A "naive" question about Tibet

I know there are indeed huge mineral deposits in Tibet. A lot of gemstones come from there. Their quartz crystals are of high quality and not to mention, grow in big matrixes so that it makes it very wanted for making crystal skulls.

But.... as China I wouldn't invade Tibet for that. I mean.... it probably cost more than the profit is. China is more of a productioncountry I think. (Plastics, electronics etc.)

I think we have to dig into communism to understand. Communist countries like to be large. They like to have many many people parading and showing respect for the leader. Greatness in numbers is everything for communists.

This is not how communism was intended on paper... it's just how it has worked out in real life. I'd love to see a country doing a good job at communism. Properly. Equality and care for all.

Marxism preached worldwide revolution. China tried to spread it to Vietnam and Korea.

I still say 42 billion tonnes of oil is a good reason not to get out of Tibet.



[edit on 20-3-2008 by sy.gunson]

Originally posted by Edn
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.

Precisely correct. China claimed, fought a war over and conquered parts of Kashmir from India (Aksai Chin region). They are now claiming an indian state as theirs (Arunachal pradesh).

Im not sure about why they are fighting for these lands, I think its mainly a show of power and domination for their own people. USSR did it by continually annexing countries around it, as did nazi germany. Authoritarianism always needs war and conflict to look like an attractive proposition. If there was peace, then why would the populace give up their rights?

I believe this thought train is outlined in the excerpt from Orwell's 1984, which is a fictional book called "The theory of oligarchic collectivism" by Emmanuel Goldstein.

The answer is purely strategic - all you have to do is look at the topography of Tibet and realise that it is essentially the largest natural fortification in the world.

I'd imagine you could probably hide about a third of the Chinese population under them mountains in the event of a nuke holocaust too.

Technically speaking, Tibet is a land of natural beauty that has been treated as such by the people who live there (with a few exceptions) for thousands of years.

As such, because of that natural beauty, it has massive stores of materials that, as i said, have been relatively untouched for quite a long time.

As with any political super-power in the world, the security of the nation's resource interests is tantamount.

It's got nothing to do with greed whatsoever.

China has had control over Tibet since the late 1950's. This recent find of minerals is not the reason China is there. It's just a bonus.

EDN and Soulslayer have the very reasons for the current problems. It's about land and access to more land. China just recently finished the Qinghai-Tibet Railway and this has a very modern highway built with it for the most part. Now that transportation is solved, logistics isn't too far behind.

Tibet had historical control of some disputed land that a minor war was fought over in the early 60's. This was between India and China. The area is still disputed as are several areas in this region.

You have to look at the region and the players to see whats happening. India, is a friend of the USA but is making many, many deals with Russia both militarily and scientifically. Pakistan is a current ally with the USA, we are in bed with them until something profound happens that we or they can not control. Then there is China.

You also have a list of 5 nuclear powers and some crazy leaders.

Short term, I think the recent uprising has more to do with an Olympic spotlight on China and Tibet hoping for some world action in the form of boycotts. Long term, say Goodbye Dalhi, he ain't coming home.

quite possibly the most blatantly uninformed discussion i have ever read. bravo, bravo!

Originally posted by ikaruga
quite possibly the most blatantly uninformed discussion i have ever read. bravo, bravo!

and thats like the most blatantly uncaring post you could come up with having noticed that? wow, compassion at its best eh? bravo bravo!

Originally posted by ikaruga
quite possibly the most blatantly uninformed discussion i have ever read. bravo, bravo!

why dont you get involved in the discussion and let us know of your viewpoint?

We arent experts on this topic, we are just discussing it. How about you join in rather than stand at the sides contributing nothing but criticism.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


I've contributed on these threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The reason there are slight descrepancies between the different posts is because my friend and I are sharing an account. We both have extensive knowledge of China, its people, and its culture. We have both been in Sichuan for extended periods of time and have seen how temples and monks operate.

Many of you have extremely idealized notions of Tibet and Buddhism; two things I bet you know very little of other than what you obtain from Western media sources. Temples in China are run like businesses. Monks drive around in Mercedes- Benz, have the latest Motorola cell phone, and wine and dine with government officials.

How do I know? Because I have witnessed it firsthand. China is a much different place than Western media would have you believe.

Interesting.
I am glad to see so many actual thoughts (as opposed to recycling the usual media fodder).
And some of them actually make a lot of sense - although I feel none of them answers the question completely (which may be impossible anyway).

For example, I never thought about the idea of "hiding 1/3 of the population" under the Himalayas, in case of a nuclear war. It's not as absurd as it may sound to some (not to me). But the thing is... you would first have to dig under "them mountains" to make space for them.

Or have they done so already...?

And strategic considerations always make sense, of course.
But, as useful as "natural fortifications" are - one can never have too many of those, I suppose - is it really so indispensable to a country of the size (and general militarisation level) of China that it's willing to play the villain and assume billions of $$ in lost international contracts, to mention just two aspects of the situation, for the tiny "fortress"?

And would China really even consider (I mean, seriously consider), in this day and age, annexing Nepal and other adjacent countries?

I think it was Ambushrocks who used a very practical formula in her reasoning: "If I were China..."

That's a very useful reasoning aid, precisely because of its apparent "naivete" - which is the arch-enemy of platitudes and "diplomacy".

Indeed: if "I" were China, WHY would I give up the enormous international approval and gained respect that would come from my giving up Tibet - and all the countless $$$ that would consequently (albeit indirectly) flow my way - and rather risk a boycott of the Olympic games (a potentially HUGE loss of said $$$), not to mention all the unpleasant consequences of the last 50 years-long occupation... to hold Tibet?

Yes, I am repeating myself, and I am doing so for a reason.
Discussions like this one often get clouded by the "right/wrong" argumentation. Let's keep the original question as clear and straightforward as possible.


P.S. I haven't read all the messages "in-depth", so please excuse me if I've missed any important points (of which, I am sure, there were many).
I'll do so as soon as my boss lets me off the hook...
(And BTW... I am a freelancer. )






[edit on 20-3-2008 by Vanitas]

China can't lose Tibet as it would create Domino's for them with Taiwan, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Macau and other such places within China. China's rapid industrialization is causing many issues for them as the discrepency in wealth and incomes in the rural and urban areas of China become greater and greater. Pretty funny problem for a supposedly Communist country.

reply to post by pavil


But, Pavil, Shanghai has "historically" been a part of China - and the Hong Kong situation is regulated by a perfectly legal old agreement.
Nobody would expect China to "give up" them.

Originally posted by IchiNiSan
Vanitas, my apologies if you are being offended, I am not talking about your post, which is your opinion, your theory and your conspiracy. Of course not neccesary that I agree with it, it is still a valid topic to discuss about. You can continue it for my part, I will decide later if I want to participate in this thread or not.

I am actually directing my post (and to some extend my frustration) to the Moderators of this board who are handling this whole Tibet/China discussion with a slightly biased double-standards.

Just to clarify something here: Your thread was not closed because we are biased, it was closed because it was a Repeat Topic about which several discussions already exist. If you open a thread in favour of China with a new topic or a new twist on a topic, it will certainly be left open. ATS wants ALL sides to a story.

Vanitas: Sorry for posting off-topic, it was important for me to clarify this.

Now back to the scheduled programme.

[

Vanitas, my apologies if you are being offended, I am not talking about your post, which is your opinion, your theory and your conspiracy. Of course not neccesary that I agree with it, it is still a valid topic to discuss about. You can continue it for my part, I will decide later if I want to participate in this thread or not.

It's perfectly OK, IchiNISan.

And I hope you DO.



P.S. No conspiracy theories here. I mean, there may be one - it's even likely, who knows? - but I for one am not suggesting that any particular conspiracy has taken place.





[edit on 20-3-2008 by Vanitas]

It is I think an excellent question. First let me begin by saying that I think China should be able to do whatever it darn well pleases within the territory that it exercises control over (in other words not Tiawan).

That said it seems to me pretty obvious what is happening and its not oil. As a young diplomat in the USSR Kennan wrote his famous long telegram in which he concluded that:

"In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it. It is fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability. Without it they would stand before history, at best, as only the last of that long succession of cruel and wasteful Russian rulers who have relentlessly forced country on to ever new heights of military power in order to guarantee external security of their internally weak regimes"

In the same way given the bankrupcy of Maoism in China and the reforms by Deng, China needs a new fig leaf of respectability to justify a government that doesn't allow full participation by all of its members. That fig leaf is nationalism pure and simple. The PRC has rhetorically positioned itself to its population as the resurgence of a strong Chinese tradition after the humiliations and defeats of the 19th and 20th century (Colonization, Invasion by Japan, Civil War, etc).

In order to do this they need to create a "better past" in which China ruled the world and would have continued doing so were it not for colonization/the occident/etc. That is why so many of the Chinese posters on this site appeal to maps from the 16th century to justify their territorial claims in Tibet/Tiawan/Daioyutai Islands. It appeals to this other time. For the Chinese government it is a way of allowing people to buy into their national mythology and national Identity. (much like the American nationalistic mythology is based on participation in WWII)

So I disagree with the comments that oil is what is important. Rather it forms the basis of the government's most basic claim to power. Were they to say, "well we don't reconginize treaties made before the West came to China" then where would that leave them?

Originally posted by sy.gunson
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.

I thought it was a stargate on the 33rd parallel.

The occupation of Tibet has always been about the natural resources. I leave a link with some history. When mao was pushing Chinese authority in the late 50's he was taxing Tibetans by making Tibet hand over food reserves. Maos "Great leap forward" had left populations within china starving.

www.tibet.net...

China doesn't care about the Tibetans really, it's all about the land. All about the land.

reply to post by die_another_day


That's right Die_another_day. If you read the link I left above you would see that. But then again you haven't seen any of the links I have left... have you? Your geographical location leaves you blind. Given that you are unable to source the same information that most of the rest of the world can seriously handicaps your argument, resulting in all of us here having to read the same old propaganda over and over again.

reply to post by Vanitas


Yes, but all I am saying is that China giving more freedom to Tibet would open up a can of worms about self determination that many parts of China would have similar demands/concerns. China most certainly does not want that can opened up.