China and Tibet, Inevitable Change

China and Tibet, Inevitable Change

Following China´s occupation of Tibet a Tibetan Government in Exile formed in India by fleeing members of Tibet´s former government. China has complained about the activities of the Tibetan exile government. However, China once hosted the Korean Government in Exile when Korea was occupied by Japan. The Korean Government in Exile then supported activities within Korea to free it from Japanese occupation, including mass protests.

by Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan

Recent and well publicized rejection of Chinese rule by Tibetans is not something new. The current demonstrations were preceded by both large and small scale, but continuous, acts of defiance and non-cooperation by Tibetans with Communist rule, since invasion by China. What is new is the scale and extent of that rejection beyond the Tibetan Autonomous Region to ethnically Tibetan areas within Sichuan, Qinghai and Gansu provinces of the PRC. This widespread dissent requires China to come to terms with their annexation of Tibet. China could profit from reflection on their role in supporting Korean resistance to Japanese occupation. Decolonization was traumatic for Japan, but today South Korea and Japan respect and trade with each other.

In the late 1800´s, Russia, China and Britain competed for dominance of Tibet. At the same time another struggle for dominance by Russia, China and Japan was taking place on the Korean peninsula. Japan sidelined Russian and China, and annexed the territory of Korea in 1910. At the time, the annexation was given a paper thin veneer of respectability under the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty. That treaty has been rejected and recognized as illegitimate by both modern Japan and Korea today, who now maintain full trade and diplomatic relations as neighboring states, despite this history.

After annexation popular dissent organized into a movement of resistance. In March 1919 demonstrations took place across the peninsula calling for the independence of Korea. This movement received some of its inspiration from Woodrow Wilson's 14 point speech, which in part called for a right of self-determination as the basis for nations at the January 1919 Paris Peace Conference (which gave birth to the League of Nations). A Korean Declaration of Independence, written by a Korean historian and a Korean Buddhist monk, circulated nationally. Throughout March 1919 demonstrations demanding self-rule and independence from Japan took place across the nation. Japanese occupation forces responded with a crackdown which left several thousand dead and with tens of thousands of people imprisoned. This led to the formation of a Korean government in exile which found sanctuary in neighboring China. The exile government was considered the de-jure representation of the Korean people, and supported continued pro-independence activities within the country, including the 1929 student uprising.

Japan´s occupation of Korea only ended with the collapse of their empire in World War II, after which an administrative decision by key victorious powers partitioned the peninsula into two countries, a condition which has continued to plague the country until today.

Today, Japan´s annexation and occupation of Korea is universally disowned, not only by the former occupying power but, by all countries. The pretense with which China incorporated Tibet was to drive out foreign ´imperialist aggressive forces´. None were ever encountered during the Peoples Liberation Armies push into Tibetan lands, despite the veneer of a Seventeen Point Agreement, publicly rejected by the Tibetan exile government as "thrust upon Tibetan Government and people by the threat of arms". China´s claim to Tibet echo those of Japan regarding their annexation of Korea, or the propaganda of any other colonial power.

The Tibetan Government in Exile, which was set up by fleeing Tibetan officials during China´s seizure of absolute power in Tibet, is recognized as the de-jure represetatives of the Tibetan people. The exile government´s titular head, the Dalai Lama is globally recognized as the de-facto representative of the Tibetan people, and is respected even by some citizens of the PRC, but not the ruling Communist Party. The Dalai Lama has consistently called for negotiations with the People´s Republic of China, and a nonviolent solution to the problem. He repeatedly warned the PRC that they should enter into negotiations if they wished to avoid bloodshed in Tibet. This was not a threat by the Tibetan leader, but a realistic assessment of how much repression a people could take. It is not too late for the PRC to negotiate on the future governance of Tibet with the genuine leadership of the people. Otherwise they will be doomed to repeat history, to paraphrase former US president John F. Kennedy ¨Those who make nonviolent change impossible, make violent change inevitable.¨

Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan is the co-author of Truth is Our Only Weapon: The Tibetan Nonviolent Struggle and a former lecturer in Peace, Conflict & Human Rights at Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand.

Technorati Tags: China, Tibet, Korea, Japan

Military Coups & Nonviolent Revolutions

Was a Military Coup in Thailand 'Inevitable'?

“The September coup was applauded by politicians and ordinary people, and the leader of the opposition welcomed the overthrow stating that the army had saved the country from dictatorship.” It could have been Thailand in 2006, but the above quote was a response to another extra-legal transfer of power in the African nation of Guinea-Bissau, 3 years ago, September 2003.

It is distressing when elected governments are uprooted by their national military forces, even when they use their power to remove an unpopular and autocratic ruler. Are their other options?
In Thailand not only did those options exist, they were successful, but then subsequently failed.

The coup d'etat in Thailand in September 2006 took some outside Thailand by surprise, but few in the Thai military. A Royal Thai Army Major-General told me the day after the coup it had been expected, and had received the prior blessings of the King. Former Prime Minister, Taksin may also have been in the know, if allegations reported in some foreign press are true that he departed the country with 119 suitcases. A Bangkok paper observed that some Ministers from his party began cleaning out their desks and permanently leaving their offices the afternoon before, suggesting that the coup may have been an elaborate piece of political theatre negotiated with an autocrat to create a face saving exit for the former strong man.

However, it needs to be remembered that it was the second time in that year, that particular Prime Minister had been removed from power.

In March of 2006, in a people’s power uprising, reminiscent of the 1986 Philippine popular revolution 20 years before, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Thai people renounced their ordinary pastimes and sat in the streets calling for the Prime Ministers immediate departure under the People's Alliance for Democracy. This included an electoral boycott with a massive NO vote when the Prime Minister dissolved parliament to combat the protests.
Once his legitimacy was destroyed, the popular, nonviolent revolt drove Prime Minister Taksin out of office, with a public pledge that he would never return.
The People's Alliance for Democracy made the mistake of believing him, and disbanded.
With the relaxing of popular pressure, Taksin cunningly recycled himself into a ‘caretaker Prime Minister’, and thanks to the electoral boycott, was then able to exercise total, unrestrained, power without the annoying presence of an opposition in parliament.

Patience with Taksin’s subterfuge and arrogance grew and the Alliance began a second mobilization, organizing their first mass demonstration to 'finish the job'. The night previous to the renewed street demonstations, another revolt against the unpopular Prime Minister was mobilized- by a much smaller group of people- 6 Thai senior military officers.
They did not have the moral force of the thousands of citizens who had taken to the streets the previous March. They had guns. While they did not use them, the threat of violence the weapons embodied in the weapons in their possession, and forces trained to use them, allowed them to seize and hold key government buildings and TV stations.

Interestingly, the seizure of power by the military forces may have played a violence prevention role, according to a Bangkok Post analysis published the morning after the Coup. Former Police Lieutenant Colonel, cum Prime Minister, Taksin was a man who used violence easily, and gained particular notoriety for the thousands of extra-judicial executions which took place during his 'War' on Drugs. Taksin had prepared during his caretaker period to counter any further exercises in people’s power by outright violent assault.

Taksin anticipated that the people may not accept his subterfuge, and that the People’s Alliance for Democracy might remobilize, so he prepared for a showdown by arming a particular battalion of Forestry Police to suppress any further popular nonviolent revolt in Bangkok. The Army knew this, since it had tried, unsuccessfully, to retrieve 1000 German made HK 33 assault rifles from the Forestry Police.
The military coup preceded the popular revolt by one day.

After the extra-constitutional power transfer took place, some European and North American governments condemned it, and demanded an early return to ‘normalcy’. The people who were attempting to oust the autocrat on the streets of Bangkok may appreciate these statements of concern, but a return to what was 'normal' before was not what these people want. They went to the streets in the first place to interrupt, condemn and displace the corruption and arbitrary abuse of power which was 'normal' under the Taksin regime, and under whom the organs of government, charged with checks and balance on government power, had been warped to irrelevance during his rule. Nothing less than a revolution would do.

The United States followed its condemnation of the coup with an announcement that it had cut military aid. US law prohibits provision of military aid to any country in which the military seizes power. This is a good policy, and all countries should subscribe to the principle of ceasing military business with all military regimes. However, a wiser and truly principled approach would require a halt in military trade to ANY government, however constituted, if it is involved in gross human rights abuses and the arbitrary killing of its own people. During the Taksin regime gross human rights violations involving extrajudicial executions, disappearances throughout the country and military atrocities in the South were increasing, but during which US military aid flowed to the country unimpeded.

“Those who make nonviolent revolutions impossible make violent revolutions inevitable”.
-former US President John F. Kennedy

Was a violent coup necessary, even if it was bloodless? Lets be clear, although the guns in their hands were not aimed and fired, it was the coercive presence of men organized, armed and trained to do armed violence, that allowed the coup to succeed, following the revolution where many, many more citizens, organized nonviolently, failed because they had taken the Prime Minister at his word.
The coup was bloodless, but hardly nonviolent. Taksin managed to sidestep his earlier defeat by popular forces using nonviolent means, because they had no fall back plan in case the PM made a false resignation. Once he revealed by his actions that he had no intention of bowing to public pressure, he assured further confrontation with popular forces committed to his removal.

A showdown, which may well have involved the blood of the forces of nonviolence being shed, was averted by another force for violence which used its latent power to remove Taksin. Had the People’s Alliance for Democracy gone ahead, we can only speculate on the outcome, but possibly, like in 1992, the autocrat would have departed after washing the streets with blood. In this case, that may have been Taksin’s bargaining chip to negotiate a orderly departure, for his assets if not his ass, prior to the military coup.

The international community remained conspicuous in its absence until the end. If the global community really desiress to promote nonviolence, and its use to transfer power, it needs to conscientiously back genuine popular movements like the Peoples Alliance for Democracy, which demonstrate a commitment to nonviolence, in a timely way. Democracy sometimes needs to escape the ballot boxes and go out onto the street. When government power is corrupted, the environment in which ballots are cast can make them meaningless. If the world was standing beside the Thai popular revolution, it should have withdrawn recognition from the Taksin regime when he continued to exercise authority. By not doing so, they became complicit in the assured confrontation, and its result.

Disarmament Success Story of Our Time: the Mine Ban turns 10

The Landmine Mine Ban at 10

2007 marks a decade since the launch of the first disarmament treaty to be concluded outside the United Nations system- the treaty aimed at halting the humanitarian scourge caused by anti-personnel landmines. International attention was galvanized by the support of well known personalities, in particular the late Princess Diana and the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). This campaign was launched by an unexpected grouping of war veterans, humanitarian aid agencies and human rights organizations. Their goal was ridiculed from the outset. “Landmines?”- why those? Aren’t nuclear bombs more dangerous?” None the less, within 5 years of its founding, the ICBL had built a global network of peoples organizations and NGOs and had an international treaty and a Nobel prize in its pocket. Where does it stand now in relation to its goal- the total elimination of a weapons system from the face of the planet?

The mine ban treaty is unlike most other treaties due to the close collaboration between non-governmental organizations which provided the moral outrage and focus, and certain governments and leaders who believed it could be achievable, most notably then Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axeworthy, who issued a challenge to governments to convene in Ottawa on a bitterly cold but clear December day in 1997. The presence of the victims of government policies, overwhelmingly and almost always from the poorest regions of society, are usually absent from decision-making chambers. But in this case, mine victims from Cambodia and other landmine devastated countries were on hand to shame governmental delegates if they chose inaction. 122 governments signed, and in record time the Ottawa Treaty achieved its first victory, the fastest entry into force of any treaty in human history.

The ICBL has been largely responsible for shaping this outcome. Focused and creative, it is made up of national campaigns in 90 countries, most of which are themselves comprised of a cluster of local civil society organizations.

Success Story of Our Time

In an increasingly militarized world which has seen the Cold War ‘peace dividend’ demolished by car bombs and smart bombs, the mine ban stands out as one of the real success stories, and an anchor for hope.

Unlike the talk shops most international treaties host, in the very short time the Ottawa Treaty has been in existence, it has achieved measurable success:

• The number of governments which have signed, ratified or acceded to the Treaty has increased every year, and now more than ¾ of the world’s governments have done so.
• Since the Ottawa Treaty has come into existence the ICBL has not been able to detect a single instance, or any credible allegation, that the core obligations of the Treaty have been breached.
• Even for those governments who are not a part of the Treaty, its obligations have had an effect.
• Global Trade in the weapon has ended, with only a very small amount of black market trade exists.
• No trade between governments has been observed since the Treaty has come into effect, and the number of states who would trade in it decrease every year as more governments agree to be bound by the Ban, reducing the ‘market’ for those states which have not yet joined.
• Production, likewise has decreased.
  
• A defacto halt in production of the weapon can be seen in some countries, such as the US, which have not yet joined the treaty.
• Radical for an international arms control treaty, the Mine Ban Treaty requires all governments who sign it to pledge to assist current, past or future victims of the weapon.
• The number of new victims has been dropping, in many cases dramatically, as more and more states have agreed to be bound by the Ban.
• Stockpiles have been destroyed. Each government is obligated to destroying the weapon’s stockpile- they cannot be given away, they cannot be sold, they must be destroyed. Stockpile destruction must be completed within a few short years after agreeing to be bound by the Treaty- there is no possibility to apply for an extension.
  
• The mine ban movement calls this ‘preventive mine action’, as these mines will never be laid, will never kill or injure any more people or animals. I call it the ‘real ratification’ of the treaty, because once they sign, they have said they won’t use it, but once they destroy them, they can’t use them.
• Millions of these weapons have now been destroyed before they could ever be deployed.
• Finally, the Ottawa Treaty requires that all governments who join it remove all landmines which are already in the ground in any territory they control.
• This has led to humanitarian landmine clearance programs, which in 2005 alone 740 square kilometers was cleared of almost a half a million landmines and other deadly ordinance. Each year safe land has been returned to rural and urban communities.

Within these few elegantly engineered restrictions- no use, no stocks, mine clearance and victim assistance, the weapon ..and its effects, are being eradicated from the face of the earth.

However, while success has been achieved, we must finish the job which we started. Governments must not be allowed to become complacent with the significant progress already achieved, but be pushed to fully bring the ban to conclusion. Those governments which remain outside the treaty must be encouraged, shamed or coerced into compliance- as they stand in the way of what could be one of the most precious gifts we can give the next generation: a world safe to walk in, and hope that human beings can desist from our destructive ways, since in atleast one case, we will have done it!