China’s problem is simple Sinocentrism. It’s a mentality. You can’t argue against it rationally. Eg, “Tibet belongs to China! Ever since the Qing. The British took part of Tibet. Give it back!” As you can see, arguments over lost territory never work the other way round — i.e., it’s still ours even though it’s gone. Also, China is taking the South China Sea even though there’s no historical justification for it. (The claim is based on an ROC historian’s take on it.) How do you argue against that?
Really thoughtful points. You show just how complicated and sensitive the whole topic of unity, autonomy, and historical memory can be, especially when different political systems and experiences are involved.
How could China move toward a kind of national unity that doesn’t fear regional autonomy, cultural differences, or diversity, but actually sees them as the foundation for long-term stability? And how can that kind of model stay credible in a world where “self-determination” is so often used as a political tool, by both Western and non-Western powers?
I agree that the argument that territory has historically been part of China since ancient times is useless legal statement to make in addressing the question of whether any territory should or should remain a part of China. But the fact that it is a useless statement is itself a useless point to make. It is a non sequitur that leads nowhere useful, and I question the bona fides of this publication in making a mountain of what is not even a molehill.
The questions are and have always been what under international law is recognised as part of a country's territory, what is currently recognised, and what would be required for a part of what is recognised as part of a country's territory to be recognised as no longer being part of that country's territory, and to what extent does international law recognise a right of self-determination by people who live on territory now recognised as belonging to a particular country to legally break away without giving the country a right to take back that territory.
You are right: simply saying that Alsace-Lorrain is part of French ancient territory means nothing legally. But dismissing that statement as legally meaningless does not then give the people of Alsace-Lorrain a right to declare independence unilaterally or declare a decision to join Germany without reference to the French government or the French people. Ditto for Corsia, Northern Ireland and Scotland. So making a big deal of dismissing this statement is a complete red herring. A far more useful discourse is to answer the questions I set out above. Where would Mr Li or this publication stand for example on the international recognition of Somaliland?
The question is of course of considerable complexity under international law, but there is no general right to self-determination except under currently accepted very narrow circumstances, none of which apply to existing territories currently recognised under international law as part of China. And if Mr Li or this publication would grab the bull by the horns to directly address how international law would treat this issue -- noting in particular that self-governance as a reason to breakaway is STILL not treated formally as a recognised exception to international law to the basic rule of territorial integrity nor is a vague FEELING of oppression -- I would be most interested to what you would positively argue rather than relying on pointless refutation of an issue that has no meaning under international law in any event.
Thank you for this fine article. It is probably significant that the book was published in 1999, long before Xi Jinping became Party Secretary, during the last few years of General Secretary Jiang Zemin which seem to have been the most recent peak of Party openness.
I like to think of General Secretary Xi's view as Make China Great Again, the later MAGA -- Make America Great Again of President Trump sounds similar.
There were various empires that called themselves say Qing or Ming or Song or Tang that had core areas within the Chinese cultural region and then expanded to other territories, sometimes incorporating and assimilating them totally, others areas assimilating to a much lesser degree such as the Tibetan, Xinjiang and Mongolian areas.
There have been many states of Chinese culture existing in the region of what is China today. Some were founded by invaders such as the Yuan and the Qing but Chinese today are proud of them. I sometimes wonder if Japan had won World War II would the Chinese, two or three hundred years from now, be boasting about the glories of the Nippon Dynasty (although maybe it would have a different name)?
Some Tibetans and Uyghurs would like to see Tibet and Xinjiang as independent countries. These feelings seem to have been intensified by the way they have been treated by the Chinese central government. Even though Beijing has been spending vast amounts of money improving the infrastructure and living conditions of the people in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Like someone once said, you can do all kinds of things, but I will never forget the way you made me feel. Economically it would be better for Xinjiang and Tibet to be part of China. Why do many of the local inhabitants disagree? There are religious and cultural differences and more recent histories of repression.
The Dalai Lama has said that Tibet could be part of China if the Tibetans had true autonomy that would enable them to protect their culture, language and religion. Autonomy, despite the number of autonomous regions and districts China has, is something that Xi Jinping seems to be retreating from. That autonomous areas might have people thinking thoughts and even organizing themselves in ways the Party disagrees with is alarming to the Party which as one might say in dated American slang is a 'control freak'.
Many people in those areas have a desire for autonomy and religious freedom which the Communist Party, which has its own quasi-religious political philosophy and its own intense faith that only it can lead China to its great historical destiny, cannot accept. Article One of the PRC Constitution demands that the Party be in control and no criticism of China's system be permitted. Of course if Chinese people had genuine freedom of speech and of media, then there would be much more and stronger criticism of the Communist Party. That Party isn't wrong about that.
To make the division at 1840 is understandable from the specifically Chinese point of view, but it does seem to be a case that imperialism is OK when it is Han Chinese but not OK when it is western imperialism.
Then there is the argument that Chinese imperialism was benign while western imperialism was nasty. Both were true for both at various times, however there is the natural human tendency which at its extreme leads to racist thinking. That is while I make excuses for people on my own side and minimize their bad behavior, while for people on the other side I give everything the worst interpretation and make no allowances for them at all.
Of course the South China Sea has other names -- in the Republic of the Philippines it is the West Philippine Sea and in Vietnam it is the East Vietnam Sea!
As for the since ancient times argument, the famous nine-dotted line in the South China Sea dates back to 1947 from the last few years of the Republic of China.
History is complicated and where we stand is where we sit. It is difficult to escape even partially from the seas of assumptions and perspectives in which we are all immersed.
Given that different peoples will have different views on history, desires to self-govern and to self-determination, the answer is to follow the law and for the law to be applied consistently and predictably in all cases. For example, if you believe that a peoples have a right of self-determination if they feel that they are being oppressed, then I take it that you support the right of the peoples of the Donetsk and Luhansk to unilaterally declare independence from Ukraine? After all Ukraine had severely restricted Russian culture, Russian language and the Russian Orthodox religion across Ukraine - a situation far worse than what is happening in Tibet and Xinjiang now.
China’s problem is simple Sinocentrism. It’s a mentality. You can’t argue against it rationally. Eg, “Tibet belongs to China! Ever since the Qing. The British took part of Tibet. Give it back!” As you can see, arguments over lost territory never work the other way round — i.e., it’s still ours even though it’s gone. Also, China is taking the South China Sea even though there’s no historical justification for it. (The claim is based on an ROC historian’s take on it.) How do you argue against that?
Really thoughtful points. You show just how complicated and sensitive the whole topic of unity, autonomy, and historical memory can be, especially when different political systems and experiences are involved.
How could China move toward a kind of national unity that doesn’t fear regional autonomy, cultural differences, or diversity, but actually sees them as the foundation for long-term stability? And how can that kind of model stay credible in a world where “self-determination” is so often used as a political tool, by both Western and non-Western powers?
I agree that the argument that territory has historically been part of China since ancient times is useless legal statement to make in addressing the question of whether any territory should or should remain a part of China. But the fact that it is a useless statement is itself a useless point to make. It is a non sequitur that leads nowhere useful, and I question the bona fides of this publication in making a mountain of what is not even a molehill.
The questions are and have always been what under international law is recognised as part of a country's territory, what is currently recognised, and what would be required for a part of what is recognised as part of a country's territory to be recognised as no longer being part of that country's territory, and to what extent does international law recognise a right of self-determination by people who live on territory now recognised as belonging to a particular country to legally break away without giving the country a right to take back that territory.
You are right: simply saying that Alsace-Lorrain is part of French ancient territory means nothing legally. But dismissing that statement as legally meaningless does not then give the people of Alsace-Lorrain a right to declare independence unilaterally or declare a decision to join Germany without reference to the French government or the French people. Ditto for Corsia, Northern Ireland and Scotland. So making a big deal of dismissing this statement is a complete red herring. A far more useful discourse is to answer the questions I set out above. Where would Mr Li or this publication stand for example on the international recognition of Somaliland?
The question is of course of considerable complexity under international law, but there is no general right to self-determination except under currently accepted very narrow circumstances, none of which apply to existing territories currently recognised under international law as part of China. And if Mr Li or this publication would grab the bull by the horns to directly address how international law would treat this issue -- noting in particular that self-governance as a reason to breakaway is STILL not treated formally as a recognised exception to international law to the basic rule of territorial integrity nor is a vague FEELING of oppression -- I would be most interested to what you would positively argue rather than relying on pointless refutation of an issue that has no meaning under international law in any event.
Thank you for this fine article. It is probably significant that the book was published in 1999, long before Xi Jinping became Party Secretary, during the last few years of General Secretary Jiang Zemin which seem to have been the most recent peak of Party openness.
I like to think of General Secretary Xi's view as Make China Great Again, the later MAGA -- Make America Great Again of President Trump sounds similar.
There were various empires that called themselves say Qing or Ming or Song or Tang that had core areas within the Chinese cultural region and then expanded to other territories, sometimes incorporating and assimilating them totally, others areas assimilating to a much lesser degree such as the Tibetan, Xinjiang and Mongolian areas.
There have been many states of Chinese culture existing in the region of what is China today. Some were founded by invaders such as the Yuan and the Qing but Chinese today are proud of them. I sometimes wonder if Japan had won World War II would the Chinese, two or three hundred years from now, be boasting about the glories of the Nippon Dynasty (although maybe it would have a different name)?
Some Tibetans and Uyghurs would like to see Tibet and Xinjiang as independent countries. These feelings seem to have been intensified by the way they have been treated by the Chinese central government. Even though Beijing has been spending vast amounts of money improving the infrastructure and living conditions of the people in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Like someone once said, you can do all kinds of things, but I will never forget the way you made me feel. Economically it would be better for Xinjiang and Tibet to be part of China. Why do many of the local inhabitants disagree? There are religious and cultural differences and more recent histories of repression.
The Dalai Lama has said that Tibet could be part of China if the Tibetans had true autonomy that would enable them to protect their culture, language and religion. Autonomy, despite the number of autonomous regions and districts China has, is something that Xi Jinping seems to be retreating from. That autonomous areas might have people thinking thoughts and even organizing themselves in ways the Party disagrees with is alarming to the Party which as one might say in dated American slang is a 'control freak'.
Many people in those areas have a desire for autonomy and religious freedom which the Communist Party, which has its own quasi-religious political philosophy and its own intense faith that only it can lead China to its great historical destiny, cannot accept. Article One of the PRC Constitution demands that the Party be in control and no criticism of China's system be permitted. Of course if Chinese people had genuine freedom of speech and of media, then there would be much more and stronger criticism of the Communist Party. That Party isn't wrong about that.
To make the division at 1840 is understandable from the specifically Chinese point of view, but it does seem to be a case that imperialism is OK when it is Han Chinese but not OK when it is western imperialism.
Then there is the argument that Chinese imperialism was benign while western imperialism was nasty. Both were true for both at various times, however there is the natural human tendency which at its extreme leads to racist thinking. That is while I make excuses for people on my own side and minimize their bad behavior, while for people on the other side I give everything the worst interpretation and make no allowances for them at all.
Of course the South China Sea has other names -- in the Republic of the Philippines it is the West Philippine Sea and in Vietnam it is the East Vietnam Sea!
As for the since ancient times argument, the famous nine-dotted line in the South China Sea dates back to 1947 from the last few years of the Republic of China.
History is complicated and where we stand is where we sit. It is difficult to escape even partially from the seas of assumptions and perspectives in which we are all immersed.
David Cowhig
Given that different peoples will have different views on history, desires to self-govern and to self-determination, the answer is to follow the law and for the law to be applied consistently and predictably in all cases. For example, if you believe that a peoples have a right of self-determination if they feel that they are being oppressed, then I take it that you support the right of the peoples of the Donetsk and Luhansk to unilaterally declare independence from Ukraine? After all Ukraine had severely restricted Russian culture, Russian language and the Russian Orthodox religion across Ukraine - a situation far worse than what is happening in Tibet and Xinjiang now.