The travesty of the World's handling of Tibet

[Riddil]

Well, it's been a long while since my last post on the Cellar. (Loads painfully slow). Last time I came to offer a glimpse into China, and now I'm here to try to fix a gross misunderstanding.

From my perspective (as an expat living in China), it seems there is a mounting fervor against China and it's treatment of Tibet. (That's OK). There's even growing cries to "Free Tibet". (Not OK). The whole thing is now turning into a grade-A debacle.

Before I explain the details of my argument, I'm going to post my personal feelings and my conclusion up-front, to help offer perspective.

(Personally) I feel Tibet SHOULD be a free nation. They have a totally separate culture from the Han of mainland China. (Conclusion) The real tragedy is that somehow people have forgotten about the problems of the REST of the Chinese people, which in many regards is much worse than the Tibetans. What's sad is that the vitriol against China in Tibet is actually HURTING the cause to actually improve life in the rest of China.

Ok, now on to explaining WHY I believe those things...

Most people have a gross misunderstanding of Tibet. Many believe it was independent only 60 years ago. Not so. For all of recorded history Tibet has been "owned" by China, but has been allowed to be autonomous in most regards. Chinese tended to focus on Chinese issues, and Tibet was always viewed as a sort of holy-land, and allowed the Buddhist leaders to do as they pleased. And for most of history Tibetan lords and lamas ruled essentially as kings over the common man, who was either a serf or a slave. The Tibet of history was a land of one-sided wealth. The ruling Chinese could have cared less, their concern for Tibet was as a holy sanctuary, and as long as rule was maintained in Tibet, the leaders could do as they please.

What changed is when the Communists took control the elite ruling class became afraid (and rightly so) that the communists would eventually turn their eyes to Tibet, and try to "balance" the wealth. At first the Communists took baby steps in Tibet. Building schools, roads, hospitals, and leaving the culture and leadership basically alone. But when Mao launched his "Culture Revolution" and "Great Leap Forward"... Tibet was swept up in the same turmoil that engulfed mainland China. What's interesting is that the common people of Tibet actually WELCOMED the Chinese. Life was dramatically improving for them. The only people that were displeased were the rich ruling class. They're the ones that fled the country (to keep their wealth, and escape from the communists). Also, logically, they're also basically the only Tibetans now living overseas. If you listen to their opinion on Tibet, it is of course negative.

The tragedy is that the whole thing could have had a happy ending, with only a few pissed off elitists who ran overseas with their money. But China made a grand mistake with their Communists ideals. In their efforts to homogenize the WHOLE country they also began whitewashing Tibetan culture, and tried painting Chinese culture on top of it. And it's THAT change which slowly started shifting the general public opinion in Tibet against the PRC. It's grown and grown, until you see today the eruptions in Lhasa and elsewhere. If the PRC could have been more laissez-faire, the whole thing would be chuckles and flowers.

So, it's sad there was a mishandling, but it's the current reality. And in fact, if I also think Tibet should be free, why am I trying to convince people to back down?

Priorities.

There's a few key things I don't think people really understand... The Chinese government will not allow a totally independent Tibet. For many reasons. It would be a sign of weakness that foreign nations would exploit. Tibet is considered a key strategic piece of land, and is considered "the backdoor" for getting into China, and would be a safe base on the near side of the Himalayas. And not least, letting Tibet go could set off a political chain reaction within the country, causing instability. China will stop at nothing to hold on to Tibet, including international war.

Heck, even the Dalai Lama isn't calling for "freedom", just greater autonomy. He understands these same points, so he's actually calling for a change that is plausible, versus something that's impossible.

The other sad thing is that Tibetans already have much more freedom than "common Chinese". And this is what is causing such staunch nationalist fury in common Chinese people that's manifesting itself in growing angst to the West, all in defense of their country. Because by supporting Tibet, you're essentially over-looking every other Chinese person and saying that a Tibetan is worth more than they are.

Also consider this point... you may hate the Bush administration. But if suddenly the Sioux indians declared independence, and wanted to secede from America and take 5 different States with them.... and Russia and China started loudly pushing for "Sioux independence"... odds are you'd suddenly find your "American pride", and stand behind your country.

Anyhow, back to the real topic... Consider this... if you had a chance to support two causes, one possible, and one impossible... and if you knew that by supporting the impossible cause you were making the possible one more difficult to achieve... which would you choose? (Further, if by supporting the possible cause you could make the impossible one MORE plausible, which would you choose?)

The REAL cause that should be getting support from the West is a push to help ALL of the people ruled over by the Chinese Communist party, not just a tiny fraction in Tibet. Push for freedoms for ALL of the people. What's sad to watch is that the more people try to support ONLY Tibet, the more the common people stand behind their government out of national pride, and the more it hurts the cause to help actually bring real reform into China.

I really wish we could go into these Olympics preaching about how much ALL of China needs reform, and human rights improvement. There's a BIG chance that you could finally get your message out to common Chinese people, and they could see that the West DOES support them. But instead, we're going into the Beijing Olympics preaching about Tibet.... so common Chinese feel "attacked" by the West, their nationalist pride is triggered, and now they're more and more SUPPORTING their corrupt government.

*sigh*

It's so sad to see this missed opportunity to help make REAL change.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's an interest point of view, Riddil.

But inciting the common Chinese people to press for reform would probably raise their standard of living. Walmart wouldn't like that.

[TheMercenary]

I also agree that your view point is interesting. But I also disagree on a number of points. All accounts of people who have visited since the Dali Lama left the area are quite contrary to your statements. To describe the monks who ruled as wealthy is a gross overstatement. The Chinese goal is to so dilute the population that the Tibetan culture will melt away over generations and become essentially Chinese. The Chinese took the area by force, executed thousands, and mowed down horsemen with machine guns. Numerous accounts document the Chinese take over by force. I have nothing against the Chinese people, it is the government that has used it tools of oppression to erase a whole culture. The Chinese people have their own issues with their government but exporting those problems to Tibet did not help their cause. And now to refocus the issue back to the oppressed Chinese people does not make the historical genocide of Tibetan culture acceptable only because the Chinese people have suffered as well. The government opened this can of worms now they will have to deal with it. I do not support a boycott of the games but would support any attempts to keep the issue on the front burner during this time of increased attention on China and I would support individual countries who chose to boycott the opening ceremonies or leaders who chose not to attend in a show of protest.

[Sundae]

Very interesting Riddil.
Also interesting rebuttal from Merc - I look forward to your response.

[Cicero]

I am more concerned about the whole of China rather than just Tibet.
Good point!

I would like to boycott lots of Chinese things esp. since I just found out that their insults to American people and the human rights violations of their people are being ignored by our gov. because they are helping to fund our war with Iraq.

Not happy with my gov. right now or theirs. (the death vans in China for organ farming pushed me over the edge)

[Riddil]

The "average" monk indeed wasn't wealthy at all. However, the estates that the organization occupied were palatial, and aside from the monks there were the wealthy land-owners. And even so, for the sake of argument let's say that I concede this point. These facts still remain...

The Tibetan life of ~60+ years ago wasn't an idyllic paradise. They were still living under the ancient feudal system. There was no chance for self-improvement, there were no schools, there were no hospitals. If you were born a slave, you stayed a slave, if you were born a serf you stayed a serf.

Phew, Ok, I just deleted like 10 paragraphs because I'm getting off the point I wanted to make. I went back to discussing the (my perceived) misunderstood history of Tibet and the relation to China, but in all honesty it's immaterial to my argument. So, after this reset, my real point is...

Truthfully, I really, really don't disagree with you. I think the cultural "cleansing" is despicable. I *DO* firmly believe that Tibet should have it's own nation. My point isn't to argue that Tibet shouldn't be free.... my real argument is to point out that by focusing only on Tibet you're actually hurting both causes... life won't get dramatically better for Tibetans, or for the general Chinese populace.

Chinese are incensed against the West over the perceived "attack" on China. (Do a Google news search for "china carrefour" to get a glimpse). The continued pressure regarding Tibet will only push the general public to become more and more nationalistic.

If, however, the world were to follow the Dalai Lama's suggestion... to push for a "more autonomous" Tibet (one that would allow their cultural preservation, and greater personal freedoms), then you have an attainable goal. And if that can come to pass then the rest of Chinese might start standing up for themselves, since they can see what is possible.

And my extended argument is that the best way to attain that goal is to focus not exclusively on Tibet, but rather to focus on the country overall. If China loosens control over the whole country, then Tibet will follow suit. Consider this... if China were somehow to shift to a democracy, then all the "cultural purification" would disappear overnight.

[Riddil]

And eh... the "death vans" thing... honestly I think that's like blaming George Bush directly for a specific incident of violence that happened after Katrina. Sure, he shares responsibility for the inept system he put in place, but you can't say that he himself is responsible for that one incident.

That's the same way I regard the "death van" thing in China. The ruling party would never condone or approve anything like that. (It's too easy to farm organs from prisoners). Many of the specific horrific cases you hear of aren't things the government has any direct involvement in. Most of the terrible stories come from the runaway capitalist greed in the country, coupled with corruption and lack of local authority oversight by the national party.

So while those types of examples are bad, I rather focus on the direct actions or inactions of the ruling party. I normally focus on things like controlled media. Or the rampant destruction of the environment. Corrupt officials, and rigged trials. Because if you pull out a "death vans" argument when you're talking to a Chinese person.....

*poof*

Their nationalistic pride kicks in and suddenly you've got a regular-Joe type of guy that's against you, and defending his country. Because I promise he's never seen a "death van", he's never heard of them through any source, and he'll argue the whole thing is another vicious Western lie intended to erode China's "spirit", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Remember that old hoax that came out years ago, showing a picture of a Chinese man eating what looked like a baby? Turns out it was just a prank by some regular-Joe. He put a doll's head on a roast duck, and sent it to his friends. It made a small splash on the internet in the US... but in China.... that was a front-page story for weeks. The media was reporting about it constantly, showing how Western countries were planting lies about China, to erode their "spirit".

And yup, it did the trick, it got the populace whipped up against the perceived attack. "How dare they accuse us of being baby-eaters??"

So that's what you're working against. Any of those small, extreme examples will always be lumped into the "baby eater" category, and you'll get a roomful of people lashing out at you.

And that's what's happening now with Tibet. It's a perceived attack. You want to get those people on your side, don't talk about some small example that is far away from their daily life... talk about how you feel bad for THEM.

Hell.... I weep for these people. Almost every single day in any major city the pollution is so bad you can't see the end of a long street. On bad days you can't see the ground if you're in a 15-story building. And then I see old people outside for their "morning exercise", thinking the whole thing is just fog, because that's what their weather man told them. They're out exercising in air that's probably cutting off years from their life.

*shakes head*

[tw]

Originally Posted by Riddil

If, however, the world were to follow the Dalai Lama's suggestion... to push for a "more autonomous" Tibet (one that would allow their cultural preservation, and greater personal freedoms), then you have an attainable goal. And if that can come to pass then the rest of Chinese might start standing up for themselves, since they can see what is possible.

About two years ago, the Dalai Lama and Chinese government officials negotiated a deal to do just this. It was a deal that could have averted the current standoff. Unfortunately, top Chinese leadership was not ready to make 'concessions'. It is said that the deal was quashed somewhere inside that top Chinese bureaucracy - so secret that details are not available.

Shame that this confrontation could have been averted to the benefit of all. But too often, even among so called 'smart' leaders, their emotions get the best of them.

Chinese are incensed against the West over the perceived "attack" on China.

That only suggests that their attitudes have become more entrenched. But again, Chinese top leadership is a very closed and secretive group. Much of what is known comes only from analysis of history. For example, General Secretary Zhao Ziyang may have lost his job only because he tried to avert Tiananmen Square. But again, we don't really know. It was his last official act - and then he was removed.

So what happened after the Dalai Lama and Chinese negotiated a workable solution? Not entirely clear other than a solution was not implemented. And so a flame suffers from demonstrations and civil unrest.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Hey. Dictatorship is bad, and they in Beijing suck mightily at Mao's moldering cock. Nothing new here. Bad behavior in Lhasa in 1959 prefigures bad behavior at Tienanmen Square in 1989 prefigures bad behavior now.

[Cicero]

I'm not sure how far anything is, away from their daily life. When I say them, I mean all...Which is inclusive of the people who have been subjected to kangaroo courts, organ farming, roaming death vans, etc.

You can't say I should feel a certain way for THEM. But not them all.

I am not talking to them right now. I am talking to you. We don't need to go through prospective conversations, and their reaction to what I am saying, because I am not talking to them right now am I?

[Riddil]

Erm... Cicero, I apologize, I *really* don't follow your point. There were too many "them", "I", "you", that were chained together, that I couldn't understand why you were trying to say. :-/

Anyhow, I didn't mean to say you SHOULDN'T feel sorry for any one group of people, or all people. My postings weren't about personal feelings... what I was trying to do is to give people an idea about how to change language, to give a better chance to actually get something done.

Consider this example... you've got a coworker that wears too much perfume. You could say, "Hey stupid, how about you stop stinking up the place. You smell like two-dollar whore". If you say that she's unlikely to change her behavior. Even if she does change she's likely to find some other way to "get back you". OOORRR.. you could give a comment that's a little more non-confrontational that may actually effect change.

I'm not trying to sway anybody's feelings. All I'm doing is trying to offer some perspective that the current language being used has become a TOOL for the Chinese government to whip the people in to support of their cause. If you want to make change in China, you can ONLY do that through the people. (Unless you want to invade).

I don't want to change hearts. I don't even want to change minds. I just want to change the language that's being used, so that we can see a change we want, instead of actually GIVING more power to the Chinese authorities.

[xoxoxoBruce]

This is exactly what Riddil is talking about.

snip~ anti-French protests took place over the weekend all over China outside Carrefour stores in Hefei, Qingdao, Wuhan, Shenzhen, Xuzhou, Zhengzhou, Luoyang, Jinan and Kunming. Although these were mainly anti-French anti-Carrefour protests, they were described by People's Daily as "protests against Tibetan independence".
~snip~
Another more recent story relates to Jin Jing, our Paralympian heroine who had bravely defended the Olympic torch from some pro-Tibetan protestor in Paris during the torch relay. ESWN tells of how she has become the greatest traitor of the Chinese nation literally overnight for merely suggesting that people should be careful about the Carrefour boycott, because the many Chinese employees of that company would be the first to suffer.
~snip~
The authorities are undoubtedly watching the newfound protest-organising powers of the people (remember the maglev protests?) with a very wary eye, because who knows when the tide will turn and who the people will be protesting against next?

This story is from Shanghai.
The Chinese people are offended by the french protests and feeling nationalistic as a result.

[Cicero]

Just when I thougt using italics and such was going overboard...

I thought it was quite simple and clear reading.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Chinese people are offended by the french protests and feeling nationalistic as a result.

As Americans were when other nations accurately identified the 'Saddam WMD' excuse as bogus. When some reality is not provided, then the masses will easily believe what they are told. A China Tibet problem simplified down to sound bytes (black and white reasoning) often results in popular opinion being wrong. Deja vue Nam. In a nation that says it does not filter the truth - what happened? In a nation that does filter facts, well, public opinion only measures the possibility of unnecessary war.

Anybody remember a silly spy plane incident when both sides were being hyped into war hysteria?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Actually, tw, nobody did identify the Saddam WMD excuse as bogus. Iraq had the British, the Czechs, the Russians, the Jordanians and the Egyptians convinced they had either WMD in being or next thing to it.

Nor do you have it straight in the EP-3 incident. When are you going to choose good advice over bad advice?

Tw is shamelessly rewriting history again to conform with his delusional state, population one. We get to laugh at tw again, 'cos he's so idiotic at international relations.