The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met.
He was from professor of international relations at the London School of Economics LSEand subsequently professor emeritus there Fred Halliday's many books include Political Journeys: The Rise and Fall of the Sixth Great Power Palgrave Macmillan, Two current and high-profile events - the crisis in and around Tibet following the Lhasa riots of 14 Marchand the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment on 14 May of the state of Israel - have more in common than it may first appear.
Indeed, their commonalities are shared to a degree by other political and ethnic disputes across the world, to the extent that they compose a distinct phenomenon - which may be termed "the syndrome of post-colonial sequestration".
The category may sound abstract but the lived experience it denotes is real and multiple: Tibet and Palestine Israel's "other" are classic examples of the syndrome. The contrast is with other countries or peoples that have, as it were, managed "to get out in time".
Kuwait is one such: The victims of "post-colonial sequestration", by contrast, failed to make it past the barrier of independence and international recognition.
Instead they fell into a state of half-recognised, but contested, existence. After the war of the "Palestine question" disappeared almost entirely from the international scene, only to re-emerge with the defeat of the Arab armies in the six-day war of Tibet too has undergone long years of neglect in the international arena, punctuated by periodic and notably near-half-century reincarnations of interest: An essential element in understanding this syndrome - both from "within" the people or country concerned and "outside" the international order - is to abandon the idea that the division of the world into today's "nation-states" corresponds to any fundamental principles.
The map of the world, now containing around close to independent entities, is not drawn according to ideas of natural justice, divine or even historic entitlement, nor even of the democratic and liberal self-realisation of "nations".
It is, rather - as scholars of nationalism, from Ernest Gellner to Tom Nairn, have pointed out - also arbitrary and contingent - a result of power politics; accidents; wars; state crises; and hegemonic, colonial or in the case of the central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union ideology.
In this haphazard context, the chances of failure or success in achieving international recognition can be equally contingent. The arbitrary nature of states and frontiers in Africa, the middle east, central Asia and Latin America testifies to this, as do the examples of Belgium, Switzerland, and most recently Kosovo in Europe.
Some entities gain established existence and recognition, others do not: A clinching moment In each case, however, it is usually international politics that plays the decisive role. In particular, the key moment of possibility - and danger - is the convulsive change that occurs when wars end or colonial powers prepare to withdraw.
The end of the two world wars in the middle east is emblematic of the process.
In the aftermath of the "great war" ofthe Ottoman retreat was accompanied by the emergence of various de facto states and movements claiming independence. But newly assertive states - Kemalist Turkey, British-ruled Iraq and the newly expanding Kingdom of Najd later Saudi Arabia - occupied and annexed these territories, crushing the aspirations of the time.
A similar process occurred after the second world war. The British had ruled the administrative entity called "Palestine" sincein effect transposing an imagined, Biblical, and 19th-century romantic term onto a slice of territory that had hitherto been divided up between three Ottoman provinces.
A similar process of arbitrary delineation and nomenclature occurred with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.
The history of Tibet from to the present started with the Chinese People's Liberation Army Invading Tibet in Before then, Tibet had declared independence from China in In , the Tibetans signed a seventeen-point agreement reaffirming China's sovereignty over Tibet and providing an autonomous administration led by Dalai Lama. An Analysis Of Tibet's Governmental System and the Dalai Lama as Head of State - An Analysis Of Tibet's Governmental System and the Dalai Lama as Head of State Throughout history, society has created many different governmental systems in order to organize society in terms of law and authority. -In China invaded and occupied Tibet in violation of international law. -For eight years The Dalai Lama, as Head of State of Tibet, tried to negotiate a peaceful solution to this problem.
The unilateral and profoundly irresponsible British retreat in was followed by war, in which the Zionists successfully fought to achieve their independence and the Palestinians earlier defeated in the insurrection failed to secure theirs and were occupied by the armies of neighbouring Arab states, Egypt and Jordan.
The result, bywas the sequestration by Israeli and Arab states of the former British colony. For two decades, until Israel expelled the Arab states in the war, Palestine was divided between three regional powers.
Sincethe unity of the British colonial artefact has been re-established and, in effect, a civil war within that territory has continued. In the face of Israeli power on one side, and the weakness and accommodations of Arab states on the other, Palestine failed to make it see Avi Shlaim, " Israel at Lhasa in the world For all the differences of region and political context, a comparable process was taking place at that time over Tibet, where aspirations to independence were crushed as the forces of the victorious Chinese revolution of subordinated and incorporated the territory into the "People's Republic of China".
Here, much of the energetic debate about Tibet's "historical status" - whether as Tibetan nationalists and their supporters claim it was an independent state before China occupied it in or whether it is in Chinese nationalist terminology an "inalienable part" of historic China - is based on a dubious premise.
For "history" and its associations is not the unarguable source of judgment that both sides see it as.Here, much of the energetic debate about Tibet's "historical status" - whether (as Tibetan nationalists and their supporters claim) it was an independent state before China occupied it in An Analysis Of Tibet's Governmental System and the Dalai Lama as Head of State - An Analysis Of Tibet's Governmental System and the Dalai Lama as Head of State Throughout history, society has created many different governmental systems in order to organize society in terms of law and authority.
- Tibetan Women Under Chinese Occupation Prior to the Chinese occupation of Tibet in , Tibetan women were treated with the utmost respect. They served as equals to men, nothing less and in some instances even more.
However, since the Chinese have occupied Tibet the status of Tibetan women in the country has changed.
In the article below, he explains Tibet's legal status. The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims that Tibet is an integral part of China.
The Tibetan Government-in-Exile maintains that Tibet is an independent state under unlawful occupation. It analysis legal argumentation of the Tibetan question and depicts very clearly that according to international law Tibet has never lost her statehood and thus unequivocally Tibet is an occupied country.
- Tibet Abstract The purpose of this paper is to give a descriptive account of the current atrocities being implemented by the Communist Chinese in the unlawfully occupied state of Tibet and the events, political and militant, that gave rise to these events since Communist Invasion and occupation in