Hi, I've lurked here for a while and created this account because this question is something I've been thinking about. Like most of you, I am worried about the new cold war on China by the West. That said though, on the question of Tibet I feel like some people can be inconsistent or intellectually dishonest about it...
I'm not saying we should balkanize China now in 2021 and I'm not a FREE TIBET fanatic, but I find it strange how so many on the anti-imperialist left (of which I'd consider myself a member) justify the initial annexation of Tibet in the 50s. Yes, I'm aware that Tibet used to be a much more backwards-ass place, and I'm not a fan of the Dalai Lama. But is the argument that it was OK because it made Tibet a better place to live in not basically a neocon sentiment ("we're bringing freedom and democracy")? Obviously neocons are not sincere about this kind of thing, but I'm of the position that unprovoked military occupation is pretty much always wrong.
Anyways, that's what I'm thinking about. Hoping this can open up a good discussion without things getting too heated lol.
Why is this question being posed from the starting point of the Tibet being an independent nation that China (as the PRC, in this case) suddenly decided to attack?
Tibet had been under Chinese control for centuries, and just because some elements within Tibet claimed to be independent amidst the ensuing chaos and instability surrounding the defeat of the Qing Dynasty and the line of Chinese imperial dynasties ceasing to exist in the 1911 war, does not make it is so. The Kuomintang still considered it to be part of China (as ROC).
Recognition of Tibet as independent as far as the west is concerned has always been entirely dependent of its interests at that particular moment in time, as one should expect. https://archive.vn/36owk
The ROC still claims Mongolia and Tuva, Russia, along with a bunch of other small bits of land.