Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

China, Tibet and the real-politick

By Graeme Mills - posted Tuesday, 18 March 2008


It is interesting to compare the history of Tibet with Australia.

Tibet had been part of Greater China since 1279. Well, from China’s perspective. Tibet has always begged to differ, but as long as they sent some loot to the Chinese Emperor and were duly obsequious, things rubbed along OK. Tibet evolved from a warrior state to one of peace, love and monasteries. Monasteries where the monks sat and contemplated peace, love and how to live for many, many lifetimes: while the average “joe” worked hard to supply the necessary loot to build the monasteries and staff them with contemplative monks.

In 1949 the “New” China marched in and changed all that.

Advertisement

Australia was looked after, extremely well, for about 50,000 years by an essentially peaceful people who had learned to live in harmony with nature. It certainly was not a warrior state, and did not go around the region kicking other States in the googlies.

The life was not arduous, and consisted mainly of wandering around getting enough to eat, which usually did not take all that long, so the rest of the time was spent in contemplation and ceremony. In 1788 Britain marched in and changed all that.

For both countries it has been an exercise in real-politick, the defeat of the weaker power by the stronger power.

Indeed, that has been the history of the world. It is the basis of co-existence between all species, all plants, all microbes … everything.

For the last 220 years the Australians who looked after this land for 50,000 years have had to come to terms with the invasion and defeat of their nation(s). Reconciliation is a recognition of that reality, the “is”. What “ought” to have happened is a mute point, because it “didn’t”. Reconciliation is the final capitulation that tries to salvage some measure of dignity. It is the recognition of the real-politick, the defeat of their nation by the stronger power.

For nearly 60 years the Tibetans have had to come to terms with the invasion and defeat of what they thought was their nation. There has been weak and very peaceful protest for all that time, which has had all the effect of waving a wet tissue at a very self-satisfied dragon. A dragon that occasionally breathes fire onto the protestors to show where the real power lies.

Advertisement

And the rest of the world? Well, lets face it, apart from a few ineffectual bleeding heart liberals, the rest of the world couldn’t give a toss. Bleeding heart liberals, I have found, seem to mix up their “is” with their “ought” and get into terribly confused muddles. They are the “wombats” of the world, well meaning, cute, but essentially pointless.

From China’s point of view, Tibet has always been a part of China. Tibet is also the roof of the world and was (and is) a key strategic area in a threatening world. Mao, for all the demonising of the West, essentially wanted to reduce the inequality between the haves and the have-nots. He perceived that Tibet was run by a lot of very rich monks in very rich monasteries who lived off the sweat and labour of the peasants. He reasoned that all the wealth should be more evenly distributed. He also believed that you cannot have many nations within a nation and many competing leaders. To be strong, China had to be unified under one leader. So, the Dalai Lama was regarded by China as simply another leader who wanted (wants) his power back. The monks, as a ruling elite who simply wanted their power back.

They were never going to get it because they were the weaker power.

From Britain’s point of view, Australia was terra nullius, the land of no one. It may have been a false assumption, but it was the assumption of those who wielded the power. So, it was the reality, it was the “is”. From a strategic point of view, it is interesting that Britain thought that having a naval base in the Pacific was probably not such a bad idea, a bit like Tibet. Though, at first, the need for a place to send the riff-raff as far away as possible was the paramount imperative.

All of which is interesting and academic, but does not change the reality for the original Australians not one jot. They lost their nation(s) to the stronger power.

So, when does a defeated nation accept the defeat and get on with it?

These latest protests coming out of Tibet will have little effect except to provoke a fiery breath from the Dragon. The bleeding hearts will run around in another breathless muddle and get terribly excited. To be consistent, if China has to give back Tibet, then they should give back Australia, or at least their own property. Strike a moral blow, fellas. The rest of the world will watch the Olympics on Sky TV and then get back to making money.

Real-politick.

Tibet: A short history through Chinese eyes

My wife, Xiaosui, grew up immersed in Chinese history. She talks about her father a lot. He was a natural historian and a very wise man. He always said that you must try to choose to see from another way. Try to understand how the other person sees the world. I have tried to do that with this short history of China as seen through Xiaosui’s eyes.

Essentially, from China’s perspective Tibet, or Xi Zang as it is called in China, has been closely associated with China since the 7th century and a part of Greater China since AD1271 under the Yuan Dynasty.

In the 7th century Tibet was unified under Song zan gan bu and friendly relations were established with the Tang Dynasty. The Chinese Emperor sent his daughter to be married to Song zan gan bu, thus consolidating the ties of state in the time honoured way. Tibet was allowed to remain an autonomous state but with strong allegiance to China. This relationship lasted until the Yuan Dynasty, founded 1271.

The Yuan Dynasty consolidated power in China. The Yuan Dynasty came out of the Mongol invasions and as Tibet had strong ties with the Mongols it was happy to become part of the Greater China. There was no war between Tibet and China, it was by choice.

The Ming Dynasty, 1368, ruled Tibet through governors who were appointed from the Tibetan ruling class. So, the presence of China was not strongly felt. However, that was equally so in all the outlying provinces of China. That did not mean that China did not regard these provinces as separate, or autonomous. They were regarded as very much a part of the Greater China.

In 1644 the Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty and once again took a strong interest in Tibet, giving it a strong system of law and government. China saw itself as the father, bestowing strength, wisdom and discipline. In 1652 the Monk Leader, Wu Shi Da Lai, went to Bei Jing and was bestowed the title of Da Lai La Ma by the Emperor Shun Zhi. In 1713 Kang Xi, the Chinese Emperor, further strengthened that title and from this time the Monk Leader ruled Tibet as the Da Lai La Ma. The Monks held the power and the secular governor was relegated to a care-taking rule in civil administration.

The Qing Dynasty, from 1727, lost interest in Tibet as it tried to cope with the issues of colonisation by Britain and other rapacious European powers. They contented themselves with appointing civil governors and allowed the Da Lai La Ma to, in effect, rule Tibet. However, at no point, did they regard Tibet as autonomous.

Until 1750 civil governors could be appointed from the Tibetan ruling class or from China. From 1750 the governor was always Chinese. This lasted until the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

The Qing Dynasty’s death rattle took about 20 years and in that time China lost much of its power. Helped not a little by Britain peddling opium. Tibet now sensed that China was at an end and its grip on power was finished. The power of the Monks under the Da Lai la Ma, increased.

1911 to 1949 were very turbulent years in China. Looking inward and immersed in its own internal conflict, China lost control of the outlying provinces, of which Tibet was one. Then in 1949 Mao emerged the victor and seized power.

Mao had fought the Japanese (unlike Chiang ki-shek, who lost the support and respect of the people because of this) and had learned the hard way that China could not afford to be divided if it were to be powerful. Being raped by another nation is not pleasant and tends to stick in the mind, somewhat. One of Mao’s first priorities was to bring the outlying provinces, over which China had an historical claim, back into the fold. Tibet was one of those provinces.

It is interesting and informative to note that Mao did not try to extend his reach any further. He had a powerful and experienced army at his command. The West had been weakened by World War II. He could have easily taken many small countries around those outlying provinces. However, he chose only those over which China had a historical claim. Thus not provoking Russia, Britain and America. Although weakened, they were still very powerful.

To understand that strategy, it is best to read Sun Tzu, The Art of War, which counsels a ruler not to extend his (her) lines and concentrate on consolidating power. For the ruler who extends his (her) lines weakens the state and inevitably the extended lines will be cut off, unless they are very, very strong. Let your mind mull over the current actions of America, which is running the around world like a hormonal adolescent, in contrast to the actions of China. Hong Kong was a waiting game for China. And Taiwan? What is 50, 100, 200 years out of 5,000?

Note also, that China took a stand in Vietnam and Korea, but did not push through. The West saw it as the advance of communism. China saw it as the invasion by the West.

Xiaosui, when I first started to talk about Tibet from my eyes, was surprised. For her it was clear-cut. Tibet had always been a part of China. The Monks were a parasitic lot who oppressed the people. She looked around to find a word that described the people of Tibet at that time. The word she found was “helot”. From the ODE - a member of a class of serfs in ancient Sparta, intermediate in status between slaves and citizens. She talks of atrocities being committed on the “helot” class in Tibet by their own ruling class.

China, through its eyes, did not invade, it liberated an oppressed people. Indeed, the average Tibetan welcomed the Red Army at first. However, the Red Army did not understand the close nexus between the Tibetan People and their religion. The Tibetans were no doubt pleased to see the end of any oppression, but did not want to see the end of their culture both secular and religious.

Xiaosui agrees with this; that the culture of Tibet should have been and should be preserved. However, as she points out, that is not the way of the world. That is not real-politick.

The strong, inevitably dominate the weak, which equally inevitably disappear over time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

34 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graeme Mills was born 1955 in a country town. He left for Sydney to go to university and lived there for 20 years before retiring back to the same country town where he now lives. His was mainly in property, finance and development. Graeme holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree (majors in English and History) and a recently acquired Law Degree. He has written two books, both unpublished which he is investigating publishing online. He now has an extended family in China which has given him a whole new focus to life. He set up the BLOGs Dialectic Blue and Kaixin to give vent to this new direction.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graeme Mills

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graeme Mills
Article Tools
Comment 34 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy