I have been thinking Tibet's current situation is somehow analogous to the country of my ancestors, Latvia. Latvia was annexed by the Russian Empire after WWII; as Tibet was annexed by the Mao Dynasty in 1951. I remember reading articles by the Russians, written before 1989, claiming that the Latvians wanted them to come into Latvia. Now, I am reading the Chinese say essentially the same thing about their role in Tibet.
It doesn't surprise me to see that Russia is being said to support China's legitimate actions to handle the violence in Lhasa in recent days. The Russians in the past probably talked of legitimate actions needed to handle unrest in Riga.
Thankfully, Latvia is an independent country but the Russians have always wanted to conquer it again.
I am a Latvian by heritage, but born and raised in America (California, to be exact, as it apparently makes a difference to some). I came across your blog while looking up Latvia's interest in Tibet. Interestingly, I am finding some discrepancy of Latvia's official stance.
ReplyDeleteTo quote the Latvian Embassy website - "Latvia is of the view that Tibet is a part of the People's Republic of China, and is interested in a constructive dialogue with China on humanitarian issues, including the preservation of the cultural, ethnic, and religious identity of Tibet."
What bothers me is the first part that says Latvia sees Tibet as part of China. I find that an interesting view considering how hard Latvia wanted others to view them as independent during their time under Soviet rule. I could go further by bringing up Latvia's involvement "the war that should not be" in Iraq, but that's a different story.
I am curious whether Latvia, governmentally, or Latvian people respect and wish Tibet to be a sovereign nation, as Latvia itself now is.