China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.”
The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress.
After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization led to China’s imposition of drastic policies aimed at erasing Tibetan identity, such as the use of the Chinese word “Xizang” for Tibet. However, no matter how hard China politicizes the nomenclature of Tibet, facts cannot be forgotten. For example, the Indian government opted to use “Tibet” instead of “Xizang” in its statement extending condolences to the victims of the earthquake in January.
China’s core tactic for erasing Tibet is pressuring “subservient” nations to standardize views on the status of Tibet. The Nepalese prime minister’s joint statement with China read: “The Nepalese side reiterated that Xizang affairs are internal affairs of China, and that it will never allow any separatist activities against China on Nepal’s soil.”
Under China’s debt trap, the Nepalese government has no choice but to appease Chinese authorities when it comes to the issue of Tibet. Similarly, Bhutan did not hesitate to use Xizang for Tibet, as China’s constant aggression at the border leaves it in a difficult situation where accepting Beijing’s mandate comes as no surprise at all. China’s tactics — including using its economic power — attempt to pressure nations into distancing themselves from the three unpleasant ‘Ts’: Tibet, Taiwan and Tiananmen.
Today marks the 74th anniversary of the agreement that buried the independence of Tibet. This agreement was repudiated by the Dalai Lama in 1959 after eight years of trying to find common ground within the agreement’s framework. However, all points in the agreement were never meant to be implemented in Tibet.
The Dalai Lama in his book Voice for the Voiceless recounts an exchange with Mao Zedong (毛澤東) in 1954 about the Tibetan national flag: “One day, Chairman Mao paid an unannounced visit to my lodgings. During this meeting, he unexpectedly asked if Tibet had a national flag. Somewhat nervously, I replied that we did, and he said that it would be fine for us to keep it.”
This promise, made by Mao himself, has become completely illegal in Tibet, let alone granting Tibet genuine autonomy.
Yeshi Dawa is a former bureau chief at Radio Free Asia, Dharamshala, affiliated fellow at Tibet Policy Institute, anchor at Tibet TV and academic administrator at the Institute of Leadership & Governance, MSU Baroda.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS