Recently, an article entitled "China's Claims to Tibet Have Greater Validity than US Claims to California"at The China Desk caught my attention. I have admittedly little knowledge of the historical links between China and Tibet compared to other issues I usually study, and I was intrigued by Bevin Chu's idea that California might serve as a parallel not only to better understand what is happening in China and Tibet but also to re-evaluate my own perspectives on the US' claims to the Southwest. Concerning the latter, I'm always interested in the double standards different nations impose when dealing with other countries, like, for instance, when the US supports the secession of one region, though it fought dearly against the secession of southern states during the Civil War.In the end, though, I found Chu's arguments, and those made in the article he referenced, to be very misleading on most counts. The very fact that he seems to give no credence whatsoever to countervailing arguments is worrisome. I have an inherent hesitation from accepting beliefs that are presented from a position of such self-assured infallibility as Mr. Chu often seems to write.
The reason I decided, this time, to read the article was because of my own misgivings over the recent revelations that Western press outlets have taken liberties in editing photos and videos when reporting on Tibet. I've been very troubled by this, so I decided I needed to get a better understanding of the situation.
After doing so, however, I find China's claims over Tibet are just as tenuous and rooted in historical approximation as many of China's other claims, including Taiwan, of course.
Chu's general premise: If Americans want to dispute the justice of Chinese rule over Tibet, then they should also, to avoid imposing double standards, take a look at their own control of California.
But the United States annexed California in 1848, a mere 160 years ago. If the passage of 160 years must be accepted because "Too much time has passed. What's done is done," then Tibet, which became part of China 737 years ago, is even more "irrevocably a part of China."Chu's Claims
If "You can't turn the clock back" because "Too much time has passed, and what's done is done," then why are these Hollywood stars attempting to turn the clock back for the Tibetan region of China, but not for the California region of the US?
In fact, China's vastly more compelling claim to Tibet doesn't end there. As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.
Claim #1:
Many Dalai Lama acolytes don't even know that the honorific title "Dalai," as in "Dalai Lama," is not even a Tibetan word. It is a Mongolian word. It was first conferred upon leaders of Tibet's lamaist theocracy by the Mongolians during the Yuan dynasty. It was later conferred upon Tibet's theocrats by Hans during China's Ming dynasty, and Manchus during China's Qing dynasty.It seems here that Chu is saying that because the term "Dalai Lama" actually comes from the Mongolians who were, at the time in control of China, then the authority also conferred upon the man named the Dalai Lama derives from China. Does that mean that the American president's authority should be traced to the origin of the word president itself, being derived from the French président or, further back, Italy, as it was the seat of Roman power and the origin of the Latin præsidentum?
That's right. The Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China.
The term "Dalai Lama" comes from the Mongol prince Altan-Khan's translation of the 3rd Dalai Lama's name: Sonam Gyatso. Gyatso means "Ocean" in Tibetan, and Lama is the Tibetan word indicating a priest of high rank. All the Mongol prince did was translate Gyatso into the Mongolian word for "ocean," which is dalai.
The only way Chu could make the argument that the "Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China" is if he could prove that it was the Emperor of China who chose each successive Dalai Lama, which is not the case. The succession of the Dalai Lama is dictated by consultation of the Nechung Oracle. Therefore, the authority of the Dalai Lama is derived from the people who believe in the oracles' ability to sense into which body the phowa has chosen to channel the Dalai Lamas "mindstream."
Of course, the PRC would say that, traditionally, China permitted the selection of each Dalai Lama, and by way of it's permission displayed its authority over the process. In order to prove that, though, Chu would need to present an instance, before the PRC or ROC, when a selection was made by the oracle but the Chinese refused the selection. Such an event would have to predate the ROC and PRC because otherwise it would not show a traditional precedent. The PRC's desire, for instance, to weigh in on religion is well publicized, and Tibetans are certainly not exempt. In the nineties, the PRC tried to designate their own Panchen Lama (2nd after the Dalai Lama), despite the Dalai Lama having named another to the position. The boy named by the Dalai Lama is now the world's youngest political prisoner. Ironically, it appears that Panchen Lama is a wholly Tibetan term, unlike Dalai Lama, yet it's the only position that evidences a precedent of Chinese involvement in its selection.
Moreover, the PRC has announced that it will have the final word on reincarnation:
Whenever the next succession takes place there will be three extra complications. The first is that in 2007 China announced new regulations to govern the reincarnation of all Tibetan clergy: it has said it will have the last word in determining whether someone has been reincarnated. In other words, atheist party officials will govern Tibetan spiritual decisions.
Claim #2
As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.I'm certainly not going to defend 19th-century American beliefs in Manifest Destiny, and indeed in the very PBS article that Chu cited there is a quote from Ulysses S. Grant expressing his belief that the war was
one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.Yet, unjust as it may have been, the Mexicans fired first, and there is an official treaty in which Mexico ceded what is now the American Southwest to the US government with no wiggle room. To my knowledge, the same doesn't exist with Tibet, while a tradition of Tibetan de facto independence and even, arguably, Tibetan superiority does.
Of course, I know treaties aren't the only manner by which countries go about procuring territorial bounty, and that tradition, such as would be the case for Tibet, is another way countries lay claim to their soil. However, it's funny that, as Chu readily states, it was through Mongol collaboration, during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, that Tibet became a part of the "Chinese" (then, Mongol) Empire.
Thus, it seems that the existence of, at present, an independent Mongolia would be the best evidence countering Mr. Chu's claims that Tibet is an inseparable part of China. Moreover, China's vague, distant authority in Tibet over the centuries, to my knowledge, isn't terribly different from the tributary kingdoms China once ruled over in Korea and Vietnam. I doubt many would take kindly to the idea that China still has claims over these independent countries as well.
Claim #3
From article linked in Chu's post:
For years, the “re-conquista” movement in California and across the southwest has been gaining momentum.To put it simply, the author gives no evidence.
Claim #4
From article:
Mexico claims the right to interfere in our internal politics as more of its citizens move across the border and establish residency. When Vicente Fox was the President of Mexico, he regularly referred to the “120 million” Mexicans he represented. At the time, Mexico’s population was only 100 million but he explained he also represented 20 million Mexican living inside the United States.That seems about right. If they are not citizens of the United States, then he still represents them. I live in Taiwan, but Chen Shui Bian is not my president.
Doesn't the United States reserve the right to interfere in the internal politics of a nation if it concerns US, its people, or its interests? For better or for worse, I'm pretty sure that's the way it goes.
Claim #4
From article:
Two years ago, the Mexican Congress passed an absentee voting law to accommodate these many new citizens of their country. Now, Mexican citizens living permanently inside the United States may participate regularly in Mexico’s national elections. There have also been initiatives inside the Mexican Congress to add seats for representatives from districts in areas like California. Imagine a Mexican legislator telling a U.S. Congressman that he received more votes in the district and is therefore the democratically elected representative of, say, Los Angeles?In November, I'll be voting for the next United States president by absentee ballot from Taiwan. Is that so alarming?
Moreover, if that Mexican legislator was foolish enough to present himself before the US Congress and claim himself, by virtue of his votes, the elected congressman from a certain district, it would suffice to simply point to the Constitution and alert the politician to these lines:
- Article 1, Section 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
- Article 1, Section 3
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Claim #5
From article:
Many Americans were shocked to learn that 58 percent of Mexicans surveyed in a national poll believed the Southwestern United States rightly belongs to Mexico.
Who did the poll? I'm assuming it's the Zogby Poll written about here.
Moreover, I assume that if one were to do a poll among Mexican-Americans and recent Mexican immigrants in America, seeing as they fled their country, the results would be considerably different. Even if they believed the US unjustly acquired its Southwestern territories, they probably wouldn't be advocating its return.
Also, let's not forget that, in 2004,
Claim #6
From article:
I'm no expert on Tibet. Indeed, this is the first time I've ever really sat down to take a look at China's claims to the region. I thank Mr. Chu for giving me the opportunity. I look forward to any comments or corrections those reading this may offer.
Most of those that emigrated from Mexico became naturalized US citizens and have become productive citizens. Unfortunately, some embittered intellectuals (on both sides of the border) have advocated that most of the southwest US belongs to Mexico. As a result they also believe that there should be no border control between Mexico and the US. Their rantings have convinced many that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. This view is reflected in a recent Zogby poll. The poll revealed that 58% of Mexicans believe that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. That probably explains why 60% of Mexicans also believe there should be no border control.Remember, the poll says nothing of Mexican Americans, only Mexicans. The article is where the connection to intellectuals on both sides of the border who believe that the lands belong to Mexico. The people polled have no voting power in the US and join the ranks of people around the world who espouse beliefs that just don't match up with reality.
Moreover, I assume that if one were to do a poll among Mexican-Americans and recent Mexican immigrants in America, seeing as they fled their country, the results would be considerably different. Even if they believed the US unjustly acquired its Southwestern territories, they probably wouldn't be advocating its return.
Also, let's not forget that, in 2004,
Despite statements by such officials as the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector, David Kay; its former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke; former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, as well as admissions by senior administration officials themselves, a majority of the public still believes Iraq was closely tied to the al-Qaeda terrorist group and had WMD stocks or programs before U.S. troops invaded the country 13 months ago.Yeah, opinions can change, when the facts become more apparent.''The public is not getting a clear message about what the experts are saying about Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and its WMD program'', said Steven Kull, director of the Program'' on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey.
''The analysis suggests that if the public were to more clearly perceive what the experts themselves are saying on these issues, there is a good chance this could have a significant impact on their attitudes about the war and even on how they vote in November'', he added.
The survey and analysis found a high correlation between those perceptions and support for Bush himself in the upcoming presidential race in November.
Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was either ''directly involved'' in carrying out the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided ''substantial support'' to al-Qaeda, 57 percent said they intended to vote for Bush and 39 percent said they would choose his Democratic foe, John Kerry.
Claim #6
From article:
Most of the ingredients the U.S. State Department considers necessary before calling for a plebiscite are already here: A large population of unassimilated foreign nationals and another government pretending to be their voice. The ingredient still missing is civil unrest or severe economic conditions that aggravate the delicate political situation.This paragraph in the article cited by Chu really seems to undermine his original argument. It certainly seems that one could easily defend the position that Tibet fits all four of those conditions.
