The Tibetan Question

There’s violence in Tibet in most recent days and they are not merely trifling. In fact, deaths were reported in the capital city of Lhasa just about a week ago and just hours ago, the ceremonial lighting of the Olympic torch in Athens was so untowardly blighted by a man that had suddenly appeared with a banner in hand, seen on live TV worldwide, in protest of the recent violent crackdown of the Chinese government troops of protesters in Tibet. To be sure, the fast-approaching Summer Olympics in Beijing becomes now an all too ominous stage for Tibet protest and this has gotten the extreme ire of the Chinese government, especially China Premier Wen Jiabao.

Now, this latest spark of conflict in Central Asia had intuited a number of why’s and how’s in my mind. Such question as to why Tibet had gone into absolute territorial control of China and how a reasonably distinct nation—-with an auspiciously unique culture and ways of life—-becomes subject to the sovereignty of a neighbor country.

As a matter of fact, Tibet is one location that is wider than Western Europe and had in fact been once an empire by itself, encroaching towards India and western part of mainland China. In my mind, Tibet had always been a separate existence form China where Tibet is not China or China is not Tibet. It’s like Mongolia. Mongolia was never part of China even if for once it had ruled the whole of China thru the Manchu Dynasty.

Nepal and Bhutan are fully sovereign countries even though they are small in size and despite that they are similarly situated near China. Yet Tibet had been incorporated into the territorial delineation of China ever since troops from the People’s Liberation of China had marched into Lhasa in 1959, with guns and munnitions, starting an occupation that had seemingly ripened into full annexation when in 2007, the Dalai Lama himself—-the spiritual and known leader-in-exile of Tibet—-had publicly renounced his desire for a the grant of sovereignty to Tibet but merely greater autonomy in terms of cultural and religious practices. This renunciation had of course caused so much surprise and amazement from the international scene and many Tibetans in exile in many parts of the world had not taken such declaration with approval.

But perhaps, to fulfill the core Buddhist faith of peaceful means, the Dalai Lama had actually accepted China’s sovereignty over Tibet. Or perhaps, it might have been just a simple act of desperation on his part at that time.

Despite of that, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao had most recently lambasted the Dalai Lama and accusing him of inciting the recent uprising and protest action in Lhasa, unduly sullying the spirit of the Summer Olympics that Beijing would host this coming August.

Now finally, one very interesting question is on why does China becomes so interested in a land that is almost bare such as Tibet, where arable lands are scarce and there are no known mineral deposit there like oil or gold?

This urgent desire for clasp in Tibet by China might be reasonably pointed out towards security concerns, where a disruptive Tibetan population, one that is hugely characterized by serfdom and almost nil economic activity, could pose numerous hazards to the integrity of the China sovereignty. But upon being aware that the relatively small Tibetan population could in no way harm the Chinese state, security reasons, as one main cause for annexation, could not thereon be fully justified.

So now there remains a hugely unresolved Tibetan question.