Sinocentrism for the Information Age

[Maxtini]

My point is, Dalai Lama and his follower has already revolt before Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution happened. His "fight for independence" as you put it has already happened before those two event occurred. And that is a fact.

BTW, Dalai Lama has publicly said that he do not seek independence for Tibet only autonomous rule.

According to the current international order.

Dalai Lama as the last leader in history signed an agreement that integrate Tibet into China. What happened in the past is not relevant. This is why there is NOT a single country in the world that recognized Tibet as NOT a part of China. And that is a fact.

Hmm.. I never read once that Dalai Lama has signed the agreement, but Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme (as head of representative) did. The seals used by the representatives themselves was also provided by China in a capacity as personal seals.

Following your logic, Indonesia could be break into many countries. South Vietnam could break away from Vietnam. All the sultanates in Malaysia would any time in the future declare independence and break away from Malaysia. India would break into many many countries. Any country that exist in the past could declare independence from the current country.

The world would be in a total chaos.

If the peoples are willing, then of course yes. The fact that there are great famine and hardship before Deng's reform justified the struggle for independence. But this does not necessarily means arm struggle.

Never heard about 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum? (From UK)
Or 2014 Catalonian independence referendum? (From Spain)
Or 2011 South Sudah independence referendum? (From Sudan)
Or 1944 Icelandic Independence referendum? (From Denmark)
Or 1933 Western Australia Independence referendum? (From Australia)
Or 1988 and 1995 Quebec Independence Referendum? (From Canada)
Or 1990 Slovenian independence referendum? (From Yugoslavia)
Or 1999 East Timor Independence Referendum? (From Indonesia)

Europe and African are thousand of miles apart. They have no historical, political and cultural link.

Of course they have historical link, North Africa was part of Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empire.

Tibet is just next door to China mainland. Historically, Tibet has been many times a part of China.

Yeah, scotland and ireland has been part of UK eversince the act of union, but independence of them was justified and must not be persecuted.

Tibet along with many part of China break away after the fall of the last imperial empire, the qing dynasty. China is broken into many small countries. This always happen in China after the fall of a empire/dynasty.

A new administration/government would needs to gather the break away countries and unite China again. Only the government that is able to do that would be considered the legitimate successor or in Chinese term, the one to received the mandate of heaven to rule China. This process has happened many many time in Chinese history.

The PRC(CPC) simply did what was traditional. If it is the ROC(KMT) that has won the civil war in China. They would have done the same thing to unite Tibet into China also.

The relationship between China and Tibet is not a colonist/colony relationship. We are one people. The Chinese people truly care about the Tibetan people. China sent million each year into Tibet. Whenever Tibet need Chinese help, Chinese would not think twice to deliver it. Tibet contrary to many believe is not a heaven on earth. It has a harsh and fragile environment. Chinese people have no problem at all helping our not so fortunate brother. China has many preferential policy that assist the Tibetan. And with 1.4 billion brother looking out for each other, we would build Tibet into a prosperous place just like other part of China.

You would say unite, but objectively, It was just an attempt to fullfill the Imperialist past of China. Mongolia, despite "united" by Qing, is indepedent now.
Maybe you missed Mongolia and Vietnam so dearly, since they are now independence.

China imperialist is just like any other imperialist. That is in the past. I do not understand what you mean by historical narrative. Is that historical, official or from internet?

Before the end of WWII, countries could just invade and annex any country. This leads to two world war that caused immense suffering of everybody. The world gather together and founded the United Nation to prevent that from happening again.

China considered it is of utmost importance that the post WWII order is maintained. We do not wish the world to revert to the past. This is of vital interest to every countries in the world, especially the small and weak country.

This is the reason why, China would insist that Japan abide by the term of her surrender in WWII. And stop the practice of denying and revising historical fact about the atrocities that they had committed.

Yeah, and Taiwan also insisted that PRC stop denying and revising historical fact that ROC still exist and running its government in Taiwan.

 

[JSCh]

Hmm.. I never read once that Dalai Lama has signed the agreement, but Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme (as head of representative) did. The seals used by the representatives themselves was also provided by China in a capacity as personal seals.

Whether he physically signed on the agreement or not is moot. All the legality and subsequent action in carrying out the agreement has been complied. Going back years after the agreement is a fact and pick on technicality just show dishonesty.

If the peoples are willing, then of course yes. The fact that there are great famine and hardship before Deng's reform justified the struggle for independence. But this does not necessarily means arm struggle.

Never heard about 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum? (From UK)
Or 2014 Catalonian independence referendum? (From Spain)
Or 2011 South Sudah independence referendum? (From Sudan)
Or 1944 Icelandic Independence referendum? (From Denmark)
Or 1933 Western Australia Independence referendum? (From Australia)
Or 1988 and 1995 Quebec Independence Referendum? (From Canada)
Or 1990 Slovenian independence referendum? (From Yugoslavia)
Or 1999 East Timor Independence Referendum? (From Indonesia)

Wah, you must have done quite some brainstorming to list so many referendum. Only South Sudan, Slovenian and East Timor actually got independence. Only in Slovenian, the process is peaceful. It is also without foreign (read western) intervention.

Whether you like it or not, I do not think referendum is the norm in the world we live today. Historically, there are far more people seeking independence then there are referendum.

And I think historically your country, Indonesia, is particularly bad in that department. I do wonder if your government and people share you view? Would Indonesia one day declared to her citizen that any group that wish a break away independence would get a referendum? That would have been a really good news to the people of Aceh independence and West Papau independence movement.

Would you support all the world government in making the same declaration to their people?

If you think supporting that action would be good for world peace, I would say that you are just being naive.

Of course they have historical link, North Africa was part of Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empire.

I think western colonist colonized many times more of Africa than just North Africa. Wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, scotland and ireland has been part of UK eversince the act of union, but independence of them was justified and must not be persecuted.

Justified? by whose standard? yours? world opinion? world government? UN? God?

Look, whether the people of Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales or even England wishes to secede from UK by war of independence like Ireland or referendum like Scotland is internal affair and up to the people of UK. It is none of our business and China would not interfere. We only ask for equal respect of sovereignty.

You would say unite, but objectively, It was just an attempt to fullfill the Imperialist past of China. Mongolia, despite "united" by Qing, is indepedent now.
Maybe you missed Mongolia and Vietnam so dearly, since they are now independence.

The only people on this earth that could define China is the Chinese people. If the Chinese people considered them to be part of China, then the Chinese government has a duty to fulfill the wishes of the Chinese people.

Vietnam has not been considered a part of China long time before the last dynasty fall. And I do not think that there are many Chinese today that would considered Vietnam as part of China.

The Czarist Russia/Soviet Union took outer Mongolia away and PRC recognized Mongolia independence. ROC while not officially exclude Mongolia from China but has unofficially removed Mongolia from their map in 2002.

Mongolia is today heavily influenced by Soviet/Russian culture. You know there are more ethnic Mongolian in China than in Mongolia? And the Mongolian in China today enjoyed a far better standard of living than those across the border. Also the Mongolian in China is very proud that they have kept a great part of their culture and enjoy them.

Both Vietnam and Mongolia are member of UN. PRC recognized and respect the sovereignty of both nations.

Yeah, and Taiwan also insisted that PRC stop denying and revising historical fact that ROC still exist and running its government in Taiwan.

That is a can of worm that you are opening.

Political status of Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

De facto vs. de jure and whether ROC ceased to exist

The use of the terms de facto and de jure to describe Taiwan's as well as the Republic of China's status as a state is itself a contentious issue. This partially stems from the lack of precedents regarding derecognized, but still constitutionally functioning states. For instance, it is regularly argued that Taiwan satisfies the requirements of statehood at international law as stated in the Montevideo Convention. At the same time, there is continued debate on whether UN membership or recognition as a state by the UN is a decisive feature of statehood (since it represents broad recognition by the international community); the debate arises because non-state entities can often satisfy the Montevideo Convention factors, while the list of states recognised by the UN, for the most part, correlate well with entities recognised as states by customary international law. If the latter argument is accepted, then the Republic of China may have ceased to be a state post-1971 as a matter of international law ("de jure"), yet continued to otherwise function as the state that it previously was recognised as ("de facto").

From the 1990s onwards, media wire services sometimes describe Taiwan as having de facto independence, whereas the Republic of China has always considered itself as a continuously functioning de jure state.

I do not think argument on this would be productive. Cross strait relation between PRC and ROC has improved. Representative from both government has held routine talk and frequently visit each other. That is what is important.

 

[Maxtini]

Wah, you must have done quite some brainstorming to list so many referendum. Only South Sudan, Slovenian and East Timor actually got independence. Only in Slovenian, the process is peaceful. It is also without foreign (read western) intervention.

Whether you like it or not, I do not think referendum is the norm in the world we live today. Historically, there are far more people seeking independence then there are referendum.

If they seeks independence, then just go ahead. The importance is, they are allowed to decide whether to be independence or not. If the outcome of independence is No, then it shows that the independence movement doesn't have any support.

And I think historically your country, Indonesia, is particularly bad in that department. I do wonder if your government and people share you view? Would Indonesia one day declared to her citizen that any group that wish a break away independence would get a referendum? That would have been a really good news to the people of Aceh independence and West Papau independence movement.

What is my view doesn't have something to do with my government's view. It is called freedom of expression. Having dissenting opinion different from governments official view is not a crime. Or is it in China? (i believe someone like that was called 漢奸 in Chinese )

Would you support all the world government in making the same declaration to their people?

If you think supporting that action would be good for world peace, I would say that you are just being naive.

Of course~

I think western colonist colonized many times more of Africa than just North Africa. Wouldn't you agree?

Of course, whether culturally link or not, independece is justified.

Justified? by whose standard? yours? world opinion? world government? UN? God?

Of course by the peoples. If the Scotland want independence, then let's use referendum to see whether the demand is justified or not. It's simple as that.

Look, whether the people of Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales or even England wishes to secede from UK by war of independence like Ireland or referendum like Scotland is internal affair and up to the people of UK. It is none of our business and China would not interfere. We only ask for equal respect of sovereignty.

It is not about interferance, it is about respecting people's wishing and not persecute peoples who has different opinion/view. Doesn;t this thread is about sinocentrism. The fact that people's does not allowed having opposing view (in political arena) in China proves how sinocentric the Chinese government is.

The only people on this earth that could define China is the Chinese people. If the Chinese people considered them to be part of China, then the Chinese government has a duty to fulfill the wishes of the Chinese people.

And that's Sinocentric!
If the Chinese considered Korea part of China, then you would insist they're part of China without respecting the Korean views that they are not?

Well, that has proven a lot how sinocentrist is China.

That is a can of worm that you are opening.

I do not think argument on this would be productive. Cross strait relation between PRC and ROC has improved. Representative from both government has held routine talk and frequently visit each other. That is what is important.

Either productive or not, we are talking about fact. Isn't the famous 實事求是 idiom from Mao seek truth and fact above all? I never understand why you want to divert the fact that ROC has independent entity from PRC.

Btw, I never intend to debate this long except to reached 15 posts (this post is teh 15th) .... Hehehe... Nice talks with you... LOL

 

[Audio]

Only in Slovenian, the process is peaceful. It is also without foreign (read western) intervention.

There was a 10 day independence "war". Could be called more a series of skirmishes and cordoning Yugoslav Army troops in their barracks so they did not do much harm.
Israel was supplying weapons, even during the embargo afterwards. And the country got international recognition practicaly instantly (Germany was first iirc), so i would not say no western intervention. In some sense there was.

Or 1944 Icelandic Independence referendum? (From Denmark)

This was also peaceful.

 

[JSCh]

If they seeks independence, then just go ahead. The importance is, they are allowed to decide whether to be independence or not. If the outcome of independence is No, then it shows that the independence movement doesn't have any support.

What I am saying is just that the view that if people seek independence then just go ahead have a referendum is naive. It is impossible for country to give that kind of right to all its people. The real world is far more complicated than that. It is just one of those often chanted western narratives. But if you want to believe in it, I have no problem with it. I am just trying to help you wake up from that illusion.

What is my view doesn't have something to do with my government's view. It is called freedom of expression. Having dissenting opinion different from governments official view is not a crime. Or is it in China? (i believe someone like that was called 漢奸 in Chinese )
Of course~


Of course, whether culturally link or not, independece is justified.

Relax, nobody said anything about crime!
I am just asking you whether your government share your view or not?
This is what I said:

And I think historically your country, Indonesia, is particularly bad in that department. I do wonder if your government and people share you view? Would Indonesia one day declared to her citizen that any group that wish a break away independence would get a referendum? That would have been a really good news to the people of Aceh independence and West Papau independence movement.

No where did I said that you cannot have an opinion different from your government, if I shocked you or something, that is not my intention.

I am just trying to show you that historically your government did not share your view. In fact, I do not think any government would be so naive as to give its people that kind of right. If they do so, then people from the region that have oil or rich mineral or various other material or political/cultural reason would just keep asking referendum from the country.

If people that are unhappy just break away, then the world would break into many many parts. It would be just like historical Papua/New Guinea island, constant tribal war that last centuries.

Chinese are a people that value cooperation/collectivism. We prefer people to compromise and live with each others.

Of course by the peoples. If the Scotland want independence, then let's use referendum to see whether the demand is justified or not. It's simple as that.

Like I said, it is up to people of UK to give Scotland referendum or not. It is UK internal affair. Or are you suggesting that the opinion of the UK people do not matter, only the opinion of Scot matter?

We can see that countries sometimes has problem in differences. But we do not pretend that we hold the absolute truth, we do not go and dictate other people how to solve their problem. Like the case of Northern Ireland, we do not pretend we could understand their problem, we do not think we would know who is right or who is wrong. The parties involved has to solve the problem by themselves. Outside meddling only make the matter worse.

It is not about interferance, it is about respecting people's wishing and not persecute peoples who has different opinion/view. Doesn;t this thread is about sinocentrism. The fact that people's does not allowed having opposing view (in political arena) in China proves how sinocentric the Chinese government is.

54 years ago, in 1959, what CIA did to Tibet would be called interference by any definition of the word. CIA has a reputation of turning place into shxt for decades. We are glad that Chinese government is smart enough to prevent that from happening.

The National endowment of democracy, a US congress funded organization has replaced CIA in continuing funding/supporting the Dalai Lama. We would continue to be vigilant in preventing their constant meddling and sowing of discord and dissatisfaction in Tibet.

You could of course, believed that the American/CIA interfered in Tibet because they care about the Tibetan people, that they meant well for Tibet, that they are "respecting Tibetan wish".

Well, Chinese weren't born yesterday. We know very well the hypocritical and double standard of the west.

Tibet is doing just fine today and would become even better in the future.

And that's Sinocentric!
If the Chinese considered Korea part of China, then you would insist they're part of China without respecting the Korean views that they are not?

Well, that has proven a lot how sinocentrist is China.

"The only people on this earth that could define China is the Chinese people."

That is true for any country in the world. The people has a sovereign right to define their country. Indonesian define what is Indonesia. UK people defined what is UK. Or do you think that Indonesia would let another people/country/organization define your country?

"If the Chinese people considered them to be part of China, then the Chinese government has a duty to fulfill the wishes of the Chinese people."

The same is true of any country in the world as well. Or do you think for example, Indonesian government would just ignore the wishes of the Indonesian people?

Chinese do not considered Korea as part of China. But if Chinese did, and China and Korean president/leader negotiated and signed an agreement that join Korea to China, we see no problem with that.

Either productive or not, we are talking about fact. Isn't the famous 實事求是 idiom from Mao seek truth and fact above all? I never understand why you want to divert the fact that ROC has independent entity from PRC.

Btw, I never intend to debate this long except to reached 15 posts (this post is teh 15th) .... Hehehe... Nice talks with you... LOL

I have posted the Wikipedia link that show you that by common legal opinion, whether it is a fact or not is controversial and undetermined.

Or you think that just because you think that it is a fact, the world should just accept your opinion as such?

Nice talking to you too.

 

[JSCh]

There was a 10 day independence "war". Could be called more a series of skirmishes and cordoning Yugoslav Army troops in their barracks so they did not do much harm.
Israel was supplying weapons, even during the embargo afterwards. And the country got international recognition practicaly instantly (Germany was first iirc), so i would not say no western intervention. In some sense there was.



This was also peaceful.

Thank you for your correction.

I was thinking about Slovakia when I said peaceful referendum. I have always been confused about Slovakia/Slovenia. I thought the break up of Czechoslovakia is by referendum. Now I know that is not the case.

 

[Audio]

Thank you for your correction.

I was thinking about Slovakia when I said peaceful referendum. I have always been confused about Slovakia/Slovenia. I thought the break up of Czechoslovakia is by referendum. Now I know that is not the case.

It was. In the case of Czechoslovakia (peaceful referendum). They split their country peacefully. But i agree, it is confusing, especially for a foreigner.