Opinion

Tibet in 2008: A fight of the blind

The Olympics in China seem to be a sign for worldwide protest about Tibet. But according tot Martin de Jong attacking isn’t the right way

Healthy self-criticism is often absent when it is most needed. Tibet 2008 is a very good example. What happened in the 1950s is contested, as is what went on just a few weeks ago. Whether Tibet is a part of China is contentious. Are the Beijing Olympics the right venue for showing dismay about human rights violations? No, attacking that is the best way to get Chinese people to rally behind their government which is what Westerners exactly do not want. Can French supermarket chain Carrefour be punished for Parisian police failing to keep the Olympic flame away from infuriated protestors? No, there is no point in punishing French companies that distance themselves from any Olympics boycott. Ignorance rules on both sides, exactly when introspection is needed.

Much dramatic political action is based on little verifiable empirical information. What do we know of the riots in Tibet? Very few have been there, and nobody can go now. In such circumstances, all we can do is emphatically avoid a dialogue of the deaf. We should collect arguments from both sides and attempt to develop a synthesis rather than polemise. Here, I would like to take a first step in that direction and invite others to take this exercise further. Two questions:

Who is the Dalai Lama and what is his role in destabilising China?

The Olympic Games have often been a podium for international politics: Berlin, Munich, Moscow, Los Angeles. Beijing is in good company. It is hard to underestimate the mythical ring Tibet has in Western ears: the idea of innocent, pure, peaceful and deeply spiritual monks murdered by cruel, fanatic, anti-religious communists. This image is outdated. The view Westerners have of Tibet dates from three decades ago, but it has a hard time fading. They often don’t know that young Tibetans are not like the ‘Dalai Lama clique’. Young Tibetans are either more like Chinese now and even copy their ways (materialism, secularism, hard work) or deeply frustrated and virulently anti-Chinese (economically unsuccessful, sad for losing their traditions, resentful). Young Tibetans are strongly divided and do not resemble old Tibetans. The clock cannot be turned back. Immigrants from other parts of China have transformed the atmosphere and economic structure: it is now a Han and Hui Chinese dominated province where some Tibetans follow the new pace of life while others remain poor and disgruntled. Western media are fighting shadows from the past. After Chairman Mao’s death, respect for local traditions and religious practice has risen again. Conversely, the Dalai Lama is not ‘the Devil’ as people in China who believe their media and government too much, tend to think. The Dalai Lama is a powerless leader-in-exile who does not know his own country, is hardly respected by young Tibetans. He is the darling of the West, because of his soft Buddhist books and sad story. He could have been a great Tibetan leader if he had defended his people back in 1959 and confronted the Maoist threat. He could have been some Mandela, Luther King or Gandhi. He chose not to, fled with his aristocratic followers and failed to protect his people when he still could. It is too late now. He is a nice man, not a great man.

Is Tibet a part of China or should it become independent?

For many centuries, Tibet indeed was a part of or associated with the ‘Middle Kingdom’. But after 1911, when the Qing dynasty collapsed it became a de facto buffer state between China, British-ruled India and Russia. In this interim period, the Tibetans seem to have assumed Tibet was Tibet, and the Chinese nationalists thought Tibet was China. The Dalai Lama and his advisors preferred not to take sides in the Chinese civil war. They asked the nationalists to leave. A strategic miscalculation. After 1949, when the communists had won the war, they turned to Tibet. Mao had a strong drive to weed out inequality, but without respecting religion, independent thinking and ancient traditions. Had the nationalists won the war, more of Tibet’s original culture might have survived. Chinese people hate the word ‘invasion’ when it comes to Tibet 1950. ‘How can you invade a land that is rightfully yours?’ The fact remains that from 1911-1950, Tibet was on its own, and in 1950 it was forced to sign a peace treaty under great military pressure and presumably after large numbers of victims among Tibetan partisans. In 2008, Tibet effectively is a part of China. It depends on economic aid from central government and has many inhabitants from other parts of the country who don’t even want to think of independence. In fact, an unknown percentage of ethnic Tibetans might not want it either. Independence simply is not an option. Present injustice cannot undo past injustice.

We should carefully study the arguments from both sides, and look in the mirror. Governments and media on both sides fail. We should think for ourselves and refrain from actions that make things worse. It is about time we ask the Tibetans (in Tibet!) themselves how they define their human rights. If it has nothing to hide, Beijing must realise its mistake to close the area, show it has indeed become more open, and end our shameful fight of the blind.

Martin de Jong is Associate Professor of Public Policy and specialist in Cross-Cultural Management at the Faculty Technology, Policy and Management

Healthy self-criticism is often absent when it is most needed. Tibet 2008 is a very good example. What happened in the 1950s is contested, as is what went on just a few weeks ago. Whether Tibet is a part of China is contentious. Are the Beijing Olympics the right venue for showing dismay about human rights violations? No, attacking that is the best way to get Chinese people to rally behind their government which is what Westerners exactly do not want. Can French supermarket chain Carrefour be punished for Parisian police failing to keep the Olympic flame away from infuriated protestors? No, there is no point in punishing French companies that distance themselves from any Olympics boycott. Ignorance rules on both sides, exactly when introspection is needed.

Much dramatic political action is based on little verifiable empirical information. What do we know of the riots in Tibet? Very few have been there, and nobody can go now. In such circumstances, all we can do is emphatically avoid a dialogue of the deaf. We should collect arguments from both sides and attempt to develop a synthesis rather than polemise. Here, I would like to take a first step in that direction and invite others to take this exercise further. Two questions:

Who is the Dalai Lama and what is his role in destabilising China?

The Olympic Games have often been a podium for international politics: Berlin, Munich, Moscow, Los Angeles. Beijing is in good company. It is hard to underestimate the mythical ring Tibet has in Western ears: the idea of innocent, pure, peaceful and deeply spiritual monks murdered by cruel, fanatic, anti-religious communists. This image is outdated. The view Westerners have of Tibet dates from three decades ago, but it has a hard time fading. They often don’t know that young Tibetans are not like the ‘Dalai Lama clique’. Young Tibetans are either more like Chinese now and even copy their ways (materialism, secularism, hard work) or deeply frustrated and virulently anti-Chinese (economically unsuccessful, sad for losing their traditions, resentful). Young Tibetans are strongly divided and do not resemble old Tibetans. The clock cannot be turned back. Immigrants from other parts of China have transformed the atmosphere and economic structure: it is now a Han and Hui Chinese dominated province where some Tibetans follow the new pace of life while others remain poor and disgruntled. Western media are fighting shadows from the past. After Chairman Mao’s death, respect for local traditions and religious practice has risen again. Conversely, the Dalai Lama is not ‘the Devil’ as people in China who believe their media and government too much, tend to think. The Dalai Lama is a powerless leader-in-exile who does not know his own country, is hardly respected by young Tibetans. He is the darling of the West, because of his soft Buddhist books and sad story. He could have been a great Tibetan leader if he had defended his people back in 1959 and confronted the Maoist threat. He could have been some Mandela, Luther King or Gandhi. He chose not to, fled with his aristocratic followers and failed to protect his people when he still could. It is too late now. He is a nice man, not a great man.

Is Tibet a part of China or should it become independent?

For many centuries, Tibet indeed was a part of or associated with the ‘Middle Kingdom’. But after 1911, when the Qing dynasty collapsed it became a de facto buffer state between China, British-ruled India and Russia. In this interim period, the Tibetans seem to have assumed Tibet was Tibet, and the Chinese nationalists thought Tibet was China. The Dalai Lama and his advisors preferred not to take sides in the Chinese civil war. They asked the nationalists to leave. A strategic miscalculation. After 1949, when the communists had won the war, they turned to Tibet. Mao had a strong drive to weed out inequality, but without respecting religion, independent thinking and ancient traditions. Had the nationalists won the war, more of Tibet’s original culture might have survived. Chinese people hate the word ‘invasion’ when it comes to Tibet 1950. ‘How can you invade a land that is rightfully yours?’ The fact remains that from 1911-1950, Tibet was on its own, and in 1950 it was forced to sign a peace treaty under great military pressure and presumably after large numbers of victims among Tibetan partisans. In 2008, Tibet effectively is a part of China. It depends on economic aid from central government and has many inhabitants from other parts of the country who don’t even want to think of independence. In fact, an unknown percentage of ethnic Tibetans might not want it either. Independence simply is not an option. Present injustice cannot undo past injustice.

We should carefully study the arguments from both sides, and look in the mirror. Governments and media on both sides fail. We should think for ourselves and refrain from actions that make things worse. It is about time we ask the Tibetans (in Tibet!) themselves how they define their human rights. If it has nothing to hide, Beijing must realise its mistake to close the area, show it has indeed become more open, and end our shameful fight of the blind.

Martin de Jong is Associate Professor of Public Policy and specialist in Cross-Cultural Management at the Faculty Technology, Policy and Management

Editor Redactie

Do you have a question or comment about this article?

delta@tudelft.nl

Comments are closed.