Talk:Central Tibetan Administration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Tibet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Tibet. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...
ཛ This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Tibetan script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Tibetan script.


To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may require rewriting and/or reformatting.
The current version of the article was imported from the CIA World Factbook. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available.

I would please like to edit page, but I fear vandalism, I suggest editors take up issue. Please edit this (sorry, don't know how to do properly) and add further information as follows:

"The CTA is not recognized as a government by any country, but it receives financial aid from governments and international organisations for its welfare work among the Tibetan exile community in India. This does not imply recognition of the CTA as a government." >>replace with>>

The CTA is not recognized as a government by any country although it does receive special status from the Indian government. Tibetan independence advocates deny that this non-recognition means that the CTA does not really represent a state, although they do agree that normally an independent state is so constituted when or if it actually governs an independent area and people. "Recognition can provide evidence that foreign governments are willing to treat an entity as an independent state, but cannot create or extinguish a state." (International Campaign for Free Tibet). http://www.savetibet.org/tibet/history/legal.php Furthermore, the CTA maintains that in spite of the official non-recognition, the CTA "is now being recognized increasingly by parliaments and general public around the world as the legitimate and true representative of the Tibetan people." http://www.tibet.net/en/cta/

According to the CTA, it does constitute a "veritable" government with "all the departments and attributes of a free democratic administration." However, officially the CTA denies that this government plans to assume power should it return to Tibet. Instead, it explains that in case Tibet becomes "free," the Dalai Lama has directed the government to dissolve, he would name an Interim-President (or one would be elected somehow), ethnic Tibetans in China would take charge, a Constituent Assembly would write a new constitution establishing a parliamentary democracy, and then an election by Tibetans in Tibet would be held to establish a new government. http://www.tibet.net/en/cta/ The Dalai Lama has stated that he recognizes the CTA constitution and the demands of the Tibetan people require that he be the "supreme head" and "ultimate authority" of the government. http://www.tibet.net/en/ohhdl/future.html On the other hand, he has recently stated that he is in "semi-retirement" and has already handed over political leadership. http://metaphorsforlife.com/2007/05/13/hh-dalai-lama-to-lay-down-political-leadership/

The CTA has received money from various sources including non-government organizations to support its activities in exile. In 1998, it released a statement acknowledging that it received $1.7 million a year, dating from the 1960s, from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. According to news reports, "The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said in a statement." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E958260&scp=1&sq=cia+tibet+exile&st=nyt&pagewanted=all Furthermore, intelligence agencies of India and Nepal were said to have supported these operations. The CIA's Secret War in Tibet, Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, University Press of Kansas, 2002, ISBN 978-0700611591 http://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Secret-War-Tibet/dp/0700611592/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206846769&sr=8-1



Template:WP INDIA Why is the Tibetan Government in Exile (the only legitimate government of Tibet) called an 'theocratic government'? The Government in Exile has a democratic system since the Tibetan Constitution was signed by the Dalai Lama in 1960. Although H.H. the Dalai Lama is still the Head of State, the political powers of the Government in Exile is in the hands of the Kashag and the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies, who are chosen by the Tibetan people in exile.

Any religous leader that is also a chief of state that can't be voted in or out constitutes a Theocracy,,,, that is why it is called a 'theocratic government'.

The Vatican City can be assimulated as well but since the Papal states were assumed into Italy in the mid 19th century, there is no real land to govern. since the 900 people that live there are pretty much "of the cloth"...

Iran has been an Islamic theocracy since the Pahlavi monarchy regime was overthrown on Feb. 11, 1979.

Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarchy until 1992, at which time the Saud royal family introduced the country's first constitution. The legal system is based on the sharia (Islamic law). Not much different...

So lets wrap up... If it's looks like an apple, is red and tastes like an apple, it might be----- an apple. call it a macintoch or a crab apple or a jonathan, but it's still an applechaz171 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

By that definition the United Kingdom is a 'theocratic government'. After all, the Queen is head of state and governor of the church of England, and can only be removed if there's a sudden revolution. Tom 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But the Queen has no real power over what goes on at all. She doesn't lead her people, she doesn't propose laws, she doesn't suggest what her people should be doing - she just reads a bit of paper once a year and sits about for the rest of it. Also, she's not the religious leader of the entire state - there are plenty of other religions represented proportionally in all of the countries that the Queen "lords it over". Unless there's been a major conspiracy all along, where the Queen helps get a Prime Minister elected only if s/he does her bidding, I don't see what relevance your comment has. (82.34.144.139 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC))
I think the more relevant point is that the Queen is the temporal head of the established church, and not the spiritual head. Were she both, then I think Tomothy would have a point. Fishhead64 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Redirects

Why was Free Tibet movement redirected here? I think that there is a huge differnce between the government of Tibet and the movement of people all over the Earth. I for one do not support any sort of governmental rule, but agree with the claims of the movement to free Tibet and Tibetan people from China's rule. Beta m 11:48, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I have changed Free Tibet movement from a #REDIRECT to a real page. I have placed links to this page where appropriate. But more information on the movement itself is necessary, so if anyone is willing to contribute please do so. Beta m 11:10, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Why is Tibet independence movement redirected here? Shorne 04:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to change it to the redirect to Free Tibet movement... unless somebody minds. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

"retaining their freedom until the 1951 Chinese occupation." the word "freedom" is obviously loaded with a POV. How "free" (in today's sense) could a theocratic society based on serfdom be? Should the word "sovereignity" be used instead?

While I understand the issue taken with the word "freedom", doesn't "sovereignty" simply mean "Freedom from External Control", or "Complete independence and self-government" (dictionary.com)?
Freedom may be considered by some to be a "loaded word", but it is used properly here when referring to the government attempting to maintain its freedom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ebs2002 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 December 2005.

Free Tibet. If tibet is to be 'free' It cannot revert back to the Theocratic serfdom it had before. The Government in exile is claiming soveignty over "historic Tibet". Land which hasn't been under their control for over 700 years. China claims all of Tibet based on the Mongol Conquest.


China may be in the wrong for their imperialistic assumtion of Tibet, but if Tibet is liberated, how will this benefit anyone if they revert to a system of government that was obsolete 1200 years ago?chaz171 16:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that that is up to the Tibetians to work out for themselves, to figure out what kind of government they want, without having to deal with another nation and culture colonizing them.Rbl 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I have renamed this article and rewritten parts of it baed on information I have acquired during the visit to Australia of Samhdong Rinpoche. I removed the description of the Adminstration as "theocratic" because it has an elected legislature and an elected head of government. It is no more theocratic than the UK. How the lamas ruled Tibet in the past is no longer relevant, because the Dalai Lama has been committed to a democratic government for an independent or autonomous Tibet for at least 30 years. I am seeking further advice on which areas of "historical Tibet" the CTA now claims jurisdiction over, and indeed (since the Dalai Lama is no longer seeking Tibetan independence) whether it claims jurisdiction at all. I noted during the visit that Samhdong Rinpoche did not claim to be "Prime Minister of Tibet", only "Cabinet Head of the CTA." Adam 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is hopelessly biased against the Chinese government

It makes no attempt to address the claims of the Chinese government, instead simply states that the Chinese claim is illegitimate. POV to the extreme. The name of this article should be also be renamed to "Tibetan Government in Exile" as that is the common name. --67.175.167.158 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to discuss this matter with you. In the meantime I will revert your edits. Adam 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made 2 revisions. First, I changed the word "Tibet is under the control of the People's Republic of China" to "Tibet is under the administration of" as the latter is more neutral yet accurate. Second, I have added the counter statement that the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) is not recognized as a government by any other governments directly to the lead paragraph. Putting that counter statement in the second to last paragraph is deliberate concealment of factual and critical information regarding the Central Tibetan Administration, and is anything but NPOV. Mamin27 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for registering. I have no objections to those two edits.
  • I will however revert any attempt to describe the CTA as "theocratic". The Dalai Lama has renounced his former position as a theocrat and is now the ceremonial head of the CTA - although of course his real influence is still very great. The actual head of the CTA is the elected head of the cabinet - which is more than China can claim.
  • You said earlier that the article "makes no attempt to address the claims of the Chinese government, instead simply states that the Chinese claim is illegitimate." First, it is not this article's job to address China's claim to Tibet. This is an article about the CTA, not about the status of Tibet. Secondly, the article does not say that "the Chinese claim is illegitimate." That is obviously the view of the Tibetans in exile, but this article neither endorses nor rejects that view.
  • I agree that the CTA is commonly called the "Tibetan Government in Exile". However that is not its correct name, and is also seriously misleading, because the CTA does not in fact claim to be the government of Tibet. It claims to be an administration and a representative body for Tibetans in exile, which it is. Adam 02:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that the CTA does not claim to be the Government of Tibet. One can browse its constitutional provisions and see that it defines "citizenship" as any Tibetans by blood, including those who live currently in Chinese Tibet. By those provisions, the intent is clearly defined as seeking representation for all Tibetans, and thus representing their interests in exile.

if they are a democracy, then they cannot be considered a legal goverment or administration until actually GETTING ELECTED 1st. so were there any election held or are they just claiming they will have election when they gain power? it feel somewhat questionable atm to claim they are "rightful and legitimate government" if they are based upon democracy, they can at most claim to SUPPORT the creation of such a said government but cannot be considered as said government until they are legally elected. i am arguing technicality, but there is a destinction between plans and reality. because he's is only the "rightful and legitimate government" under theocratic system, not democracy. he must survive an election to be a democratic leader. Akinkhoo (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

I agree with Mamin that the statement that the CTA is not recognised by any other government should appear near the beginning. However, I don't think the statement, "This does not imply recognition of the CTA as a government" is necessary; it's redundant with what is said two sentences earlier.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is necessary to reinforce the CTA's lack of recognition as a government because the most common term for it (in my experience) is "Government in Exile", use of which implies recognition of government status, especially when combined with the far-from-NPOV tone of most news sources that mention it. I spent a long time under the impression that the CTA was recognised by our (the British) government for this reason. Leushenko (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free Tibet Group Member Please Answer Me!

Tibetan Government in-exile claims that Tibet was an independent states because it was autonomous in 1912-1951.

But ridiculous that Dala Lama claims Greater Tibet, it includes Qinghai (you call Amdo). Don't forget Qinghai was under control of Nationalist China in 1911-1949. (see Ma Bufang)

198.155.145.88 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

...what answer did you want exactly? That's not a question (and I'm not an FTG member, I'm just nosy). Leushenko (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing reference to monthly arrival of refugees

For a long time, there has been a "Fact" template requesting sources to support the claim of monthly Tibetan refugee arrivals from China through Nepal. I'll go ahead and remove that statement. I believe this is also supported by the Wikipedia policy of "Material which is doubtful and harmful may be removed immediately, rather than tagged." (See Template:Fact). If anyone comes up with supporting citations, which meets the 3 standards (NPOV, Verifiability, No OR), please feel free to add this claim back. Steven li (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation from UNCHR and corrected the statement. A better citation could probably be found by going through various official documents re:refugees. It really wouldn't have taken long to find a citation yourself. --Gimme danger (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The referenced material is not available, please double-check the link. Steven li (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have two objections to using the USCR source to substantiate the claim on the refugees (by the way, I dug out the source at a different link, but I hope the original author fixes the bad link first before I attempt to do so).

  • USCR may be quite unreliable. According to the classifications in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCR) publications do not fall under the "scholarship" category nor the "news organization" category. It belongs to either the "self published" category or the "extremist sources" category, and therefore it's publications should be cited very carefully, and preferably to describe the organization itself. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources. In addition, the USCR being a political organization promoting the rights for the refugees, while admirable, makes it biased in this context.
  • USCR publications themselves do not support the claim. Secondly, according its own publications on the refugee situation in India, for as long as they keep their records (every year from 1997 to 2007), the USCR itself indicated (on their web site, under country report) that the number of refugees from China stood at a constant 110,000 for those 10 years. This is inconsistent with the statement of constant refugee flows from China to India at a claimed rate of 1,000 per year. And by the way, that claim that the refugees traveled mostly through Nepal seems unsubstantiated as well.

I hope interested parties review what I wrote here and make appropriate revisions. Steven li (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the web citation with the invalid link since nobody provided a valid link. I may also re-word the sentence regarding refugees if not credible sources become available in the next couple of days to substatiate the claims. Steven li (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)