What is the balanced and neutral view on "Free Tibet"? On one hand

>the fact remains that Tibet was taken over by China forcibly.
Under the Qing dynasty. If you go back far enough pretty much almost everywhere is part of somewhere because it was taken over by someone else forcibly.

Qing collapsed early on in 20th century or late 19th century, depending on where you want to draw the line.

The last days of Qing had many territories in Qing empire declaring their independence. The Qing ofcourse didn't just let that happen. They tried to suppress all these uprisings all across its empire, however since it was too numerous, they lost the empire. They couldn't field all their armies across their entire empire all at same time while outside forces besieged them as well.

Korean and Taiwan independence itself was due to Qing losing its power late 19th century to Japan and being defeated by them. Same thing happened with outer Mongolia to the Russians. Tibet just didn't have the British support. Which I think would have given it the independence had history changed a bit.

This was afterall the great game period.

You know why the Tibetan rebellion failed? None of the common people joined the rebellion. Only the aristocrats. This is because the rule of the Dalai Lama made the Taliban look progressive.

Fuck tibet desu

Saying Tibet should be an independent state because they took advantage of the chaos of the Qing's collapse to declare independence, is like saying all those splinter territories created by the warlordism period born out of the same collapse should be independent states.

ITT Chinese government paid shills

Wrong

>nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/chinese-students-western-campuses-china-influence.html
Not paid, but rather under the watchful eye.

Tibet was crap even before China came along. It rightfully belongs to China but I think they should declare independence and be free since China ruling over them is still crappy.

Everyone is missing the point, the most important thing to China is not whether they have the historical ownership of Tibet, or whether their rule is better then serfdom and rape under the monks, but rather what is most important is Tibet controls the sources of China's major River systems. An independent Tibet, as a vassal of the United States like Japan or Korea are, would have the power to cut off or poison China's entire water supply anytime they decide that now is the right time to destroy the Chinese.

The fucking Taiwanese government agrees that the PRC taking over Tibet was a good thing.

Not just rivers, but also the huge boat load of minerals from the mountain regions.

This would be valid if Taiwan was defacto independent and not under the suzerainty of PRC. The main reason they can't just declare independence is due to nukes and missiles being aimed at them. Saying something that would support Tibetan independence is a sign of Taiwanese independence and would give PRC necessary ammunition to invade Taiwan.

*Wong

Why did you make this post?

Does it trigger you, Mr. Wong?

It doesn't and I don't know who Mr. Wong is. Please answer my question.

Why would Tibet or America want to poison all of China? They're not cartoon supervillains.

They may not, however a terrorist group might go to Tibet and poison the rivers.

Also, the rivers from Tibet are a strategic importance to not just China but India. So Islamic terrorists could act upon that.

Few hundred million people could be fucked as a result.

>however a terrorist group might go to Tibet and poison the rivers.
and a foreign terrorist could just as casually slip through china's eastern frontier right now and do the same, what's the difference?

Much more funded border police and border defense and security.

Nah its because the KMT, like the PRC, argues that it is the inheritor of the Qing Empire. Inb4 b-but mongolia, no one is gonna go up against russia to try and take back Mongolia.

The only reason Taiwan hasn't been invaded is because of US intervention. PRC chinks tried in the 90s but the US might won over. The only reason Taiwan still claims the old RoC territory is because China doesn't want the status quo to change, yet.

PRC doesn't even have the amphibious capabilities they need to invade Taiwan. The best they can do is shoot missiles at them until they capitulate.

A decade too late with that sort of responses.

veteranstoday.com/2016/10/03/military-analysis-chinese-amphibious-capabilities/

Why do you need either of these views?

It's a massive area with its own language and culture and history, it's literally a country, but it's owned by a foreign power.

>Why do you need either of those views?
Because a lot of the Free Tibet agitation in the West is predicated on the idea that China is murderous and oppressive against a peaceful enlightened people and that if only the Chinese would leave them Tibet would turn into a Shangrila dream world of Buddhism. If that's a fantasy and giving power back to the monks would actually just create an even more opressive theocracy of the masses being oppressed and living as serfs of the elite taking everything they own, then it would be better to just leave them under the CCP who are at least building infrastructure and shit.

The free Tibet agitation is predicated on the fact that Tibetans are ethnically distinct from the Han Chinese and so should not be ruled by the Han Chinese.

Both views are correct. Is there an issue with that?

China gets Tibet because it has historical de-jure claim to it and nuclear weapons. Just like how India conquered independent princely states in 1948-1949.

"Free Tibet" is anti-communist bullshit to destabilise the PRC.

So if you crush rebellions then you are bad?

Not quite. Both views are PRC views. One is how PRC views Tibet and the other is how PRC wants others to view how the west views Tibet.

So Taiwan Chinese should be part of China?

Does ethnicity determine what is right and wrong in the world?

>and the other is how PRC wants others to view how the west views Tibet.

Source? Because I'm pretty confident the Dalai Lama and Amnesty International aren't controlled by the PRC. The Dalai Lama literally stated my claim in OP this year.

How is tibet any different than any other ethnic minority in other imperial nations like native americans on the US?

>Dalai Lama stated how communist are devils
If I recall right from a recent video, it was the Chinese who called him the devil for forcing Tibetans to self-immolate

Native Americans can go as they please and enjoy freedom of press, religion, and have their own set of laws they can govern.

Native Americans enjoy more freedom than the Tibetans.

There's nothing wrong with trying to destabilize China.

What's wrong with anti-communist "bullshit"? Why isn't destabilization of PRC a good thing for everyone except PRC?

>There's nothing wrong with trying to destabilize China.
They said there was nothing wrong with trying to destabilize Syria or Iraq or Libya and look where that got us.
For what a destabilized China looks like, look no further than the civil war with the Communists, the warlordism during the Republic period after the Qing fell and Yuan Shikai shat the bed, the Boxer Rebellion, the Taiping Rebellion (which killed 30 million people), etc.
An unstable and disunited China is not a pretty sight, and wouldn't be good for anybody with how plugged in China is to the global economy.

Because when you destabilize China, you turn Xinjiang into Syria 1.5.

Why would it turn into Syria? Wouldn't it be more probable for it to turn into Syria if PRC controls the area and oppress them?

No, allowing the PRC to lose control is what creates the power vacuum that lets the islamist bullshit morons to step up and declare their stupid caliphate and start sending "refugee" trojans overseas to attack the "great satan".
Just let the CCP deal with those chucklefucks.

Are you going to provide a source?

Oh wait, this is the Alternative Facts /pol/ thread.

1. This is Veeky Forums
2. This isn't /pol/
3. Thank God you two are basement dwelling lardsacks and not running national governments.

>make claim without source
>ask others to source and verify your bullshit
Good job retard.

>waaaahhhhhhh alternative facts /pol/

>They're not cartoon supervillains.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

The government did try to do weather-making shit like this.

Balanced view is that monks were running a feudal theocracy but that the CCP is just as bad, with its mass murders and organ harvesting. The tibetan people themselves are peaceful buddhists who do want freedom that is clear. I doubt anybody is calling for the monks to be put right back into charge either

>What's wrong with destabilizing an economical and nuclear superpower
Wew, lads. The best case scenario would be a major economic crisis, the worst case scenario - outright nuclear war. But I guess it's ok as long you have a reasonable k/d rato against these damn commies.

>people should put up with tyranny because there's more stability

youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk

Get Americaned.

Tyranny anywhere is a threat to free country everywhere

The Chinese people overwhelming prefer the iron control and prosperity under the CCP to the anarchy of the warlordism that accompanies dynastic collapse.

>unironically opposing the hilarious shitstorm that would be a balkanized China
Face it Zhang; you may get paid 50 cents a post, but a kingdom long united must soon divide.

I'd rather not crash the whole world economy thanks.

Hierarchal social institutions need to be dismantled desu

Can anyone actually refute the accusation that Tibetans were serfs ruled by theocrats?
michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

>50 centers are told in the official party pamplet that the entire world revolves around China

Isn't this just zhongguo except rehashed for the 21st century?

Zhongguo concept never died, dummy.

Tibetan monks and by its extent the peaple of Tibet, should jfight tooth and nail to be free of there percived invaders and oppresors. That is what you do if you want to change anything there. Self immolation and peaceful protests will not make China waver, its thatr simple really.

What we should be seeing is monks wearing bandolliers and executing any chinaman who dares venture up there mountain-temple road. Seiges of said temples with suicide monks coming out the gates now and again.

Hell, im sure the US, Uk, France ect would fund the Free Tibet Front or whatever.

But until that day happens, they will continue to be slaves and eventually just stop existing/be replaced by Han chinese (who will just vote for China to rule over them once that happens, lets be honest.)

Tibet was within the former Qing sphere of influence, the PRC is willing to push old Qing claims as part of chinese de jure territory, and tibet was a stupidly easy target. Officials figured they may as well roll it.

I think Tibet should get the Chechnia treatment, so they could run their theocratic feudalism but they'd have to stay loyal to China. That way everyone wins.

This is why you never isolate yourself, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

When you have no allies (Dzungar mongols were genocided by Qing, RIP) its time to diversify.

Quite. International relations run on the patron-client system, and if you ain't got a patron you better be fucking strong.

Murdering Chinamen looks bad on TV. Half the support for free Tibet in the West comes from the delusion that the Buddhists are peaceful and enlightened and shit. Everyone likes a Gandhi.

The other half comes from the fact that China is an authoritarian communist state with little religious freedom for its minorities.

If PRC transitioned towards a more democratic leadership and gave more freedom towards its minorities, I doubt the calls for "Free Tibet" would still be strong. It would weaken.

Yawn.
>105 average IQ nation with a huge educated middle
>

'Would they' isn't really ever the question in geopolitics. It's pretty much always a question of 'Could they.'

For example: WOULD Ukraine allow a sudden and unprompted NATO drive through their territories straight into Russia's heartland? Almost certainly not, but they COULD, and so they prop up insurrection simply to keep the possibility that much less likely to occur.

>he says, using equipment explicitly produced under Chinese tyranny

No, but there's absolutely no evidence that in lieu of PRC governance they would simply revert to that kind of society.

Barbarians need to be educated in the Chinese ways. If they resist then we must exterminate them.

Chinese as a society are still in the colonialism stage right? Give them about 100-200 and they will come to modern western ethics/rights system.

The funny thing is that the chinese did not exterminate, at least in the period of direct conflict.
During the actual fighting the tibetan-chinese conflict, the chinese would give captured soldiers a lecture of socialism and then send them home.
Now of course the period of chinese rule has been considerably more deadly, but in that brief instance they were surprisingly lenient.

China is a regional power at its absolute best, not a superpower of any kind. China is comparable to Israel rather than even India.

The problem with these ideas is your using modern western sensibilities and morality.

If you thought about it as the chinese do, in a totally amoral and militarised way, you'd realise you have nothing to fear if Tibet stays 'the good guys' because other than the UN and whatever condeming Chinas actions, no one has the political will, funds, logistics ect to bother over such a thing, not a direct confrontation anyway.

As ive said, for the Chinese, its just a waiting game. By 2050, the majority of Tibets population wont be ethnically from tibet. The culture war is already in free swing to make theChinese there loyal to China when, by then we can assume, they are a extension of China and Tibet will probably just be renamed something the chinese called it long ago.

Honestly, this will not even be a talking point in a deacde or so unless the people of Tibet go all gurrila and kill there Chinese neibours and go live/fight in the woods and hills before the chinese troops arrive to 'control' the uprising (read:move there plan ahead a few years and take it over properly...)

>imply we wont be reverting back to those systems by then and China will be ahead of the great game.

I think it will escalate even more after the current dalai lama dies. Because the successor will be a lot more political in nature. Not only that, with the rise of China US can and will use Tibet as a card to play against the rising China. It would be stupid to not use a card that has lot of political use. Both in EU and US and other countries around the world, the issue of Tibet is one of sympathy and support. So when they call this card, other countries will support it and paint China in a negative light to force concessions. Whether its asking for more human rights or better economic treaties or trades or more rights to SEA nations under PRC scrutiny.

Not only US, EU could use it as well along with India.

Honestly? pre-Red Army invasion Tibet was pretty much a feudal theocracy, but that doesn't justify the Chinese government doing its best to snuff out Tibetan identity, either through mass migration of ethnic Han people or through cultural erosion (their meddling in Tibetan Buddhism is pretty surreal when you read up on it). That said a Tibetan ethnostate was always unrealistic even more so now. Considering the sizeable Tibetan populations outside of the province of Tibet and the large amount of Han Chinese in Tibet it would be a clusterfuck to try to create an independent state. The best they can hope for is a Canadian esque situation about Quebec minus the duality at the federal level

China isn't a super power, but what you said is still one of the most retarded things I've heard

Yes your right whatever new Dali Lama they get will have to be very political (even if its just a case of survival of the title at that point) however i wouldnt rule out the chinese trying to get 'there man' in.What that could lead to would be you not hearing much about Tibet at all. Slowly but surely disapearing as to the above point about demographics takes effect.

In fact, the Dalai-Lama will be a key tomaking the normal plebs rise up, in fact i bet alot of commoners in Tibet are itching for his approval, the more and more Chinese troops force themselves in there lives ect.

That card will only lose more value as time goes on however. Plus, as much as China relies on Importing for trade, alot of there finacial issues could then be sated by increasing trade in africa (which they already do)...and im pretty sure most african nations dont have any scrupples about humanitarian behavior being questionable, considering they engage in it themselves.

Also, the human rights abuses will petter out as more of there kin take over. Im sure chinese authorities dont want to hurt there own kind after all, espcially loyal Chinese expats.

>No reasons for similar outcome.
Besides thousands of years of Chinese history where the weakening of control of the ruling dynasty more or less invariably led to extended periods of chaos and death as the empire fractured into warlordism.

They will absolutely kill a few million to quell the hearts of a billion.

Its a endeavour they are willing to take. As they've done that in the past many times.