On 9 May, 18:41, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 9, 9:19=A0am, Micky Wong <micky...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Shame! Shame! Shame on China! -- Tibet has stronger self-rule case
than
>
> =A0Shame! Shame! Shame! on Wacky Wrong! =A0The 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
on=
ce
> > 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
ar=
e
> > themselves Chinese and live in China they are liable to be imprisoned.
>
> > Most countries recognise China=92s sovereignty over Tibet. The one
notab=
le
> > 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
princ=
iple
> > of respect for the self-determination of peoples.
>
> > In 1951 China and representatives of the Dalai Lama signed the
=9317-poi=
nt
> > agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet=94. The phraseology of
th=
is
> > do***ent shows that someone was looking at it when drafting Hong
Kong=92=
s
> > 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
Pe=
ople=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=
are
> > widespread. Tibet=92s natural resources are ruthlessly exploited.
Overal=
l
> > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tibet was a sovereign entity - thats why China had to invade in order
to make Tibet part of `China.
|
