[Rictor]

...is why China is so intent on holding on to a mountainous scrap of land with no natural resources, no significant population centers, no strategic value and no historical or cultural significance to China in particular.

Aside from serving as a show or force for its own sake, what possible reason is there for so persistently denying Tibet independence, especially when an independent Tibet would be perfectly happy to have normal relations with the PRC. They're creating a ton of bad PR for themselves around the world, all for a tiny backwater that they have no use for in the first place. At least Taiwan has a robust economy, a large population and all sorts of other nice things, so I can see the appeal. Tibet is just endless mountains populated by a few monks.

In case people don't know what I'm talking about
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7302654.stm

[Kaoru]

I would imagine it'd be because, if they granted Tibet its independence, foreign powers could seed the new government with operatives that the PRC might not want. Tibet's natural terrain means that rooting out 'terrorist' (And I use the term in the sense of 'Those who attack the Chinese government', these could even be operatives of a foreign government, rather than radical militant cells) organizations would be naturally difficult. And if Tibet were to ally with the enemies of China in any possible war, that'd give China's enemies a strategic point (In which to base airbases and supply depots) that would give them access to the majority of mainland China (with current advances in aeroplane technology). Invading to retake Tibet in the former circumstance (with terrorists attacking mainland China with virtual impunity) would be an act of, in the international community's eyes, 'baseless aggression', and in the latter circumstance, would be made much more difficult by the naturally-defensible terrain and the lack of major routes into Tibet.

In other words, the country would, when independent, be a boon to China's opponents, and a bane to China, itself.

[Sarafan]

Because of pride.

[Kosh]

...is why China is so intent on holding on to a mountainous scrap of land with no natural resources, no significant population centers, no strategic value and no historical or cultural significance to China in particular

It does have a lot of natural resources, ranging from mineral and water resources to lots of potential for alternative energy. It has been historically significant going all the way back to the republic as a symbol for western attempts to carve up their country. Had the nationalists won I doubt their attitude (or responce) would have been any different......

[BlackDove]

I hope everyone does realize that Tibet is much better off under China then the ****ers that goad the stupid to scream its cause.

[Flipside]

I seem to recall that Tibet used a serf-based system before China moved in.

It is kind of interesting to note that China cannot pull out of Tibet for almost exactly the same reason that America cannot pull out of Iraq.

[Mobius]

Independentists and the Dalai Lama are pointed out as terrorists...

Please note that many Chinese people are encouraged to go to Tibet and start a new life there. The Chinese are proceeding with "the second phase of colonization" and simply don't want to lose those territories.

[Rictor]

I hope everyone does realize that Tibet is much better off under China then the ****ers that goad the stupid to scream its cause.

Better off in what way? Materially, or spiritually/culturally? Which begs the question - what's more important, freedom or having running water/ proper roads?

Hell, a theocracy is hardly what I would wish as my form of government, even if it's composed of generally cool guys. But if that's their tradition, my vote is to let them have it.

[TrashMan]

Never liked China much...because of crap like this in Tibet. If they were smart they would give Tibet a large autonomy..make everyone at least half happy.

[BlackDove]

I hope everyone does realize that Tibet is much better off under China then the ****ers that goad the stupid to scream its cause.

Better off in what way? Materially, or spiritually/culturally? Which begs the question - what's more important, freedom or having running water/ proper roads?

Hell, a theocracy is hardly what I would wish as my form of government, even if it's composed of generally cool guys. But if that's their tradition, my vote is to let them have it.

You seem to think it's a choice. They're more free and more watered and roaded under the Chinese. There is no benefit to letting the Dalai Lama ****ers back into power.

Except for the monk ruling class of course.

[Kosh]

I hope everyone does realize that Tibet is much better off under China then the ****ers that goad the stupid to scream its cause.

Better off in what way? Materially, or spiritually/culturally? Which begs the question - what's more important, freedom or having running water/ proper roads?

Hell, a theocracy is hardly what I would wish as my form of government, even if it's composed of generally cool guys. But if that's their tradition, my vote is to let them have it.

Before it was conquered/absorbed/whatever it had a life expectancy of 36, 95% illiteracy, and a system where if you weren't born into the privileged llama class you were totally ****ed and were on the bottom rung with absolutely no possibility of bettering your life. Pretty much like Europe in the dark ages.

[Rictor]

Before it was conquered/absorbed/whatever it had a life expectancy of 36, 95% illiteracy, and a system where if you weren't born into the privileged llama class you were totally ****ed and were on the bottom rung with absolutely no possibility of bettering your life. Pretty much like Europe in the dark ages.

Yeah, I have no problem with that - if it's their tradition, c'est la vie. Just like I'm fine with the Saudis choosing to veil their women, or if Indians want to have arranged marriages.

Since when did the Western standard, represented here by China, become the exclusive measure to which all societies are held. Let the Tibetans have their feudal theocracy if that's what makes them happy.

edit: and before you say "they are happier this way", why not put the matter to a vote if that were the case? A referendum on remaining within China, or at least on autonomy, would settle the dispute.

[Janos]

I hope everyone does realize that Tibet is much better off under China then the ****ers that goad the stupid to scream its cause.

and yet for some reason locals don't actually think of it like that

seriously. this is the stupidest argument;

"oh we trample on their rights and they have no representation WELL 50 YEARS AGO THEY WERE A ****HOLE ERGO THE OCCUPATION IS GOOD"

what the ****, seriously, if this argument held any water we would still be part of the goddamn Roman Empire or something

[BlackDove]

No, actually, we'd be right where we are, where the strong rule and the weak **** in the streets.

[Janos]

No, actually, we'd be right where we are, where the strong rule and the weak **** in the streets.

so are you chinese

[Admiral_Stones]

...is why China is so intent on holding on to a mountainous scrap of land with no natural resources, no significant population centers, no strategic value and no historical or cultural significance to China in particular.

Aside from serving as a show or force for its own sake, what possible reason is there for so persistently denying Tibet independence, especially when an independent Tibet would be perfectly happy to have normal relations with the PRC. They're creating a ton of bad PR for themselves around the world, all for a tiny backwater that they have no use for in the first place. At least Taiwan has a robust economy, a large population and all sorts of other nice things, so I can see the appeal. Tibet is just endless mountains populated by a few monks.

In case people don't know what I'm talking about
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7302654.stm

You see, technically Taiwan IS a part of China.

[Shade]

No, technically Taiwan was part of china. They ceded it to Japan. Using your logic, the US Virgin Islands technically ARE part of Denmark.

[BlackDove]

No, actually, we'd be right where we are, where the strong rule and the weak **** in the streets.

so are you chinese

Don't have anything to do with them whatsoever.

[IceFire]

No, technically Taiwan was part of china. They ceded it to Japan. Using your logic, the US Virgin Islands technically ARE part of Denmark.

The Chinese government would argue that point with you.

Taiwan is technically "Taiwan, Republic of China".  I don't think Taiwan exists as a separate entity in the UN either...although they have tried to work towards that.  Its a very odd state of affairs.  If Taiwan tries to officially break from China then the Chinese have made noises that they would come down hard on Taiwan.  If things are allowed to remain the way they are then Taiwan will probably continue on indefinitely as a mostly autonomous country.

[Janos]

No, technically Taiwan was part of china. They ceded it to Japan. Using your logic, the US Virgin Islands technically ARE part of Denmark.

The Chinese government would argue that point with you.

Taiwan is technically "Taiwan, Republic of China".  I don't think Taiwan exists as a separate entity in the UN either...although they have tried to work towards that.  Its a very odd state of affairs.  If Taiwan tries to officially break from China then the Chinese have made noises that they would come down hard on Taiwan.  If things are allowed to remain the way they are then Taiwan will probably continue on indefinitely as a mostly autonomous country.

Taiwan is de facto independent, but because of the entire diplomatic mess where both PRC and ROC claim each others' areas, the more powerful PRC has a stranglehold on Taiwan's place in international diplomacy.

It cannot be called autonomous, because it is totally independent on all aspects except international representation. They cannot declare independence, because that would piss off PRC. PRC cannot just annex them, because it would cost a great deal of money and move PRC more towards international pariah (plus the two's economies are very interwined). No country that wishes to have diplomatic relations with PRC can have relations with ROC, however ROC is held as de facto independent. De jure PRC could actually be the illegal state arghra mein kopf