Why is Tibet SO important to China, in the first place?

Considering its size - and, no less importantly, the size of China itself - it seems unlikely that its natural resources could be vitally important for China's economy (unless there are some extraordinary "resources" unknown to the rest of the world).

The same goes for geostrategic considerations.
(A country of China's size would hardly need a tiny, pocket-sized "buffer zone" high up in the Himalayas, would it?)

And then, there is the "face saving" aspect of the situation - which is actually the strangest one...
Let's assume for a moment that, having had invaded Tibet so many decades ago (for whatever reason), the current Chinese government actually doesn't have any particular interest in Tibet itself, but wants to demonstrate its "power" and "authority" to the world, and save its "face" in the eyes of the world.

Surely even the Chinese realise that "giving up" Tibet would not only demonstrate their "power" and "authority" - and much more convincingly than bullying a country of the size of a postage stamp - but would actually win China a GAZILLION brownie points and worldwide respect (not to mention other, very tangible rewards for their "generosity", albeit indirectly)?!


What it is, then?

Why exactly is keeping Tibet so important to China?








[edit on 20-3-2008 by Vanitas]

There is oil extracted from North east Tibet too in what used to be known as Amdo, now Gansu, in the huge Tsai Dam basin.

It's a bit like asking what holds USA in Iraq... Oil.

Oil, hmm that is interesting. Is it readily available?, what sorts of mineral deposits are we talking? gemstones, or other industrial type minerals?


Im trying to google but not getting anything substantial


Also if Tibet wins people will start to realize the strength they have and start to stand up against against the PTB in China. It takes a lot of force and intimidation for them to rule a country of that size in the way they do.

It's a bit like asking what holds USA in Iraq... Oil.

That's not the same - not at all.

Not only have the USA not annexed Iraq - and held it for 50 years, against the outrage of the public opinion worldwide (which means a great deal more than risking just your "good name"...) - but Tibet doesn't stand a comparison with Iraq, one of the richest "oil" countries in the entire world.





[edit on 20-3-2008 by Vanitas]

Im trying to google but not getting anything substantial

I am not surprised...
That's because there is nothing "substantial", that we know of - certainly not relevant enough to China's industry or economy.

Sadly I think its probably a combination of resources saving face and greed. Its a sad situation, but its probably a situation only because they figure they can take Tibet without anyone stepping up to do anything about it. Tibet is small, and they probably figure the rest of the world wont go to war with them over it.
To go to war with china would probably mean a world war, which will probably be how they extract Tibet, by telling them it will cause world war if they dont just willing give it up.

Personally, I think if there is any country worth going to war for, it is Tibet. But from a business point of view, its only a matter of time before someone takes Tibet for the resources, and China, having the best opportunity, most likely realizes this and will do it before someone else taking it even becomes an issue.

Originally posted by gluetrap
Also if Tibet wins people will start to realize the strength they have and start to stand up against against the PTB in China. It takes a lot of force and intimidation for them to rule a country of that size in the way they do.

That's an excellent point.

From a corporate viewpoint (since that's the way the Chinese gov't seems to see itself), China is a brand name that stands for cheap goods and services. Recently, they've been gaining market share, but, like any other corporation, their products can only remain cheap if they can keep operation costs low. That includes labor and raw materials. If their goods and services start to go up in price (as the result of liberation), the brand dies or adapts.



[edit on 20-3-2008 by HarlemHottie]

apart from the natural resources -which I should point out, people will fight to the death over an extra loaf of bread, every resource counts-. By controlling Tibet it gives them direct access to Bhutan, Nepal and India if they wished to claim any more land as there's.

Sadly I think its probably a combination of resources saving face and greed.

If that is so - and you may well be right - we should add sheer stupidity to the list.
Stupidity beyond belief.

But I just can't believe that in a country that huge and with so many wise people in its history (and, I am sure, on its streets right now) SUCH stupidity would prevail. It just doesn't seem possible. It's unfathomable.

Its a sad situation, but its probably a situation only because they figure they can take Tibet without anyone stepping up to do anything about it.

You are absolutely right.

On the other hand, the world IS changing...
Just wait and see.







[edit on 20-3-2008 by Vanitas]

Well to this point there has been much deliberation over wrong or right, but not much discussion about the underlying reasons behind it.
China and can stomp and storm all they want about ownership but the "why" is a pretty big question mark IMO.

I am just fascinated at the chasm between the way the western world views the Dalai Llama and buddhism and the obvious contempt and hate that seems to sum up the chinese view.
I have never felt anything but a great sense of peace and love from the buddhist studies i have done/ reading about the Dalai LLama as well as the time I have spent at our local buddhist temple and with practioners of the belief system.

Since Moderators support this view of the OP, then this Thread will not be closed? And is open and wide to continue for discussion? Great, just great.

Yes, I think it's great, too.
Why should it be closed?

I don't see much difference in opening a thread showing articles of mainstream Western media eye-witnesses articles or the discussion of why Tibet is important to China.

I do.
And that's because so far, I haven't seen the questions above stated simply and transparently.
Which is important - very important - because it forces people to REPLY simply and transparently, without "sophisticated" but in fact obfuscating verbiage that allows the truth, whatever it is, to hide in the bushes...
(And no, I am not referring to any specific thread.)







[edit on 20-3-2008 by Vanitas]

Well to this point there has been much deliberation over wrong or right, but not much discussion about the underlying reasons behind it.
China and can stomp and storm all they want about ownership but the "why" is a pretty big question mark IMO.

Thank you for noticing the point of this thread.

WHY is a pretty simple and straightforward question, requiring simple and straightforward answers.

Which, I suppose, is the very reason why it's so unpopular in the murky waters of politics and diplomacy...








[edit on 20-3-2008 by Vanitas]

about the morality of the situation, I am torn in understanding, unless its just pure selfishness desire and greed. that I suppose is also stupidity.

As a follower of both the Dao and the Vedas, I find the situation just a perfect example of 21st century ego games. Its just ironic that its a situation coming from regions of such peaceful teachings on both sides. Its like Catholics fighting with Christians (to me)

My guess is, the chinese guy in power would normally be humble about things like this, but he's still got competition with the rest of the world, and as he see's it, having Tibet under the Chinese belt can only add to power and strategy.
You gotta remember this is just a game of chess.

I also wonder, how much resistance does China really have to deal with in taking Tibet, are there lots of people with munitions there or what?