What's new

China's Picturesque Tibet Autonomous Region: News & Images

Well, Tibetan Plateau is a gigantic strategic advantage point in the region. It overlooks core parts of India and some rather high population area of China. Aircrafts, artilleries and missiles garrison in Tibet has an overwhelming first strike advantage to whomever doesn't hold it. Hence the reason why India has been trying to expand into the region for the past 60 years.



That's a different issue entirely. The "exiled" Tibetans are part of the old ruling theocracy class in the region. Basically, thinking about feudal nobles in middle age, mix in religious fanaticism and a large jug of power hungry. Power is like a drug to these people and they'd do anything to get it back.
.


Very valid points. Strategic observation...it must be said.

But the question arises...what must China do now? South Tibet is in indian hands. Also the North East...
What are the practical steps that are needed to correct the balance of power?

Looking forward to your strategic insights.

Thanks.



.
 
.
.


Very valid points. Strategic observation...it must be said.

But the question arises...what must China do now? South Tibet is in indian hands. Also the North East...
What are the practical steps that are needed to correct the balance of power?

Looking forward to your strategic insights.

Thanks.



.

First thing we need to remember is that the colonial age is over. In the ancient times, territory changes hand quite frequently. Borders shift with each conflict or for the fact that ancient civilization's control of its border simply isn't great to start with. In modern times, however, border shift is much more difficult. Take the recent example, Crimea is about 96% Russia. Had it has been 1800s or earlier, then it would pretty much be Russia's right to annex the region. However, in modern day environment, it kicked up much stink internationally because it violated some of the unspoken agreements in post-colonial era.

Second is realizing the complicated status of the Southern Tibetan region, both in term of political claim and actual physical condition. Because India doesn't actually exist as unified nation before 1940s, much of its claim is from the British colonial era. While the Chinese claim can be traced to more than 300 years ago, South Tibet is located on the other side of the Himalayan mountain range, so actual Chinese control in the area is rather weak until the founding of people's republic of China. Logistically speaking, it is much easier for India to supply an army in the region, but since the 1950s, Chinese military has been consistently better trained. The end result is a long time stillmate in the region.

Also due to the Cold war, both China and India do not wish to maintain a prolong period of open warfare. Any open military conflicts by Chinese or India in that era were generally short and brief. However, the physical nature of the region means definitive military resolution in the region simply can't be a short one. For example, if China wants a definitive resolution, then it will need to build up a secure supply chain all the way from core Chinese regions to South Tibet, crossing Himalayan mountain range in the process. For India to get a definitive solution, it needs to develop a military complex that can match China's. Both of these are very long term projects hence why there isn't a solution for the area yet.

I need to correct you on one very important factor. South Tibet is not in India hands, at least not entirely. A question a lot of younger Chinese ask is that why did China draw from the South Tibetan region following the brief conflict in 1962? The 1962 skirmish is a decisive China victory, but following the victory, the Chinese force actually withdrawn to the previous zone of control. The reason, of course, is as I mentiond above, supplying the region is a logistic nightmare from Chinese side and China won't be able to hold the area without developing large amount of support infrastructure. However, China did not leave without leaving insurance. The Aksai Chin region remained in Chinese control. How significant is the region? Well, Southern part of hte Aksai Chin is only 300 km (200 miles) from New Dehli and has a very large elevation advantage. One of the things China inheirited from USSR is its love of rocket artilleries. Modern day Chinese rocket artilleries typically has a range between 400-500km on flat ground.

So, what is the future of the region? Well, both China and India has been working on that. China has been building railway connections to the region. Developing Tibetan Plateau also significantly shorten the supply line. India, on the hand, has been maintaining a large military presence in the area. The mountain division in the region are some of India's finest military units.

Overall, the situation has been shifting towards Chinese advantage. This is not due to any particular move in the South Tibetan region, but due to the overall development of both nations. While the two nations has relatively even economic strength in 1950, by the second five year plan (or more commonly known to you as great leap forward), Chinese gdp has outstripped India by 50%. The second five year plan also saw establishment of Chinese steel, chemical, petroleum industry and more. The gap only gotten bigger since then. The economic difference resulted in technological difference and both difference reflects directly on the balance of power in the region.
 
.
Modern day Lhasa is not a patch on what you thought Tibet looks like!
Tht level of infrastrcuture is basically what they want to have in 25 years. When I was in India, you have no idea how serious is their inferiority complex vs China. It's not your typical sour grape, it's sulfuric acid grape.

First thing we need to remember is that the colonial age is overn 1962? e
I would like to correct you, the gap is 500% Chinese GDP is 5x larger.
 
.
First thing we need to remember is that the colonial age is over. In the ancient times, territory changes hand quite frequently. Borders shift with each conflict or for the fact that ancient civilization's control of its border simply isn't great to start with. In modern times, however, border shift is much more difficult. Take the recent example, Crimea is about 96% Russia. Had it has been 1800s or earlier, then it would pretty much be Russia's right to annex the region. However, in modern day environment, it kicked up much stink internationally because it violated some of the unspoken agreements in post-colonial era.

Second is realizing the complicated status of the Southern Tibetan region, both in term of political claim and actual physical condition. Because India doesn't actually exist as unified nation before 1940s, much of its claim is from the British colonial era. While the Chinese claim can be traced to more than 300 years ago, South Tibet is located on the other side of the Himalayan mountain range, so actual Chinese control in the area is rather weak until the founding of people's republic of China. Logistically speaking, it is much easier for India to supply an army in the region, but since the 1950s, Chinese military has been consistently better trained. The end result is a long time stillmate in the region.

Also due to the Cold war, both China and India do not wish to maintain a prolong period of open warfare. Any open military conflicts by Chinese or India in that era were generally short and brief. However, the physical nature of the region means definitive military resolution in the region simply can't be a short one. For example, if China wants a definitive resolution, then it will need to build up a secure supply chain all the way from core Chinese regions to South Tibet, crossing Himalayan mountain range in the process. For India to get a definitive solution, it needs to develop a military complex that can match China's. Both of these are very long term projects hence why there isn't a solution for the area yet.

I need to correct you on one very important factor. South Tibet is not in India hands, at least not entirely. A question a lot of younger Chinese ask is that why did China draw from the South Tibetan region following the brief conflict in 1962? The 1962 skirmish is a decisive China victory, but following the victory, the Chinese force actually withdrawn to the previous zone of control. The reason, of course, is as I mentiond above, supplying the region is a logistic nightmare from Chinese side and China won't be able to hold the area without developing large amount of support infrastructure. However, China did not leave without leaving insurance. The Aksai Chin region remained in Chinese control. How significant is the region? Well, Southern part of hte Aksai Chin is only 300 km (200 miles) from New Dehli and has a very large elevation advantage. One of the things China inheirited from USSR is its love of rocket artilleries. Modern day Chinese rocket artilleries typically has a range between 400-500km on flat ground.

So, what is the future of the region? Well, both China and India has been working on that. China has been building railway connections to the region. Developing Tibetan Plateau also significantly shorten the supply line. India, on the hand, has been maintaining a large military presence in the area. The mountain division in the region are some of India's finest military units.

Overall, the situation has been shifting towards Chinese advantage. This is not due to any particular move in the South Tibetan region, but due to the overall development of both nations. While the two nations has relatively even economic strength in 1950, by the second five year plan (or more commonly known to you as great leap forward), Chinese gdp has outstripped India by 50%. The second five year plan also saw establishment of Chinese steel, chemical, petroleum industry and more. The gap only gotten bigger since then. The economic difference resulted in technological difference and both difference reflects directly on the balance of power in the region.
.

Thank you, my friend, for a coherent and balanced, factual insight.

Indeed, many outsiders i.e. non-Chinese have come to same conclusion as you highlighted in your analysis.

http://chinamatters.blogspot.nl/2016/11/the-myth-of-mcmahon-line.html


The paradox, that is both amusing and rather pathetic, is that a state that was cobbeled together by an imperial power began claiming everything as an inheritor of these territories. At the same time flaunting its 'independence'. To this day it is practicing the same imperial policies of the former master.

Anyhow, what matters is the unification of South Tibet with China. One hopes in peaceful and constructive manner.

Illegal occupation, regardless how long it is, can not be claim to ownership.

Time is Dragon's friend.

.
 
.
Tibet mulls offering women a full year of paid maternity leave
Draft law, if passed, would not only be one of the best of any region in China, but around the world
PUBLISHED : Thursday, 01 December, 2016, 3:12pm



Women in Tibet could get a year of paid maternity leave under a draft family planning law, a move that would put the region on par with Sweden in terms of how much time off mothers are given to care for newborns.

Details have yet to be officially released and it remains unclear where the draft law is in the legislative process.

The Legal Daily reported on Wednesday that the Standing Committee of the Tibetan People’s Congress had already passed the law, but an official from the national health agency told Thepaper.cn the draft was undergoing only its first reading.

“This is the first time that Tibet will adopt a population and family planning law. [The draft law] needs improvement,” the unidentified official from the National Health and Family Planning Commission was quoted as saying.

“This is the first time that Tibet will adopt population and family planning law. [The draft law] needs improvement,” the unidentified official was quoted as saying, adding that it required further deliberation before being officially passed.

But if passed, the law would give Tibet some of the most expansive maternity leave in the world, far beyond the 10 weeks of leave that Hong Kong grants to its new mothers.

New Tibetan fathers would also have 30 days of paid leave under the new law, which is also among the longest periods of paternity leave in the world.

Such programmes are a way for governments to encourage people to have children, although they often face resistance from employers who want less time off for their workers.

Tibet is grappling with a lower fertility rate, with the most recent national census in 2010 showing the region’s fertility rate for women – or the average number of children who would be born to a woman in her child-bearing years – was 1.5, well below the national average of 1.8.

Tibet also has a large number of people living in rural areas who may not necessarily have employers who can grant them paid leave. Rural Tibetans account for more than 76 per cent of the region’s 3.18 million people, and they are permitted to have as many children as they want.

Urban Tibetans and ethnic minorities can have two children, the same number as Han Chinese following the scrapping of the one-child policy by the central government this year.

The mainland abandoned the one-child policy in the face of demographic strain created by an ageing population and shrinking labour pool, which carry enormous economic implications.

Provinces across the mainland have amended their family-planning laws accordingly, granting couples additional paid leave to encourage more births.

Presently, women in Guangdong enjoy the longest maternity leave on the mainland – 208 days if they have a caesarean section during delivery. Most other provinces grant maternity leave of 128, 158 or 180 days.

Some regions also offer generous paternity leave plans. Gansu, Henan and Yunnan provinces are the envy of fathers across the country with 30 days of legal paternity leave. Inner Mongolia, Guangxi and Ningxia provide 25 days of leave. Most other provinces grant 15 days of paternity leave, while Tianjin and Shandong rank at the bottom with just seven days.

Globally, the Swedes enjoy the longest parental leave – 480 days shared between the mother and father. Parents in Australia share up to 52 weeks, while those in Britain have 50 weeks. Japanese mothers are entitled to 14 weeks of maternity leave, while Singaporean mothers get 16 weeks.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/poli...mulls-offering-women-full-year-paid-maternity
 
.
Free education , food and accommodation , medicare, year long maternity leave... Why Tibetans get so much preferential treatment from the government??!

The west will report another Tibetan genocide cause the Chinese government forcibly imposes a new law on the Tibetan women.
 
.
I want to ask a hypothetical question.
What if a women gives birth almost every year for the next 5 years?
Will she get paid leave for 5 straight years?o_O
 
.
I want to ask a hypothetical question.
What if a women gives birth almost every year for the next 5 years?
Will she get paid leave for 5 straight years?o_O
Tibetans are of a small population, the government can provide for them, they don't work much anyway. Spending most of their days praying
 
.
I'm pretty sure one of the Scandanavian countries (probably Finland) already got this regulation? In fact, even the fathers to be get months off, all paid. That's what you call family orientation. Things financial difficulties can ruin in life...
 
.
lhasa-transport-01.jpg

ac6cdb70-c1aa-49aa-b6d6-40d0b8b6c3d7.jpg

%E6%8B%89%E8%90%A8.jpg

15147039152_8f706f7158_o.jpg


20160608112655520.jpg

wKgB6lO5cBuAGmqtAAZXuA5UIhM05.jpeg

1-15032315392Rb.jpg
 
. . . .
Since 1949, Tibetan population more that doubled from 1.2 million to well over 3 million today. Life expectancy rose from 36 years on average to 69 years in 2015. Literacy rate went from 5% to 65% after Dalai Lama and his aristocrats were driven out.

What kind of "genocide" more than doubles the population, doubles the life expectancy and improves overall living conditions?
ev
Dalai Lama would be impressed with all the progress of his people. China should bring him back to Tibet with offer of limited autonomy because thats what Tibetan people want.

Why do Chinese hate him so much??

Why you guys don't even want to talk to him or negotiate?
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom