The West has always thought of Tibet as a romantic Shangri-la, high in the Himalayas, populated with a meditating Dalai Lama and monks in serene monasteries. To China, however, Tibet was a backward society of feudal landlords that kept its farmers--90% of the population--illiterate serfs. Since taking control of Tibet, China has abolished the Indian-based caste system and agricultural serfdom. It has built medical centers, schools, roads, railways and airports, introduced telecommunications and cell phones, increased tourism and raised living standards. China believes in doing what is necessary to integrate Tibet into the 21st-century world. The Tibetans, on the other hand, are fearful. Economic development has attracted too many Han and Hui (Muslim) Chinese settlers, threatening to outnumber the Tibetans and remake their society.
I haven't written anything on Tibet so far, but I profess that's because I don't know nearly enough to have an educated opinion on it. You get one side of the story in the Western world, and you get the other side over here. The truth, obviously, lies somewhere in the middle. With the Olympic torch hitting Tibet this weekend, now feels like a good time to throw in my two cents.
I, like many others, do think that China probably used excessive force during the March protests. And that obviously paints China in a bad light: first it exiled the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and now, 40 years later, it's still trying to enforce its rule on Tibetans by beating them senseless.
But that's obviously an oversimplification of the issue. One angle of the riots that was played up here (and very little in the West) is that the Tibetans were attacking businesses owned by Han Chinese in the area. So did they start it, or did the military? It's impossible to say without being there. It is within the realm of possibility, however, that the military was playing defence: it doesn't make much sense for the rioters to start attacking those business after they were accosted. Every month the military puts the kibosh on a protest or two, and while they’re probably never done that delicately, they almost never end in killings. I'm not saying that China should necessarily get the benefit of the doubt, given its human rights record, but people too often judge without having all the facts.
And as for whether Tibet should be allowed to secede? It’s hard for me, as an outsider, to say that one side is right or wrong. It’s more a matter of both sides feeling like they’re “righter” than the other. Best I can tell, China once occupied Tibet on friendly terms, but then decided not to leave when asked. Tibet, however, has never been internationally recognized as an independent country.
It surprised me a while ago when I found out that my Dad, a pretty liberal guy, was definitively pro-China on this issue (though not on the violence). Then I realized I didn't know what pro-China meant exactly. Do I think Tibet should separate? No. I don't think Tibet could really stand alone, especially if China pulled out everything that it put into it and severed its economic ties. That area of the world is not especially affluent or well-developed.
But then does that make me anti-Tibet? I don't think so; I do think that the Tibetan culture is important, that it should be kept alive, and that the Tibetans themselves have a right for their concerns to be heard. I guess what I'm really against, then, is the violence. And I think that comes from both sides.
The Dalai Lama has time and time again refuted the suggestion (mostly from the Chinese government) that he has ever pushed for the protests to get violent. And as he is the Dalai Lama, I tend to believe him. But I think there is a faction of 20-somethings in Tibet that want to push more aggressively for change, and that they’re prepared to subvert the Dalai Lama and use violence to make their case.
As a born-and-bred Canadian, I lived through a Quebec separation referendum in 1995, so I do have a concept of what both sides are going through. I even lived in Quebec for four years later on, and made some friends in college who turned out to be separatists. Some of them had anti-separatist parents, and most of them did not have a good reason for separation (other than Vive le Quebec libre!), nor did they have any idea how they wanted an independent Quebec to run itself. I think their feelings were more an act of rebellion tied to a passionate cause than anything else, and that they're going/went through a lot of the same things the more aggressive Tibetans protesters are feeling now. Given time and maturity, they'll probably mellow out a little.
Time, however, may not be something that they will give themselves, and it may not even be something the Dalai Lama can buy for them. If he can't make some sort of progress in the upcoming negotiations, they may take it upon themselves to once again rise up and make sure they’re heard.
Communication is clearly key to this debate, and China is at a clear disadvantage in the West because there is very little English literature out there justifying their historic position on this and on what happened in March. (The quote at the top of this post is one of the few things I've seen that tries to flesh out the Chinese view for Western readers.) To get a Chinese appreciation on the issue you have to either be here, or better, have been born here, though if you were born here you probably aren’t so inclined to speak up about it. The Tibetans, on the other hand, have the Dalai Lama as a very public English-speaking face for their cause. That can’t help but shift the court of public opinion in their favour. Would you rather root for the soft-spoken Dalai Lama or a faceless, speaking-in-tongues Communist government?
This is the reason why it bothers me so much when people like Sharon Stone spout off on Tibet. It's an incredibly complicated issue, one that's spanned several centuries, and it's not one with a clear right or wrong. What does Stone want for Tibet? Full independence? If so, why? How would it work? It's always easier to criticize than it is to provide solutions.
But that's obviously an oversimplification of the issue. One angle of the riots that was played up here (and very little in the West) is that the Tibetans were attacking businesses owned by Han Chinese in the area. So did they start it, or did the military? It's impossible to say without being there. It is within the realm of possibility, however, that the military was playing defence: it doesn't make much sense for the rioters to start attacking those business after they were accosted. Every month the military puts the kibosh on a protest or two, and while they’re probably never done that delicately, they almost never end in killings. I'm not saying that China should necessarily get the benefit of the doubt, given its human rights record, but people too often judge without having all the facts.
And as for whether Tibet should be allowed to secede? It’s hard for me, as an outsider, to say that one side is right or wrong. It’s more a matter of both sides feeling like they’re “righter” than the other. Best I can tell, China once occupied Tibet on friendly terms, but then decided not to leave when asked. Tibet, however, has never been internationally recognized as an independent country.
It surprised me a while ago when I found out that my Dad, a pretty liberal guy, was definitively pro-China on this issue (though not on the violence). Then I realized I didn't know what pro-China meant exactly. Do I think Tibet should separate? No. I don't think Tibet could really stand alone, especially if China pulled out everything that it put into it and severed its economic ties. That area of the world is not especially affluent or well-developed.
But then does that make me anti-Tibet? I don't think so; I do think that the Tibetan culture is important, that it should be kept alive, and that the Tibetans themselves have a right for their concerns to be heard. I guess what I'm really against, then, is the violence. And I think that comes from both sides.
The Dalai Lama has time and time again refuted the suggestion (mostly from the Chinese government) that he has ever pushed for the protests to get violent. And as he is the Dalai Lama, I tend to believe him. But I think there is a faction of 20-somethings in Tibet that want to push more aggressively for change, and that they’re prepared to subvert the Dalai Lama and use violence to make their case.
As a born-and-bred Canadian, I lived through a Quebec separation referendum in 1995, so I do have a concept of what both sides are going through. I even lived in Quebec for four years later on, and made some friends in college who turned out to be separatists. Some of them had anti-separatist parents, and most of them did not have a good reason for separation (other than Vive le Quebec libre!), nor did they have any idea how they wanted an independent Quebec to run itself. I think their feelings were more an act of rebellion tied to a passionate cause than anything else, and that they're going/went through a lot of the same things the more aggressive Tibetans protesters are feeling now. Given time and maturity, they'll probably mellow out a little.
Time, however, may not be something that they will give themselves, and it may not even be something the Dalai Lama can buy for them. If he can't make some sort of progress in the upcoming negotiations, they may take it upon themselves to once again rise up and make sure they’re heard.
Communication is clearly key to this debate, and China is at a clear disadvantage in the West because there is very little English literature out there justifying their historic position on this and on what happened in March. (The quote at the top of this post is one of the few things I've seen that tries to flesh out the Chinese view for Western readers.) To get a Chinese appreciation on the issue you have to either be here, or better, have been born here, though if you were born here you probably aren’t so inclined to speak up about it. The Tibetans, on the other hand, have the Dalai Lama as a very public English-speaking face for their cause. That can’t help but shift the court of public opinion in their favour. Would you rather root for the soft-spoken Dalai Lama or a faceless, speaking-in-tongues Communist government?
This is the reason why it bothers me so much when people like Sharon Stone spout off on Tibet. It's an incredibly complicated issue, one that's spanned several centuries, and it's not one with a clear right or wrong. What does Stone want for Tibet? Full independence? If so, why? How would it work? It's always easier to criticize than it is to provide solutions.
2 comments:
FYI, it is:
"Vive le Québec libre!"
Thanks, fixed it.
Post a Comment