| Vorheriges Thema anzeigen :: Nächstes Thema anzeigen |
| Autor |
Nachricht |
Gast
|
 Verfasst am: So Jan 30, 2005 6:01 am Titel: China - The last Colonial Empire? |
 |
|
Hello,
I am interested in history and I've been thinking about this for a while. Is China the last Colonial Empire on the Earth after the break up of the Soviet Union and the demise of the European Oversee Empires? I think so.
I am not going into too much historical detail (we can do this later on if you like), but already a glance on historical maps of different ages shows clearly that historical China traditionally encompassed a much smaller territory than nowadays People's Republic (about two thirds or so). It was only in the last 200 to 250 years that the Mandchu expanded the borders of their Empire far beyond its usual historical nucleus, incorporating Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Muslim Sinkiang.
It was during this process of expansion that Mandchu China began to touch borders with the other expanding continental Colonial Power, that is Rusia. Now while the Soviet Union has finally released these territories, in particular Muslim Inner Asia, in 1991, China only granted Mongolia and Tibet national independence after the fall of Mandchu dynasty. And In the case of Tibet, an old high culture of its own right, it was only a short-lived national independence as Chinese troops invaded and occupied the country in 1950. In Tibet, as well as in many other parts, the Communist leadership then started a systematic campaign of Sinization (spe?) which included the settlement of Han-Chinese in order to shift deliberately the ethnic balance in the favour of Han-Chinese to create faits accomplis in the national struggle of the minorities.
So far this brief historial sketch.
A personal note: I have a Chinese girl-friend from Shandong and we get on very well together. She is intelligent, open-minded and has a keen perception. In a way I adore her for that. But when it comes to talking about political issues like Tibet for example, it's like suddenly talking to a different person, all her critical analytical senses are like blown away. I'd like to know the opinions of other Chinese people.
Btw I am from Germany, in case you like to know whom you are talking to. Feel free to make comparisons of whatever sort, if you think it supports your views.
Cheers |
|
| Nach oben |
|
 |
Anzeige
|
|
|
CHINAEXPERT
Gast
|
| Verfasst am: So Jan 30, 2005 7:29 am Titel: DON'T BE SO PICKY |
|
|
| Zitat: |
| I am not going into too much historical detail (we can do this later on if you like), but already a glance on historical maps of different ages shows clearly that historical China traditionally encompassed a much smaller territory than nowadays People's Republic (about two thirds or so). It was only in the last 200 to 250 years that the Mandchu expanded the borders of their Empire far beyond its usual historical nucleus, incorporating Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Muslim Sinkiang. |
LISTEN, German, don't be so picky about places that you're parasitizing on,
All nations are the product of conquest and dismemberment. That is a fact. Even Germany, as I recall, from the historical maps, was only a bunch of tiny little principalities, each with its own distinctive culture, not more than 200 years ago. It was under the iron-hand of Bismarck which led Prussia to unify them. SO present-day Germany must also be a colonial empire, sorry to say, and any principality in Germany has the inherent right to secede from Germany (according to your logic)
Hey, how about poor England? Isn't England, as the historical maps tell us, consisted of only England itself, and then later expanded to include Wales, and Scotland, and Ireland. Funny, the English were smart, they changed the name of their de-facto empire to the United Kingdom. BUT still, that doesn't deny the FACT that Britain today is at least 4 times as big as it was 1000 years ago.
How about France and Brittany? Or Spain and Barcelona, or the Basque country?
AND how about the good'ol USA? From my historical memory, the USA consisted of only 13 states??? NOW, it's 50 states. And from the way it's going, Germany may soon become the 51st. 
Fact of the matter is California, and much of the American West was obtained by conquest. SO that would make America also a great colonial empire.
Hey, a good thing you should know is that China's Xinjiang and Tibet were parts of China for more than 600 years. That in comparison to Amrica's West, which is only 'occupied' by the USA for 160 years.
OK. That's my input. Sorry, my article here is rushed since I have to go home soon. Hope to talk to you later again, German. |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Liang Jieming
xueshi
Anmeldungsdatum: 04.07.2004
Beiträge: 64
Wohnort: Malaysian currently living in Singapore
|
| Verfasst am: So Jan 30, 2005 7:29 pm Titel: |
|
|
Well yes. Almost every country today is a result of being a colonial empire. Russia might have given up most of it's troublesome central asian territories but they still how large tracts of land today. Siberia for instance, wasn't part of Russia until the 1700s when Tsaist troops started moving east. Ditto for the US in their drive west. So, yes. If one goes back far enough, China too is a colonial empire. The original Qin dynasty hardly occupied more than the central plains before it sent troops southward into what is not Guangdong province. Should Guangdong be given independence? They weren't part of the original China either.
There really isn't a right or wrong. Do we give Texas independance? They fought the Mexicans at the Alamo for independance only to "lose" it to the US. What of Scotland? There were independant once too weren't they? Or say the Aztecs of central America or Incas of Peru?
The Qing dynasty was actually way larger than China today. China "gave up" it's lands north of the Amur, west of the Tian shan and northern indochina in the last couple of hundred years before 1911.
So to answer your question. Yes. China too is a colonial power in this definition of the word, but so is every other country in the world today. Is China wrong to be a colonial power? Well, it depends. How far back do you want to go? 
Jieming
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DragonSeedLegacy |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Free Tibet
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 31.01.2005
Beiträge: 7
|
| Verfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2005 4:23 am Titel: Re: DON'T BE SO PICKY |
|
|
| CHINAEXPERT hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| All nations are the product of conquest and dismemberment. That is a fact. Even Germany... |
Yes, most states are the product of conquest, occupation and war at some point of time in their history. But does it make occupation right? Was the European (semi-)occupation of China right because...well, everyone occupied someone sometime, don't they? How come you find the European occupation of China wrong, but the Chinese one of Tibet right? Because Chinese occupation of Tibet has been existing longer?
And the case of Germany bears no resemblance to China. Germany was already a nation before it became a nation-state. First there was the nation, then there was the state. All principalities agreed to unite in 1870. Where has been a comparable act of unity where Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Sikiang agreed to unite with China?
In contrast to Germany, China - in its current borders - isn't even today a nation-state. You can better compare the century-long fragmentation of Germany into principalities with the repeated fragmentation of the Chinese coreland into Chinese kingdoms. But if you put Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Sikiang into the equation, you better compare the People's Republic to the (short-lived) German Colonial Empire.
Zuletzt bearbeitet von Free Tibet am Mo Jan 31, 2005 4:50 am, insgesamt einmal bearbeitet |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Free Tibet
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 31.01.2005
Beiträge: 7
|
| Verfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2005 4:37 am Titel: |
|
|
| Liang Jieming hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| How far back do you want to go? |
I think you are using the wrong criteria. In fact, you are using only one , that is simply going back into time and looking at who has whom occupied.
Renan has defined a nation as "a common past and the will to live together in a common future". In case of your two examples, Russia and the USA, I can see at least one criteria fulfilled, that is the will to remain united in the future.
In case of China though, I can't see any of the criteria fulfilled. Neither were Inner Mongolia, Sinkiang and Tibet during the larger part of their history part of the Chinese Empire, nor do the population today really wish to remain in the People's Republic. In fact, especially the Turk and Mongol population of the northern and eastern parts of nowadays 'China' were the traditional Chinese enemies. Most certainly there was no point in history where Chinese occupation was welcomed by this populace, however long it continued. It always remained occupation in their view (just like vice versa Mongol and Mandchu control of China remained a ocupation for the Chinese).
The case of Tibet is even more clear as we are talking about a high culture in its own right. A culture which founded its own state by its own efforts and which brought buddhism to coreland China, by then the greatest challenge and a unique enrichment to the traditional Chinese culture.
Tibet, as much as the Mongols and several Turkish tribes have had thoughout their histoy their own empires, at times occupying parts or even the whole of China. Still, today no Tibetan or Mongol would claim Chinese territory pointing out the fact of their past occupation. How come only the Chinese do so? |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Liang Jieming
xueshi
Anmeldungsdatum: 04.07.2004
Beiträge: 64
Wohnort: Malaysian currently living in Singapore
|
| Verfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2005 6:49 am Titel: |
|
|
You misunderstand me. I'm not debating the correctness of occupation or non-occupation. I merely state the obvious, that all countries are by products of a colonial era.
Do I believe that a people should have the right to determine who they want ruling them? Yes I do believe that
Are there a lot of Tibetans who want Tibetan independance? I don't know. Perhaps. Are there more who support independance than those who support Chinese rule? Maybe, but then again maybe not. I wouldn't know for sure. And so long as I'm don't know and insufficient information, I wouldn't argue one way of the other.
Jieming
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DragonSeedLegacy |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
WHIZ
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 01.02.2005
Beiträge: 10
|
| Verfasst am: Di Feb 01, 2005 2:19 am Titel: SECESSION IS NOT THE SOLUTION |
|
|
| Zitat: |
| Yes, most states are the product of conquest, occupation and war at some point of time in their history. But does it make occupation right? Was the European (semi-)occupation of China right because...well, everyone occupied someone sometime, don't they? How come you find the European occupation of China wrong, but the Chinese one of Tibet right? Because Chinese occupation of Tibet has been existing longer? |
So your solution would be to divide China simply because at one period in time Tibet and Xinjiang were independent kingdoms. If that be the case, the world in which you live in will be very very very very very messy.
And it won't just stop at China,
I think California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah would all have to leave the United States and re-join Mexico.
And how about the various Indian tribes now living in the United States. They should all obtain full-national independence because they were afterall subjugated peoples !
How about Scotland and Wales? The British should grant them a referendum on independence immediately !
Oh yeah, I forgot, since the United States had illegally "occupied" the Confederate States of America, it should quickly make amends. First, hold state-by-state referendum on independence for all the 11 southern states, including Alabama, Florida, and Texas, every 2 to 3 years since the mere act of being a part of the United States is a condonement of American aggression against the SOUTH. Hooray DIXIE !!!
Also, Brittany should be allowed to determine her future independent from France.
So should Barcelona and the Basque Country from Spain.
Are we all over yet?
Oh no, more stuff? How about the newly independent states themselves? Should eastern Ukraine secede from western Ukraine? Isn't that self-determination too? How about Bosnia which is now made up of Bosnian Serb and Muslim? Should they each be given the right to partition up the country?
And how about Chiapas seceding from Mexico? Would Mexico allow it?
The fact of the matter is your logic will lead to a BIG MESS. Your logic would only exacerbate whatever ethnic conflicts which already exist. It would pit one ethnic group against another, rather than bring them together. Imagine if the Turks in Germany, after living for generations in some parts of Germany, decide that they want to secede from Germany as an independent country, how would the Germans feel?
I suggest that if you really find your human rights violated, work on that, protest against that rather than protest for political secession and separatism. |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
WHIZ
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 01.02.2005
Beiträge: 10
|
| Verfasst am: Di Feb 01, 2005 2:36 am Titel: HEY SET THE EXAMPLE |
|
|
| Zitat: |
| Germany was already a nation before it became a nation-state. First there was the nation, then there was the state. All principalities agreed to unite in 1870. Where has been a comparable act of unity where Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Sikiang agreed to unite with China? |
So you're implying somehow that the German people all agreed to unite in 1868?
If you go ask the average peasant living in the German hamlet would they like to unite with Bismark's Prussia, you'd probably get a 'no' as an answer. The fact of the matter is the German principalities' decision to unite was not ever voted upon by the people of the various principalities. So your wording is quite deceptive. Most of those principalities only united with Prussia because either they were intimidated by Bismark, or they needed Prussian aid against the other major powers, such as Austro-Hungary, or Russia. The fact of the matter is the unification of Germany in the 19th century was not all that voluntary as you patriotic Germans would like to make it out to be. Had there been Austro-Hungary, or Russia, Prussia's intimidating political and military muscle would not have been so influential.
So what now? I say this. Since the people of the various principalities never had the chance to vote by referendum whether to unite or not, it is only right that the present-day Germany Government, which is after all the result of Bismark's work, grant referenda to each of the localities the right to secede every 3 years precisely because it is the inherent right of Germans to disunite as much as to unite.
SO here's my suggestion to you: IF you want us Chinese to let Tibet have a secession referendum, let the Germans or the Americans first set the example. After all, you guys in the West are more advanced than we are. |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Anzeige
|
|
|
WHIZ
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 01.02.2005
Beiträge: 10
|
| Verfasst am: Di Feb 01, 2005 2:54 am Titel: RENAN WHO? |
|
|
| Zitat: |
| Renan has defined a nation as "a common past and the will to live together in a common future". In case of your two examples, Russia and the USA, I can see at least one criteria fulfilled, that is the will to remain united in the future. |
Whose Renan? Is he some character from some video game or something?
The fact of the matter is you will always have people who are living in a particular country, either because of political taste, culture, or language, which do not fit well with the rest of the nation.
Do you really honestly believe that here in the United States we are all compatible? That there are no more racial and ethnic divisions? If you just go to Los Angeles, for instance, you see these ethnic ghettoes everywhere: Blacks living in one area. Hispanics living in the other, White over there, and Asians over here. You ask these people, do you see a common future together? The answer is "uh, not really."
So what should the United States do? GO give the Latin people a referendum for secession because after all the United States stole the land away from the Mexicans? AND how about the Blacks, whose ancestors were forcibly taken from Africa, should the United States give them an independent republic in the middle of California, as the Black Panthers once did try to establish back in the 1960s? I don't think so. It would be a mess.
YOU WOULD GET A HUGE ETHNIC MESS, with racism and counter-racisms of every sort. I think the solution is simple. IF the races aren't getting along, work on the race relations, correct the human rights abuses, BUT drop the "ETHNIC GHETTO" mentality. IN other words, ethnic separatism, whether it be in California, or in Tibet is not the solution for better ethnic relations. Because trust me, even if Tibet did become independent, it too will become racist by reversing the discrimination, discriminating against Han and other non-Tibetan ethnic groups who dare trespass Tibet. We are in fact condoning a large ethnic ghetto in the lot of humanity. |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
WHIZ
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 01.02.2005
Beiträge: 10
|
| Verfasst am: Di Feb 01, 2005 3:11 am Titel: HOORAY for a UNITED CHINA |
|
|
| Zitat: |
| Was the European (semi-)occupation of China right because...well, everyone occupied someone sometime, don't they? How come you find the European occupation of China wrong, but the Chinese one of Tibet right? Because Chinese occupation of Tibet has been existing longer? |
The European occupation of China was obviously wrong since they never occupied China with the prudence which the Manchus did for 300 years. YOU know, the unique thing about China is its ability to accept whomever as ruler, including ethnic groups that were considered alien to the Middle Kingdom prior to their invasions. The Manchus obviously did rule with great foresight, and so over time, the Han Chinese look upon the Manchus as brothers and as legitimate rulers of China. The Mongols, on the other hand, were brutal and so were quickly overthrown.
So to answer your question, the European rule in China was obviously wrong because the Europeans never ever provided the genius to govern the country. So they were kicked out shorty in less than 100 years.
Well, Tibet obviously had been politically integral part of China for at least 700 years. So I can tell you this, there was definitely something right the Chinese governments from the Ming to the Qing was doing in Tibet.
Besides, politics doesn't operate in an intellectual vacuum like the one on this forum. It's not just about theory, or about 'higher moral ground'. It's really also about CONCRETE INTERESTS. IF China were to let Tibet go, it would compromise Chinese national security. After all, India, a regional rival of China's, is just waiting for the day when it could start exerting its own political agenda in Tibet vis-a-vis China. Also, if China were to let Xinjiang go, the oil-rich area would quickly fall into the Russian sphere of influence. And certainly, us Chinese do not want to see a volative fundamentalist Uighur Islamic Republic threatening us with 'holy war' or 'jihad' whenever they feel displeased with the Chinese. NO, we Chinese are sick of being bullied around by external powers. We have taken too much cr@p to be so gentlemanly. HEY, ask George Bush about it. He'd understand. |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Free Tibet
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 31.01.2005
Beiträge: 7
|
| Verfasst am: Do Feb 03, 2005 7:55 pm Titel: Re: RENAN WHO? |
|
|
| WHIZ hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Whose Renan? Is he some character from some video game or something? |
Well almost, 19th French scholar Ernest Renan was the godfather of modern theory on Nationalism. Maybe it's not a bad idea to know about him as his conceptualizations also contributed greatly to the formation of Chinese nationalism, ask Sun Yat-sen for one.
| WHIZ hat folgendes geschrieben: |
I think the solution is simple. IF the races aren't getting along, work on the race relations, correct the human rights abuses, BUT drop the "ETHNIC GHETTO" mentality. In other words, ethnic separatism ... is not the solution for better ethnic relations. |
I absolutely agree with your "solution" - but not about how one can realize them. I even think, in fact you are favouring the current status quo in the People's Republic because you know very well it suits mainly the interests of the Han-Chinese. It had not been right when European powers semi-occupied China but for many Chinese thinkers it obviously has always been right when colonial Qing and Mao China did the same with their immediate neighbours...this is a contradiction.
I give you an alternative of how interethnic relations would work best: In the first step let people decide their own future and let them gain national independence if they like. In the second step then let them First independence, then cooperation, hence cooperation will now be done out of the free will of all the parties involved.
The best example is the 1991 Czechoslovakia split into two states: The Czech Republic and Slovakia. As long as both people were in the same state (1918-1991), relations were always strained between the two nationalities as Slovaks always felt kind of treated as second class citizen by the dominant Czechs. But after independence was gained, relationships between these two people immediately greatly improved and teh ethnic relationship between the two people is better than ever before.
In fact, the whole European unification process is proceeding along these lines. Europe has witnessed at the beginning of the 90s a whole lot of new states emerging in a process of separation. And now what are the very same states doing? They are AGAIN rapidly drawing near to one another under a common European roof, but this time out of a free will of their own.
My conclusion: First grant Tibet national independence and from this solidified position I am absolutely sute Tibetans will see much common ground with the Chinese and quickly both nations will cooperate intensively on all cultural, economical and political areas - but this time of course on equal grounds! |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Free Tibet
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 31.01.2005
Beiträge: 7
|
| Verfasst am: Do Feb 03, 2005 7:56 pm Titel: Re: SECESSION IS NOT THE SOLUTION |
|
|
| WHIZ hat folgendes geschrieben: |
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah... Scotland and Wales...Brittany...eastern Ukraine... Chiapas
The fact of the matter is your logic will lead to a BIG MESS. |
To be honest, I think your historical examples are already a big enough mess.  You are wildly mixing completely different scenarios, treating everything alike. Treating history as such, I am sure you can come easily to any conclusion you intended to have in the first place.
To keep the discussion focused, I'll constrain myself only to the German case. |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Free Tibet
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 31.01.2005
Beiträge: 7
|
| Verfasst am: Do Feb 03, 2005 7:56 pm Titel: Re: HEY SET THE EXAMPLE |
|
|
| WHIZ hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| The fact of the matter is the German principalities' decision to unite was not ever voted upon by the people of the various principalities. |
The fact of the matter is: Get your facts straight, please.
There was a free, general and popular vote on German unification in all German principalities, including Prussia. It took place in 1848 and was the result of a nation-wide national revolution calling for national independence and democracy (the socalled March Revolution). An all German Assembly in Frankfurt was created and its task was to create an All German Constitution which they finally adopted in 1849.
The constitution though never came into force as the German rulers eventually regained their strength and counteracted the revolution. And now please read carefully: They did so not because they disagreed with the national aspect but, obviously, with the democratic element. They feared for their power, simple as that.
20 years later German unification eventually took place, but this time under the conditions of the aristocracy. During the whole time it was rather the question of the German form of the government which set democratic and aristocratic Germany apart. It was NOT the question of if German principalities should unite, but rather under which form of state they should do!
In fact, the German wish for unification has beenthe political factor thoughout the greater part of the 19th century, the national pamphlets, meetings, petitions, organisations and disputes have been countless for decades.
Conclusion: The popular will for German unification had been expressed ad nauseam in the 19th century. Also note, there is nowadays not even a single party in a single province parliament calling for independence of this or that Bundesland (Province).
There is no basis for a comparison of multinational empire China with homogenous Germany.
Zuletzt bearbeitet von Free Tibet am Do Feb 03, 2005 8:09 pm, insgesamt einmal bearbeitet |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Free Tibet
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 31.01.2005
Beiträge: 7
|
| Verfasst am: Do Feb 03, 2005 7:59 pm Titel: Re: HOORAY for a UNITED CHINA |
|
|
| WHIZ hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| So to answer your question, the European rule in China was obviously wrong because the Europeans never ever provided the genius to govern the country. So they were kicked out shorty in less than 100 years. |
Your argument just evolves around the defence of status quo. I am now getting a bit polemical but just to show you how absurd some of the conclusions following your line of reasoning would be:
So if the Europeans or the Japanese for that matter had remained in China they would have had the right to govern the country?
And: China was also kicked out of Tibet in 1912 but they decided to come back several decades later. How much kicking out then does Beijing need to finally get they are not welcomed in Tibet?
And: Mainland China rule has been kicked out of Taiwan for now 50 years. So obviously mainland China doesn't "prove the genius" to govern Formosa either?
You still have to show why European domination in China was wrong but China's dominance in their north, east and sourth-east periphery is right.
| WHIZ hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| It's really also about CONCRETE INTERESTS. |
You bet it's about concrete interests. The People's Republic state ideal still is very much alike European state ideals of the colonial 19th century: Be as big, cover as much territory, encompass as much people as you can - for the sake of its own.
That's why China doesn't want to let go of Tibet and Sikiang. And so far they haven't paid the price just as Russia currently does in Chetchenia. If oneday a similar scenario is going to occur in China, the Chinese leadership will be forced to open up a new calculation: Is it still worth to occupy this or that area or are they, in the face of the high political, economical and human costs of occupation, better off granting these people independence...?
| WHIZ hat folgendes geschrieben: |
NO, we Chinese are sick of being bullied around by external powers. |
If you are sick of being bullied around by external powers, why not set in YOUR domestic politics a good example first? So far Beijing's official policy is behaving towards many of their own so-called "national minorities" much worse than the West does allegedly towards China.
China has a big international credibility problem there. |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
WHIZ
zhong xuesheng
Anmeldungsdatum: 01.02.2005
Beiträge: 10
|
| Verfasst am: Fr März 11, 2005 3:01 am Titel: Re: SECESSION IS NOT THE SOLUTION |
|
|
| Zitat: |
| To be honest, I think your historical examples are already a big enough mess. You are wildly mixing completely different scenarios, treating everything alike. Treating history as such, I am sure you can come easily to any conclusion you intended to have in the first place. |
To keep the discussion focused, I'll constrain myself only to the German case.[/quote]
Dear Mr. Passionate,
Actually, I think you're the one who is not getting your FACTS straight. If you are such an ardent secessionist and a believer of secessionism, then you would have to concede that California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico were forcibly conquered territory and that Native Americans and Mexicans who live there should be given the sovereign right to secede. The same is true of the United States South, which at one time from 1861-1865 demanded secession, and it was quashed by the United States.
Europeans are not exempt, either, even till this day.
There are secessionist movements in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Brittany, the Basque Country, Barcelona, Sicily, Hungary, eastern Ukraine, and the list goes on and on and on....
Have any of these European governments granted the formal right to secession to these regions? I think not. There might have been compromises in terms of granting more regional autonomy or giving the right to have regional assemblies, such as that that of Scotland and Wales, but still, did these governments grant the FORMAL RIGHT TO SECEDE to these regions? NO.
So, I think it's quite hypocritical for you or any other European or American to tell China that China should give the FORMAL RIGHT TO SECCESSION to Tibet or Xingjiang, or to any other region that is now currenlty internationally recognized as part of China.
I am a firm believer in respecting the current national borders of nations. While I may criticize human rights abuses by various governments, I do not advocate secession as a solution because let's face it, if we do advocate secession for every ethnic group that claims oppression by another, as you will see from the above examples, that will only bring in a BIG MESS.
First, the host country which the region hopes to secede from will likely object and won't be happy. You can even have wars and more conflicts.
Second, the region which secedes will want to ethnically purify its own region, especially of people's from the host country which it seceded from (witness Kazakhstan which had been ethnically purifying itself by driving the Russians out--I think that's a human rights violation too) Third, the region which seceded and the host country from it seceded from will likely have future conflicts because of divergent interests (witness India and Pakistan)
And, do you really believe SECESSIONISM is the solution to better human rights situation? Look at Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgistan, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia. And how about Russia, which supposedly seceded from the Soviet Union? Russia is in a pathetic state.
Stay united, brothers and sisters. |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
|
|
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht mitmachen.
|
Style by Vereor
mod by ThoPf
 CHINA-KONTOR Web Site (English) Impressum Disclaimer CHINA-KONTOR Hauptseite (Deutsch)
|
