force, continue into the present.

Only the deterioration in relations with India which coincided with improvements in those with Beijing brought most of the joint CIA-Indian operations to an end.

Though Washington had been scaling back support for the Tibetan guerrillas since 1968, it is thought that the end of official US backing for the resistance only came during meetings between president Richard Nixon and the Chinese communist leadership in Beijing in February 1972.

Victor Marchetti, a former CIA officer has described the outrage many field agents felt when Washington finally pulled the plug, adding that a number even "[turned] for solace to the Tibetan prayers which they had learned during their years with the Dalai Lama".

The former CIA Tibetan Task Force chief from 1958 to 1965, John Kenneth Knaus, has been quoted as saying, "This was not some CIA black-bag operation." He added, "The initiative was coming from ... the entire US government."

In his book Orphans of the Cold War, Knaus writes of the obligation Americans feel toward the cause of Tibetan independence from China. Significantly, he adds that its realization "would validate the more worthy motives of we who tried to help them achieve this goal over 40 years ago. It would also alleviate the guilt some of us feel over our participation in these efforts, which cost others their lives, but which were the prime adventure of our own."

Despite the lack of official support it is still widely rumored that the CIA were involved, if only by proxy, in another failed revolt in October 1987, the unrest that followed and the consequent Chinese repression continuing till May 1993.

The timing for another serious attempt to destabilize Chinese rule in Tibet would appear to be right for the CIA and Langley will undoubtedly keep all its options open.

China is faced with significant problems, with the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province; the activities of the Falun Gong among many other dissident groups and of course growing concern over the security of the Summer Olympic Games in August.

China is viewed by Washington as a major threat, both economic and military, not just in Asia, but in Africa and Latin America as well.

The CIA also views China as being "unhelpful" in the "war on terror", with little or no cooperation being offered and nothing positive being done to stop the flow of arms and men from Muslim areas of western China to support Islamic extremist movements in Afghanistan and Central Asian states.

To many in Washington, this may seem the ideal opportunity to knock the Beijing government off balance as Tibet is still seen as China's potential weak spot.

The CIA will undoubtedly ensure that its fingerprints are not discovered all over this growing revolt. Cut-outs and proxies will be used among the Tibetan exiles in Nepal and India's northern border areas.

Indeed, the CIA can expect a significant level of support from a number of security organizations in both India and Nepal and will have no trouble in providing the resistance movement with advice, money and above all, publicity.

However, not until the unrest shows any genuine signs of becoming an open revolt by the great mass of ethnic Tibetans against the Han Chinese and Hui Muslims will any weapons be allowed to appear.

Large quantities of former Eastern bloc small arms and explosives have been reportedly smuggled into Tibet over the past 30 years, but these are likely to remain safely hidden until the right opportunity presents itself.

The weapons have been acquired on the world markets or from stocks captured by US or Israeli forces. They have been sanitized and are deniable, untraceable back to the CIA.

Weapons of this nature also have the advantage of being interchangeable with those used by the Chinese armed forces and of course use the same ammunition, easing the problem of resupply during any future conflict.

Though official support for the Tibetan resistance ended 30 years ago, the CIA has kept open its lines of communications and still funds much of the Tibetan Freedom movement.

So is the CIA once again playing the "great game" in Tibet?

It certainly has the capability, with a significant intelligence and paramilitary presence in the region. Major bases exist in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and several Central Asian states.

It cannot be doubted that it has an interest in undermining China, as well as the more obvious target of Iran.

So the probable answer is yes, and indeed it would be rather surprising if the CIA was not taking more than just a passing interest in Tibet. That is after all what it is paid to do.

Since September 11, 2001, there has been a sea-change in US Intelligence attitudes, requirements and capabilities. Old operational plans have been dusted off and updated. Previous assets re-activated. Tibet and the perceived weakness of China's position there will probably have been fully reassessed.

For Washington and the CIA, this may seem a heaven-sent opportunity to create a significant lever against Beijing, with little risk to American interests; simply a win-win situation.

The Chinese government would be on the receiving end of worldwide condemnation for its continuing repression and violation of human rights and it will be young Tibetans dying on the streets of Lhasa rather than yet more uniformed American kids.

The consequences of any open revolt against Beijing, however, are that once again the fear of arrest, torture and even execution will pervade every corner of both Tibet and those neighboring provinces where large Tibetan populations exist, such as Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan.

And the Tibetan Freedom movement still has little likelihood of achieving any significant improvement in central Chinese policy in the long run and no chance whatever of removing its control of Lhasa and their homeland.

Once again it would appear that the Tibetan people will find themselves trapped between an oppressive Beijing and a manipulative Washington.

Beijing sends in the heavies
The fear that the United States, Britain and other Western states may try to portray Tibet as another Kosovo may be part of the reason why the Chinese authorities reacted as if faced with a genuine mass revolt rather than their official portrayal of a short-lived outbreak of unrest by malcontents supporting the Dalai Lama.

Indeed, so seriously did Beijing view the situation that a special security coordination unit, the 110 Command Center, has been established in Lhasa with the primary objective of suppressing the disturbances and restoring full central government control.

The center appears to be under the direct control of Zhang Qingli, first secretary of the Tibet Party and a President Hu Jintao loyalist. Zhang is also the former Xinjiang deputy party secretary with considerable experience in counter-terrorism operations in that region.

Others holding important positions in Lhasa are Zhang Xinfeng, vice minister of the Central Public Security Ministry and Zhen Yi, deputy commander of the People's Armed Police Headquarters in Beijing.

The seriousness with which Beijing is treating the present unrest is further illustrated by the deployment of a large number of important army units from the Chengdu Military Region, including brigades from the 149th Mechanized Infantry Division, which acts as the region's rapid reaction force.

According to a United Press International report, elite ground force units of the People's Liberation Army were involved in Lhasa, and the new T-90 armored personnel carrier and T-92 wheeled armored vehicles were deployed. According to the report, China has denied the participation of the army in the crackdown, saying it was carried out by units of the armed police. "Such equipment as mentioned above has never been deployed by China's armed police, however."

Air support is provided by the 2nd Army Aviation Regiment, based at Fenghuangshan, Chengdu, in Sichuan province. It operates a mix of helicopters and STOL transports from a frontline base near Lhasa. Combat air support could be quickly made available from fighter ground attack squadrons based within the Chengdu region.
The Xizang Military District forms the Tibet garrison, which has two mountain infantry units; the 52nd Brigade based at Linzhi and the 53rd Brigade at Yaoxian Shannxi. These are supported by the 8th Motorized Infantry Division and an artillery brigade at Shawan, Xinjiang.

Tibet is also no longer quite as remote or difficult to resupply for the Chinese army. The construction of the first railway between 2001 and 2007 has significantly eased the problems of the movement of large numbers of troops and equipment from Qinghai onto the rugged Tibetan plateau.

Other precautions against a resumption of the long-term Tibetan revolts of previous years has led to a considerable degree of self-sufficiency in logistics and vehicle repair by the Tibetan garrison and an increasing number of small airfields have been built to allow rapid-reaction units to gain access to even the most remote areas.

The Chinese Security Ministry and intelligence services had been thought to have a suffocating presence in the province and indeed the ability to detect any serious protest movement and suppress resistance.

Richard M Bennett, intelligence and security consultant, AFI Research.

(Copyright 2008 Richard M Bennett.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC26Ad02.html

Enver
04-01-2008, 04:12 PM
Very interesting article.

MountainMike
04-03-2008, 03:24 AM
Let's get really simple here. What do the Tibetans want? Their country back. The Dalia Lama the villain? Excuse me, but invading another country with no provocation other than the Han Chinese wanting to immigrate to Tibet is a full violation of international law.

Let's put it this way. American tourists love the Bahama Islands. So lets invade and take over. Rationale? They don't have a military and we have nukes.

Enver
04-03-2008, 10:25 AM
Let's get really simple here. What do the Tibetans want? Their country back. The Dalia Lama the villain? Excuse me, but invading another country with no provocation other than the Han Chinese wanting to immigrate to Tibet is a full violation of international law.

Let's put it this way. American tourists love the Bahama Islands. So lets invade and take over. Rationale? They don't have a military and we have nukes.

The Lamas support feudalism, and before they were forced out there was no health care or education system. The country hadn't really changed since the middle ages. There was also a caste system similar to India in place whereby nearly 40% of the country was born into servitude to the Lamas and their monks. They claim to be peaceful Buddhists yet they ruled Tibet with a military junta, the same junta that now makes up the US-backed Tibetan militant groups mentioned in the article. I'm not excusing what the Chinese did and are doing, but it's nowhere near as bad as the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. But sure hypocracy is the name of the game.

MountainMike
04-04-2008, 07:01 AM
If the concern is human rights and liberties, I don't think the Chinese have the moral high ground either. All of which is beside the point that the Tibetans want their country back. It is not up to us to judge their culture.

Viv
04-04-2008, 10:05 AM
The Lamas support feudalism, and before they were forced out there was no health care or education system. The country hadn't really changed since the middle ages. There was also a caste system similar to India in place whereby nearly 40% of the country was born into servitude to the Lamas and their monks. They claim to be peaceful Buddhists yet they ruled Tibet with a military junta, the same junta that now makes up the US-backed Tibetan militant groups mentioned in the article. I'm not excusing what the Chinese did and are doing, but it's nowhere near as bad as the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. But sure hypocracy is the name of the game.

I have some reservations about the Dalai Lama and that system myself, but what do the Tibetan people prefer?

It's not about our opinion, the country should be ruled by those the citizens choose.

Enver
04-04-2008, 10:40 AM
If the concern is human rights and liberties, I don't think the Chinese have the moral high ground either. All of which is beside the point that the Tibetans want their country back. It is not up to us to judge their culture.

If their 'culture' is in serious breach of the basic concepts of human rights then, yes, we do have to be extremely critical of it. I have yet to see any evidence that the majority of Tibetans even want the Lamas back. I think they would certainly like more autonomy, but just picture what independence would be like for them: exchanging the yoke of the Chinese for that of the US. Some bargain. But as you rightly pointed out; what matters is what the people of Tibet want.

ciaranxavier
04-04-2008, 02:17 PM
I have some reservations about the Dalai Lama and that system myself, but what do the Tibetan people prefer?

It's not about our opinion, the country should be ruled by those the citizens choose.

well seeing as the lamas make up something like 10% of the population and the dalai LAMA is the one the west is trying to put into power i dont see it being ruled by who its citizens choose. anyways if it isnt the dalai lama who rules the country after an american backed revolution itll be another american puppet government.

Viv
04-21-2008, 12:08 PM
well seeing as the lamas make up something like 10% of the population and the dalai LAMA is the one the west is trying to put into power i dont see it being ruled by who its citizens choose. anyways if it isnt the dalai lama who rules the country after an american backed revolution itll be another american puppet government.

We should throw in the towel then?

What is your plan, to keep Tibet under China's heel so it remains...within the preferred political system? Capitalism being unacceptable?

The Dalia Lama may be astute enough to use the influence of the power at his disposal. Once reinstalled, his affiliations may change.

Slap
04-21-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm not excusing what the Chinese did and are doing, but it's nowhere near as bad as the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

What exactly did the Dalai Lama do that was worse than what Hussein or the Taliban did?

The U.S. led coalition will leave Iraq and Afghanistan to rule themselves within our lifetimes, just like Germany, France, Italy and Japan govern themselves after WWII. As they demonstrate, we don't just install puppet regimes, like the Iron curtain did. Does anyone expect the Chinese to withdraw after building schools and hospitals in Tibet? Health and education are not why the Chinese invaded Tibet. They claim it as a part of China. Its a baldly aggressive (note the proper use of that word) land grab.

Why shouldn't the rest of the world, including the CIA, help drive China out of Tibet?

ciaranxavier
04-21-2008, 04:22 PM
We should throw in the towel then?

What is your plan, to keep Tibet under China's heel so it remains...within the preferred political system? Capitalism being unacceptable?

The Dalia Lama may be astute enough to use the influence of the power at his disposal. Once reinstalled, his affiliations may change.

take the dalai lama out of the picture altogether and have a group of diversified tibetans make up a democratic powersharing government. and i never said throw in the towel, its just that it obviously comes down to two choices right now according to those who spin the web and those choices are china or dalai lama one as bad as the other. and i never even brought up capitalism so i dont really know what your talking about with that comment.

ciaranxavier
04-21-2008, 04:28 PM
What exactly did the Dalai Lama do that was worse than what Hussein or the Taliban did?

The U.S. led coalition will leave Iraq and Afghanistan to rule themselves within our lifetimes, just like Germany, France, Italy and Japan govern themselves after WWII. As they demonstrate, we don't just install puppet regimes, like the Iron curtain did. Does anyone expect the Chinese to withdraw after building schools and hospitals in Tibet? Health and education are not why the Chinese invaded Tibet. They claim it as a part of China. Its a baldly aggressive (note the proper use of that word) land grab.

Why shouldn't the rest of the world, including the CIA, help drive China out of Tibet?

What exactly did the Dalai Lama do that was worse than what Hussein or the Taliban did?

well if you push out one regime to reinstate another then your goals are obviously personal and not for the tibetan people but more for your own.

As they demonstrate, we don't just install puppet regimes, like the Iron curtain did

are you serious when you say this??? for a perfect example of countries setting up puppet regimes we should look no further then USA and the south american countries. where america has many a puppet gov. in place.

Why shouldn't the rest of the world, including the CIA, help drive China out of Tibet?

theres nothing wrong with driving out the chinese. but americas goal is to reinstate the dalai lama as the leader of the country. which is just as bad as leaving the chinese there.

Slap
04-21-2008, 04:52 PM
What exactly did the Dalai Lama do that was worse than what Hussein or the Taliban did?

well if you push out one regime to reinstate another then your goals are obviously personal and not for the tibetan people but more for your own.


My personal goals are very clearly not obvious to you. Would you care to respond to the question asked? The question was about the Dalai Lama, not me.

ciaranxavier
04-21-2008, 04:57 PM
My personal goals are very clearly not obvious to you. Would you care to respond to the question asked? The question was about the Dalai Lama, not me.

well im sorry you couldnt see i wasnt talking about you. i will retype it to suit your needs.

well when one pushs out one regime to reinstate another then their goals are obviously personal and not for the tibetan people but more for their own.

happy??? i thought you wouldve gathered i wasnt talking about you specifically because i dont even know you. and i did address your questions.

Slap
04-21-2008, 05:25 PM
As they demonstrate, we don't just install puppet regimes, like the Iron curtain did.

are you serious when you say this???


No. Clearly we still exercise control over the French, German, Italian and Japanese governments, just like Moscow ruled its satallites. /End Sarcasm


Why shouldn't the rest of the world, including the CIA, help drive China out of Tibet?

theres nothing wrong with driving out the chinese.

I'm glad we agree on this.

... but [America's] goal is to reinstate the [Dalai Lama] as the leader of the country. which is just as bad as leaving the chinese there.

Is that really the U.S. goal, or just the available means of getting the Chinese out? Why is that just as bad? The Dalai Lama's non-violent. Its not like he rules Tibet with an Iron fist... What has ever stopped the Tibetans from ruling themselves if they don't care for the Dalai Lama's rule (other than the Chinese troops that prevent them from ruling themselves today, of course)?

Slap
04-21-2008, 05:57 PM
and i did address your questions.

Your replies are still unresponsive. A response to my question would describe what the Dalai Lama has done, or alternatively acknowledge that he's done nothing to justify the Chinese invasion.

I'm not asking you (or Enver) whether you believe the Dalai Lama is a genuine altruist.

BlackBaron
04-21-2008, 06:29 PM
What exactly did the Dalai Lama do that was worse than what Hussein or the Taliban did?


As a Christian the fact that Saddam Hussein protected the Church and built Churches makes me very sympathic to him. Given the way the US funded zionist state treats Christians and their Churches makes me a lot less sympathic with them. Also how were the Taliban THAT bad? While I am not exactly a fan they did bring law and order (the tyranny of chaos that rules in some Dublin and Limerick suburbs is enough to make you appreciate that).

Also may should you read up on Tibetian Buddhism....

http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/SDLE/Contents.htm Here is a good place to start.

BlackBaron
04-21-2008, 06:33 PM
What exactly did the Dalai Lama do that was worse than what Hussein or the Taliban did?



Also before you mention the Kurds the Freemasonic regieme in Turkey killed a lot more Kurds than Saddam ever did and they still receive US funding so I have a hard time believing the US went into Iraq to protect the Kurds.

Chookie
04-21-2008, 08:32 PM
The U.S. led coalition will leave Iraq and Afghanistan to rule themselves within our lifetimes,

I'll believe that when I see it.

we don't just install puppet regimes, like the Iron curtain did

No? Is the name General Manuel Noriega familiar? He was a CIA employee (just like Saddam Hussein), he ran Panama according to CIA orders until he got a bit too independent. Result? US invasion of Panama.

Or how about General Augusto Pinochet? Chile? The overthrow of the legally elected socialist government of Salvador Allende with assistance provided by, would you believe the CIA?

Health and education are not why the Chinese invaded Tibet. They claim it as a part of China. Its a baldly aggressive (note the proper use of that word) land grab

I agree 100% with this statement.

Slap
04-21-2008, 09:05 PM
Here is a good place to start.

I really don't have time to read the whole thing, and it looks like a waste of time. Skimming revealed old news mixed with feminist and Freudian analysis. Not that interesting.

Slap
04-21-2008, 10:15 PM
No? Is the name General Manuel Noriega familiar? He was a CIA employee (just like Saddam Hussein), he ran Panama according to CIA orders until he got a bit too independent. Result? US invasion of Panama.
...
Or how about General Augusto Pinochet? Chile? The overthrow of the legally elected socialist government of Salvador Allende with assistance provided by, would you believe the CIA?

Are you citing Noriega as a good or bad example of a U.S. puppet? I can't tell.

What would make Pinochet our puppet? His yielding to pressure to restore democracy in the late 1980s, after he'd restored the order and civility that Allende botched?

Puppet implies more than influence. It implies the inability to dissent. Crushing dissent was common within the Soviet sphere. Its still common in China and Cuba. Western powers don't need puppets, or to crush dissent, because Western ideas tend to persuade people, without having to silence the opposition. The U.S. never needed its allies to become like the Soviet puppets, because the U.S. system isn't threatened by dissent.

Why do you suppose people in China and Cuba can't access an uncensored internet or join us in this discussion? For the same reason, the West have never had or needed puppets, like the Soviets had. Communism is largely about reducing human beings and nations to puppets of The Party™, rather than letting them be free to disent or choose for themselves.

The morally equivalent comparison of the respective sides of the cold war lacks merit.

BlackBaron
04-21-2008, 10:35 PM
I really don't have time to read the whole thing, and it looks like a waste of time. Skimming revealed old news mixed with feminist and Freudian analysis. Not that interesting.

Uh...Not really.

My views on women are similar to Leon Bloy's or Patrick Kavanagh's. I admire and respect women a lot. However I am in no way a feminist.

You can be anti-feminist and be anti-mysoginist at the same time.

I wish I knew how to spell.

Slap
04-22-2008, 01:10 PM
Uh...Not really.

My views on women are similar to Leon Bloy's or Patrick Kavanagh's. I admire and respect women a lot. However I am in no way a feminist.

You can be anti-feminist and be anti-mysoginist at the same time.

I wish I knew how to spell.

I did just skim the article. Its just not my bag. I prefer Christianity over Buddhism for my own reasons. Buddhism could be every bit as goofy as what little I know of Falun Gong, but that still wouldn't justfiy the harshness with which the Chinese government treats religious dissidents.

Fascist
04-23-2008, 06:56 PM
The Tibetans claims at independence are rather thin IMO.

Chookie
04-23-2008, 08:08 PM
As they demonstrate, we don't just install puppet regimes, like the Iron Curtain did.

Are you citing Noriega as a good or bad example of a U.S. puppet? I can't tell.

I cited Noriega to disprove your claim that the US did not install puppet regimes, I could have, with equal justification cited Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and/or Saddam Hussein.

Whether the puppet in question is good, bad or indifferent depends on the US "foreign policy" of the moment.

Slap
04-24-2008, 01:46 PM
You're confusing leaders who were once supported or dealt with by the U.S. with the lack of autonomy experienced by Soviet puppets.

Fascist
04-25-2008, 01:09 PM
So seriously, why does Tibet believe it's independent?

ciaranxavier
04-25-2008, 01:51 PM
Your replies are still unresponsive. A response to my question would describe what the Dalai Lama has done, or alternatively acknowledge that he's done nothing to justify the Chinese invasion.

I'm not asking you (or Enver) whether you believe the Dalai Lama is a genuine altruist.

sorry next week ill research it for you.

ciaranxavier
04-25-2008, 01:52 PM
So seriously, why does Tibet believe it's independent?

because 60 some odd years ago it was independant under the lama regime, now its not because the chinese occupied them.

Fascist
04-25-2008, 03:07 PM
because 60 some odd years ago it was independant under the lama regime, now its not because the chinese occupied them.
Really?

How did they have this independence 60 years ago? Has a ruling Chinese authority, either the Qing Empire, the ROC, or the PRC, ever agreed to the idea that they didn't have sovereignty over Tibet?

ciaranxavier
04-25-2008, 03:11 PM
Really?

How did they have this independence 60 years ago? Has a ruling Chinese authority, either the Qing Empire, the ROC, or the PRC, ever agreed to the idea that they didn't have sovereignty over Tibet?

there are lots of countries where the occupier doesnt say the other can have their sovereignty.

Fascist
04-25-2008, 03:25 PM
That's completely unresponsive. A country or territory doesn't become sovereign just because it would like to be or because it says that it is. What countries in the world recognize or have ever recognized Tibet as sovereign and independent of China?

ciaranxavier
04-25-2008, 04:15 PM
That's completely unresponsive. A country or territory doesn't become sovereign just because it would like to be or because it says that it is. What countries in the world recognize or have ever recognized Tibet as sovereign and independent of China?

sorry i cant debate with you but i dont have the time to write you an essay. if you check back next week i might.

Fascist
04-25-2008, 04:16 PM
I think my questions are straightforward. They certainly don't require an essay.

ciaranxavier
04-25-2008, 04:24 PM
I think my questions are straightforward. They certainly don't require an essay.

and your questions i dont have time to answer right now i dont know how to put it in simpler terms for you.

Fascist
04-25-2008, 04:43 PM
Well to save you the valuable time, no one has ever recognized Tibet as independent, the Dalai Lama himself doesn't consider it independent. The Chinese are within their rights to exercise control over an area that has been under it's sovereignty for the better part of a millenium.

That you aren't aware enough of these essential facts to be able to answer them in short order perhaps shows you don't quite know enough to entertain the righteous indignation you do on this topic.

What's more, I'd invite you to consider that the Chinese have little reason to show deference to the Lamas or their claims of independence since the institution of the Lama was one they invented about 500 years ago and one which existed as a system of control, governing at the pleasure of the Chinese for most of that time. That those who wielded the power licensed to them by the Chinese sought to augment their status by imbuing the position of the Lama with a bogus notion of quasi-divinity and reincarnation is not something the Chinese should necessarily respect. Nor is it something Westerners ever should have fetishized or romanticized as some sort of authentic or pure form of enlightenment worthy of special reverence and support. The Lama and the Tibetan monks have no more legitimacy or claim to sovereignty over Tibetan lands than the Communist party does. In fact it has less, IMO.