Tibet vs Iraq: good and bad occupations?
Posted on Sunday 31 January, 2010
Filed Under Industrial relations
IT MUST take a considerable degree of doublethink simultaneously to oppose the US-led occupation of Iraq and support the Chinese occupation of Tibet. That doesn’t stop some on the left giving it a go, of course.
The idea of a right to self-determination is common coinage for liberals and socialists alike. If Iraq deserves that privilege – and I think that it does – then Tibet surely merits it as well.
After all, it was Karl Marx himself who suggested that ‘a nation that oppresses another will never itself be free’, and the force of that observation is not diminished simply because the oppressor nation makes some sort of claim to adhere to socialism.
The business of the left is to oppose all occupations, and if we are to be consistent, that stance should not be conditional on who is doing the occupying.
I have been thinking about this question as a result of reading programme here in Hong Kong, which over the last couple of weeks had taken in many aspects of China’s politics. A number of books have left me yet clearer than I was before that the country can be characterised as imperialist, at least in the pre-Leninist usage of the term.
The Tibetans are clearly distinct in religious, linguistic and ethnic terms, and Tibet must be classified as a nation on any standard theoretical basis. Any argument that it has been ‘part of China’ for centuries is patently historical nonsense. In short, China shouldn’t be there.
Beijing – and therefore its fellow travellers – make much of the notion that Tibet was for centuries nominally a tributary state. But then so was the Vatican, as far as Han supremacists are concerned. The designation is effectively meaningless.
Nor can too much store be set by the 1950 ‘liberation’ of Tibet by Maoist armed forces. This was simply a de facto handover of an independent country to foreign rule by Quisling elements in the ruling theocracy over the heads of the population.
China has since then systematically exploited Tibet’s natural resources, and has resettled Han Chinese colonists there to the point where Tibetans are at risk of becoming a minority in their own homeland.
Yet the literature – even the most anti-communist of it – concedes that Chinese rule has meant social advance, most notably the eradication of serfdom and extensive land reform.
An argument can be constructed that the occupation has been historically progressive, in the sense that Marx used the term to apply to British imperialism in India. While Marx was absolutely clear that this contention should not be adduced to justify continuing British presence, the impact is worthy of dispassionate note.
Yes, I know. The catchphrase ‘but it was historically progressive, comrade’ long formed a favourite construct in the lexicon of apologists for Stalinism. Seemingly there was nothing that the USSR did that could not somehow be excused with reference to the notion. Heaven help those who got in the way.
Which brings me back to Iraq. I don’t resile from the idea that the invasion was wrong, and still want to see withdrawal in short order.
But is it entirely heretical to suggest that in the long-run, the overthrow of a wicked dictatorship and the re-emergence of a legal political left and an organised working class will prove to have been, well, historically progressive, comrade?
<<Go back
Comments
84 Responses to “Tibet vs Iraq: good and bad occupations?”
On the point of war would seem like the worst time to try and build internationalism to me.
Eh? 1914?
A fascinating discussion on las malvinas, but I am at a loss to understand does that mean that those who opposed the Argentinian occupation would also be against China’s occupation and exploitation of Tibet?
Or does it mean that those who accept, to some degree, that the Falkland Islanders should be allowed self-determination apply that as well to Tibetans?
I do wish people would be clearer whether or not they accept China’s occupation of Tibet, are against it, don’t know anything about it or couldn’t care less?
It would be nice to have some candid views on the matter.
Normally, you can’t shut socialists and “anti-imperialists” etc., up on these topics, but many are seemingly reticent to make their views clear on Tibet.
Tibet, of course, has the right to self-determination; its incorporation into Stalinist China was not progressive.
modernity. The Falklands are British. The Argies had their moment and blew it. Strange how the left in Britain supported the Argentinian right wing dictatorship that was killing and torturing trade unionists. And the left wonder why they are unelectable.
One weird error:
‘Beijing – and therefore its fellow travellers – make much of the notion that Tibet was for centuries nominally a tributary state. But then so was the Vatican, as far as Han supremacists are concerned. The designation is effectively meaningless’.
As Chinese armies never actually watered their horses on the banks of the Tiber I presume ‘the Vatican’ should be ‘Vietnam’ – which along with most of Afghanistan, much of formerly Soviet Central Asia and Siberia, Mongolia and both Koreas were indeed at some point part of the Chinese Empire under the Han, Tang, Yuan or Ming dynasties.
The so-called ‘People’s Republic’ of China has however been relatively careful to limit its revanchist rhetoric to the borders attained by the last Manchu or Ching dynasty – which include Tibet and Taiwan but not the rest of the long list of former provinces and tributaries.
Its also worth noting that these claims are supported by the same ‘unequal treaties’ that in other contexts they dismiss – particularly the Anglo-Tibetan treaty of 1905.
Even the Chinese intervention in Korea in 1950-53 was justified on the grounds of proletarian internationalism (every one of the many thousands of PLA conscripts who died miserably there were ‘volunteers’) and not on the grounds of Imperial China’s previous rights there.
So in Tibet as in other respects China is behaving much like the old-fashioned imperialist state in the middle of a frenzied process of primitive capitalist accummulation that it has become.
And if we are to be consistent in supporting the rights of the Tibetans to self-determination shouldn’t we also be supporting Taiwan – a country where democratic socialism has far stronger prospects than the mainland?
“Eh? 1914?”
Ye what about it? Why not build internationalism at ALL times and not wait for some conflict to think it might suddenly be a good idea?
And history tells us that war and conflict shatter internationalism, as well as many a internationalist socialist organisation.
On Tibet we should support their right to self determination like we would support Scotland’s right to self determination. Whether we would think either would be a good idea is a different question. I would answer negative to both (Tibet and Scotland).
On Taiwan I see Ian Williams (didn’t he used to edit Labour Left Briefing in the 1980s?) made much the same point two years ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/03/china.world
I can’t understand how otherwise vigorous “anti-imperialists” are almost completely silent on Tibet?
Is it right that the most powerful man in Tibet is the Beijing appointed, Party Secretary, whose only kept in power with a massive state security apparatus?
Why can’t “anti-imperialists” answer that simple question?
Surely the Falklanders have exactly the same right to self-determination as the Tibetans and Scots?
(and treating these two situations as in any sense analogous is absurd as there is no practical doubt whatsoever that Scots already have that right – and may well exercise it in the next decade or so – whereas I can think of no situation where the Chinese dictatorship would allow that right to Tibet’s indigenous population).
The historical legalities of the Falklands/Malvinas claims are complex enough to have filled several thick volumes by academics – however for any democrat it should be enough that there is a significant permanent population who are AFAIK still 100% adamant that they wish to remain British.
End of argument.
Modernity,
But the most powerful man in ANY province of the modern Chinese Empire is a Party Secretary who is only kept in power by a massive state security apparatus.
The same was true of any province of the former Soviet Empire or with a change of terminology any Gau or occupied territory of the Nazi one.
You’ve essentially got two blinkers in place here:
Firstly that it is a totalitarian dictatorship that through economic ‘liberalisation’ and the replacement of Stalinism with Han nationalism is rapidly becoming a genuinely fascist state.
Secondly that dictatorship is engaged in a classical colonialist project in Tibet.
But we can do fuck all about bringing down a totalitarian state ruling one-fifth of the human race, which already owns a large part of our own national debt and is rapidly approaching military and technological parity with the West.
Tibet just seems a smaller and more tractable problem because we think it can be analogised with allegedly similar situations in the last century where such neo-colonial projects were rolled back.
The problem is it can’t – the demographics (which were never very favourable anyway given the tradition of up a third of the adult population becoming celibate priests and nuns) have already shifted to such a degree that Tibetan culture is doomed and will at best only survive in its most reactionary clerical forms for the benefit of foreign tourists.
And even if fewer Han migrate to Tibet or the indigenous population (who are BTW by no means as homogenous as the popular image promulgated by romanticised films like 7 years in Tibet or Kundun suggests) somehow contrive to outbreed them the balance of political and military power is so vastly asymmetrical that Chinese rule is irremovable.
So all we’re left with is supporting a doomed cause because its morally the right thing to do.
However much I tend to disagree with them leftists who are obsessed with Palestine and care – or at least do – nothing for Tibet (or Darfur or Congo or Burma or Western Sahara or Iran) may actually be more realistic given that as a democracy Israel is still susceptible to external and internal pressures and we might actually see genuine progress there in our lifetimes.
For China and its enslaved nations I see no hope.
Roger,
The population of the Falklands is so small that ther national self determination is absurd. We should recognise the economic interests at play here, which your position conveniently ignores. But you are correct leftists have been arguing over this for 20+ years. Possibly Clive’s position of builing up working class internationalism is the only logical position on all these issues, I just don’t think we should wait for conflict to set the process in motion.
“and treating these two situations as in any sense analogous is absurd as there is no practical doubt whatsoever that Scots already have that right – and may well exercise it in the next decade or so – whereas I can think of no situation where the Chinese dictatorship would allow that right to Tibet’s indigenous population”
I never said anything about who actually had the right to self determination, I said who I think should have the right. Comprende?
And if the will of the Tibetan people is self determination then we should support it and call on China to give it them. Personally I would advise them against such a move, just as I would the Scots. (even though the Scots will no doubt be soon living under a govenment that the vast majority in Scotland don’t want!)
Its probably worth adding that FWIW (not a lot given that in practical terms we’re just talking occasional Socialist Worker articles) the SWP has tended to be historically much sounder on Tibet than more orthodox Trotskyists like the IMG and its offshoots – albeit mainly because their erroneous definition of China as always state-capitalist meant that everything it did in Tibet was automatically colonialist rather than ‘progressive’.
I don’t think size of population is relevant in this case – the same argument was used to deprive the almost identically sized (but of course blacker) population of Diego Garcia of its home when their presence suddenly became inconvenient to the UK and US militaries.
Sure 50 or 100 people can hardly claim full national rights – but there are many, many ethnic groups no more populous than the Falkland islands who are given some level of autonomy and a number of sovereign states with populations in the thousands or low tens of thousands.
On Tibet and for that matter Scotland we’re clearly not even in the same library, never mind on the same page.
All very interesting Roger, but we are not even in a position to discuss future Tibet, ruled by Tibetans, etc.
The problem is more basic than that, you have to get people to acknowledge what the current state of dominance within the Tibet-China set up is.
We are several steps away before people can analyse what a potential future might be, and that is problematic if they can’t agree the present.
This is the paradox.
There are those on the Left who would willingly oppose any rule by the monarchy, hate despots and were probably the first to demonstrate against military dictatorships in Latin America, yet they can’t see the issues when it comes to Tibet.
They simply can not see why rule by an appointee of the Beijing dictatorship is wrong.
Partly, I think it is political expedience (nothing to be gained by supporting Tibetans), part political history (Trots-Leninists and the whole ‘workers state’ nonsense), admiration (the notion that China is somehow anticapitalist or anti-West so deserving of support), blinkers (focused on a few nations) and a lack of internationalism, but whatever it is, it is very conspicuous in its silence over the plight of the Tibetans.
Again, unless those on the Left can acknowledge that China’s rule in Tibet is only kept in place by a massive state security apparatus and under the direction of one individual, why that is wrong and why it must change, then little political debate or progress is possible.
Johnno: I just don’t think we should wait for conflict to set the process in motion.
Indeed not!
I think the point someone made about 1914 was that despite the difficulty, the internationalists did their utmost to build international unity, and build a movement which could overthrow all oppressors. (And this paid off, not so long afterwards).
They didn’t say, as you did earlier On the point of war would seem like the worst time to try and build internationalism to me… doing it as a reaction to a war over territory is wrong in my opinion. Internationalism was their answer to war; so, too, now (or in 1982).
JOHNNO. SCOTLAND IS CURRENTLY BEING RUN BY A RIGHT WING SNP ADMINISTRATION. THEY ARE DOING A BETTER JOB THAN THE TORIES IN CUTTING THE PUBLIC SERVICES. THE LEFT!!! IN THE SNP HAVE BEEN CONVINCED TO SHUT UP AND JUST HOPE FOR INDEPENDENCE. THE TORIES HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.
roger – you said:
The historical legalities of the Falklands/Malvinas claims are complex enough to have filled several thick volumes by academics – however for any democrat it should be enough that there is a significant permanent population who are AFAIK still 100% adamant that they wish to remain British.
Or perhaps for any democrat it should be enough that the Malvinas belonged to a sovereign Argentinian state when they were seized by an imperialist power from a different hemisphere, and the Falklanders are more akin to the Han settlers in Tibet than to Tibetans, a group sent in to validate the claims of the imperial power.
“The Cherokee were slave owners and tended to side with the South. Anyway, they are pretty well integrated so independence is not on their cards.”
So the Cherokee were bastards – that shouldn’t affect their right to self-determination. Obv they’re not asking for independence but, if they did, pro-Tibet Atlanticists like modernity would be loudly supporting their claims on blogs like this?
“If the Palestinian leadership was really serious about winning a real victory a generation or two generations from now, they would accede to every Israeli demand and imposition and simply do everything possible to encourage and subsidise the Arab-Israeli birthrate, already disproportionately large in relation to the Jewish population of Israel.”
The Arabs *had* a demographic majority up to 1948. This is precisely why the Palestinian Territories will forever remained “occupied”, and will never be absorbed into Israel proper. The current situation gives Israeli de facto control of the whole territory but allows them to maintain an 80% Jewish demographic setup. It make more sense for them to give up the West Bank than give Israeli passports to 3 million plus Arabs and risk losing the ethno-religious majority the state was founded on.
Not sure what McGazz’s point was.
I assume that he was once a dimwitted SWPer, they’re the only people who in these type of debates go on go on and on and on and on about Israel.
They’re not really capable of speaking to the point.
Probably that’s why their politics is such a mishmash of incoherent views and their debating style so poor.
It is a pity that such political activists with such strong views can’t articulate a coherent paragraph on the topic of self-determination and Tibet, in its own right.
So for Modernity there is no difference at all between the ‘occupation’ of Tibet and the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. How coherent!
I can never understand half the comments coming from SWPers,like Dean.
They seem so detached from the debate, the sort of comment you hear from someone with a mean hangover, who wants to say something but can’t quite marshal his thoughts or words.
Change the record for Christ’s sake. Everything you have a problem with needs to be connected directly to the SWP. Really really pathetic.
You always manage to say fuck all no matter how many words you write down. That has nothing to do with the SWP, the Socialist party, the AWL, the CPGB or any other organisation, it is just you.
All you have provided in this thread is vague, cryptic references to other people’s possible positions. The whole underlying implication of your irrelevant garbage is that Tibet and Iraq are the same and pointing out any differences makes you a hypocrite.
I wouldn’t normally mind this level of incoherent drivel but you do it in such a pompous, know-it-all way that stands laughably in contrast to everything you say.
You are the wisest fool on the whole blogosphere.
My personal view (which is not a SWP view) on this is that China’s increased use of state brutality is counter productive and becoming alarmingly regular as the country moves more and more towards capitalism. But the history of China and Tibet should be viewed in complete isolation to the invasion of Iraq. It is like comparing the holocaust to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, absurd, inappropriate and pointless.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14452
The above link is the SWP’s take on what they call China’s decades of oppression against the Tibetans. So how Modernity thinks they support China’s policies in Tibet can only be guessed at. What a dishonest wanker he is.
“as the country moves more and more towards capitalism. “
It’s already there.
What do you think membership of the WTO imparts?
Sorry, I forgot as an SWPer you can’t answer questions of a political nature.
China *is* a capitalist country, integrated into the world system.
If you doubt this, hunt around and you find will a sizeable number of appliances and other materials made in, er, China.
Granted, it might not conform to some textbook explanation which is so beloved of rigid thinkers but China is a capitalist country by any sensible measure.
Self-evidently the SWP and their “cadre” would be against China if only for the theory of state capitalism.
That is aside from a few of its ex-members who seem to have taken up Reg Birch’s’ mantle and will invariably apologise, excuse or find other reasons why the Chinese ruling class should be immune from criticism.
It does tell you something about the decline in British politics when people can go from being active SWPers to apologists for the Beijing dictatorship, or more recently the potential editor of the Independent.
Although in fairness is probably not all of the SWP’s fault that Rod Liddle turned into a bigot, misogynist and rightwing hack.
Not forgetting Garry Bushell.
Oh, nor forgetting Peter Hitchens, a bit of a trend there!
PS: Charlie Hore’s stuff on China is invariably very good, always worth a read, altho there’s too little of it and I wonder if other SWPers actually think about the issue too? I somehow doubt it.
Johnno:”But Clive, Denham has been retrospectively saying that Iraq has been a roaring success”…
…when and where, “JOHNNO”?
I’d hate to have to call you a liar.
Actually “JOHNNO” and in all fairness to you: having now read all your exchanges with Cive over the dfalklands/”Malvinas”, I now believe that your’re not a conscious liar.
Just a very ignorant and ill-educated (politically) person.
As Clive suggested: “read some Lenin”.
“IT MUST take a considerable degree of doublethink simultaneously to oppose the US-led occupation of Iraq and support the Chinese occupation of Tibet. That doesn’t stop some on the left giving it a go, of course.”
Yes, it must take a lot of double-think. So name the ‘guilty’ names, tell us why they matter.
By the way, it is best to oppose the ruling class where you live, not the ruling class that exists outside of your influence.
Lobby asks, “So name the ‘guilty’ names, tell us why they matter.”
The ‘Morning Star’, for a start, Lobby.
And it matters because the ‘Morning Star’ is since the collapse of Soviet imperialism) funded by the subs of UK rank and file trade unionists.
I think the second to last comment illustrates but awfully the problem with the British left, unless something is spelt out to nth degree apparently some conscious activists can’t get it.
Dave’s trying to treat his readers as adults who don’t need spoon feeding, but rather can see his points without him WRITING them in BIG letters.
Dave included a link in his post to illustrate it:
“SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND GRIEVANCES IN TIBET”
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2063
I suspect that’s what Dave means, various activists on or around SU blog who are opposed to the occupation of Iraq, but not the occupation of Tibet by China.
Surely, that point is fairly easy to see?
If you scan a range of associated blogs you will invariably find some fawning or excuses for brutality by the Chinese ruling classes, self-evidently, it won’t be put like that, but that’s what it is.
It is not too complex, if you can be troubled to make an effort to understand Dave’s points.
Denham,
I think you called me a liar last time and were proved wrong. You are an arch imperialist, in league with the bourgeois. It could be argued that you are a spokesman for labour aristocracy but really you are not that important. You are a foul mouthed drunken semi-literate irrelevant little tosser and the error I have made is inflating your importance. I will refrain from this in future.
Harman on imperialism’s east and west. written in 1986.
http://marxists.org/archive/harman/1986/xx/eastwest.htm
There’s something comforting about the familiar sight of Morality popping up to dishonestly accuse people of being dishonest. Next we’ll be hearing about how the SWP’s support for Croatian independence proved it was pro-Serbian or something.
JOHNNO: “I think you called me a liar last time and were proved wrong”.
I don’t recalled “being proved wrong, Johnno. Maybe you’s care to remind me.
But, more to the point, please justify this:
“But Clive, Denham has been retrospectively saying that Iraq has been a roaring success”:
When and where did I say that, or anything that could be possibly construed as meaning that?
Please reply, or (once again) I’ll have to call you a liar. Even though, as I said, I think the real point is that you’re incredibly ignorant and stupid.
There’s something comforting about the familiar sight of highly educated people who can’t read what others write, care even less what’s been written and can’t be arsed to think for themselves.
I wouldn’t accuse the SWP of dishonesty on China, quite the opposite, they are fairly consistent.
But I think it’s strange how some of their ex-members have taken up with Reg-Birchism on steroids, but I’m not sure you can blame that on the SWP.
If I were to accuse SWP members of anything it is political amateurism, the inability to defend their positions with consistent, logical and prolonged arguments, in the wider world.
Invariably what you get from SWPers (and some of their weirder ex-members) is a few paragraphs of slogans mixed in with ill thought out ideas, some questionable conclusions or just the odd few student union snide comments.
Nowadays very rarely do you run across quality discussions that involve SWPers, they simply can’t keep up, a few contributions and once their own contradictions have been pointed out, they shuffle off no wiser than when they entered.
That hasn’t always been the case.
25-30 years ago, the SWP had some excellent members, coherent socialists, splendid trade unionists, principled feminists, etc but that has long since passed.
JOHNNO: “You are a foul mouthed drunken semi-literate irrelevant little tosser and the error I have made is inflating your importance. I will refrain from this in future”
Can I take it, then that you, “JOHNNO” aren’t going to attempt to defend yourself against my charge that you are a liar?
OK, liar.