Mid-term project
The 15th of April, 2014
Chinese Occupation of Tibet
The history of Tibet has its origins dated 2000-3000 B.C. when Tibetans are supposed to emigrate from northern China. But there is also a partial genetic continuity between the Paleolithic inhabitants and the contemporary Tibetan populations. The history of a unified Tibet starts from 7th century A.D. and has continuation nowadays. It should be mentioned that during the whole period of its formation Tibet was mostly influenced by China and Mongolian Empire. From the very beginning (approximately 13th century) Tibetans had to affiliate with political relationships with Mongolian Empire. Then, in 18th century, Mongolians were expelled by Chinese Qing dynasty. During following 2 centuries Tibet was in strong dependence from Beijing, moreover Qing dynasty had representatives of its interests there and even a small garrison. So that Tibet and Chinese established relationships between two territories, but, I may be wrong, as I understood Tibet wasn’t a part of Qing dynasty. Then the military control from the China side expanded and Tibet was claimed under Chinese "suzerainty" by Britain and Russia during the Great Game at the beginning of 20th century.
Nevertheless, after Qing dynasty collapsed Tibet declared independence and all Chinese officials and residents were expelled by the Tibetan government. Tibet thenceforth functioned as a de facto independent nation until the Chinese army invaded its eastern borders in 1950. Tibetans used to suffer from Mao Zedong activities. The first Tibetan uprising of 1959 resulted in the flight of the Dalai Lama and about 80,000 Tibetans. During these years thousands of Tibetans were allegedly executed, imprisoned, or starved to death in prison camps. So far no Chinese official has publicly acknowledged these atrocities.The Cultural Revolution, the next phase of Mao’s revolutionary politics, followed in 1966 and continued in effect until 1979 in Tibet. During these years, all religious activities were prohibited and the monastic system in Tibet was dismantled. The campaign included an attempt to eradicate the ethnic minority’s culture and distinctive identity as a people. Luckily, this stopped when Deng Xiaoping rose to power in China in 1978. Chinese authorities also initiated a more conciliatory ethnic and economic development policy. Tibetans were encouraged to revitalize their culture and religion. Infrastructure was developed to help Tibet grow. But pro-independence protests still took place, so that China returned to more hard-line policy with stricter security measures, curtailing religious and cultural freedoms.
Since that times there are a lot of disputes around Tibet independency. Tibetans itself want to be independent (or with increased autonomy at least) while People’s Republic of China refuses it claiming its sovereignty over Tibet.
Summarizing we can identify several core causes of the conflict: * Ethnicity: the native inhabitants of Tibetan plateau are Tibetans while the majority ethnic group in China is Han Chinese. The Chinese government is made up mostly of Han Chinese, and it does not have a strong record of dealing with China's ethnic minorities — like Tibetans — in a fair way. * Religion: Tibetans are Buddhists basically, whereas ethnic Han Chinese are generally not. Moreover, the Chinese government has a history of persecuting religious movements, especially those which draw large numbers of followers and which have the potential to transform into political movements that could potentially threaten the regime's hold on power. Tibetan Buddhism has this kind of following and transformative potential. * History and Geography: As already been mentioned above there are two points of view on Tibetan independence – Chinese and Tibetan. Tibetans have been unable to mount a convincing case to establish that Tibet was an independent state at the time of the 1950 Chinese occupation by their failure to participate in international organizations such as the League of Nations and by their failure to modernize. In fact, neither U.S. nor any other major country recognizes Tibet as independent. That is why China is still able to maintain its occupation. * Security and Sovereignty of China: Chinese feel that they must take a hard-line stance on sovereignty issues in places like Tibet. After all, if Tibet became independent, it could inspire similar succession movements in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. * Chinese Governance: China confirms that it spends lot of money for economical growth in Tibet whilst Tibetans itself claim that these modernizations are killing their religion. Moreover, their ethnicity tends to decrease due to Han emigration. This tendency represents the situation raised on Tibetan territory. Most of enterprises belong to Hans, so that, firstly, it’s very difficult to find a job for Tibetans, secondly, the whole profit goes back to China and Tibetans don’t have any benefits.
The differing perspectives of the Tibetans and the Chinese government make resolving the impasse extremely difficult. One of the solution could be a so-called “middle way approach” suggested by the current leader of Tibet Dalai Lama XIV. He laid out a willingness to accept something less than independence for Tibet. Calling for genuine autonomy for Tibet within the framework of China, the Dalai Lama proposed that Tibet have full control over its domestic affairs but that China could remain responsible for Tibet’s defense and foreign affairs.
The problem also could be diminished by third party intervention, for example, or by reforming the China governance making it liberal, etc. Anyway, while China won’t be ready to discuss the possibilities of solving the conflict the matter still take place and the outcome unlikely becomes an optimistic one.
Morocco and Western Sahara
Similar with the situation described above we can observe the conflict between Morocco and Western Sahara which occurred in 1975 and takes place nowadays. Let’s go back to the very roots of the dispute by examining the history of these two states.
The history of Sahara and Morocco has same roots in V century B.C. The earliest inhabitants, or Sahrawi people, were a so-called beidan, or ‘Moors’, who appeared by mix of Berber, Arab and black African descent. Morocco in its turn has been inhabited by Berbers for 5000 years. From XI till XIX centuries the Western Sahara was a liaison between Northern and Southern (Sub-Saharan) Africa. In XI century there was founded an Almoravid dynasty which expanded to huge dimensions including current Morocco, Tlemcen, Iberian Peninsula, Mauritania, Senegal and Mali. Then the situation seemed to be rather stable (of course I put down some details) until XIX century when African colonization started. In 1884 all Western Sahara became under control of Spain while Morocco was the cornerstone of many disputes between European countries. During XIX-XX centuries a part of Morocco belonged to Spain, the other one – temporally to France. Finally, in 1956, Morocco was excused from both Spanish and French influences and became an independent country. Since that times Morocco started to declare its reclamation for Western Sahara territory, and the situation redoubled when in 1973-1975 years Polisario Front was founded. They activated military forces against Spanish control and therefore Spain began rapidly to divest itself of most of its remaining colonial possessions. At the same time, Morocco and Mauritania, which had historical and competing claims of sovereignty over the territory, argued that it had been artificially separated from their territories by the European colonial powers. But Polisario Front opposed both Moroccan and Mauritanian claims and demanded full independence of the Western Sahara. In 1976 Polisario declared the independence of the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR).
Since those times the conflict between Morocco and Western Sahara began. There were a peaceful march across the border from Morocco side in 1975; in 1979 it also quickly annexed the portion of the territory which had been relinquished by Mauritania maintaining a 120000-strong army to protect its occupied sectors. Strong war broke out and continued till UN brokered a ceasefire, which still remains in effect. Currently, Morocco controls 85% of the Western Sahara, while the Polisario Front controls the remaining 15%.
Core causes
The paragraphs above were written in order to represent the core issues of the conflict from it historical background. It has demonstrated the clear and overwhelming desire of Sahrawis for * independence and the right to self-determination and * has repudiated Morocco’s claims to historical ties with the Western Sahara and its people;
In addition, the role of Western Sahara as an increasingly significant part of the Moroccan national landscape has been examined. Moreover we should take into consideration the resources of Western Sahara. The territory is phosphate-rich and believed to have offshore oil deposits. Most of it has been under Moroccan control since 1976.
Future
There has been made several steps towards the negotiations between both sides with third parties participation. In 1991 there have been created a MINURSO by United Nations, moreover they wanted to organize a referendum were the destiny of Morocco-Polisario border would be determined. But when Moroccan king realized that the results of the referendum would surely be in favor of Sahrawi independence, it became clear that Morocco had no intention of supporting this arrangement. The only acceptable situation for them was to confirm their annexation of the territory. Then the case was put into motion with its new leader represented by James Baker. First of all, in 2000 he suggested a plan called a ‘third way’ to seek any compromise. The majority of proposals consider the idea of the territory either formally becoming part of Morocco while maintaining a degree of autonomy or the idea of dividing the territory so that Morocco would control a portion and Western Sahara would form a state within the remainder. But unlikely both parties rejected the proposal. Then he prepared a second plan known as ‘Baker Plan II’ which was even more reasonable than previous. Parties again were against the suggestions.
Remarkable that at the beginning Morocco wasn’t strongly against the proposal except some doubt while Polisario rejected it at once, but when the last one changed its mind, Morocco suddenly rejected all suggestions. It looks like a game (or argue) between two little stubborn children which don’t want to cede. In reality people should understand the importance of negotiations and realize that the positive outcome has to be achieved by a compromise. And this is the key word assuming the participation and cedes from both parties.
Unfortunately, the situation nowadays in Western Sahara continues to deteriorate over time while demonstrating increasingly little possibility of being resolved in the near future. Both parties fundamentally disagree on key issues and have proven to be unwilling to compromise their positions and negotiate in new, though admittedly, difficult ways.
In the conclusion I’d like to add that Morocco and Western Sahara are not the ones who are only responsible for the situation. There are also interests of third parties such as Algeria, Spain, France and the United States. While many say that progress will not be made until Morocco permits a referendum to be held, it would be more accurate and realistic to acknowledge the fact that progress will not be made until the interests and actions of Algeria, Spain, France and the United States change. Some of them should cease providing the weapons, the others – to acknowledge people of the problem ant etc.
And all the efforts should be taken to solve the problem, because everyone has its rights for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.