On May 9, 9:19=A0am, Micky Wong <micky...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Shame! Shame! Shame on China! -- Tibet has stronger self-rule case than
Shame! Shame! Shame! on Wacky Wrong! The 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 right
> 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
notable=
> 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 years
> of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911).
>
> China=92s present control dates from 1950 when it invaded. China claims
> 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 one
> time under alien rule. In 1911 Ireland was under British rule, as it had
> been for centuries, Finland was ruled by Russia, and Korea by Japan. The
> 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 the
> 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
princip=
le
> of respect for the self-determination of peoples.
>
> In 1951 China and representatives of the Dalai Lama signed the
=9317-point=
> agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet=94. The phraseology of
this=
> do***ent 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
Peop=
le=92s
> Government will not alter the existing political system in Tibet=94
> (Article 4), and =93will not alter the established status, functions and
> 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-do***ented. Tibetan Buddhism was in 1997
> labelled a =93foreign culture=94. Torture and ill-treatment in detention
a=
re
> widespread. Tibet=92s natural resources are ruthlessly exploited.
Overall
> 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 countries,
> 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-class
> 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 time,
> but, as the example of Ukraine and Russia shows, even hundreds of years
> 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
|
