A lot of forumers here talk about the illegitimacy of China's rule over Tibet and Xinjiang. I am not here to delve into this topic. I just wanted to draw your attention to the relatively little-known phenomenon of Hawaiian separatism.

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/ - http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

Given the way that Hawaii was illegally annexed by the United States, I cannot help but question why American rule over Hawaii is legitimate, while Chinese rule over Tibet is not.

The following are exerpts from "Wikipedia". For those who are interested in more details, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hawaii - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hawaii

"In 1887, a group of American-born cabinet officials and advisors to King David Kalalaua  and an armed militia forced the king at gunpoint with a bayonet at his throat to promulgate what is today known as the Bayonet Constitution. The constitution stripped the monarchy of its authority and instead empowered Americans who were not legal citizens of Hawaii. Over 75% of the native Hawaiian population lost its right to vote in its own elections while Americans who were not legal citizens of Hawaii were given full voting rights. When Kal�kaua died in 1891, his sister Lili'uokalani assumed the throne. With the support of native Hawaiians and other Hawaiian citizens, the queen drafted a new constitution that would restore the monarchy's authority and strip American non-citizens of the suffrage they awarded themselves."

"In defiance of Lili'uokalani's proposed constitution, a group of American residents in Hawaii, including United States Government Minister John L. Stevens, conspired to overthrow the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 13, 1893.  Minister Stevens, without the authority of the U.S. government or Congress, summoned a company of uniformed U.S. Marines from the U.S.S. Boston and two companies of U.S. sailors to land on the Kingdom and take up positions near the Iolani Palace to intimidate the monarch, Queen Lili'uokalani and her government."

"On January 17, 1893, the Hawai'i government was illegally overthrown by a group of mostly American men living on the islands, with the backup of American troops that were on a warship docked in Honolulu Harbor. The men were pushing for annexation and were encouraged by then President Benjamin Harrison. At the time the ruler was Queen Lili'uokalani who gave up, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed. That evening, Queen Lili'uokalani wrote these famous words:

I, Lili`uokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.

That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.

Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.

Life continued, after the overthrow, but power was now in the hands of the Americans and mostly white plantation owners. Hawaiians were hired as workers to toil in the hard, hot fields for their plantation masters. However, in order to control the Hawaiians, workers were imported from other countries. When any one group started getting large enough in population to cause a threat to the plantation owners, they would merely import new labor from somewhere else in the world. This caused a huge influx of different societies, from all over Asia and even Mexico."

Sad history ... Anyways ...

To answer the question I raised earlier (i.e. why American rule over Hawaii is legitimate while that of China over Tiber is not?), of course one may argue that, "Hey, look, isn't Hawaii better off now that it is one of the American states since America is the world's most powerful country?" But those who use that as an explanation must remind themselves that "improvement in livelihood" of a native people is never a full justification for illegal occupation. The livelihood of the majority of the Tibetans (and Eastern Turkestanis) have indeed improved - tremendously, but a  lot of us still see Chinese occupation of  these lands illegitimate.

One may also argue that the Chinese occupation is illegitimate because it is a communist country. America is different. America is a democratic country. But who says a democratic country should have more "rights" than a communist country in its management of its territory? Whenever the issue of Tibet is being raised, the Chinese officials always shake it off by saying "No foreign countries should interfere with the domestic affairs of China just as China never messes with the domestic affairs of other countries." While I question the rationale behind such an assertion, sometimes I do feel that we Westerners are always applying double standards to OUR countries and THEIRS.

Finally, one may also say, "Look, the Tibetan people do not want Chinese rule." Yes, it is true. But do ALL Tibetan people not want Chinese rule? Even the Dalai Lama himself has made statements that Tibet could remain as part of China given certain conditions. Looking at the Hawaiian side of the question, it appears that there are quite a few Hawaiians (REAL native Hawaiians of Polynesian origin) who want independence from the United States too!!! Please note: the current and historical influx of people from the continental U.S. bears some similarities with the influx of the Chinese to Tibet. The native Hawaiians still make a very clear distinction between the "real" Hawaiians and those who are not, even though as a result of decades of inter-marriages, most people of Hawaii have mixed ancestries. I have a friend who's half White and half Japanese and she's born and raised in Hawaii. Yet when I once called her "Hawaiian", she immediately corrected me because she told me the title "Hawaiian" is usually reserved to those who are Native Hawaiians, not people like her.

I am not advocating Hawaiian separatism here (so for those "patriotic American forumers here, you don't have to be alarmed) and neither am I using the case of Hawaii to justify China's claim over Tibet and Eastern Turkestan. I just want to open a healthy discussion here.   

Hmmm, that's an interesting comparison. I hadn't thought of it. When you start to think about it, the occuption of the Americas can be seen as illegitimate, and for that matter quite a few other territories in Asia, Africa and Europe. All the lands that the Americans, Canadians and all other countries in the Americas would belong to the native populations that occupied them. Are therefore the descendants of the English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, etc. in the Americas there illegitimately? Whether the native population was organized or not into a state is irrelevant. Or is it?

When is an occuption legitimate? Does it stop being illegitimate once the native people have been assimilated? Is the usurpation of a territory that previously had an organized state somehow worst than if it was a territory occupied by tribal societies.?

All questions we might have to consider. What do you guys think?

I wonder why those Haiwans didnt fight back.

I say give the native Haiwaian people a referendum. If they want independance, then the americans and japanese will leave. simple as that. puerto rico can be new number 50.

Very interesting discussion Loknar,

   Definitely the occupation of Hawaii is illegal, however, I wonder if there is a poll that can tell us if native Hawaiians today are with staying under the US sphere or independence?

    I can only say either cases, Hawaiian are not the majority now and definitely they cannot ignore the "other" residants of the isalnds. South Africa didn't kick out its white minority after the reformation. Would Hawaii kick its majority out then?

   If i had to make a speculation of the feelings of Hawaiians in Hawaii, i would expect them to be satisfied staying with the US. Their culture is now respected and stability financially and politically is an advantage of staying with the US too. I would be surprised if most Hawaiians would demand full independance just for historical reasons. I also question if the native Hawaiians receive any exemption from tax as the Native Americans do?

I wonder that too, but I assume here that they were never fighters and I barely can think of any wars and clashes between Hawaiians before Americans came to the islands.

To respond to �ok ge�:  I will ask the same questions that Decebal asks: "When is an occuption legitimate? Does it stop being illegitimate once the native people have been assimilated? Is the usurpation of a territory that previously had an organized state somehow worst than if it was a territory occupied by tribal societies?"

Of course, as I implied in my original post, if a referendum on Hawaiian independence were held today, the overwhelming majority of the people would vote against it. No question about it. But does that make the historical annexation of Hawaii by the United States legitimate? Given decades of acculturation (cultural genocide?) and mixed marriages, today's Hawaii is no longer yesterday's Hawaii. And if you are asserting that the fate of Hawaii should depend on the result of a referendum, you are actually asserting two things here: (1) One has to succumb to the "tyranny of the majority" (2) One has to succumb to "fait accompli" (i.e. since things have already happened, just let it be).

But does that make the U.S. claim over Hawaii so much more legitimate (both legally, and even more so, morally) than China's claim over Tibet? Think about it. If China suddenly "imported" 10 million more Chinese to Tibet, and if China overnight became the richest country in the world, and if a referendum were to be held then, I am pretty sure most Tibetans would vote against independence as well. Does that render Chinese occupation legitimate? (I am not even that sure if a referendum were to be held today, the Tibetans would vote overwhelmingly FOR independence. But that's just a hunch ... Tibetan aspiration for independence may have been considerably inflated by the Western media. )

One thing that a lot of us seem to have neglected is that there are actually very strong historical (not to mention gegraphical) ties between China and Tibet, something that the U.S.-Hawaiian case lacks. Tibet was "sinicized" under the Tang Dynasty (THE superpower of the world back then) when a Tang princess was married to the then Tibetan King. As a result of that marriage of convenience, Chinese culture and many Chinese customs were brought to Tibet - not by force, but actually by invitation by the Tibetan royalty. Although the Tibet-China relation has not always been harmonious, one can never deny the important contribution of Chinese culture and civilization to Tibetan society.

But what has the United States "given" Hawaii? Yes, statehood, and as a result, tourist-packed beaches, hotels, golf courses, and what else .. McDonald's (which have inevitably led to the huge obesity problem among native Hawaiians). The Hawaiians have lost their identity, culture, and even their ethnicity (as the result of intermarriages). At least the Tibetans know they are still Tibetans and they still practise Buddhism under COMMUNIST China ... In a way, I could even argue that while materially speaking, the Hawaiians have gained substantially, but culturally speaking, what happened there amounts to some form of cultural genocide. I am sure a lot of Native Hawaiians will concur to that.

I evoked the whole Hawaiian case for discussion simply for the sake of alerting ourselves to the danger of "ethnocentrism" and hence applying double standards when we look at non-Western history and geopolitical reality.  

Because they couldn't maybe?

• "Asians"*: 41.6%
• Japanese: 16.7%
• Filipinos: 14.1%
• Chinese: 4.7%
• Vietnamese: 1.3%
  
• Korean: 0.6%
  
• Asian Indian*:  0.1%
• "Caucasian"*:  24.3%
• Mixed: 21.4%
• Native Hawaian: 6.6%
• "African American": 1.8%
• Other Pacific Islander: 1.3%
• Native American: 0.3%

I am being serious here, I think it has to do with affirmative action or something like that.

Hawaii...America's Tibet:

No way, it is far too warm.

Really, this is one of the most hare-brained analogies I have seen in this forum.....often noted for hare-braininess.

In the late 1950s the populatuion of Hawaii petitioned for statehood, and the population was more non-Anglo then than it is now.

Explain why it is hare-brained? It may be, but you have to explain. Using adjectives like that does not help any intelligent discussion.

Non-Anglo doesn't mean it's "Hawaiian". I think Pikeshot 1600 you still don't get it. By the way, are you implying that non-Anglo Americans are less American than Anglo ones????

Thanks to mass Chinese immigration, the population of Tibet is no longer purely "Tibetan". That's why I said if a referendum on Tibetan independence were to be held today, no one could be sure about the result.

Again, every time when it comes to issues that appear to "infringe upon" someone's patriotism here, many people immediately get defensive and lose their ability to reason or to argue with rationality and calm. Instead they resort to name-calling and personal attack. This maybe the style that some people engage in debates in their own country, but please do not import that style into AE forums.

let it look at this way.hawains have every right under the constituition of america to protest and police cant do jack sh*t.unlike in commie paradise where a mere whisper can turn into a fatal police encounter.

America is the greatest country in the world.they have something called free speech which stupid brain dead communists cant understand.please stop comparing a terrorist communist state with great America.

"America is the greatest country in the world."

PLEASE .... How can we engage in intelligent discussions if everyone starts talking like that?

Cattus, if that's pikeshot's explanation for calling this discussion "hare-brained" (which I still believe is unwarranted), then either I am too stupid to get it or he may have missed some of the more sophisticated arguments mentioned in the posts. (I am sure some of the forumers here - especially my American friends - will no doubt call me stupid.   Is the "Hawaiian"'s petition for statehood an indication of the legality and legitimacy of American annexation of a foreign territory? How come no one is able to answer the questions raised by Decebal?

I think the United States is a pretty good country despite some of the errors that it has made in its history. (Which country hasn't erred?) It has done the world a lot of good. It has nurtured some of the most brilliant minds in science, technology, philosophy, etc. But when it comes to comparison among countries, there shouldn't be any superlatives. I am always very suspicious of those who claim their country is the best in the world. That's how dangerous nationalism begins.

Decebal:

According to this logic, virtually every population located anywhere that did not originate in one place and never move from there is an illegitimate occupier.

It is interesting, but the monumental forces of history and of mass migration tend to make the point moot.

None of us here think you are unintelligent.  My reference was to your analogy, not your intention or your thought process.

Believe me, you need a thick skin around here if you want to debate (especially if you start one).  Don't take offense if someone criticizes your thesis...we don't bite, and we don't know where you are anyway.

Please accept an apology if I gave offense...it was unintended.

Pikeshot:

Is the historical occupation of Tibet by China (I am not talking about the Communist occupation here - Tibet was unquestionably part of the Chinese Empire during both the Ming and Qing dynasties), not to mention the mass migration of the Chinese people to Tibet, one of those monumental forces that you are talking about here? If not, where do we draw the line?

Well I was thinking of the mass migrations of the Germanic peoples from the second to the sixth centuries; or of the Islamic tribes' movement across North Africa and into Iberia and Sicily, (and of course east) 7th to 9th c.  That sort of "monumental" force; not merely armies, but whole populations.

Also, as a couple of North Americans, our past includes a long mass migration, mostly from Europe, where the sheer number of human beings who came here constituted a force that would not be stopped because it could not be.  Most probably the same applies to Tibet where there was Chinese immigration and to Kazakhstan where there was Russian immigration, and Brazil and Argentina where the populations are largely European whether Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or German in origin.

Using the 'reductio' that Decebal mentioned, all are (or were) "illegitimate" occupiers.  But due to historical forces that could never have been managed, that point is moot.  The point is that those populations are there; their very existance there constitutes legitimacy since there is nowhere else they can go.  I don't see how you CAN draw a line. 

I think flyingzone makes sense. If we can act with such outrage over the attempted annexation of Kuwait by the Iraqis how is the U.S. takeover of Hawaii any different. Both were Monarchys that lacked the ability to defend their sovereignty from an agressive neighbor. Hawaii had a much longer history than the state of Kuwait does now.

I think what flyingzone is saying is if we put so much importance on the rule of law now what was different in the past? 

The obvious difference is who won, that's the only real difference when it comes to the morality of an action, whether the supporters or opponents of that action had more firepower and/or better propaganda.

I think the answer is that we actually don't.  The legality of an action is determined by history based on whether it was successful or not, and the only reason politicians bother with it at present is for propaganda purposes.

Some people do have morals which transcend the immediate self-interest you seem to  espouse. I like to think all the men and women who selflessly gave their lives in the conflicts of the last century didn't do so in vain. Many Canadians died or were wounded on peacekeeping duty that had nothing to do with advancing Canada's interests in the world. So did others from around the world.

There is a greatness in human nature that is often overwhelmed by a mindless desire for power and wealth on the part of some. Does'nt mean it ceases to exist.

There is a greatness in human nature that is often overwhelmed by a mindless desire for power and wealth on the part of some.

I wouldn't say some, I would say most. 

And how is it mindless?  I wouldn't take offence if you said "heartless" but calling it mindless and therefore irrational is incorrect.  It's the most rational thing an actor can do, maximize it's own welfare.

I'd disagree with you about most people seeking power and wealth. I think we tend to notice those who do more that's all. Our societies wouldn't operate if there wasn't a fair number of people who truly cared about the welfare of others.

Mindless in the sense that it's self defeating in the long term both socialy and environmently. Our focus on material wealth may make sense to impress others in our society but we're destroying the ecosphere as we do so. That seems pretty mindless to me.

As for rational have you read the theories of the Virginian genius John Nash. His Game Theory indicates the best strategy in competition is to do what is best for the individual and the group. We are all part of a wider community wether it's other people or the millions of other species we share the world with. What we do to them will eventually have an effect on us.

I'd disagree with you about most people seeking power and wealth. I think we tend to notice those who do more that's all. Our societies wouldn't operate if there wasn't a fair number of people who truly cared about the welfare of others.

I don't disagree with you here.  I'm speaking about foreign policy though.  The reason that one can safely focus on something other than their personal welfare is because their personal welfare is maintained by their bond with the collective, in our cases our respective countires.  In the anarchic world environment that is impossible, the first priority of any individual or group of individuals, safety is only guaranteed by their ability to enforce it.  Tangible and intangible forms of power are the only ways in which one can ensure security. 

The endless quest for power by states that I think is the most rational course of action for any country is based off of the aforementioned devotion to the group and collective good.  As Machiavelli said "the greatest good one can do is a good for one's country", I will never personally benefit from the successes of my country in far off corner's of the globe in any way that would make my own assistance in those endeavors profitable, yet in so doing I would hope that all those involved would reap more benefit for the entire country as a whole than what it cost them to secure it.  In such a way, the country itself grows stronger and thus more safe in this dangerous, adversarial planet.

IMO you're over-simplifying the relationship between nations. There is conflict and competition, but there are also many other relationships such as coopertion and I think in the case of Canada and U.S. you can argue symbiosis. 

Machiavelli's view of the world was skewed by the world he lived in. Italy at that time was fractured into city-states constantly at war with each other. Machiavelli offers ways to gain advantage in a conflict. I prefer modern thinking like Nash's that seek to resolve the underlying imbalance that caused the conflict in the first place. Applying Game Theory it's possible in a dynamic system(conflict) to achieve an equilibrium point were all parties needs are met and no one is seen to have an advantage, resolving the conflict. It makes more sense to me to use math to resolve conflicts than violence. This can be applied on a small scale or a large one.

 as one of the guys here said , the whole movement of europeans into the north and south america is illegal and its occupation just like what is going on with inner mongolia, eastern turkistan and tibet with china , also without forgotten the illegal movement of russians to the whole north asia.

 why do all the chinese here trying to compare and relate everything with america when anyone talks about them ! and by the way "flyingzone" are you chinese canadian ? lol

Forumers here use American examples often simply because the United States is arguably the most prominent country in the world. Using American examples can evoke more discussions because (1) the majority of the forumers here are Americans (2) most people are more familiar with American examples than others. That's why few people here talk about Laos or Malta (sorry if I am offending any Laotian or Maltese here ...). So American forumers here shouldn't take offense to that. Let's face it, you guys have won the "world lottery", and with that, you guys are under a disproportionate amount of scrutiny by others, which is unfortunate. But that's part of the package.

But I understand why one would immediately become defensive or offended whenever someone else intentionally or unintentionally brings up issues that may not be the most positive about one's country - it's like a knee-jerk reflex. Most of us are brought up to love and defend our country - there is nothing wrong about that - as long as this love does not become blind patriotism that disallows constructive criticism.  I think most American forumers (with a few exceptions whose names I don't even need to mention) here are very graceful people and are smart enough to distinguish between unhealthy American-bashing and constructive open discussions.

I am Quebecois.  

Even then Duke, Canada and the United States cooperate because it benefits both of us, not out of the good of our hearts.  If cooperation didn't work we wouldn't do it.  I'm not arguing that conflict is the only driving force between nations, I'm arguing that self-interest is.  Most countries do, and should follow their self-interest.

I think Machiavelli's viewpoint was formed by the state of Italy at the time, but it did not make it inaccurate, it made it highly accurate.  Countries like the United States and Canada have been able to ignore power politics due to our protection by two vast oceans.  Florence could not and that made their worldview all the more pure, and accurate by necessity.  Dreams and ideals had to be drowned out by the realities of power and a world of enemies and shifting alliances in the pursuit of national interest.

I would prefer Machiavelli to Nash.  Machiavelli had political experience, Nash never did.  Nash dealt with mathematical formulas and theories, Machiavelli dealt with flesh and blood individuals and nations.  Did Nash even apply his game theory to world politics and come to your conclusion that world peace is possible or did you just extrapolate his work to reach that conclusion yourself?  You also mention how the needs of all can be achieved without advantage being taken of others.  Sure, this is theoretically possible, but in the real world could you possible solve all people's desires.  Often the objective interests of two or more groups are diametrically opposed.  It is in the interests of the United States to have oil be cheap on the world market, it is in the interest of OPEC to have it be expensive.  Sure an equilibrium will be met, but each side has a great incentive to cheat or move that equilibrium to their favor, enough to ensure tension and conflict for a long time.  You talk much of this theory, tell me how on this Earth full of so many different people, cultures, and interests you would implement it.

I can see that the questions which I have asked were taken as being rhetorical and not literal. I really was asking when does an occupation become legitimate.

Some of you have interpreted my questions as saying that the occupation of the Americas by Europeans was somehow "illegal". Under whose law, that is unclear. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of most of the actions taken by conquistadores, or other early colonists. But the great majority of Europeans who migrated to the New World did so in search of a better life. They had the right to the pursuit of happiness, as did the natives. The abuses of power and extermination of the natives may have been illegal or immoral. But do they make the occupation itself illegal? I don't know, what do you guys think?

I think that this is a very gray area. The decision of whether an occupation is legitimate or not seems to depend on political factors, and is different for different people. Indeed, I believe that this is certainly one area in which we can see propaganda in action. The Chinese occupation of Tibet is seen as illegal because China is a communist state and in a cold war and post cold war environment, it is the target of Western propaganda. The American occupation of Hawaii is seldom talked about because there simply isn't a comparable propaganda bloc which could latch on to it, or the interest to do it in the first place.

There are certain considerations that enter the propaganda wheh dealing with occupated territories. Please note that just because it's propaganda, that doesn't mean it's true. Some common themes in such propaganda include:
1. A majority of the invading people now live in that area.
2. Life is better now for everyone in that area, invaders and natives included
3. The natives gave up their land willingly (usually under the form of treaties)

Conversely, the natives, and often the intellectual community have their own propaganda. Their themes include:
1. The natives had a long history, often with a centralized government in the area
2. Life may be better now, but natives have had to endure hardship in the past, and their life may have been even better had the occupation never occured.
3. The natives were coerced into signing treaties, or the land was forcibly taken.
4. The natives suffered cultural genocide or assimilation.

It comes down to whose propaganda one is most inclined to believe in, and whose rights one is most apt to support (the natives or the invaders). Public perception and people's definitions of the validity of an occuption are shaped by propaganda. In the case of Tibet, we have Chinese propaganda which is quite effective within China, versus the propaganda of the Tibetan diaspora, some of the western intellectual community and some of the western politicians. Hence, in China the occupation is mostly seen as legitimate, and in the West mostly as illegitimate. In the case of Hawaii, we have American propaganda on the one hand, and the feeble propaganda of a few isolated intellectuals and the restricted Hawaiian community. Therefore, the American propaganda will have by far the largest audience, and the occupation of Hawaii not only is seen as legitimate, but it's not even a subject of conversation for most people.

As Pikeshot has pointed out, at some point the issue of the legitimacy becomes a moot point. Before that though, I wanted to ask your opinions on the legitimacy of the occupations. That was the initial purpose of my questions, but I wasn't clear. In other words, which propaganda arguments that I've iterated above are the most valid and why?

Of course I know that, but I think you're just warping Nash's ideas to meet your own hopes.  If you want to use game theory, you can say that if there is a world full of hawks, you better be a hawk if you want to defend yourself, if there is a world full of doves, you should be a hawk and take advantage of the doves.  Game theory supports my viewpoint in a more concrete way than your assertion that "game theory can work it out".

Don't forget wealth and military power wise. All the things that really matter!

Military might is overrated. It does'nt do you any good if you don't know what you're fighting for or against.

Yes, it's when no side has an incentive to change the situation.  In the example I gave earlier the Nash equilibrium of that situation would be a world of hawks as there would be a huge disincentive to unilaterally becoming a dove, and even if there was, it would be an unstable situation as there would be a humongous incentive to cheat, as Ian Stewart, another mathematician involved in game theory stated, "sometimes the rational decisions aren't sensible".

Fighting for your county's power is fighting for something.

The whole idea behind finding an equilibrium in a dynamic system is you remove the inequalities that lead to conflict in the first place. It isn't about giving advantage to one party or another, it's about finding a compromise which is acceptable to all parties.

That is not what a Nash equilbrium is, this is the definition from Gametheory.net:

A Nash equilibrium, named after http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/People/JohnNash.html - John Nash , is a set of http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/Strategy.html - strategies , one for each http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/Player.html - player , such that no http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/Player.html - player has incentive to unilaterally change her action. http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/Player.html - Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she remained with her current strategy.

Duke:  It is better to have military might than not.  Your options are vastly increased.

It is interesting to note the morphing of "America's Tibet" into Professor Nash's quite abstract theories.  Though applicable to economics, it seems doubtful that the equilibrium will prove of much worth in international politics....where logic is too often absent.  Too many human factors.

In any event, it is pretty rare for one academic theory to have application in more than one field.  Just as it is rare to find all that many people who can do more than one thing really well....as in some revolutionary original sense.

The movie was great, the acting was great; John Nash may have A Beautiful Mind, but he has been known to see things that are not there.

i find it very strange that few chinese expats who should know better insists on supporting their mad communist masters.pathetic lol.....these  communists have done more damage to your chinese psyche than to us tibetans.see how you defend the mad mao brigade and forget that they have destroyed your chinese culture more thoroughly than any invader ever could.

see the the brainwashing effect on modern chinese youth.they have no sense of honor or pride.they have forgotten their history.they shamefully imitate everything west.chinese girls run after white guys and their family are proud of gwalio in the family.lol.we tibetans are proud of our past.we love western things but we dont believe ourselves to  be white man.

ps:America  is one of the the most generous nation in the history of the world.it is true that they were bit so gentle with ethnic minorities in the begining but the idea of equality and free speech were always there.America is beautiful.she is great.hehehehehehe

long live America.may she always the beacon of freedom to the oppressed people of the world.

"In defiance of Lili'uokalani's proposed constitution, a group of American residents in Hawaii, including United States Government Minister John L. Stevens, conspired to overthrow the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 13, 1893.��Minister Stevens, without the authority of the U.S. government or Congress, summoned a company of uniformed U.S. Marines from the U.S.S. Boston�and two companies of U.S. sailors to land on the Kingdom and take up positions near the Iolani Palace to intimidate the monarch, Queen Lili'uokalani and her government."