Michael Durlin Government/politics of East Asia Dr.

Rich 12/8/2013

In the Defense of the Mainland

Introduction A common image in America is an image of hippy protester out on the streets holding up a homemade sign that says free Tibet. Surely the hippy has good intentions, but what does free Tibet mean? Does it mean that China should just cut the Tibetans loose, and allow them to form their own state? Would even the Tibetans want that, to go from being part of a world super power, which offers them some security and wealth, to a potential third world state that is land locked? Maybe, but what the sign that says free Tibet means free Tibet from the situation that deprives them of their human rights. Or maybe there is a third option, that the hippy carrying the free Tibet sign does not understand the reality of the situation in China, since more than likely He or she cannot locate Tibet on a map, he/she probably thinks Tibet is between the state of sweet and sour and Thailand. But on a serious note, what the government of Mainland China is accused of is horrible beyond thought, and could only be compared as less sadistic, and evil than the events that took place under Nazi Germany, and the governments that participated in the Dirty War in Latin America. The level of horror is not being debated, but what is being debated is the lack of understanding from the people outside of mainland on the rationality of thinking of Mainland China to commit such acts.

Why it Matters Why does it matter if Mainland China violates human rights or not? It matters because Mainland China is the second world power as of today, and soon if not already other states will follow in the footsteps of Mainland China. China could be setting a precedent to change the international norm that all violation of human right regardless of what the United Nations says is wrong. China is expanding economically with the hunt for resources, if Mainland China can easily deprive people of their own ethnic background and of state than what is stopping them from depriving human rights in other areas that they have an interest in, such as parts of Africa, where they have an economic foot hold. What about the United States, where Mainland China holds a large portion of U.S debt. Mainland China is second in the world in exports and a key player in the global economy, If Mainland China is guilty of violating human rights than every state that imports Chinese goods is guilty as well. (CIA, 2012) But if others can understand where Mainland China action logic than the more easily other help and prevent such human right violation from ever have to be committed. Human rights What constitutes being listed as being a human right? Based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the General assembly of the United Nations, the following constitutes as human rights. The following list is not complete; these are just the rights that have been believed violated by Mainland China on the Tibetans. All people by the nature of being born a human are equal, and should not be subjugated by their race, economic status, beliefs or any other dichotomy. Any forced act that deprives a human of his/her dignity is in violation of human rights, these accounts for slavery as well as in humane punishments. Next it

is a human right violation if people are by any means restricted to move anywhere on the globe. Property is a human necessity; rejection of controlling property is a violation. And finally freedom of religion if forcibly limited in any way by an outside force is a violation. (United Nations, 2013) No No No Mainland China Is Gulity Gulity Guilty To make it clear on what Mainland China is accused of, the following list is of old and new reports of human right violations. The Tibetans have been deprived of the basic right to speak, from a Tibetan in 1992. From the same Tibetan, Tibetans have to be aware that at any time they could be sent to prison, for charged they will never hear. While in prison, Tibetans are treated less than human, and tortured with skin irritations such as ice, and electric shock. The actions of mainland China since the year that they took control of Tibet is to wipe the land clean of Tibetans; reports of 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed in this ruthless pursuit. (Adams, pg 77) To compare 1.2 million people within 50 years, 80 states around the world have less than 1.2 million people, and they include Cyprus, Iceland, and Fiji. (CIA) And these are not only the accusations China is accused of; more accusations include; sterilization, shotgun weddings between a Chinese man and a Tibet woman, and anything to kill and bury the Tibetan culture. (Adams, pg. 79) The previous examples were just a few, but for the argument that these events are a thing of a different time, the following is a list of current of event. In June 2013, Over 2 million famers are being forced to move from their land and put in run down shacks. (Jacobs, New York Times, 2013. Also reports in 2013 accuse of cutting off all communication between Tibetans and their religious leaders. (Reuters, New York Times, 2013) This is evidence that the pursuit to eradicate the Tibetans is still underway as it was in 1950.

Nothing can justify these acts, and any excuse attempt is as bad as the act itself. There is no doubt whether the accusations fit the description handed down by the United Nations in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of what human rights are. As for the truth of such claims made by the Tibetans, both the mainland China government and the Tibetans can contest that they are true. As for the defense that Mainland China has the sovereignty to rule their territory, that maybe true but the government does not have the sovereignty of the gods. The mainland China government has no sovereignty to hold gods hostage with policies. It does not have the right to remove a complete culture for their culture. And they certainly dont have the right to decide who lives, and who can be born. These acts should never be tolerated, and no defense can ever be good enough to make such acts of human right depravity justified. You just dont get it: the Defense of Mainland Chinas Actions. Sovereignty First argument that China did not violate any human right is the case of sovereignty. Mainland China has the right to govern all of its territory, and enforce any policy that it feels necessary to maintain it. In 1951, the government of Tibet signed a treaty with Mainland China that surrendered all sovereignty to the communist government of Mainland China. (Goldstein, 1997. Pg47) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not take precedent over Mainland Chinas sovereignty because the UDHR was never agreed upon nor ratified by the current government of Mainland China. Development Defense number two; so what if it appears that mainland China did violate human rights; every state has a right to seek out natural resources, and development opportunity. What kind of
4

moral ground can the west stand on when most of the leaders of the west have committed the same acts? The United States moved thousands of Native Americans off their land during the 1800s; France ruled and partial enslaved half of Europe under Napoleon, Everyone knows what Germany did, and there are plenty of examples of the west violating human rights in the name of resources and development. Those examples were quite old, but in all logic if a tree is blocking the development of a state, what state would even think about leaving it up. Unification The third argument is that Mainland China has a right to unify its people, and take necessary measure to accomplish it. It is never in a states best interest to have a state divided because it always leads to conflict; such examples include the Ottoman Empire, Iraq and the U.S during the 1800s. An attempt to unify Tibet and Mainland China was made in 1998 with a meeting of party leaders and the Dali Lama. But as soon as the Dali lama was ready to make the concession of one China, he changed his mind, in attempt to get more for Tibet. (Sautman 2002) Stemming into the fourth argument that the isolated government of Tibet had it chances to improve the position of Tibet and its people, but they dropped the ball during negotiating. By also dropping the ball, it appeared that no Tibetan could be trusted, thus another justification use unscrupulous methods such method that appeared to violate human rights. Culture differences The fifth defense of mainland China on charges of human right violations is on the notion that not only mainland China but most of South East Asia does hold the belief in human rights in the way other view them. Human rights are rights that belong to the individual, which individuality is not a concept that belongs to the culture of mainland China. What does belong to
5

Mainland China is idea of collective rights that was born out of Confucianism. Collect rights are rights that belong to the people within a group, and the clash is between mainland China and Tibet is that Tibet does not want to be in the group. And as a result mainland China is taking measures through education, and cross marriages to incorporate the Tibetans. The other major point of mainland China culture is the notion of community, and authority levels. With notion of community it is everyone duty to do what best for the group and with Tibet acting up, mainland China had to be the father authority and slap Tibet on the wrist to pull them back into the community. At sometimes it may have been clear that Tibet was not going to fall back in line in the community, other regrettable measures were taken such as sterilization and acculturation. (Chan 1997) So it was not mainland China knowing human rights and then breaking them, it was westerns seeing what was happening and then calling them human rights. Present Danger The sixth line of evidence that tactics used by mainland China is that Tibet is a part of a clear and present danger to the state. The first part of the clear and present is Japan, Mainland China has had an enduring rivalry with Japan since Japan invaded the mainland in the Second World War. This enduring rivalry continues with conflict over a few islands in the region. There is no doubt that Japan is the biggest threat to Mainland China in region especially with the backing of the United States, but Japan is not the only threat; South Korea and Taiwan are also so threats. So what does this east coast hornets nest have to do with Tibet? If war where to break out on the east coast between Mainland China and another states or states than Mainland China is in danger of fighting not only a war on two fronts with Tibet being a soft target on the western border. Tibet has an exile government that is looking for a way to regain its land, and can be easily persuade to allow other states armed forces in to mainland China. For example if
6

Japan were to attack mainland china or vice versa, India an allie to the United States which is an allie of Japan is on the boarder of Tibet, and easily has passage into Mainland China. It is critical that mainland China get a hold of its boarders, and it has the right to do whatever it needs to do to secure its future. Most western states see China as the aggressor, but looking at the geographical locations China is in a horrible spot and the last thing it needs to worry about is the betrayal of a minority group on its western border. What appeared to be harsh violations of human rights are actually necessary measures in case of war. (Nathan, 1994) Summarizing the argument that Mainland China is justified; Mainland China has sovereignty to govern its own territory, it also has the right to clear any blockage in its path to developing further. Other justification include the pressure to unify the Chinese people under one state, the loss of trust of Tibetan due to going back on finished agreements, and Tibetans lack the understanding of the South East Asia Culture. Conclusion Since 1950 and a few bad acts has tarnished the image of mainland China. The accusations that the government of mainland China has deprived the Tibetans the basic human rights with such acts; force marriages, sterilization, genocide, and attempting destroy the Tibetan culture. These acts have no defense, and an defense would be as the act itself. Mainland China can claim sovereignty but their actions go far beyond its sovereignty. But a defense could be made that sovereignty belongs to mainland China in a deal with Tibet. Also China has the right to unify to avoid conflict at cost they see fit. And other reason why mainland China is not in violations of human rights is because they have a culture with a different value system that dont subscribe to human rights. Finally Tibet is a clear treat to mainland China, and is also in the way

of the development of Mainland China. There are two ways of seeing the human rights situation in China, from outside mainland China and as violations or within mainland China as an necessity to survive. And trying to convince each side of the other viewpoint on it is like nailing jello to a wall. (Dr. Rich wku) Sources "Central Intelligence Agency." <i>The World Factbook</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. &lt;https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html&gt;. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR, Declaration of Human Rights, Human Rights Declaration, Human Rights Charter, The Un and Human Rights." <i>UN News Center</i>. UN, n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Adams, Vincanne. "Suffering the winds of Lhasa: politicized bodies, human rights, cultural difference, and humanism in Tibet." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 12.1 (1998): 74-102. REUTERS. "China Aims to Fully Mute Dalai Lama." <i>www.nytimes.com</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. &lt;http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/asia/china-aims-to-fullymute-dalai-lama.html?_r=0&gt;. Jacobs , Andrew . "Rights Report Faults Mass Relocation of Tibetans ." <i>NYtimes.com </i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. &lt;http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/rights-reportfaults-mass-relocation-of-tibetans.html&gt;. Sautman, Barry. "Resolving the Tibet question: Problems and prospects." Journal of Contemporary China 11.30 (2002): 77-107. Chan, Joseph. "A Confucian perspective on human rights for contemporary China." The East Asian challenge for human rights 212 (1999). Nathan, Andrew J. "Human rights in Chinese foreign policy." The China Quarterly 139 (1994): 622-643. Dr Rich, WKU 2013, is like nailing jello to a wall