Having spent my year in Tibetan China, many have asked my thoughts on the Tibet issue. I usually dodge so precarious a question as whoever asks (Chinese or Western) usually has strong opinions either way, ones that will not hear fresh views in one conversation. Here, I attempt to articulate views that are entirely my own. I hope to convey some of its complexity and always remain open to new perspectives.
The most popular question: Do I think Tibet should be free?
China will never let allow Tibet independence because it will set the precedent for subsequent successions in the minority west that can lead to 40% land loss. China poised as the emerging powerhouse, will not allow itself to be broken up like the Soviet Union was in its decline. China has 56 minorities that it has fought to conquer and to assimilate over 5,000 years. Historical, cultural, religious differences between Tibetans and Hans will continue to be squashed through the pursuit of a harmonious society via homogeneity.
The question should be: How can Tibetans be treated equally, with respect by their Han Chinese government(CG)?
The answer does not lie in “Free Tibet” campaigns. The more the West portrays Tibet as a victim, the more the Chinese government feels the West (US especially) is trying to break up China as a potential super-power rival. This leads to more state oppression and propaganda. Oppression keeps taking away liberties from Tibetans. Propaganda tells Hans how ungrateful these vile Tibetans are where they are rioting and killing Hans when CG has poured in billions of development aid/Han tax dollars to Tibet. Ill-will between Hans and Tibetans multiply, giving CG more ammunition in enacting oppressive policies. CG feels no pressure from Western campaigns (evidenced by its human rights record), especially when it has national support. These campaigns (initiated by exiles in Nepal and India and financed by EU and US) rile those Tibetans already prone to 3/14 acts where Tibetans set Han shops on fire and Han police fire on Tibetans. Post 3/14 led to worse relations between the Dalai Lama and CG, no Tibetans granted passports, greater military presence across 4 Tibetan provinces, Tibetans losing any sympathy they previously had from Hans because they shamed China pre-Olympics. These campaigns do nothing to help Tibetans living in China.
The answer lies in less, not more hostilities between CG and Tibetan government in exile. Yes, the Dalai Lama(DL) cannot be more a peacemaker, but no matter how saintly DL is as a person, the position of DL is not one that CG will accept. The communist party is religiously non-religious. Anything that threatens the Party=god mentality is immediately squashed. Hence the go-to Tibetan representative cannot be a lama and should reside in China. CG also needs a Tibetan sympathizer who will speak genuinely with the Tibetan representative: non-religious, non-independence, non-discriminatory. CG needs to realize how its demonization of DL and immediate denunciation of Tibetan identities only strengthen Tibetan wishes for independence. Both sides need to give in, and this is best achieved through talks between two appointed representatives. The authoritarian Chinese system allows only ‘heroes shape society’, not ‘society shapes heroes’.
I am too aware that the latter solution asks for much ideological and cultural sacrifice from Tibetans. I have seen Tibetans escorted out of malls, harassed by police, looked down upon by shopkeepers. I have witnessed the same massive aid in-flows NOT benefit Tibetans as they do not the Mayans, Quechuas, Africans…then they are blamed for being stupid and lazy. One very educated Han told me: “Scientifically speaking, less oxygen exists above 3,000m, so Tibetans’ brains do not develop to the same capacity as us.”
I cry at the discrimination. But a Civil Rights Movement cannot exist in authoritarian China. Protests end in bloodshed and further oppression as they did in 6/4, 3/14, and many other failed movements.
To really have Tibetan people’s welfare and not one’s own ideology at heart, the T question is not: Should it be free? But, How can Tibetans have a voice in China?
3/14/08 (Lhasa protests) reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941466.stm
6/4/89 (Tiananmen Sq protest) reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8057148.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that CG may be more oppressive in response to criticism or protests by Tibetans or on behalf of Tibetans in the short term. However, if we take a long term view, which I think is necessary for evaluating social justice movements, squelching resistance for easier lives in the present does not bode well for the future. It took a long time (many centuries) for African-Americans to achieve any sort of equality in the United States and they continue to face racism and discrimination. Your view appears defeatist to me. Putting a band-aid on the human rights situation will not stop the wounds from swelling. China's human rights situation depresses me more than most nations, but the idea of giving up depresses me more.
ReplyDeleteBut Jane, surely giving Tibetans a voice now is as much a part of human rights as future Tibetans being 'free', which I've always taken to mean autonomy.
ReplyDelete