You have been misinformed: Tibet was not invaded by China

[Dr Opinion]

Tibet was legally controlled by China since 1907.

In 1959 the Tibetian people were tricked into a violent insurrection by Tibetian nationalists, supported by (of course) CIA-funded guerillas based in Nepal. The insurrection was crushed by China. The DL fled with CIA support.

China allowed Tibet to operate under the one country/two systems policy for decades. Faced with high treason and CIA infiltration, China simply shut down the government and monasteries, and installed work farms. Unfortunately this led to mass starvation, and later the cultural revolution hit Tibet hard.

But, hardly unexpectedly, this pitiful little saga in world history can be traced again to CIA meddling -- not Chinese expansionism.  

And why was the CIA there? The usual reason. Tibet has oil. Lots and lots of oil.  

[Joseph27]

The Chinese mainland hasn't ever demonstrated a tendency towards overt military expansionism. Of course that is not what US military planners will say.  History however more than backs up this claim.  If you look at the wars China has fought you can see the reason is not to expand the mainland but more to maintain the integrity of China or to bring a renegade provence back into line.  

Good post Dr O

[Snaffled]

There may be no huge recent military expansionism, but there certainly has been in the past.  
And recently, you could be forgiven for believing that a lack of military expansionism is due to a lack of capability, rather than desire.  Besides, much of the time has been spent killing each other, with a major example being the Taiping revolution, the second worst war in history in terms of casualities.  (Of course this was probably down to foreign Christian influences.  Was the CIA in exisence in the 1850s?)
To tell you the truth, and given the history of Formosa/Taiwan - I think that mainland sabre-rattling is clearly military expansion desires, no matter how they phrase it.

[Dr Opinion]

> "...but there certainly has been in the past..."

Please: examples, not innuendo.  

> "...given the history of Formosa/Taiwan [...] mainland sabre-rattling is clearly [suggestive of] military expansion..."

No. In terms of *history* the Taiwan issue cannot be considered "expansionism", since historically it was part of China.  

[Manc Man]

Dr O

You know how I hate to split hairs but...

China signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki
on 17 April 1895 which transferred the Island of Formosa to Japan.

The island technically remained Japanese until the  Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan signed at Taipei, 28 April 1952. This treaty discontinued the state of war between Japan and the ROC and transferred ownership of Formosa to the ROC.

So technically China gave the island to Japan who in turn gave it to Taiwan.

mm

[GrassIsGreener]

My take on Chinese foreign policy/aspirations is "Once part of China, always part of China."  Griping continues on Mongolia, since it was "swiped" from China right at the moment of collapse of the Qing dynasty--1912 me thinks.

As China gets wealthier and stronger (barely even started on boht counts), it will be intersting to see how it deals with both Taiwan and Mongolia.

On Taiwan, China should unilaterally give independence to Taiwan under the condition that no foreign military presence be allowed.  Great PR coup and zero risk to them. EIther way, within a decade or two, China can unilaterally destroy Taiwan by economic means  in such a way that makes the military option moot.

[Joseph27]

The role of Taiwan is extremely complex and its importance cannot be overstated.  To the Chinese elite, Taiwan is a renegrade provence but still part of China and they will not let this go.  If Taiwan wants to push Independence they will face a military confrontation.  Yes it is likely that the US would respond but it comes down to how much blood the US would be willing to spend on Taiwan.  Hence the reason the Bush administration recently told Taiwan to take it easy.  Taiwan should just keep on growing economically and forget about becoming its own country.

This is not military expanionism on behalf of China but more a case of the Chinese elite still battling the shame of their recent history.  As much as Tom Clancy and friends may think the Chinese military will start taking over the world - history shows this to be a fallacy.  Indeed it is the Americans who are militarily expansive and extremely dangerous, just look at the recent examples of Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Snaffled]

I don't think that Taiwan was actually part of China when the Dutch took it.
Ming China defeated the Dutch on Formosa, but I don't see how this makes the island part of Chinese territory - particularly as they gave it up after 150+ years.  They had no more right to it than the Dutch.  It's like saying Ireland is inalienable English territory.  

I'm not convinced that the sabre-rattling from mainland China isn't just a ploy to heat up nationalism to distract from domestic failures.   Whether they actually have capability to subdue Taiwan is of course entirely another question.  

[Dr Opinion]

> "...Treaty of Shimonoseki..."

This "treaty" simply listed the conditions for the Chinese surrender after the (humiliating) Sino-Japanese was of the previous year.

I don't like to split hairs either -- (arf, arf) -- but the very fact Japan could demand Formosa from China indicated it was Chinese territory at the time of the Chinese surrender.  

[Snaffled]

Ah yes, but then surely it was Dutch territory when the Chinese took it?  
And if so, surely it is Taiwanese territory now?

:-)

[Manc Man]

Dr O

You are correct that the territory was transferred under duress on both occasions, but that is the nature of a peace treaty. More often than not they are one sided but they are still considered legally binding.

Rare is the country at peace that wakes up one day and says, "Hey, those Japanese/English/Germans/Dutch seem like jolly nice fellows, think I'll spontaneously give them an island as a token of our esteem."

I believe that the first recorded linking of Formosa to China was in 1206 when it became a Protectorate under the brotherly love and affectionate guidance of Genghis Kahn.

Ah, Genghis Kahn, what a teddy bear he was. Think that was an equitable negotiation?

mm

[bob55]

@Manc Man,

".. Treaty of Shimonoseki.."

This "treaty' is exactly like robbers break into your house with an M-16 and a letter of agreement saying that you allow him to clear your house.

If you have nothing to fight back, will you sign the letter after they clear your house?

"So technically China gave the island to Japan who in turn gave it to Taiwan."

This is very logically......unconvicing.

May be we shall rephase it this way..

Japan kicked American ass and occupied Hawaii and later decided to hand over Hawaii to Russia.

Can Russia stand tall and claim that they got the control of Hawaii in a legal and peaceful way.

How will American react? World War III might be the answer...

[T2K]

If America signed a treaty with Japan after said imaginary ass kicking which ceded Hawaii to Japan, then yes, Japan can legally hand it over to Russia if it wants.

Of course, treaties like that sometimes have nasty consequences.  Like the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

[nualum]

Getting back to Tibet . . . we should consider the historical context in 1959. The whole world was seeing colonies throw off their colonial yokes and seeking independence. Nationalism was a fever affecting all ethnic groups, not least the Chinese.

Tibet then, and for eons previously, was an isolated region with a strong sense of ethnic and religious identity and a decidedly different ethos than China, then or now. There were few Han Chinese living there which suggest slim ties to China.

Why would what was good for India, Burma, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka not be good for Tibet? A claim that extends only from 1907 to 1959 is not a very ancient claim. Portugal's claim to Goa was 400 years old.

[Manc Man]

Bob55

That's how these things worked. It ain't pretty but at the time it was considered legally binding.

I don't understand your whole Hawaii thing, seems like a stupid example to me.

If you want to revise or ignore any treaty based primarily on the unbalanced application or threat of force, you can lead the way by handing Texas back to Mexico....

Me? I'm off fhome to kick out the Normans..

mm