Tibet and China

by Elizabeth S. Dahl, Guest Contributor

I completely understand and sympathize with the outrage people feel about the repressive treatment of Tibetans and others in the PRC. However, as someone who teaches Chinese politics, I want to caution those who agree with Jonathan Zimmerman about how to deal with the People's Republic of China (PRC). There is an important question of how to be most effective in addressing these concerns to Chinese leaders and thereby promoting constructive change.

As a good professor of 20th–century American history, Professor Zimmerman is operating from a Western understanding of the politics of protest. The American, French, and British protesters who blocked Olympic torchbearers also probably share this worldview.

Unfortunately, such tactics are not completely understood by Chinese leaders, nor even by many of the mainland Chinese. (Note how some China supporters now are jogging alongside the Olympic torch to prevent future attempts to disrupt the torch relays.) Based on a complex mix of different cultural factors and issues of historical memory, Chinese leaders view such actions as driven by “troublemakers” from former imperial powers who want to keep a rising country from reaching its true potential. This interpretation means that such protesters will not change minds in Beijing. Indeed, some Chinese leaders may be so insulted by such “unseemly” actions that they will crack down all the more on dissidents within their borders.

Fortunately, as so often is the case, there are ways of peaceful protest that may be more effective. In this particular situation, there even is a key figure who demonstrates such an approach: the Dalai Lama. By embodying a quiet, peaceful, reasonable attitude toward Chinese oppression—merely advocating nonviolence, greater autonomy for Tibetans, and even granting the right for the Chinese to hold the Olympic Games—the Dalai Lama is a model of courage along the lines of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. It is no wonder that Chinese leaders find him a particular thorn in their side. It is because he is potentially far more dangerous to them than a protester trying to seize the Olympic torch or Western professors who send them a petition decrying Chinese repression. Those who want to change China would be well served to follow the Dalai Lama’s humble example. When it comes to China, the crucial point is that “it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.”

Another positive approach is to educate oneself about Chinese history, going farther in the past than 1989’s Tiananmen Square massacre to begin to understand the conditions that made such an event possible. For example, the “hundred years of humiliation”—the period when China was carved up by imperial powers—continues to have an impact on the worldview of Chinese leaders and citizens alike. A greater understanding of Chinese culture and politics will show us better ways to address such issues.

Elizabeth S. Dahl is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. This article appeared in slightly different form as a letter to the editor in The Omaha World-Herald on April 15th, 2008.

Comments

[Courtenay Barnett]

Has anyone thought of the ironies:-

1. The spirutual head, the Dali Lama, would govern with a circle of close knit persons - not democratically elected.
2. The choice for Tibet seems more one of reversion to a theocracy.
3. There may be security reasons for the politics over Tibet, which might otherwise be constructively engaged otherwise between the US and China ( recall the Cuban missile crisis - and the related issue of missiles in Turkey). Nations do have genuine concerns about what happens on their borders or in their neighbourhood.What ....is the US going then to invade Tibet like it did Afghanistan and Iraq, as the alternative foreign policy course?
4. Tibetan Buddhism has a centuries-old tradition of uniting in one person the religious and political leader. Again - now does this equate with the US foreign policy of promoting democracy abroad?
5.Is it too much to ask if the Dali Lama has any taint of corruption? Mao did step in to stop the Tibetan oligarchy owning slaves and serfs, when there were no rights for women, and when religion was used as a means of oppression, keeping a brutal theocracy in power? Not to give China a total pass either - but there are some realities and dynamics here to be considered beyond the official mainstream press hype about this "good guy".

[pls]

It's true that the Tibetan social system was ripe for reform in many ways. That is true of many pre-modern social systems, and there's no valid reason to privilege serfdom, etc., in Tibet, or women's suppression anywhere. However, it's harder---I would say impossible---to justify the systematic attempt to eradicate all aspects of Tibetan culture, including Tibetan Buddhism. The pacification of Tibet has been carried out by by severe human rights violations that continue to this day, by inundating the region with Han Chinese, even by pulling down ancient sections of the city of Lhasa. The political status and relative sovereignty of the Tibetan autonomous region over the centuries is certainly a matter of some debate, and China can make an (almost) convincing case for including Tibet within its empire, along with other culturally unrelated peoples, although it is also true that empire is no longer considered to be a morally defensible form of government. The question of independence aside, however, the intentional destruction of a culture on the grounds that the society is imperfect cannot be defended. Shall we re-colonize India because it tolerates a system of indentured labor that is like serfdom? Meanwhile, it might be noted, Nepal is finally doing something about its exceedingly archaic social and political system. And Bhutan, in a very different way, is emerging from a pre-modern social system. We should be lauding these examples, not finding reasons to support Chinese policy in Tibet.

As to the tactics that might be most useful in the long run, you may be right---and yet overt protest also has its uses. How else would young Chinese, with their touchingly loyal nationalistic reaction, even know that the situation is Tibet is not entirely ideal?

[Courtenay Barnett]

You ask an interesting question: “Shall we re-colonize India because it tolerates a system of indentured labor that is like serfdom?” That’s a good starting point for the debate.

You then go on : “We should be lauding these examples, not finding reasons to support Chinese policy in Tibet.”

The two points of reference are a) that Tibet is terrain that the US, through its foreign policy has some legitimate concerns about and b) the examples of a suppliant Nepal or other territory serves as good examples for support of modernization. I do not perceive the US having any more or less than hegemonic and/or geo-political designs in its foreign policy responses to Tibet ( i.e. there is nothing genuine coming from the US on this). Note, by way of example a democratic Haiti with US support for a set of goons and thugs to oust the democratically elected leader, then unleash chaos and added poverty to the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country – but US policy is magnanimous and as well intentioned as it will be with Tibet …sure! So, far as your observation of “…finding reasons to support Chinese policy in Tibet.” – in fairness to what I actually wrote you will see: “Not to give China a total pass either - but there are some realities and dynamics here to be considered beyond the official mainstream press hype about this "good guy". That is what I said and what I stand by. Nowhere do I say that Chinese policy in certain aspects is not flawed. However, it is Chinese territory, as much as Texas with the polygamous Morons, and the confiscated 400 plus children, are problems within US cultural/political and geographical territory.

So, of course, there is no argument about Britain re-colonizing India, and the process of Chinese involvement in Tibet in historical context, to me seems not analogous to the British incursion from Europe into India, relative to China’s involvement with a territory – where?

I see hypocrisy when it comes on to big power politics – and I will explain. I do not forget Jeanne Kirkpatrick making the spurious distinction between “ Authoritarianism” and “Totalitarianism”. One the US will support and/or tolerate and the other the other the US will active oppose. Does the regime fit acceptably within the hegemonic schema or doesn’t it – then we label, distinguish, lend support or destablise as the circumstances dictate. For God’s sake just look at the situation of Chevron in Burma….need you be convinced more? The US has made a fucking mess of countries, through US foreign policy around the world. Did I say – Iran – CIA coup 1953. Sorry – that’s history. Maybe Iraq is a suitable contemporary example then?

China has its shortcomings, but I simply do not see US foreign policy on Tibet as a viable alternative or born of any genuine humanitarian concern!

[pls]

Whoa! Don't associate me with American neo-colonialism, economic or political. The statement regarding India was meant to be so absurd no one would take it seriously, as you evidently did. The point I was making is that China has as much business jerking the totally foreign Tibetan culture around as we would have doing the same to India.

[Courtenay Barnett]

I had actually mentioned Tibetan serfdom initially, in terms:-

“Mao did step in to stop the Tibetan oligarchy owning slaves and serfs…”

Thus, one can discern the response in terms of an equation between modern India/Tibet and British India/ Tibet pre-Mao expulsion of the Dali Lama. No doubt my literalism did not equate to literary subtlety.

Anyway, I am appreciative of the exchange; pleased to accept you in the fold that does not support US neo-colonialism; and in different ways, I discern that we both wish the Tibetan people the best for their future under……( well - that is the question).

P.S. Likewise to assure you, I see an oil related motive with China’s involvement in Sudan, and note the related tragedy in Darfur. The point here is the US/China tacit compromises on global issues of this significant nature. A “blood for oil” policy, not this time in Iraq, but in Africa. The distrust of the powers that I earlier mentioned, gives good cause for all people of conscience to be weary of the polices of all the powers – US – China – Russia…. ( you fill in the blanks). Have a good day and I remain sure when I hear “ God bless America” that the blessing from a just and good God would have to be for the world. Peace!

[pls]

Peace!

[Hannü]

'...the systematic attempt to eradicate all aspects of Tibetan culture, including Tibetan Buddhism...'

The Chinese government has restored many Tibetan monasteries and temples some of which look a bit too new now.

Anyone who can't make it to Tibet to experience the real Tibet will find my travelogue and book of dialogues with Tibetans informative.

Dialogues Tibetan Dialogues Han
http://www.amazon.com/Dialogues-Tibetan-Han-Hann%C3%83%C2%BC/dp/9889799936/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210070217&sr=8-1