posted
So it's a duration thing, then? When does one country stop having a claim to the land? Does it need to spend a certain percentage of its total geological existence under someone else's control?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has not been under the de jure control of the Chinese state for 700 years going backwards from today. Heck, it hasn't even been under the de jure control of the Chinese state for 700 years total, much less any continuous period.
For instance, several of the hundreds of years you are attributing to Chinese rule, Tibet was ruled, entirely separately from China, by the Mongol Empire, which had not yet become a Chinese dynasty. The Chinese gov't doesn't even try to claim that period as Chinese rule, so you're rather reaching.
In the period the Chinese gov't does like to claim as Chinese rule, there's a lot of controversy for all but a slice of it. Specifically, there is no historical record of China controlling the area of Tibet governed by Lhasa, though they definitely controlled the rest of it.
Then there's the time where the Dzungar's briefly ruled Tibet.
In the first few years of the twentieth century China wasn't even strong enough to enforce the treaties they had made regarding Tibet with Britain on Tibet. Of course, then Tibet kicked the Chinese out of Tibet and asserted full independence.
Very importantly, even when Tibet was all or partially under the control of China, the parts ruled from Lhasa were treated as a subject nation, not as part of China.
But since you claim to know something about international law, you should know none of that is particularly relevant. The Chinese invasion of tibet wasn't legal or illegal, it was just an invasion, and it was an invasion of a country that was not under the control of China, and which China had signed an agreement to not interfere with militarily in relatively recent history. Make of that what you will, but stop trying to act like China's invasion was just an internal dispute.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
fugu your clearly mistaken the Yuan Dynasty aka the when the Mongols were in control is considered a part of Chinese history. Also I should note that Kublai Khan himself placed the start date of the founding of the Yuan Dynasty with when Ghengis Khan conquered northern China.
Secondly, The "Chinese invasion" was perfectly legal and within constraints of international law as A) Every map at the time showed Tibet as a part of the "Republic of China" and since the People's Republic of China is the successor state to the ROC it is perfectly within its right to enforce control over the region.
It was in fact an internal dispute, the fact that Tibet was a signatory to the Constitution of the Republic of China missed you did it?
The assertion of Independence is!= true independence, de jure Tibet was recognized by the international community as a part of "China".
De jure China's Suzerainty over Tibet has been recognized since the 1300's, that Tibet wasn't under constant administrative control is simply you being nitpicky. And yes duration does play a large point in things.
IP: Logged |
posted
Before we start drawing comparisons, is South Ossetia supposed to be Georgia's Tibet or is it Russia's Tibet? Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the period the Mongols were in charge was a part of Chinese history. However, you are the mistaken one. The Yuan dynasty was the name by which the Mongols ruled China, but the Yuan dynasty was not in control of Tibet, the Khanate was.
After a while that became the same thing, but good luck living if time travel is ever developed and you try telling the early Khans they were Chinese to their faces.
You're making yourself look more and more childish in this thread.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Classic fallacy, insulting people who disagree with you. Why is it that in every thread I'm involved "I'm childish" as soon as I voice a disagreeable educated opinion?
Your arguing semantics and being nitpicky over events happening far before the birth of the United States, what matters in essence is that this is when Tibet was first incorperated into what would become effectively a Chinese state, now when I say "Chinese" I mean the overarching principle of zhongguo minzu, they may not be Han but in retrospect they are part of the Chinese national identity.
IP: Logged |
quote:Classic fallacy, insulting people who disagree with you. Why is it that in every thread I'm involved "I'm childish" as soon as I voice a disagreeable educated opinion?
Generally when you are being childish it is a response to your representative maturity level involving any one of a number of subjects.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why does that have any bearing on the conversation?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Classic fallacy, insulting people who disagree with you. Why is it that in every thread I'm involved "I'm childish" as soon as I voice a disagreeable educated opinion?
Generally when you are being childish it is a response to your representative maturity level involving any one of a number of subjects.
Define childish, to me it reflects far more badly on ones maturity to throw around insults without properly understanding their proper context.
IP: Logged |
posted
I was suggesting you might re-examine how you're arguing.
Indeed, I wouldn't call it much of an argument at all. Most of your 'argument' is saying the same things over and over again, and just pointing at anything anyone else brings up and either just saying they're wrong (typically without even a single founded reason) or their statement is irrelevant (see previous parenthetical).
That is how a child argues, and that is why you're being childish.
edit: I'd like to rephrase my last statement, for being unfair to those times children argue well, as many I have known do on occasion.
That is how many children argue when unable to come up with a good argument, and that is why you're childish.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
except the flaw in your argument is that nothing I have said is actually wrong on the face of it, it just can be interpreted "wrong" when one argues semantics. I say the "same things" over again because I am absolutely right in anything that involves historical context. I am not wrong when i say China has de jure Suzerainty over Tibet for roughly 700 years, with de facto administrative control being on and off, Tibet for the most part has always had an important relationship with the Dynasties of Imperial China.
I would also like to point out that the huffaw over Tibet is political in nature, had the ROC won the civil war and enforced its sovereignty over Tibet (which there is mountains of evidence that it regarded Tibet every bit as important to China's territorial integrity as the Communists did) I highly doubt we would be having this discussion.
IP: Logged |
quote:...because I am absolutely right in anything that involves historical context.
Oh, he meant it. That idea is behind most of Blayne's posting on anything Chinese-politics related.
He'll be backing off or qualifying that statement at some point in the future (I doubt even he can let that statement stand on its own), but I have no doubt he meant it.
Aside from that, Blayne saying that to fugu is even more entertaining than Blayne saying it just in general:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Define childish, to me it reflects far more badly on ones maturity to throw around insults without properly understanding their proper context.
There's this guy I know on this internet forum. He's basically this massive commie fanboy who suspends critical reasoning when it would otherwise impede his vacuous and automatic defense of tyrannical Communism-associated regimes such as China. He absorbs a lot of stock concepts from dubious sources and 'independent research,' constructs apologist agitprop talking points and 'historical facts' out of them, and rattles them off en masse as a defense against criticism of his fanboy-favored regimes and/or historical figures. Then, when an argument between him and other more reasoned individuals drags on, his tone becomes increasingly dismissive and petulant, he begins spouting off controversial platitudes as 'facts' and refuses to compromise them even in the face of well-reasoned arguments against the veracity of his claims. It becomes increasingly evident that he is not open to a revision of his preconceived notions and will instead resort to increasingly garbled dismissals. When you look at these dismissals, a depressing trend emerges: they're little more than constant recycling of his own talking points (regardless as to accuracy, credibility, or even relevance), and often wildly off-the-mark assurances that he's right and that his opponents just couldn't possibly have a more credible and unbiased interpretation of controversial regimes or historical incidents than him. He's also a notorious hothead and it starts leaking through his posts pretty easily once you assault his rigid and oddly incurious worldview. I am totally blanking his name but between all that, his limited capacity for reasoning, and his other generally childish 'argumentative' tactics, he's kind of a perfect example of what I would call a childish debater.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne, you keep using the term suzerainty. For a good portion of time this was an accurate description of the Tibet/China relationship, including through the end of the 19th century. However, suzerainty is a reciprocal relationship where in exchange for bowing to the central state in outside relations, the protectorate enjoys significant internal autonomy. At all points in the last few hundred years, at least significant parts of Tibet have been under Chinese suzerainty, not sovereignty, until the PRC invaded. Suzerainty not being sovereignty, but no suzerainty existing in official parlance nowadays, which side things come down on (sovereignty or not sovereignty) in formerly suzerain situations has never been clearcut.
And if you're claiming the PRC is the continuation of the ROC in all things diplomatic, one wonders what the agreement reached with Tibet shortly after the revolution meant to China, since they totally ignored it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point, it seems to me that our gov't is really poking the bear over there. (Ha!) One of the things I've heard mentioned that Russia wants is to be recognized as a world power, and our Administration's contemptive stand appears to be putting further tension on an already volatile situation. I head on the radio yesterday a couple of Georgians talking about Russia being a serious and dangerous threat and needing to be treated with respect; about our 'strong positions' only angering the Russians and provoking more violence.
And now with the agreement in place to position an American balistic missle base close to Poland's Russian border, Russia is obviously angered further. This is not helping the Georgians (or the Polish or Russians either, IMO), and I am not suprised that some are regretting their gov't's fielty with the West.
Are we trying to start another Cold War? After all, fear sells and what the party's selling needs some help. Okay, that's just speculation, but I still don't think poking the bear is a good idea.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Russia is in serious trouble. As recently as 2000 we were providing food aid to prevent starvation, and it wouldn't take much for Russia to need it again. The only things they're making money on are old military stuff and natural resources, and the latter aren't panning out nearly so well as they'd like. The Russian economy is otherwise gone to pot. The capital investment they've been drawing is increasingly running scared due to Putin's tendency to take over any company he doesn't like much/is making money that his friends aren't getting.
Did it not have the legacy of military equipment and old power, Russia would be treated like one of the poorer countries in Europe, because it is (on a per capita basis). Even with the oil revenues and military sales, Russia's GDP per capita is a bit under Lithuania, and much less than Estonia. Without the military sales . . . well, they would need a lot more food aid.
The only things that let Russia have pretensions of super power are a corroding but still large compared to most others military and a good number of nuclear weapons.
vonk: I suspect it angers Russia most that we're acting like we're being strong when we're not showing any commitment to it. It would still anger Russia if we were actually acting strongly, but just about everything angers Russia. What is far more important is that they'd back down if we could show we had the strength to enforce our position.
You treat a threat with respect by being polite, stating your positions clearly, giving them an opportunity to save face, and having a nearby aircraft carrier.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Reading this, I kind of wonder what behind-the-scenes shenanigans are occurring now as Russia sends mixed signals about a withdrawal. Simply being contrary and calling out the West's bluff in dictating what Russia should do or internal bickering/power struggles over how to proceed or something else?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how much internal bickering there is. Putin's hold on power seems very solid. I mean, look at that article. It doesn't even mention Medvedev. And I don't think Russia has held to any of the promises Medvedev has made.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Putin doesn't want to withdraw until it is absolutely necessary. So he isn't having Russian forces withdraw yet.
edit: also, by ignoring Medvedev, he asserts internal power, demonstrates his hold on power to the outside world, and makes former satellite states scared of the west's seeming inability to make him do squat.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the real image America has throughout the world? We are represented as "cowboys," who are too ready to use decisive force, even doing it to oppose aggression proactively. But we are also represented as being "weak" and "indecisive," and bullies like Russia's Putin are eager to take advantage of it. C'mon, which is it?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A) Those two views do not necessarily seem mutually exclusive B) (6-0.30) billion people can hardly be expected to have a simple opinion that can be summed up in an either/or
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to follow the details, but correct me if my general scheme is wrong:
There have been skirmishes in South Ossetia between Russian nationalistish gangs and Georgian forces for years. There was a cease fire loosely brokered. The Georgian military goes back on the ceasefire and bombs South Ossetia, then the Russian forces use this as an excuse to march through the territory like a Riefenstahl movie, even past the disputed area, and now Putin talks about pulling back while at same time, Russian forces are digging trenches and measuring for a good place to set up a fence and a military base. Is that the general picture?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFAIK Putin hasn't talked about pulling back, Medvedev has. Also, the Russian forces don't seem to be setting up much outside South Ossetia (yet), though they have pushed outside it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What is the real image America has throughout the world? We are represented as "cowboys," who are too ready to use decisive force, even doing it to oppose aggression proactively. But we are also represented as being "weak" and "indecisive," and bullies like Russia's Putin are eager to take advantage of it. C'mon, which is it?
Well, why don't you organize a vote? Let's not be lazy now, that's only six billion people to poll.
EDIT - hmm, missing Mucus's post takes some of the wind out of my snarky sails.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that's interesting, I went to quote a paragraph I had contemplated quoting earlier from the article, and it is different, slightly but relevantly.
Here's the paragraph:
quote:The decision by the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to now cease hostilities was the right move by a responsible leader. The Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. Anyone who expected confusion in Moscow was disappointed.
It used to have a date (the 18th, iirc) for when Medvedev said hostilities would cease, not just 'now'. The change is quite telling, because Medvedev decided to cease hostilities on the 18th (and several other times in the days before that), but the Russian forces strangely kept fighting . . .
I think Gorbachev gives a good version of the beginning of recent events, but not how they have played out. As I noted earlier, I think it makes sense to concede Russia's control of the two breakaway regions: it would deal with Georgia's abuses there, and they're going to have control of them anyways. However, Russia's forces have clearly gone above and beyond taking and controlling those regions, and Gorbachev understates the seriousness of those actions.
Further, he completely ignores the continued and continually false assurances of stopped hostilities by Russian authorities, which are troubling at best and outright provocation at worst. That severely hurts his credibility in arguing for the justice of Russian actions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps it hurts his credibility, but it does not change the facts leading up to the invasion.
I also think his purpose is to warn people, especially Americans, not to get sucked into thinking, "OH NO! It's the USSR 2.0! LOCK AND LOAD!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Gorbachev gives a good version of the beginning of recent events, but not how they have played out.
edit: oh, and his version of the facts leading to invasion isn't entirely pure, either. Russia has clearly been issuing more and more passports to create a justification to take the two provinces away from Georgia, given an opportunity. Whether that's acceptable is something I have mixed feelings on, though I tend to accept it given Georgian treatment and how things have played out, but it is a major part of the facts that he left out.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another angle beyond the facts leading up to the war that I was interested in, was to get an idea of how a more moderate/conciliatory Russian may view current events. Although I have little knowledge of Gorbachev's career these days, I thought it might at least start to shed some light on that (further insight is welcome).
Unless we intend on fighting Russia, moderates and all, we may have to consider their views.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that Tibet rightfully belongs to the Chinese just because it had once been a part of China for hundreds of years in the past doesn't make China's 1950 reconquering of it as an independent nation any more legitimate than Italy conquering Egypt because of it's part in the Roman Empire once upon a time.
Georgia has a similar history under Russia's control. It once reluctantly joined the Russian Empire to prevent itself from being conquered by the Persians. Then they eventually gained independence, only to be conquered by the Soviet Union in 1921.
As for Georgian ethnic cleansing of Russians, it was the Russian seperatists who started ethnic cleansing against Georgians in the break away regions at the start of their movement after independence from the Soviet Union. Tens of thousands of Georgians were killed. Tens of thousands more were expelled. That didn't seem to concern the Russians. Seems that they hold a double standard about acts of genocide, if that's what in fact happened a couple of weeks ago. Either way, the Russian government was aiding those regions at the time, so Russia really has no right to point any fingers on that subject.
What Russia has done is supported an independence movement in a foreign territory while it went around the world saying the US shouldn't meddle in the affairs of nations like Serbia, double standard number two (not that the US is free of any double standards itself, but this isn't a "if _____ jumped off a bridge" discussion).
Russia conquered a nation that had once been under its control, allowed several of its people to congregate there, supported an independence movement within it once Georgia gained its independence again, looked the other way when one act of genocide was occuring, then acted once its interests were threatened. There's no benevolence anywhere in this.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Khav its historical fact that it was the Georgians who initiated hostilities in 1992 by a) trashing the Stalinist era constitution that granted them Autonomy and then by committing ethnic cleansing against them.
quote: The Georgian Supreme Soviet adopted a law barring regional parties in summer 1990. This was interpreted by Ossetians as a move against Ademon Nykhas and led to Ossetians proclaiming South Ossetia a Soviet Democratic Republic,[20] fully sovereign within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Ossetians boycotted subsequent Georgian parliamentary elections and held their own contest in December. The Georgian government headed by Zviad Gamsakhurdia declared this election illegitimate and abolished South Ossetia's autonomous status altogether on 11 December, 1990.
quote: t the time of the dissolution of the USSR, the United States government recognized as legitimate the pre-Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 1933 borders of the country (the government of Franklin D. Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the Kremlin at the end of that year[22]). Because of this, the first Bush administration openly supported the secession of the Baltic countries, but regarded the questions related to the independence and territorial conflicts of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the rest of the Transcaucasus — which were an integral part of the USSR with international borders unaltered since the 1920s — as internal Soviet affairs.
posted
It was a piece of Georgia that was taken from them almost immediately after Georgia was conquered by the Soviet Union. That happened in 1922. That was the start of everything.
South Ossetia wasn't absent of any Georgians when Georgia became independent of the USSR, and still isn't, minority or not. The hostilities in Ossetia were tit for tat until Russia intervened. Then it was relatively peaceful until a couple of weeks ago when both sides claimed to have been shot at by the other.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
SO wasn't "taken" from Georgia in 1922 it was made an Autonomous Oblast within Georgia.
I hardly considering Georgian advancement of 2000 troops into SO killing Russian peacekeepers tit for tat but an escalation of a volatile situation and highly irresponsible of Georgia.
IP: Logged |
posted
I had equated "autonomous" with "independent of", which I guess wasn't the case. That does nothing but weaken the independence debate a bit.
I'm not familiar with that 2000 event, but if they targeted Russian troops without just cause, then they would be stupid for doing so, even if Russia had little justification for being there.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I was wrong I see. Blayne is going with the 'pretend it never happened' tactic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I have no idea of what your talking about, just more spiel and otherwise unwanted garbage from your mouth Rakeesh, stop posting if you are incapable of arguing with any level of integrity or decency.
Khav, Russia had every reason to be there, they had a UN Mandate to have a Russian led CIS force there.
IP: Logged |
posted
The CIS is Russia's NATO, which has nothing to do with the UN. They don't have a UN mandate. The UN is keeping a watchful eye on the situation. They have a cooperative peacekeeping force set up by the OSCE (which operates under the wing of the UN to allow dialogue to happen between regions but doesn't have any real power) to include Russians, Georgians, and Ossetians. Right now, one of those three are not present in South Ossetia. The only UN resolution involved (edit: besides extending observer missions) is one recognizing that Abkhazia commited ethnic cleansing of Georgians and needs to let them back in. Instead, Abkhazia took advantage of Georgia's conflict with South Ossetia and expelled any remaining Georgian military presence, so the only region officially violating a UN mandate is Abkhazia.
posted
Georgia is definitely not completely innocent, but if they've tried to commit ethnic cleansing in the region they're very bad at it; most of the people there are still of Russian ethnicity.
I don't think what Georgia was doing reached anywhere near the level of ethnic cleansing. The brutal use of military force against a civilian population they didn't much care about in order to bring them into line yes, ethnic cleansing no.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And Georgia is what completely innocent in the matter according to you? Never committed ethnic cleansing themselves?
See, I don't know. I'd like to see what information comes out of there other than what we've got right now. If Georgia attempted to either exterminate or expel the Ossetians, that would be a grave crime indeed. All I'm saying is, Russia certainly isn't guilt-free in any matter relating to Georgia. I'm undecided as to whether South Ossetia ought to be independent, but I definitely think Abkhazia gave up that right with their actions. Russia has no justification whatsoever to be involved with that half of the issue, unless you consider racial favoratism to be justification.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Georgia is definitely not completely innocent, but if they've tried to commit ethnic cleansing in the region they're very bad at it; most of the people there are still of Russian ethnicity.
I don't think what Georgia was doing reached anywhere near the level of ethnic cleansing. The brutal use of military force against a civilian population they didn't much care about in order to bring them into line yes, ethnic cleansing no.
SILENCE! Do you not know to whom you speak? You address the Great and Powerful Blayne! Arbiter of Discussions of Historical Matters! Keeper of True Knowledge of History!
I quote here the G&PB so that you will remember yourself, and still your insolent tongue before it gets you into trouble! You have been warned. Begone!
quote:I say the "same things" over again because I am absolutely right in anything that involves historical context.
----------------
OOC: Yeah, I know, I'm not being at all helpful to the serious political discussion at hand here. But I just can't seem to help myself, or more accurately don't care to, hehe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
