China, Tibet and the real-politick

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.