Do you actually have anything to dispute the Amnesty and United Nations reports, or the survivor testimony? Or is this another kneejerk dismissal because they implicate an imperialist world power you've chosen to align with?
There is no 'another' about it and the United Nations report itself does not come to any firm conclusions.
Anyway, I don't need to dispute it; it is contested. You have chosen to believe some people, like psychotic and discredited evangelical Christian Adrian Zenz, or people associated with what the US designated as a terrorist group until 2020 (ETIM), and not others. I don't think it's clear that you should do that (to put it lightly). I think when news stories about the topic repeatedly use the same picture of a bunch of people in drug rehab as their emblematic "concentration camp", and when testimony is inconsistent and by people who have become dependent for their material wellbeing on governments that want to hear such testimony, that you should be more skeptical rather than declaring that 'reasonable people' have all made up their minds after reviewing only a set of claims curated for their effectiveness as propaganda against a target of US (and the rest of that blob) efforts at destabilization.
That's pathetic, even for you.
The invaders were
also elites-- monied interests of a foreign government with expansionist projects. Those they slaughtered were primarily peasants.
The Tibetan elites supported by the CIA were indeed housed and trained in India and even Colorado and presumably other parts of the United States before invading Tibet and slaughtering peasants, that is correct. And it is also correct that they acted on behalf of monied interests of a foreign government with expansionist projects, that of course being the United States. Not sure what you mean by "also" as they are the same people I was describing. Notably, you didn't answer the question: are there any such instances in which you do not take the side of the CIA? Other than the ones you don't know about, of course. Or that neither of us knows about.
It's weird to be very exercised about the People's Liberation Army marching into a place the world recognized as China near the end of a civil war in China and then coming to an agreement with the local government to remain a part of China. That's the sort of thing that happens during a civil war in a society which has undergone some fragmentation. It is true that the 17-point agreement did not really hold up; they abolished serfdom and slavery, after all, which did not leave the revenues of the lamaseries intact, and the association of the Dalai Lama with CIA proxies infiltrating Tibet and doing violence put a lot of strain on the idea that the established status, functions, and powers of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama must remain unchanged. On the other side, CIA attempts to use Tibetans in self-imposed exile to invade and attempt to separate from China directly undermined "the Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces", another rather important part of that agreement. So the violations of the agreement were hardly one-sided.
Indeed-- a vassal. That's the actual historical status, and the status to which the Chinese government wanted it returned.
The "actual historical status" of many places that are incorporated into countries today were "as vassals". Like Wales to England. Or indeed Kent, Wessex, York, and so on. What do you think vassalage was? Such a weird premise to put forward. Hast thou even glanced at an overview of the political structures of medieval Europe? Or just played a Crusader Kings game? Good lord (a blasphemy because it is a contradiction).
Ancient and Imperial China arguably had a feudal system, though it was not identical with European feudalism-- a closer comparison may be the bureaucracy of the Byzantine Empire (I'm not familiar with Marxist historiography on the Byzantine Empire enough to say whether they would also call that a feudal structure; they might, as they focus more on the economy and class relations than the formal political structure). In any case, the functions of the lamas in Tibet were incorporated into the Chinese imperial bureaucracy much like vassals in Europe were elements of the governments of countries like France or England or Spain and so on. And that historical rundown I gave earlier is hardly the extent of Tibet's association with China; I didn't bother listing anything before the Qing Dynasty because it makes the point well enough (being older than the United States and Australia), but Tibet has been a part of China much earlier than that, for example during the Yuan dynasty (the Mongols) and even earlier. Before the Qing, the Ming Dynasty was responsible for issuing the titles of Tibetan leaders (including the Dalai and Panchen Lamas). It is not some momentary association; the less than forty years of
de facto independence for Tibet were a period of instability and upheaval for the rest of China as well; in such conditions power tends to be decentralized, which in the most extreme cases is another way of saying "
de facto independence". Bringing China back together naturally meant ending various instances of
de facto independence. The period starting shortly after the fall of the Qing Dynasty and the first attempt at a Republic was called the "Warlord Era" for a reason. The existence and relative independence of the various warlords or warlord cliques, at least one of which tried to restore the Qing Dynasty, is not a strong argument that China should have remained fragmented or that the People's Liberation Army had a duty to respect the
de facto authority exercised by these various warlords. And that same observation also applies to the remnant of the Qing Dynasty in Tibet, the Kashag.
And, if we are going down the route of being able to take over places that were once part of your country, well...
... it would be significantly more justified than the colonization of Australia, the United States, or Canada and their continued rule by settlers? For a variety of reasons? Oh, what horrors might we witness if standards of international behavior were (
checks notes) higher?
But that's not even the argument. The argument is that Tibet has a long association with China and that it is perfectly reasonable for Chinese revolutionaries to consider the people of Tibet their brothers and sisters and liberate them just like the rest of China. And because of foreign attempts by hostile, undemocratic forces (western capital) to undermine that project, it is reasonable for them to be a little more heavy-handed in their approach than would otherwise be permissible; they have a responsibility to be fair and responsive to public opinion, but they also have a responsibility not to let Western imperialists take advantage of tensions within their society in order to reverse the gains they've made and return all of China to subordinate status. And importantly, the
de facto independence of Tibet was not the independence of its people; it was the independence of a local aristocracy built on serfdom and slavery that inherited its privileges from its position within Imperial China.
Anyway, from what I've gathered I'm sure everyone will agree: NORMANS, ANGLES, AND SAXONS OUT OF BRITANNIA
