The Prague Post
December 1st, 2008
Endowment Fund     Business Listings ONLINE      Reservations      Classifieds    Subscriptions
Prague accomodation

Home » Archives » Opinion

Let my people go

Independence is a tricky issue, but often there is no other choice
Commentary | Search restaurants | Archives

October 1st, 2008 issue

By Srdjan Jovanović

Separatism or independence? The two concepts, while at first seeming the same, carry vast differences in connotation. During recent years, several former regions, now emerging nation states, have gained the global spotlight because of separatist/independence tendencies. Tibet, Kosovo, and the Georgian enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia immediately come to mind. Vast majorities in each of the aforementioned regions want to live in separate states. If such a majority wishes it, who are we to stop them?
A huge geographical area with a disproportionately low number of inhabitants, Tibet is a part of China. It is best known for its mountains (Mount Everest, or, in its original form, Chomolungma) and for its “government in exile,” especially Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso, the man usually called the Dalai Lama — who leads the so-called Tibetan government based in Dharamsala, India. Should Tibet separate itself from China, the idea is for him to take power, forming yet another country based on religion. China is urged to enter a dialogue with Gyatso (a person who in actual fact thinks he has been reincarnated), and when it does not, it is accused of “suppressing” religion. Atheism and secular politics may well be the only good thing that communism brought to China and now China is criticized for this is as well. Why? Well, it is trendy and popular to shout “Free Tibet” as if the people in Tibet were shackled and chained, and it is an easy way to voice general opposition to China.
Elsewhere in the world, acting independently for nearly a decade, Kosovo made its controversial declaration of independence in February. With good reason too, as Serbia is a tough place to be, especially if you are of Albanian origin — as is 90 percent of the population of Kosovo. Albanians have been completely neglected by the Serbian government, even in times when the country’s name was Yugoslavia. Kosovo was the least developed region in a seriously underdeveloped country. As recent history shows, once a country escapes from Serbia, everything seems to blossom. Every human has the right to reach his full potential. Why would the Kosovars be any different? The state was marginalizing Albanians both in Kosovo and in other parts of Serbia for decades. In addition to that, the armed conflict over Kosovo made any other conclusion incomprehensible. It was time to leave.
When actual talks on the possibility of Kosovar independence started, both sides approached the negotiations from non-negotiable positions — the only option for Serbs was that Kosovo remain a part of Serbia, while Kosovars insisted upon full independence. Then the countries of the world jumped in, supporting one side or the other based on their own interests. There are Serbian enclaves throughout Kosovo — especially in the north — which is said to be a problem, but every state has at least some minorities. There is nothing new here.
Unlike Kosovo, which quickly gained at least some international recognition, the only countries so far to officially recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Russia and Nicaragua. Once again, the people of these two regions remain an afterthought. Russia is criticized because Europe and the United States do not wish to see it grow as an international power; if Russia were able to successfully push independence for these regions it would be a sure sign of strength. Abkhazia actually declared independence in October 2006. Nobody seemed to notice, because there were no political points to be gained. Silence on Abkhazia was matched, on the other hand, by myriad opinions on Kosovo. Why? Because it was useful. Abkhazia remained a small, unimportant region and its people proportionately small and unimportant, as the situation could not be used for gaining geopolitical points.
There are obviously pros and cons for both sides, in each case. The bottom line remains that trying to stop someone from doing what they really want is really nothing more than an exercise in futility. I have no idea how these countries upon becoming independent could sustain themselves. How could Tibet function? Perhaps with an economy based on yak meat, yak milk and yak cheese. Is Kosovo going to survive by devouring international aid kept in perpetual flow? When it comes to Abkhazia — well, the majority of the people around the globe do not even know it exists, at least until recently. The same can be said of South Ossetia. Will they survive by Russian subsidies alone?
These are not questions for us to worry about. When someone wants to go — when someone really wants to go — there is nothing, short of war or military occupation, that can be done.
The unfortunate reality is that countries and individuals support the independence of a particular region (or not) only for their own political benefit. If a country has separatist tendencies within itself, it will not support Kosovo. If someone wishes to thwart Russian resurgence, he will not support South Ossetia’s independence. If someone is wary of China’s rise, he will support Tibet. And so on. Both Russia and China are worthy of criticism — that is not and cannot be disputed. But are we not losing the moral right to criticize them if we do not know what to criticize? China is criticized for imposing its bureaucracy on Tibet. China imposes bureaucracy on all of its regions. Why is it only being criticized for Tibet? The people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia want to be independent. Russia accepted that. Who are we to lay blame on Russia for doing that? Instead of criticizing China for its post-communist bureaucracy in general, the focus is Tibet because it is popular. Instead of criticizing Russia for meddling in everything, it is criticized for accepting the will of people in two regions who strongly wish independence. Historical enmity toward Russia is not a good enough reason.
Imagine a couple, John and Susan. They have been together for many years, but now Susan wishes to leave John. And what is he supposed to do? Not let her? Ask a “friend” to veto her leaving him? Or should Susan’s friends rally around, hoisting banners “Free Susan”? Whatever Susan’s fate afterward — maybe she was better off with John, maybe she was not — there is nothing that can or should be done if she really wants to leave.
Let Susie go. Let her choose her own fate.
The author, born in Serbia, is a Ph.D. candidate at Palacký University Olomouc and the founder and editor of the academic journal Humanicus.


Other articles in Opinion (1/10/2008):

Browse the Current Issue

If you enjoyed this article, why don't you subscribe to the print version!
We accept secure online transactions provided by PayPal and Moneybookers

Reader's comments:

add your comment
[17:52 02/10/2008] : The author barely has any ideas why Tibet should be independent? Why do Tibetans demand Independence? Why do Tibetans sacrifice for their independence? The author barely has minimium understanding about China's present colonial rule in Tibet. Here I want to shed some light on this issue so the author could able to understand his own prejudices and ignorance about the subject he is supposed to have some basic understanding and fair judgement as he himself portray as an expert or academic (maybe phd is just a title where stupid people use as a credential to lie more...who know? just check the reality!).

The author argued that Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile is fighting for their own power and return to theocracy. This is not true and the author's information is from Chinese propaganda machine and western leftists view of Tibet. The future of Tibet should be decided by all Tibetans, no one else, forget armchair revolutionaries like this author.
Dalai Lama did not think himself reincarnated, however it is true that Tibetans think he is a reincarnate being of Bodhisattva of limitless compassion, chen-re-sig. Again, to understand this concept, one must be educated or at least should have a basic understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. You cannot make a jugdement when you are ignorant about the subject you study.

Other thing that the author argued about Tibet is, how Tibet will function and how the economy will work out. We Tibetans will not come to your door and ask you to empty your wallet for us. To you, maybe the question of Tibet is a scoring of geo-political points, for us, it is matter of facts, survival, and justice.

The author also argumed that China imposed bureacracy in Tibet as rest of China. This is a total false and showcase the writer's ignorance on the issue. Bureaucracy is everywhere, in any countries. Yes, there is bureacracy in China, however, in Tibet, East Turkistan, and Inner Mongolia, it is not just an imposition of China's enlightened bureacracy (which the author assumes), rather a colonial rule where inhabitants are oppressed in day to day life.

Bog Gyal Lo
Palden
Jackson Heights
[17:52 02/10/2008] : It is painfully obvious that the writer knows little about Tibet. The Dalai Lama has explicitly stated that he is not interested in a political position, and the TGIE has a democratic constitution providing for an elected government that could be implemented in a free Tibet in the future. Tibet has a long history of independence, a distinct culture (not just in terms of religion) from China, and has endured more than its fair share of suffering at the hands of the Beijing regime. Tibet is NOT ruled as if it were just another province, it is under the most oppressive rule within China, save perhaps for Xinjiang. The TGIE asks for autonomy within China at this point, because it is the only practical option as China is a much more populous and stronger nation. However, young Tibetans and many within Tibet are growing more restless, and rejecting the moderate approach of the TGIE. China's rise would not be affected if Tibet were independent, China is a populous and strong nation, and although Tibet is large in terms of territory, it is not (nor could ever be) military threat to China. Nor does Tibet contain anything critical for the Chinese economy, and in fact appears to cost China more to occupy than the profits China does get from exploiting Tibet's resources. Most of us who support Tibet's rightful quest for freedom are not interested in seeing China weakened as a nation nor as a society. It is clearly in the interests of the world that China become more open minded and integrated with the rest of the world, and that won't happen if Chinese living standards don't improve and more of its people escape from poverty. So to confuse the widespread support for Tibet with the rather limited opposition to China's rise is a mistake.
truth
chappaqua ny usa
[18:15 02/10/2008] : In reference to your last paragraph: Imagine this... A couple, John and Susan. They have been together for a few years and now Susan wants to leave John. Except Susan has been living in John's house and hasn't paid any rent! Meanwhile, next door to them are Susan's family, where she came from! Are you telling me that John should leave his own house and give it up to Susan? I sincerely believe that Susan should go back to her family and get out of John's house! Remember, no one is holding Susan back and making her stay in John's house! By her staying, does not mean that she should be able to take John's home.
Bob Smith
Toronto
[18:23 02/10/2008] : This is the most biased and chauvinist article I had the misfortune to read! Not only does it promote racism towards the Serbs (Russians, Chinese etc) but also marginalizes the role of international law and standards. I would like to remind you that 50% of the current population of Kosovo has immigrated into the province after WWII because their own country- Albania, the least developed state of Europe and the northern hemisphere- could not provide them with dignifying life. You also forgot to mention that Kosovo Albanians have evicted 200,000 Serbs (60%!!!) from the province during the last decade! m.p.
Mike Pat
Vienna
[12:00 17/10/2008] : Dear Mike Pat,

I don't understand are you inform about the Albanian history and them territories. Also name of serbian capital city is in albanian language which means proper name of Beograde is Beligrave that means Beli- waist and grave-women. That is true story.
But I don't understant when you serbian will understand that since you come to balkan every 50 year wars will happen. You communist and uneducated Gavrilo Principi killed Princ Ferdinad then started first world war, now because of you serbians balkan is becoming poor and more poor. Mike I think you people are very very sick with nacionalism and separatisam, you have to understand what is enough is enough!!!

With love from Kosova
Agron VI
Pristina
Note: Comments that include profanity, personal attacks or any other inappropriate material are prohibited.  

Add your comment


Full Name: *
City: *
E-mail: **
This comment can be published in the print version of The Prague Post
Enter the text on the right:
 visual captcha
Comment: *
* Required field. In order to be approved for display, comments must have a first and last name and a city.
** E-mails are required and will only be used for internal purposes.

Most visited in Business Listings

Hotel booking
The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have been printed in
The Prague Post, a weekly newspaper published in the Czech Republic.
To subscribe to the print paper, click here.
Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.