Efforts on the part of the People's Republic of China to consolidate its control over Tibet continues unabated.

The new Qinghai-Tibet railway (which makes use of BSP cars manufactured by Bombardier), is a political move geared toward strengthening Chinese influence and control over Tibet. The political scheming behind the project is underlined by the skepticism expressed by Chinese president Hu Jintao about the tourist value of the railway.

The Western China Development policy, is another aspect of Beijing's reach. The policy will be used to justify the creation of infrastructure in an effort to extend PRC control over Tibet, rather than make any concessions to the "Middle Way" solution being proposed by Dharamsala-based Tibetan government-in-exile.

China's claims to Tibet are frankly outrageous and without justification. Many Western countries have a history that includes external political influence, military invasion, even temporary occupations - yet in almost every case in the post-WW2 era these nations have maintained their independence and territorial integrity. When hostilities have been pressed with evidence of atrocity - for example Serbian aggression in Kosovo - the international community has refused to endorse such illegal nationalistic adventures. So how come the illegal occupation of Tibet and the cultural genocide that preceded it has only received muted criticism?

Quebec was recently given recognition as "a nation within Canada" by the Canadian government, based upon markers related to ethnicity, language and heritage. On such criteria alone Tibetan society is clearly distinct.

Back in the mid-20th century Tibet's language, culture and most importantly its highly evolved spiritual tradition, made it as different from Mao's China as night is from day. The Chinese invasion of 1949 was a flagrant land grab and violation of international law.

The arguments offered by China to claim ownership of Tibet are flimsy at best. They try to establish a historical basis for their claim by referring back to the Manchu dynasty and by citing relationships between Chinese rulers and Tibetan lamas. This is a bit like saying that as a result of historical Anglo-Irish connections (that included ownership of Irish land), British diplomatic influence and military victories in Ireland - the UK should have the right to annex the Republic of Ireland. A proposition that is so outlandish under international law it would rightly be laughed out of court.

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Tibet vs China: Quest for freedom?
We want to hear your view. Write now!