Tibet: Turning over a new page
Filed under:Analysis, General, politics, religion | Tags:featured, future of tibet
Add comments
In case you have missed it, the Chinese government and representatives of the Dalai Lama met last week for a ninth round of talks since 2002.
The Dalai Lama made some news in the week leading up to the meeting making statements such as he has “given up” on the talks.
The response from the Chinese government last week confirmed the Dalai Lama’s prognosis of the negotiations. In a report from Xin Hua, Zhu Weiqun, executive vice minister of the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, stated that “[t]he unification of the motherland, territorial integrity and the national dignity are the greatest interests of the Chinese people. We will never make a concession.”
“The Dalai Lama said on many occasions that when the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) entered Tibet, Tibet was an independent country and now Tibet is still an independent country, which was illegally occupied. But by denying China’s sovereignty over Tibet, the Dalai Lama is seeking a legal basis for his activities of ‘Tibet independence’, ’semi-independence and ‘independence in a disguised form’,” Zhu stated.
I personally am relieved about the impasse. I always knew the calls for continued “talks” earlier this year was more theatrics than anything substantive. The exiles lobbied Western governments to pressure the Chinese government to agree to continue negotiate against all reasons, hoping the limelight of the Olympics would give them one last leverage.
Now that the Olympics spotlight is over, even the Dalai Lama concedes there is not much more point in continuing.
Given the clarification now that, barring an about-face in political stance by the Dalai Lama, the current Dalai Lama will not play any role in the further development of Tibet, how will the hand of the current secular government in Tibet be freed in its governance of Tibet? How might the hand of the current government be constrained?
On the flipside, the Dalai Lama has called for a meeting next week for exiles to congregate to discuss the future of Tibet – where all options allegedly will be on the table. What should the exiles do? Prepare to settle in the West and/or India for the long term? Call for full independence? Form a terrorist organization? Form a “democractically elected” exile government?
There are currently 39 comments highlighted: 19724, 19728, 19731, 19735, 19744, 19759, 19771, 19775, 19778, 19781, 19782, 19790, 19793, 19795, 19804, 19807, 19811, 19813, 19891, 19893, 19902, 19907, 19911, 19912, 19917, 19918, 19929, 19931, 19979, 20034, 20054, 20055, 20072, 20160, 20164, 20168, 20228, 20542, 20604.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Allen, you are igniting a flamewar again with this topic.
I’m not sure the process has stopped and everyone except the group of exiles are all happy and cheerful. There was a discussion before about whether the DL is necessary or not; it seemed that a lot of people thought he was and that he was one of the few persons who could make anything to move negotiations further.
I think one of the reasons people believe DL’s demise would be positive is because they seriously believe he orchestrated the 3/14 riots. But if he didn’t, there might be more of the same in the future (and think about 2009 – it’s even more symbolical than this year). It’s a bit like this other big country that goes around the world and “liberates” other countries… When not successful, it faces all sorts of problems. China could do better.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Yeah, sensitive topic again
I think this is just the beginning. The calculation of waiting for the death of the Dalai Lama can be a terrible mistake. That might be opening the Pandora box.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Hi, there! Have you noticed that Zhu Wenqun expressed full confidence in the post-the DL era?
November 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I’m certainly no expert when it comes to the DL and the exiled Tibetans. I just know what I read in the media so I’m going more by human nature and gut instinct here. There are two entities staring at each other over an abyss, the Chinese government (and a relatively united Chinese people with them) on one side and a relatively united Tibetan people and Tibetan exiles on the other.
It’s been known for awhile that the Chinese government had no intention of negotiating with the DL and was waiting for his demise. My guess is when that happens, the government will appoint a new DL of their choosing and try to use that to keep a lid on the discontent in that province. Their aim would be to split the Tibetans and exiles apart. In many ways, it is similar to their Taiwan strategy; wait out the Chen administration and do business with a KMT regime while splitting the KMT and DPP apart. To them the DL is a political manipulator using his people for his own selfish aims and cleverly using western media to further his cause. This would be a good strategy provided two things; one, that the problem from their POV was the DL himself and without him, the Tibetans would lose their desire for independence or autonomy and two, that after the DL, the resolve of the exiles to maintain their current position would fade and they would be more amenable in negotiations and the possibility of return to their homeland as an integral part of China based on the current system. However, I cannot see the Tibetans or exiles accepting any DL appointed by a Chinese government. If anything, I’d think that would radicalize the people even more.
From the Tibetans POV, the DL seems to have been the calming voice when tempers flared. From everything I’ve read, he is revered as a saint among his people. If indeed he has kept the lid on violence and terrorism against the local Han population in places like Lhasa, his demise might blow that lid off and radicalism could take hold in Tibet. The longer China holds on to their hard line, the further the populace radicalizes. Tibet is a powderkeg ready to explode if not for the DL. The exiles are potentially more radicalized than the Tibetans living in their homeland, since the possibility for them to return home to an autonomous Tibet is sliding out of their reach with every passing year.
Two point of views that are radically different. I agree with Allen that the talks were a farce, and better to just admit they were and move on. Even if the DL did an about face, it wouldn’t matter since the Chinese government would not admit to believing his new position. He’s effectively out of any future bargaining talks. Then who does the Chinese government talk to? The leaders in Tibet proper are either Central government cadres or Tibetans who have no standing with the people themselves. Is there someone in the exiled government that currently stands just below the DL? If there is I’m not aware of him.
Normally, in these situations the group splits among itself. The radicals will begin to instigate radicalism with both the exiles and the locals. The peacemakers will have their followers. There will be no one to represent the people as a whole. That is the value of the DL; one person who everyone listens to. But even the DL has said that lately he is finding it harder and harder to keep everyone on the same path. As bt said, this might be the opening of a Pandora’s Box. Have I framed the opposing arguments correctly? I’m curious to hear everyone’s opinion on this subject. I have a feeling I’ll be learning a lot about the situation there over the next few days.
Flame wars only start when people stop listening. Hopefully everyone will listen and realize there are two POV and we’ll definitely hear from both of them.
Yantao, who is Zhu Wenqun? I haven’t run across his name before.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Funny thing from the article:
“In that case, feudal serfdom would be re-established over one-fourth of the Chinese territory, he said.”
That is to say, DL has been meditating on evil since 1959, and if he has a chance to return to power, everything will just be like it was then. It is as if the communists would make a cultural revolution on Taiwan, were the two parts to reunite.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I think many people who believe that Tibet won’t accept a Chinese appointed DL ignored an important fact is that, Tibetans are not as unified as most people thinks. Essentially there are two Tibet communities: One with people who lives in Tibet, and one with people in the exile community.
For people who live in Tibet, it might be over estimate to say that 30% of ethnic Tibetans really want independent. No doubts it’s a huge number and they are capable to do a lot things or causing a lot of troubles as China views it, but 30% is still a minority. Exiled Tibetans on the other hand, are much more united. But that’s within the exile community.
There is a huge difference between the exile community and Tibetans who still live in Tibet. For people who still live in Tibet, the Chinese ruling benefits them economically dearly, so when they pursue independence, they have a lot of lose. For people in the exile community, the Chinese ruling obviously has everything they against and nothing that benefits them. So these people got nothing to lose and that’s one important reason why they are so much more unified than people who still live in Tibet.
The 3/14 riots highlighted this difference. China has spent years to invest heavily to build Tibet’s economy, mostly the tourism industry. And the whole industry was badly hurt by the riot. The exile community staged many events, got plenty of spotlights, even though they didn’t get much else but their everyday lives were not much affected afterwards. This is not the case for people who live in Tibet. For many people who live in Tibet, their livelihoods have been destroyed because the local economy has tanked.
Culture identify, spiritual life are all very important for a lot of people. Material lives, on the other hand, are equally or even more important for a whole lot of other people. If you ask those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by those who makes noise for nothing, there will be a very different answer. If you ask, how the hell these people can ignore their culture identiy and spiritual life in favor of material lives? Just take a look of the recent economy downturn and see how people around you feels — people all around are saying it feels horrible when the economy dropped just a few percents. Now think what you will do if somebody made your economy to drop 50%?
November 14th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
india and china both can play a proactive role of peace in the world and for tibetan issues. i think the diversity of india and their freedom of expression and thought are interesting. i wish the same applies to china as well. however, in most situations, chinese citizens are ignorant about many issues in their country apart from the need of boosting their nationalistic feeling.. this is partly related to the govt’s policies of blocking information and not providing any transparancy in the system. so, it is not amazing when some chinese nationals come up with the statement that tibetans and other minorities are not being marginalized in the western china. it may not be surprising if many chinese feel that dalai lama is “terrorist or splittest” rather than a leader for peace, genuine autonomy in Tibet and universal responsibility.
the choice to inform remains in the hand of the govt as well as its people.
May truth and peace prevail in China!
November 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
How much of what the two sides are setting forth in the negotiations is available to the public?
November 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
@Lei Kong
Some of us Chinese living abroad are as well informed as you are on Tibet, yet we can’t like you take for granted that Dalai Lama is “a leader for peace, genuine autonomy in Tibet and universal responsibility” and we can’t dismiss as easily that “tibetans and other minorities are not being marginalized in the western china”. Therefore the answer can’t be as simple as “May truth and peace prevail in China!”, desirable though that may be.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I think the premise of the Dalai Lama having given up is little misleading. I listened to his speech and what he said was that his trust in the sincerity of the Chinese government is “thinning”. And he said that he has to accept that the ‘Middle Way’ approach of asking for genuine autonomy has failed. Yet he said he continues to believe in common chinese people whose support he said is important.
I believe that it is good that things came out in the open from the Chinese officials too recently. It is clear now that they are not interested in talking about anything except the status of the Dalai Lama. I think that will help.
And there is already a democratically elected Tibetan government in exile in Dharamsala, though not recognised by anyone else but the Tibetans.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I think wuming takes up an interesting thing here. What struck me, in the aftermaths of 3-14, was how many Chinese said that they had previously been very sympathetic to the West but that this sentiment changed considerably afterwards. In the same vein, I was much less of a believer in the importance of democracy before going to China. Part of this is experience and pondering, of course, but it also shows the importance of our education – when in doubt or under pressure, we seem to go back to our original education and believe it even more.
A lot of things are difficult to know, of course. What do Tibetans feel about the education they receive?
November 14th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
@tenzin: What do you think would be the most ideal solution in the future? What do you think DL should do? Just curious.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#4 Good point Steve,
I might just want to add that the talks started in 2002 probably because of Beijing got the nod for the Olympics games in 2001. China made some promises regarding Tibet and in some ways things have stayed in the status quo over the years. Now the Olympics games came and went and Western countries have other problems to worry about like the economy, the issue with Tibet went to the sidelines. China has time on their side considering the DL as their aging diplomat and stalling talks puts China as their advantage.
Personally I don’t know what is going to happen to the Tibetan Radicals once DL pass away. Perhaps the Western Countries will think that aiding the Tibetan Radicals is a fruitless effort and they will go away because they no longer have the political and financial support that they used to have. Perhaps that China will have some diplomatic relations with India that force them to cut off support for Dharmsalia. In any case, China has won and I just hope that the DL will just accept China’s terms because there are little options for the Tibetans.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
@jc #6: jc, it was my understanding that neither the Tibetans in Xizang nor the exiles outside are pushing for independence from China but rather for various degrees of autonomy for Tibetans in all provinces where they form a large portion of the population. Am I misunderstanding the current positions?
November 14th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Hi, in your last paragraph.. (“democractically elected” exile government? ) Exiled govt is already a public elected government. Its been like that for while. Samdong Rinpoche is current Prime Minister. He won the majority back in 2002 (year check). But people still consider HHDL as head and his title is irreplaceable. Officially, HHDL is now a semi retired advisor.
to Wukailong : have you read the terms of ‘Genuine Autonomous for Tibet’? Read that first. You will understand Tibet’s future plans, rules, etc. You will not find reestablishment of feudal system. Good luck.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
@Steve #4:
It is true that neither Tibetan’s in Xizhang nor the DL’s government is pushing for independence. But that’s only their “compromised” position. The exile government would have wanted independence if that wasn’t a problem for PRC or any other world powers. Straightly advocating independence could be political suicide for the exile government because that risks losing support from other nations.
I guess a more appropriate way to say the current situation might be, most Tibetans in exile wants PRC out of Xizhang because in their view, it’s their land and they wanted to save their identify, culture and religion; while much less Tibetans in Xizhang want so because in their view, PRC is the one who steadily improves their living standards, while exile Tibetans are the one who destroys their livelihood.
In any case, It’s not as simple as some people like Lei Kong proclaimed. For people like him, I would really hope they are willing to humble themselves and go there to take a look of regular people’s everyday life. Religious matters, culture matters, economy matters, social orders matters, ethnic relations matters, a lot of things matters. If it were as easy as a simple yes or no choice, world peace would have been achieved a long time ago.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
@jc
Do you have any data that back up your claims about the sentiments of Tibetans in Xizang? I would have liked to believe that a substantial number of Tibetans actually have realistic expectations (OK, “realistic” in my view) and put their economic interest ahead of other more esoteric ones, but I am not holding my breath for such a reality
November 14th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
@jc: Per wuming #17, I also have a question along the same lines. A common argument by the Chinese government is that living conditions have improved immensely in Tibet, especially in recent years. As far as I’m aware, no one is disputing this, including Tibetan exiles in India.
I know a few Chinese Americans who have visited Tibet on holiday. When I have questioned them about their experiences (I’m always interested in new destinations to visit), one point I have heard several times is that the hotels, restaurants and tourist shops they visited were run by non-Tibetans. If so, how much of the economic benefit is actually trickling down to the Tibetans themselves? I know there are statistics showing economic numbers for the province but I haven’t seen it separated out by Tibetans and non-Tibetans in terms of median wages, ownership of tourist businesses, etc.
If my friends’ experiences were not indicative of the relative economic prosperity, then I would agree that the majority of Tibetans would value the economic benefits they are currently receiving and would want to work within the system to solve religious and other perceived problems between the Tibetans and the central government. But if those numbers show a huge disparity, then I would think the sentiments of the Tibetans would be disproportionately anti-government. By knowing those numbers, we can better understand the true situation currently in the province. Can anyone provide them?
November 14th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
@Steve:
The basic view at here is the economy is an interconnected whole. When there is a hotel in the city that employees people and get tourist into town to spend money, it benefits the whole city, not just the hotel owner. Political freedom aside, today’s China, including Tibet, does have a free labor market. That means if one ethnic Tibetan decides to run a hotel, it’s perfectly fine with everybody. Not only that, Tibetans are given additional benefits/incentives over Han Chinese to do so (I am not sure if that’s good because it also cause tension the other way around). If they do it well, they will probably make much more money than Han hotel —- I bet many people might prefer a Tibetan run hotel when they go to Tibet, not to mentioning other related services such as food, culture sites, souvenirs, etc. After all it is “Tibet” that most people are interested. So basically when the economy is good, it benefits everybody. A prospering economy provides opportunities for everyone. On the other hand, when the economy suffers, everybody suffers. The Han hotel owner suffers, the Tibetan street vendors also suffers. Everybody is on the same ship. One thing that’s for sure is that having Han Chinese flourishing in Tibet while still leaving ethnical Tibetans far behind is surely a recipe of disaster and there is no reason for PRC to aim for that, they are not that stupid nowadays. Also giving the relatively small population of Tibetans, I would imagine that PRC is well capable of gapping any disparity between them and Han Chinese through subsidiary/social welfare if nothing else really works out.
Having that said, there are still a lot of problems that needs to be addressed even just for the economy, China as a whole is still rather poor, even it is huge. Corruption, power abuse, and the hope that ethnic Tibetans can catch up on their skill and education levels (on international scale, Han Chinese is already pretty lousy, but Tibetans are worse), a lot of them did, many many more are still far behind, while a whole lot of them do care much more about religion and don’t care much about economy and all these further complicated the situation. Many of those problems are common to everywhere inside China, and many of those problems are unique Tibet problems. In any case, solving these problems will take time.
And the mother of all problems is, there is no solution that will satisfy everybody.
As to statistics (also to wuming), unfortunately there are plenty of numbers, but whether they are trustworthy is the problem. For instance, you can Google “Tibet farmer income” and get plenty of information, but it would be difficult to independently verify them. Things were relatively “normal” before the riot, now after the riot, you might get “official” statistics from PRC government claiming 99% of ethnic Tibetans live happily but 1% are not, and also get the “true” statistics from the exile government claiming completely the opposite. The problem for now is that people who release the numbers all have their side chosen before hand. Hopefully eventually the tension will ease and the situation can be more transparent. Till then I guess we all have to wait.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I personally am relieved about the impasse.
How are you relieved that the best way of finding a long-term resolution to this problem has hit a wall?
how will the hand of the current secular government in Tibet be freed in its governance of Tibet
Freed to supress Tibetans even further I suppose and turn their culture into a Chinese Disneyland.
I’m probably being overly cynical, but like with other nationalistic topics too many Chinese have allowed themselves to be tricked into thinking it is always the foreigners/non-Chinese who are the cause of all the trouble. In this case the Dalai Lama is the best chance for a peaceful settlement because he advocates non-violent resistence.
Allen, you demonstrated a somewhat limited understanding of this matter when you asked whether the exiles would consider terrorism. What you would know if you really knew both sides of the story is that the older generation are the peaceful ones. Those who would commit violence are the younger Tibetans who aren’t willing to spend their whole lives under the Chinese boot. When the Dalai Lama dies and the older generation loses influence no one will stop them resorting to bombings and the like. The riots at the start of the year are just an “omen” if you like. Those young people still respect the Dalai Lama, so if their anger can get the better of them now what do you think will happen when he dies or maybe even just gives up?
+++++
jc
Hopefully eventually the tension will ease and the situation can be more transparent.
The Chinese government is never going to allow figures that show a majority of Tibetans are unhappy to be released, so such transparency is a pipe-dream.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:30 am
@jc
I agree with you that allowing Tibetans to lag behind is a recipe for disaster. But the way the game is set up, it favors Han Chinese over Tibetans, because Han Chinese are in charge. The whole reward structure is set you to favor Han Chinese and sinicized Tibetans. Han Chinese are not expected to learn Tibetan, and can set up shop in Tibet and do just fine, whereas Tibetans are treated as foreigners in their own country. If the Tibetan language was made the language of government and Han Chinese settlers made an effort to blend in and learn the language, I think a lot of Tibetan resentment would go away. But that is not what is happening right now and within our lifetime, ethnic Tibetans will probably be a minority in their own region and Tibetan language will turn into a kitchen-language, not the language of culture, government and administration that it used to be for 1000 years.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:48 am
It really beats the hell out of me as to why so many people (mostly westerners and Tibetans) were so mesmerized and charmed by this guy who has been known as DL. The guy can’t even articulate himself coherently and intelligently that sometimes I wonder the level of his education and intelligence. Whenever I see his picture online or on TV, I think of the saying “ If it walks like duck and quacks like duck, then it must be a duck”, except this guy look like rat, behaves like a rat,…. On the other hand, I’ve got hand it to him for his deviousness and his ability to deceive – just look at the havoc he and his followers wreaked around the world before the Olympic Games.
November 15th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Interesting piece (plus video) from the BBC.
In some ways, judging from the article and listening to the rhetoric used in the video (Tibet was invaded, Tibet is suppressed) – I wonder if China’s “Tibet problem” really is simply a PR problem with the West.
November 15th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Here is a BBC Documentary on Tibet produced earlier this year that people might be interested. It is not meant to be political (at least as far as BBC can be) – but to show the daily life of regular Tibetans as it is today…
November 15th, 2008 at 3:07 am
#20 Raj,
The issue with the Tibetans is that they are being helped by the Western countries financially and politically. Western countries tells us that China are the bad guys and the Tibetans as well as the peace loving Dalai Lama are the good guys as easy as black and white. Those who believe that truly naive. It is true that in general Han Chinese treats the Tibetans as 2nd class citizens very much like how Americans treats Native Indians. However, it is also true that these Tibetans are protesting violently like the Lhasa incident. Also the Dalai Lama believes in the ends justifying the means, even thru violence to kick out the Han Chinese.
The main complaint by the Tibetans is ‘Cultural genocide’ by the Han Chinese. Maybe the easy solution is to put all these Tibetans in some kind of reservation like how US treats Native Indians. If China does that, I’m sure that the Western Nations will condemn them also.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:28 am
@Allen
This is a recent comment to this blog:
The main complaint by the Tibetans is ‘Cultural genocide’ by the Han Chinese. Maybe the easy solution is to put all these Tibetans in some kind of reservation like how US treats Native Indians. If China does that, I’m sure that the Western Nations will condemn them also.
Could you, for once, distance yourself from this kind of rhetoric?
November 15th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Oh look, another Han-Laowai wankfest about Tibet. A discussion about Tibet without Tibetan voices is a bit like two bald men arguing about the best shampoo.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:14 am
@Michael #27
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”
michael, is that really the best you can do? At least come up with something original next time…
November 15th, 2008 at 6:25 am
@WW: It beats the hell out of you, because your education has told you that DL is the devil incarnate. I’m not saying that the idea that he is a saint is more objective, just that you’re looking into propaganda that is upside down your own, and then naturally you just believe in your own.
@pug_ster: “Western countries tells us that China are the bad guys and the Tibetans as well as the peace loving Dalai Lama are the good guys as easy as black and white.”
And what does education say in China? That the situation is complex, or perhaps that Tibetans aided by West are the bad guys, that DL is a lying warmonger and that the good Chinese guys do everything to help the poor people up there?
I think one of the problems with these discussions is that they never get above this level. On the other hand, there are a couple of people here (and elsewhere) who actually try to understand the complexity of the situation. Admittedly, they are not many.
November 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
@Steve: Michael does have a point, although I guess he could have made it in a nicer way… Tibetan voices are quite lacking in the discussion, except Tenzin’s note above.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I am a Malaysian never to India and China, I have indian and chinsese and mind you even friends practicing tibetan buddhism. So may be my voice is refreshing to weterners as well as chinese and indian nationals. I felt Dalai Lama is telling lies all the while about genocide of this and that to get influence, and his followers, tibetan, Indian or western hippies are worst offender in telling lies.
Most of my Tibetan buddhism practicing friends visit china and tibet regulary, their answer on Dalai Lama is he will be the last one after his demise, I don’t understand what they mean. May be they are trying to tell me that there is no future for telling lies.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Just a thought… People here know me that I will always stand with the CCP when it comes to protecting the Chinese nation. But I also wonder if time has come when “the only thing we [the Chinese people] have to fear is fear itself”?
When the torch relay protests occurred earlier this year, I admit that what pug_star wrote actually resonated with me.
If our Tibetan brothers and sisters are going to betray us, I would be willing to sacrifice our Tibetan brothers and sisters if need be – no questions asked.
But what a tragedy this would be if our Tibetan brothers and sisters were never traitors or conspirators and that we end up bringing about a self-fulfilling prophesy (destroying the Tibetan culture – which we all agree is an integral part of Chinese culture) on account of our fears?
We know fear drove many individuals to unthinkable madness during the Cultural Revolution. To the extent that we as a nation are afraid, we may be unwittingly destroying an important aspect of our own culture.
So my question to patriotic Chinese everywhere is are we shooting ourselves in the foot by being afraid or are we only being prudent to be cautious?
To be honest, I personally despise the DL and the exiles. I feel they will only opportunistically invite Western nations to meddle in China’s internal affairs when the chance present themselves.
But I also sometimes wonder whether our “fear” may unwittingly lead us to betray our own Tibetan brothers and sisters and blind us from building a glorious China that we all want – a China that is prosperous, stable, cosmopolitan, and multicultural in a way that is inclusive of all her citizens…?
November 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Thanks Allen for letting us know where you stand when it comes to any discussion on Tibet and Tibetans. So why this show of having a discussion at all. That is exactly the attitude of the CCP with regard to contacts with the Tibetans in exile. I think G W Bush put it best when he said, “You are with us or against us”. – a total lack of respect for different opinion.
It is good to know that you personally despise (i hope you truly understand the meaning of this term and are not using it lightly) the Dalai Lama and Tibetans in exile like me. Inspite of that you have to agree that we have the right to decide what we want for ourselves. We dont have to follow what CCP decides for us.
Dalai Lama is a friend and someone to be feared. He said before the Olympics that he supports it and people should not protest against it. Imagine the scale of protest if he had stood against the Beijing Olympics.
I have said this few times before too. The problem here, still is not between common Chinese people and the Tibetans. Even though we have lived as neighbours for thousands of years, we are not sworn enemies. Even though in our long history we have fought against each other many times, still the general relationship between us are not bad. Today there are many Chinese buddhist who visit Tibet and who treat Tibetans with respect. Yet I see that the CCP have succeeded in converting few with personal animosity towards Tibetans. That is sad. The Dalai Lama has always warned us against having hatred for Chinese.
Anyway, I am waiting anxiously to see the outcome of the Special Meeting next week. the Dalai Lama has asked the Tibetans to decided what we can do about the future of Tibet and i am hearing reports about lots of interest in Tibetans inside Tibet and they are trying their best to share their opinion.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:26 am
First off, I do not like Dalia Lama, this guy’s a fraud, financed by a foriegn govt. Some actual practises of his brand of buddhism don’t conform to Buddhist scriptures that I know – like slavery, torture and sex.
Second – His version of “meaningful autonomy” are exactly the points that his exiles group are claiming independence from China between 1912 to 1959 (while half the time technically being occupied by the British).
Third – His “automony” demands include other chinese provinces into “Greater Tibet” just because Tibetian are living there. (Can the Chinese claim cultural genocide, and start a pogom like in the “Lhsas riot” ?) If one should look at the Chinese Map. It can be concluded that these were steps to cut China practically in half – seperating XinKiang too.
Thus, Xinkiang can claim to want Independence too. This is nothing short of the British Tactic of introducing the McMahon Line, to cut the Chinese off from Tibet. Thus opportunity to seizing it. In this case an American missile defense. Mind you, the American are tacitly supporting the Uighur’s independence too, which terrorist activities took a nose-dive in 2001, when China kicked those “Nice sounding NGOs” out. (Russia followed later, and color revolution stopped)
I can’t help to think that Dalia Lama is just a political tool used by a foriegn entity. It seemed like the whole thing was planned as a comprehensive strategic goal.
Just to relate, A childhood friend of mine who have been practicing Tibetian Buddhist since 10yr old. He is 38 yrs old now, and he has given it up. Just two weeks ago, he exclaimed “It’s Fvcking BS religion”. He’s with main stream Buddhism now.. and goes to Thailand afew times a year. OHH.. He also said that DL cannot appoint a Panchen Lama, never have in history, the Panchen lama choses him. I had a good laugh.
Now, something more personal – my Father. He was practising “Tibetan Buddhism” too. I had allot of bad experience at those times. He became nothing short of a cult member. everything he says are about peace, happinese etc. He even claims he can meditate in a afew seconds, and can read our mind. Knows what I wanted to do and foresee the future, levitaion. In short, My family got physically abuse for years. Much of our family wealth went to donation to monks and visiting high monks from Taiwan, India and USA. So that they can be fetched by Mercedes, wear Rolex, lived in lavish temples and always out shopping.
WTF
November 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Sounds like the CCP’s negotiating position (and I’m using that term extremely loosely) is akin to Henry Ford and his Model T’s (you can have it any colour you want, as long as it’s black…). Given such a smorgasbord of choices, it’s no wonder that the talks went nowhere. But talking and listening still seem far better activities than any other possible alternatives.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:43 am
@ Pugster (25)
The issue with the Tibetans is that they are being helped by the Western countries financially and politically.
So? You complain that they say Tibetans are good and Chinese are bad. Aren’t you guilty of the same thing by implying if “western” countries back someone then it’s automatically a bad thing? Let’s remember other people who were supported like Mandela – was he a bad guy because he had outside support?
However, it is also true that these Tibetans are protesting violently like the Lhasa incident.
Some Tibetans, not all of them. And they’re doing so because of how they’re treated – one supposed reason behind the riots was that a number of monks were beaten or something and that set people off. Please do not imply there is some sort of international conspiracy.
Also the Dalai Lama believes in the ends justifying the means, even thru violence to kick out the Han Chinese.
I’m sorry but that’s complete nonsense. He has said many a time non-violence is the way forward. If you can’t accept that’s his position then there’s no point in talking to you.
Maybe the easy solution is to put all these Tibetans in some kind of reservation like how US treats Native Indians.
And perhaps the US could respond to problems with Chinese spying on them by rounding up all Han in the US and doing the same…..
++++
@ Allen (32)
People here know me that I will always stand with the CCP when it comes to protecting the Chinese nation.
How do you know when they’re protecting China or protecting themselves? It sounds like you give them a blank cheque.
If our Tibetan brothers and sisters are going to betray us, I would be willing to sacrifice our Tibetan brothers and sisters if need be – no questions asked.
Ok, Allen, that’s a horrible comment. I cannot think of a case where an entire population has engaged in war or terrorism. It’s always just a number. So why are you implying you would be willing to engage in brutal suppression or mass murder against people who had not done anything wrong?
I might as well say that if “Chinese” people living in the UK ever betrayed us I would be willing to sacrifice them. If I said that on another thread I would probably be screamed at by half the people here and maybe even banned. So why is it ok for you to say similar things against Tibetans – because they’re hate-figures in China?
You may want to clarify your comments. I’d hate to think you’d support genocide under any circumstances.
++++
S.K. Cheung
Yes, or the CCP’s idea of ‘open’ elections.
“This year the candidates are a Communist, a Communist and a Commuist in a sharp Italian suit. The independents are ‘out-of-town’ at the moment.”
I hoped something would come of them but it only looks like talks were held by China to try to moderate international criticism earlier in the year. When will they ever take them seriously – when Tibet’s on fire?
November 15th, 2008 at 11:18 am
However you think you are justified in sneering at whatever latest fallacies of CCP, they are not the ones that drive this world into a f*cking ditch, ruins the lives of millions all over. Pardon me for straying off the topics
November 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“If our Tibetan brothers and sisters are going to betray us, I would be willing to sacrifice our Tibetan brothers and sisters if need be – no questions asked.”
Wow. Nationalism must be the best thing mankind has ever created. That gives the word “inclusive” a completely new meaning… I’m stunned, to say the least.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
@Allen
I’m stunned by your comment. Honestly, all along these debates, I really thought that you were above this kind of rhetoric.
If our Tibetan brothers and sisters are going to betray us, I would be willing to sacrifice our Tibetan brothers and sisters if need be – no questions asked.
I know that you add all kinds of qualifications and reservations to this, but what you are essentially saying is that if the Tibetan minority do not want to be part of China, and thus “betray” you, the Han Chinese have the right to “sacrifice” them. This is the genocidal impulse in a sentence.
I don’t know if I want to contribute to this discussion anymore.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I wish all Tibetans, Hans and all minorities will live peacefully and happily after. DL is a wise guy to me.
———-
Free Tibet, my ass
Please do not liberate my country. I understand your energy, good nature and idealism. I was the same when I was your age.
First, thanks you all. Now, I’m a naturalized US citizen collecting generous welfare benefits. You do not understand how my life has been improved staying here. Just imagine living in the highest mountain in your country year round.
There are always folks want to be kings and queens. They have their ambitions and revolutionary ideas. The last ones went to India. They do not speak for the common folks who just want a peaceful life.
News on Tibet must feed a lot of reporters in the west but hurt their conscience. Some are not true. The recent Tibetan riot was started when Han Chinese were murdered but was reported wrongly with photos that were bought and modified to indicate it was the other way round.
The Chinese will not give up Tibet. It is the major water source for most of Asia. We get more from the Chinese than giving back. The new train and 750 small dams to generate electricity are recent gifts. It is the same as opening a casino in an Indian reservation. The benefits outnumber the drawbacks.
China had been ruled by Mongolians and Manchurians. We’re one of the 50 or so minorities, same as the blacks in your country or the Quebec French in Canada.
Unless you can convince your congress to send soldiers to ‘liberate’ us, please do not stir up our rebellious sentiment towards the Chinese. The more you do, the more our folks suffer.
Spend your energy elsewhere. The choices are unlimited. It sounds like propaganda. I want you to know that I have no connection with the Chinese government. I just want to be realistic and the world will be more peaceful without your demonstrations.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I cannot find the original web page. Sorry. It is all you want to know about Tibet but are afraid to ask. Haha.
—————————————————————
For your reading pleasure, try PokZin and Wikipedia.
Tibet – Myth and Reality
by Foster Stockwell
Western concepts of Tibet embrace more myth than reality. The idea that
Tibet is an oppressed nation composed of peaceful Buddhists who never did
anyone any harm distorts history. In fact the belief that the Dalai Lama is
the leader of world Buddhism rather than being just the leader of one sect
among more than 1,700 “Living Buddhas” of this unique Tibetan form of the
faith displays a parochial view of world religions.
The myth, of course, is an outgrowth of Tibet’s former inaccessibility,
which has fostered illusions about this mysterious land in the midst of the
Himalayan Mountains — illusions that have been skillfully promoted for
political purposes by the Dalai Lama’s advocates. The myth will inevitably
die, as all myths do, but until this happens, it would be wise to learn a
few useful facts about this area of China.
First, Tibet has been a part of China ever since it was merged into that
country in 1239, when the Mongols began creating the Yuan Dynasty
(1271-1368). This was before Marco Polo reached China from Europe and more
than two centuries before Columbus sailed to the New World. True, China’s
hold on this area sometimes appeared somewhat loose, but neither the Chinese
nor many Tibetans have ever denied that Tibet has been a part of China from
the Yuan Dynasty to this very day.
The early Tibetans evolved into a number of competing nomadic tribes and
developed a religion known as Bon that was led by shamans who conducted
rituals that involved the sacrifice of many animals and some humans. These
tribes fought battles with each other for better grazing lands, battles in
which they killed or made slaves of those they conquered. They roamed far
beyond the borders of Tibet into areas of China’s Sichuan and Yunnan
provinces, Xinjiang, Gansu, and Qinghai. Eventually one of these tribes, the
Tubo, became the most powerful and took control of all Tibet. (The name
Tibet comes from Tubo.) During China’s Tang Dynasty (618-907), Emperor
Taizong improved relations with the Tubo king, Songtsen Gampo, by giving him
one of his daughters, Princess Wenzheng, in marriage. The Tubos, in response
to this cementing of relations, developed close fraternal ties with the Tang
court, and the two ruling powers regularly exchanged gifts.
The princess arrived in Tibet with an entourage of hundreds of servants,
skilled craftspeople, and scribes. She was a Buddhist, as were all of the
Tang emperors, and so Buddhism entered Tibet mainly through her influence,
only to be suppressed later by resentful Bon shamans. Some years later
another Tang princess was married to another Tubo king, again to cement
relations between the two rulers. The fact that the Tibetans and the Chinese
had united royal families and engaged actively in trade (Tibetan horses for
tea of the Central Plain) didn’t mean an absence of conflict between them.
Battles occasionally occurred between Tang and Tubo troops, mostly over
territorial issues. At one point in the 750s, the Tubos, taking advantage of
a rebellion against the Tangs by other armed groups in China, raced on
horseback across China to enter the Tang capital of Chang’an. But, they
couldn’t hold the city.
In 838, the Tubo king was assassinated by two pro-Bon ministers, and the Bon
religion was re- established as the only acceptable religion in Tibet.
Buddhists were widely persecuted and forced into hiding.
Trade between Tibet and the interior areas continued during the Five
Dynasties (907-960) and the Song Dynasty (960-1279) that followed the
collapse of the Tang, although relations between the two ruling powers were
limited. During this time Buddhism revived in Tibet as a result of the
Buddhists’ willingness to accommodate some Bon practices. The form of
Buddhism that resulted from this merging of the two religions was quite
different from that of China and other countries in Southeast Asia, as well
as from the form that had been practiced previously in Tibet.
Tibetan Buddhism, often called Lamaism, appealed to the Mongols, who
conquered most of Russia, parts of Europe, and all of China under the
leadership of Genghis Khan. The Mongols, like the Tibetans, were tribal
herders who had a religion of animism similar to Bon.
When Kublai Khan, the first Yuan emperor, appointed administrators to Tibet,
he elevated the head of the Tibetan Buddhist Sakya sect to the post of
leader of all Buddhists in China, thus giving this monk greater power than
any Buddhist had ever held before – and probably since. Needless to say, the
appointment irritated the leaders of the other Buddhist sects in Tibet and
the much larger group of non-Tibetan Buddhists in China. But, they couldn’t
do anything to counter the wishes of the emperor.
The Yuan Dynasty divided Tibet into a series of administrative areas and put
these areas under the charge of an imperial preceptor. Furthermore, the Yuan
court encouraged the growth of feudal estates in Tibet as a way to maintain
control there.
Then the Yuan Dynasty collapsed, it was replaced by the Ming Dynasty
(1368-1644), which wasn’t composed of persons of Mongolian heritage. Tibet
then became splintered because the Ming court adopted a policy of granting
hereditary titles to many nobles and a policy of divide and rule.
Although the Ming court conferred the honorific title of Desi (ruling lama)
to the head of one of Tibet’s most powerful families, the Rinpung family,
they also bestowed enough official titles to his subordinates to encourage
separatist trends within the local Tibetan society. One of these titles was
given to the head of the newly founded Gelugpa sect, better known as the
Yellow sect. He later took on the title “Dalai Lama.”
Tibet During the Qing Dynasty The next and last dynasty, the Qing, came to
power in 1644 and lasted until 1911. At the time of its founding, the most
prominent Tibetan religious and secular leaders were the fifth Dalai Lama,
the fourth Panchen Lama, and Gushri Khan. They formed a delegation that
arrived at the Chinese capital, Beijing, in 1652.
Before they returned to Tibet the following year, the emperor officially
conferred upon Lozang Gyatso (the then Dalai Lama), the honorific title “The
Dalai Lama, Buddha of Great Compassion in the West, Leader of the Buddhist
Faith Beneath the Sky, Holder of the Vajra.” (Dalai is Mongolian for
“ocean”; lama is a Tibetan word that means “guru.”) The fifth Dalai Lama
pledged his allegiance to the Qing government and in return, received enough
gold and silver to build 13 new monasteries of the Yellow sect in Tibet. All
successive reincarnations of the Dalai Lama have been confirmed by the
central government in China, and this has become a historical convention
practiced to this very day.
A later Qing emperor suspected the intentions of the seventh Dalai Lama, so
he increased the power of the Panchen Lama (also of the Yellow sect). In
1713 the Qing court granted the title “Panchen Erdeni” to the fifth Panchen
Lama, thus elevating him to a status similar to that given to the Dalai Lama
(Panchen means “great scholar” in Sanskrit, and Erdeni means “treasure” in
Manchu.)
The largest part of the Tibetan population (more than 90 percent) at that
time was composed of serfs, who were treated harshly by the landlords and
ruling monks. All monasteries had large tracts of land as well as a great
number of serfs under their control. The ruling monks’ exploitation of these
serfs was just as severe as that of the aristocratic landlords. Serfs had no
personal freedom from birth to death. They and their children were given
freely as gifts or donations, sold or bartered for goods. They were, in
fact, viewed by landlords as “livestock that can speak.” As late as 1943, a
high-ranking aristocrat named Tsemon Norbu Wangyal sold 100 serfs to a monk
in the Drigung area for only four silver dollars per serf. If serfs lost
their ability to work, the lord confiscated all their property, including
livestock and farm tools. If they ran away and subsequently were captured,
half their personal belongings were given to the captors while the other
half went to the lords for whom they worked. The runaways then were flogged
or even condemned to death.
The lords used such inhuman tortures as gouging out eyes, cutting off feet
or hands, pushing the condemned person over a cliff, drowning and beheading.
Numerous rebellions occurred over the years against this harsh treatment,
and in 1347 alone (the seventh year of Yuan Emperor Shundi’s reign), more
than 200 serf rebellions occurred in Tibet.
Foreign Aggression
Foreign nations made numerous attempts to invade Tibet and take it away from
China. These were repulsed by Chinese troops and Tibetan fighters. The first
such invasion took place in 1337 when Mohammed Tugluk of Delhi (in what is
now India) sent 100,000 troops into the Himalayan area.
During the second half of the 18th century, troops from the Kingdom of Nepal
invaded Tibet twice in an attempt to expand Nepal’s territory.
During the 19th century, Britain competed with Russia in pouring large sums
of money and many spies into a struggle to see which of the two might
eventually occupy and control Tibet. When the British finally invaded Tibet,
first in 1888 and again in 1903, the Russians were so involved in conflicts
at home that they couldn’t stop the British troops from pushing all the way
to Lhasa. And the Qing government, having recently lost the Opium War to the
British, did nothing either.
The Tibetans, using spears, arrows, catapults and homemade guns, fought
valiantly but to no avail against the invading British army and its big
cannons and machine guns. The British withdrew after imposing “peace” terms
and before the harsh winter began because they feared the Tibetan resistance
would prevent supplies from getting through to the occupying troops, thereby
causing them to starve to death.
The British signed a Convention with China in 1906, the second article of
which stipulated that the British would no longer interfere with the
administration of Tibet and that China had sovereignty over Tibet. But, they
conveniently forgot the terms of this agreement when, the very next year,
they signed a Convention with Russia that specified British “special
interests” in Tibet. It would probably fill a book to detail the many ways
the British from that point on tried to take over Tibet and make it a part
of their colony of India.
Yet, something needs to be said about the conference held at Simla, India,
in 1914. Conference participants included representatives of the new
Nationalist government of China that had overthrown the Qing Dynasty just
two years before, plus Tibetans, and British-Indians. The British had
blackmailed the Chinese into attending by threatening to withdraw their
recognition of the new nationalist government and by saying they would work
out an agreement with the Tibetans alone if the Chinese didn’t participate.
The Simla Conference failed because the Chinese and the 13th Dalai Lama both
opposed the British plan to divide Tibet into two parts (Inner and Outer
Tibet). The conference, however, did produce one document that since has
caused dissension — a map drawn by the British representative Arthur H.
McMahon that never was shown to the Chinese, although it was revealed
secretly to the Tibetan delegates.
McMahon’s map showed a new boundary line that included three districts of
Tibet — Monyul, Loyul, and Lower Zayul — within the territory of
British-India. This so-called “McMahon Line” first became public 23 years
later when it appeared in a printed set of British documents related to the
conference and other diplomatic matters. The McMahon Line became the basis
for India’s failed attempt to take over this part of Tibet in 1962. The
British, who made a great show of their desire to have “independence for
Tibet” at the Simla Conference, in drawing this map were adding 90,000
square kilometers (an area three times the size of Belgium) from Tibet’s
natural territory to their own Indian colony.
During and after World War II and shortly before Britain’s departure from
India, the American Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S., the forerunner of
the C.I.A.), operating under Cold War guidelines, joined the British Foreign
Office as the instigator of the Tibetan “freedom movement.”
Much of what the O.S.S. did in Tibet remains hidden in secret files at C.I.A
headquarters near Washington, D.C., but one of their plots has been widely
reported. It involved a smear campaign launched against the regent who had
been appointed to act for the young 14th Dalai Lama after the 13th Dalai
died in 1933. The regent was hostile to U.S.-British intrigues in Tibet, so
the O.S.S. spread rumors about his alleged incompetence and criminal
activities. Eventually these charges led to the regent’s arrest and murder
in a Tibetan prison. The 14th Dalai Lama’s father subsequently was poisoned
because he was a friend and supporter of the regent.
Tibetan Buddhism
Before considering Tibet today, some words should be said about Tibetan
Buddhism as a religion. The accommodations it made with Bon resulted in its
becoming very different from other forms of Buddhism, particularly from the
more common and much larger Chan Buddhism of China (called Zen in Japan).
Images found in Tibetan Buddhist temples are much fiercer than those found
in other Buddhist temples, and some Tibetan ceremonies that once used human
skulls, human skin, and fresh human intestines clearly reflect the animistic
elements of Bon.
Also, Tibetan Buddhists rely a great deal on prayer wheels, which most other
Buddhists scorn. These are mechanical devices with prayers written on them
that are constantly turned by water or wind so the forces of nature do the
work of sending prayers to heaven. The reincarnation of Living Buddhas,
which is unique to this form of Buddhism, began as early as 1294 with the
Karma Kagyu sect, a sub-sect of the Kagyu sect (known as the black hats). It
then spread to all of Tibetan Buddhism’s other sects and monasteries, but it
didn’t reach the Gelugpa sect (the one that includes the Dalai and Panchen
Lama lines) until after 1419.
From the beginning, the system of selecting Living Buddhas was open to abuse
because it was easy for clever members of the monk selection committee to
manipulate the objects presented to potential child candidates in order to
make sure a particular child was chosen. In the case of the fourth Dalai
Lama, the child selected was the great-grandson of the Mongolian chief Altan
Khan. He was chosen at a time when the Gelugpa sect badly needed the
protection of the Altan Khan’s followers because the Gelugpa were being
persecuted by the older Tibetan sects, who were jealous of the Yellow sect’s
rapid growth.
Tibet Since 1949
In 1949, the Chinese Communists won the revolution and overthrew the
Nationalist government. But they didn’t send their army into Tibet until
October 1951, after they and Tibetan representatives of the 14th Dalai Lama
and 10th Panchen Lama had signed an agreement to liberate Tibet peacefully.
The Dalai Lama expressed his support for this 17-point agreement in a
telegraphed message to Chairman Mao on October 24, 1951. Three years later
the Dalai and Panchen Lamas went together to Beijing to attend the first
National People’s Congress at which the Dalai Lama was elected vice-chairman
of the Standing Committee and the Panchen Lama was elected a member of that
committee. After the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) entered Tibet, they took
steps to protect the rights of the serfs but didn’t, at first, try to
reorganize Tibetan society along socialist or democratic lines. Yet, the
landlords and ruling monks knew that in time, their land would be
redistributed, just as the landlords’ property in the rest of China had been
confiscated and divided among the peasants.
The Tibetan landlords did all they could to frighten the serfs away from
associating with the PLA. But, as the serfs increasingly ignored their
landlords’ wishes and called on the Communists to eliminate the oppressive
system of serfdom, some leaders of the “three great monasteries” (Ganden,
Sera, and Drepung) issued a statement, in the latter half of 1956, demanding
the feudal system be maintained. At this point, the PLA decided the time had
come to confiscate the landlords’ property and redistribute it among the
serfs. The landlords and top-level monks retaliated by announcing, in March
1959, the founding of a “Tibet Independent State,” and about 7,000 of them
assembled in Lhasa to stage a revolt. Included were more than 170 “Khampa
guerrillas” who had been trained overseas by the O.S.S. and air-dropped into
Tibet, according to a former C.I.A. agent. The O.S.S. also gave them machine
guns, mortars, rifles and ammunition.
The PLA put down the revolt in Lhasa within two days, capturing some 4,000
rebels. The rebellion had the support of the Dalai Lama, but not of the
Panchen Lama. After it failed, the Dalai Lama, along with a group of rebel
leaders, fled to India.
The most disruptive event of recent years was the “cultural revolution,”
which lasted from 1966 to 1976. It turned most of Tibet’s farm and herding
areas into giant communes and closed or destroyed many monasteries and
temples, just as it did elsewhere in China. At its end, the communes were
disbanded and the temples and monasteries were repaired and reopened at
government expense.
The idea that most Tibetans are unhappy about what has happened in Tibet and
want independence from China is a product manufactured in the West and
promoted by the dispossessed landlords who fled to India. Indeed, to believe
it is true stretches logic to its breaking point. Who really can believe
that a million former serfs – more than 90% of the population – are unhappy
about having the shackles of serfdom removed? They now care for their own
herds and farmland, marry whomever they wish without first getting their
landlord’s permission, aren’t punished for disrespecting these same
landlords, own their own homes, attend school, and have relatively modern
hospitals, paved roads, airports and modern industries.
An objective measure of this progress is found in the population statistics.
The Tibetan population has doubled since 1950, and the average Tibetan’s
life span has risen from 36 years at that time to 65 years at present. Of
course some Tibetans are unhappy with their lot, but a little investigation
soon shows that they are, for the most part, people from families who lost
their landlord privileges. There is plenty of evidence that the former serfs
tell a quite different story.
You will find some Tibetans who hate the Hans (the majority nationality of
China) and some Hans who hate the Tibetans, a matter of ordinary ethnic
prejudice – something any American should be able to understand. But, this
doesn’t represent a desire for an independent Tibet any more than
black-white hostilities in Washington, D.C., Detroit, or Boston represent a
desire on the part of most African-Americans to form a separate nation.
Tibetan Culture Today
The final part of the Tibetan myth has to do with Tibetan culture, which the
Dalai Lama’s supporters say has been crushed by “the Chinese takeover of
Tibet.” Culture is an area that requires great care because it is fraught
with biases and self-fulfilling judgments. The growth of television in
America, for example, is cited as killing American culture by some and as
enhancing it by others.
Regarding the field of literature, prior to 1950 Tibetans could point with
pride to only a few fine epics that had been passed down through the
centuries. Now that serfs can become authors, many new writers are producing
works of great quality; persons such as the poet Yedam Tsering and the
fiction writers Jampel Gyatso, Tashi Dawa, and Dondru Wangbum. As for art,
Tibet for centuries had produced nothing but repetitious religious designs
for temples. Now there are many fine artists, such as Bama Tashi, who has
been hailed in both France and Canada as a great modern artist who combines
Tibetan religious themes with modern pastoral images. Tibet now has more
than 30 professional song and dance ensembles, Tibetan opera groups, and
other theatrical troupes where none existed before 1950. No, Tibetan culture
is not dead; it is flourishing as never before.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Tony P4: Who wrote the second part of the text in #40 above?
The original web page quoted in #41 is here:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/elle/blog/2008/03/06/myth_and_reality_of_tibet
I think he gives a good description of the Chinese perspective. I will of course doubt that as much as I doubt DL’s (I have a book about Tibet’s history coauthored by him, but I haven’t read it yet), especially because he too closely follows some Chinese narratives (even putting the words cultural revolution between quotation marks, a silly practice if you ask me) and seems very intent to shoot down Western ideas about Tibet (the descriptions of which I, frankly speaking, think are exaggerated).
I mean – how many people seriously believe DL is the leader of _world buddhism_? (Alright, if there are, then I’m… well… flabbergasted).
As for who gets help from what countries (Western or not), all contributions Soviet gave to China should be accounted for too, shouldn’t they? Was China a lackey of a foreign power? Is it a shameful part of China’s history?
November 15th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
@wuming: “However you think you are justified in sneering at whatever latest fallacies of CCP, they are not the ones that drive this world into a f*cking ditch, ruins the lives of millions all over. Pardon me for straying off the topics”
No problem. I’ve always had faith in the CCP’s economic policies since Deng. This is the one area where I think they’ve basically been doing the right thing the whole time, which is pretty amazing, considering how experts in other countries have told them to make the RMB freely convertible, etc. Maybe there is something to the 科学发展观 , after all.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
There are major flaws in the economical policy that I posted before.
1. Quality control. Problems with toys to start, food, and what’s next. Without the government inspection and punishment, every one is trying to make a quick buck. That’s the major reason besides global recession why thousands of factories are closing down.
2. Air/water pollution. Same as above. The price of jobs and making a buck is too high.
3. Corruption. Related as above. Hope it is local only. With one-party system it is hard to fix if the central government were involved extensively.
There are many, many other problems… Hope they will fix the problems before they rise. The system has to be tweaked extensively.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I wrote the second part for fun.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
#36 Raj,
You should check out the BBC documentary Shadow Circus CIA in Tibet. In the documentary he says that violence is justified if it brings peace. We heard the same story from Bush in terms of Iraq.
Comparing the situation with Tibet with Apartheid in South Africa are 2 different things. So you can’t compare the 2. I don’t think you should describe about the Tibetans are the good guys while China are the bad guys regarding the Tibet situation. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is probably the best way to describe the Dalai Lama. Unfortunately you only think things of black and white.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
@Tenzin #33,
I personally respect everything you wrote. In fact, I even agree with the spirit of most things you wrote. On my end, I was just being honest in my post in #32 – making it clear that I truly distrust the DL and the exiles.
You asked “So why this show of having a discussion at all. That is exactly the attitude of the CCP with regard to contacts with the Tibetans in exile.”
First, the discussion is not for me per se – it’s for everyone who happen to come by this board. For now, I think it’s timely for people to voice their opinions on what options each side has in moving forward … given the current negotiations stalemate. I also did not write this post necessarily to resolve the differences between the exiles and CCP (that’s too hard for now…). I just want people (on both sides) to take a breath and evaluate where we all stand.
I wrote #31 to show that fear can produce hatred which can in turn end up hurting we Chinese – Hans and Tibetans together – as a family. I wrote about fear and hate – so we can ruminate on it to see if it’s worth having fear and hate – whether we might be “shooting ourselves in the foot.” I warned about letting our love of country become a cause for “betraying our Tibetan brothers and sisters….”
I had hoped my message to be interpreted as a page turner – a mix of hope and fear – one that turns from fear to trust … and perhaps more understanding… but I guess that didn’t come out…
November 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
@Raj #36, Hemulen #39,
You both quoted me writing:
And cited this type of sentiment as root of mass terrorism or even genocide.
I guess I need to be much much more careful in what I write. I wrote this in the context of the “concentration camp” quote from pug_star – not mass killing.
In WWII, it was fear (under the guise of national security) that drove the Americans to isolate and “quarantine” the Japanese. The internment was authorized by executive order and sanctioned by the US Supreme Court. Such “sacrifice” of a minority turned out one of the most tragic and shameful periods in American history. Not only was it not justified in terms of civil rights, the Japanese Americans would also turn out to be among the most patriotic of Americans…
By aligning myself with that awful episode, I was really trying to show everyone that – yes I love my country – but what if our love of country is becoming a cause for smothering the country’s multicultural identity to death?
China is more about dynamic multiculturalism than monolithic police state.
(note: I’m not saying China is a police state today, but our fear can definitely make it one someday)
As long as the exiles are a threat to Chinese unity, I will strike my hardline stance (I’m just being honest). But there is also this creepy feeling (I admit) that such hardline stance is not what “Chineseness” is all about – that “fear” – if uncontrolled – may destroy at many levels basic fabrics of our society.
That was in essence what my post was supposed to be about…
P.S. Hemulen, whatever you think of me personally, please don’t let that stop you from joining the conversation. Regardless of my opinions, there are a lot of truly good people contributing – and even more good people reading – on this board…
As Jerry has mentioned before, my writing has no more standing than anyone else’s. I try to take a clear stance whenever possible so it can be attacked if need be. I don’t hedge myself unless I am truly confused…
If we do believe in free speech, when all opinions are expressed, we should have faith that “truth” and “understanding” will eventually emerge … .
November 15th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
@Raj:
“…..turn their culture into a Chinese Disneyland.”
If it has to be a Disneyland, whether there is one that’s well managed and making money matters much more than it’s a Chinese Disney or a Tibet Disney land or a Walt Disney land or whatever you want to call it.
A society as whole always moves forward, not backward. Political advance is one part, economy advance is another part. Money matters.
A lot of people outside of China who have a much better living standard than people inside China often ignore the importance of economy situation. Many remote moutain areas in the province of Yunnan have been relatively left behind of the economy boom in recent years. Many west people who went there were so excited to see how well their cultures are preserved and feel those people are SO LUCKY compare with the rest of the China. However, these people themselves, many still living on less than $1 a day, feel completely the opposite. They feel they are so UNLUCKY because they are left out of the economy boom.
Why the difference? Because you never had to live on $1 a day. Culture is important. Freedom of speech is very important. However for a lot these people who live on $1 a day, whether they can get $2 a day tomorrow, whether they have a road to prosperity that can eventually lead them to $10 a day and more is much more important. Poverty itself is a big problem, and that is the mother of a whole row of other problems. For many people who in the west that wish to help, especially for those who have never experienced poverty themselves, understand and respect that is very crucial for improving the situation.
“The Chinese government is never going to allow figures that show a majority of Tibetans are unhappy to be released, so such transparency is a pipe-dream.”
I am not asking you to take the PRC’s number. 10 years ago many would have not believed that PRC will ever allow foreign journalist into China to conduct interview/survey independently. 10 years later, that is happening. You can now get impendent numbers about how average Chinese feels about their government. Tibet is still off limits now. But things move forward most of the time. So give it some time.
@Hemulen:
I can’t agree more. Two additional points that I want to make:
1. China itself is still a very poor nation on a per capital base. So it is not practical for the Chinese government to give everything to Tibetan and while not affording the same to Han Chinese. Tibetans already have many benefits over Han Chinese. In recently years, there have been many frauds where Han Chinese try to claim themselves as Tibetans in order to claim those benefits. In short, such benefits cause tensions the other way around;
2. Policy is one thing. Execution is another thing. You have to get both right to make it work. China has made numerous mistakes on both levels. But execution is a much larger problem for developing country because they are carried out by low level officials, most of which are not well educated (or they would be living in the rich cities!). Usually what they should do is a much clearer issue than the real problem, which is whether it’s doable giving the circumstance and whether it causes more problems than it solves.
November 15th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Sorry, I do not consider myself Chinese. Let me make that very, very clear. I hope I have that much right to decide. If you are saying that we are all part of a family in the sense of human family, I have absolutely no problem. I am not Chinese just like you are not Japanese.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
@Allen
As long as the exiles are a threat to Chinese unity, I will strike my hardline stance (I’m just being honest). But there is also this creepy feeling (I admit) that such hardline stance is not what “Chineseness” is all about – that “fear” – if uncontrolled – may destroy at many levels basic fabrics of our society.
I thank you for being honest with us about your feelings and fears, but I wonder if it ever crossed your mind that if the worst comes to the worst, and Tibetans are not willing to be part of China, perhaps the only decent thing for a true Chinese patriot to do is to allow them their right to self-determination. If a relationship has turned abusive – despite good efforts to mediate – a peaceful divorce may be the only solution.
The mentality that you have evinced here – that you rather see the destruction of Tibet or the internment of all Tibetans, than allowing it to go independent – is a recipe for disaster. You are playing with the idea of internment of Tibetans – should the fail to comply to the idea of Chineseness that you have allotted them – and think that things would just stop there. This is a slippery slope and when you lock people up because of their ethnicity, you are enabling outright genocide or what ever you like to call it. You may not have the stomach to do it, but there are other people out there who may be willing to take over the keys to the camp and finish the process. Just read what people say here and on other blogs. Just take a look at the unbelievable levels of violence that the CCP has sponsored – both before and after the Cultural Revolution.
The Japanese-Americans were lucky to be interned by a government that actually had a constitution that empowered them to seek legal recourse. Tibetans in China do not have that luxury. If things in China would go so bad that Tibetans get interned, it is very likely that this is end of Tibetans as a people. The paroxysms of physical, psychological and verbal violence that have been unleashed by the CCP in China since 1949 has given birth to a very toxic form of nationalism. If you are concerned by the fate of Tibetans – as human beings and not just as pawns in your imaginary Chinese family – you should consider the possibility that they may have to be protected from that nationalism. You should consider the possibility that you parroting this nationalism may do China more harm than good, from a human perspective, not a nationalistic perspective.
I don’t know what I think of you as a person, I’m only responding to the words on this panel and it’s not fun anymore. I’m fed up reading people thinking aloud about mass persecution completely unprovoked and then saying “Ooops!” You are a grown up and just a minute of reflection before hitting the “post” button should give you the time to realize what kind of impact that kind of rhetoric would have on a Tibetan – or a Jew for that matter. I don’t question your right to voice your opinion, but when this blog is turning into platform that plays with the idea of concentration camps or genocide for the umpteenth time, I think it is time calling it quits.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
@tenzin #50, point taken. I have nothing to add …
November 15th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
@Hemulen, #51, sorry … I guess I just don’t express myself well. I don’t think I have ever advocated mass persecution. About self determination, I assume you have read the ample comments I’ve written on the subject but simply disagree?
Regarding nationalism, this is as succinctly as I can put it. If we have issues of competing nationalism – we can only solve it through a civil war (if you want to call that mass persecution, or genocide, then so be it). If we have issues of cultural preservation, of course, there are a lot we can discuss.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
@Allen
If we have issues of competing nationalism – we can only solve it through a civil war (if you want to call that mass persecution, or genocide, then so be it).
You did it again. First you apologize for being misunderstood and then you rephrase essentially the same idea in the next paragraph. There are numerous examples of nations achieving independence through other methods than civil war. War doesn’t just happen, it is willed. But you have made very clear where you stand in this matter. Over and out.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
@Allen
“I wonder if China’s “Tibet problem” really is simply a PR problem with the West.”
I think your statement is partially correct. I’ve noticed that European immigrants use different verbiage when describing European invasion of other people’s land. For instance, European immigrants are almost always called “settlers”, as if the land was unoccupied and they were there to settle down, to cultivate it, to make it better, whereas I rarely see the term “settler” apply to non-Europeans and for Han-Chinese in Tibet, they are more or less always described in the western Press as illegal invaders.
The terms people of European descent use to describe their own conquest of land tend to be benign terms (for example: settlers, pioneers, westward expansion) whereas the terms used to describe Chinese conquest of land are almost without exception very negative (illegal invaders, destroyers of culture). Not that there has not been soul searching within European immigrant communities of the impact of their invasion on native populations, but even so, there is an overwhelming sense that they are “Australians”, they are “Americans”, they are the pioneers and it is THEIR land.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Pug @46
In the documentary he says that violence is justified if it brings peace.
In theory that is correct – which is why we went to war with Germany in 1939. But that doesn’t mean he is saying Tibetans should resort to violence. His official stance is still that they should give peace a chance. Who knows – maybe he will change his stance if he thinks there is no hope or will let other people push for it and not overrule them. But currently he is a break on violence, whatever his detractors may like to think.
Comparing the situation with Tibet with Apartheid in South Africa are 2 different things. So you can’t compare the 2.
I wasn’t comparing them directly, I was saying that international support for someone does not make them a bad person. You were implying that the Dalai Lama should be regarded with suspicion by Chinese because foreign governments give him their support, when clearly that’s not a logical position to take.
I don’t think you should describe about the Tibetans are the good guys while China are the bad guys regarding the Tibet situation.
I think I’ve already made it clear that isn’t what I think. Just because I say that Tibetans are treated poorly doesn’t mean they’re right and you’re wrong in every respect.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is probably the best way to describe the Dalai Lama.
If you can show me that the Dalai Lama has orchestrated violence in the last, I don’t know, 20 years then fine. Otherwise that’s just a way of trying to justify Chinese painting him as the anti-Christ.
Unfortunately you only think things of black and white.
Quite the reverse, I’m the one trying to get Chinese to realise that he is their best hope at resolving this peacefully. The only one seeing things in black and white appears to be you because you assume that if I say anything good about him and criticise China’s handling of the situation it means I have a 100-0 view of things.
++++
Allen @48
Yes, Chinese do let their fear of Tibetans affect them. But for some I think it’s also a deliberate attempt to shift the blame on to non-Chinese. I don’t understand why but I often think there’s a severe lack of introspection in China, or perhaps that they get so single-minded about things that they refuse to accept they could be wrong (maybe they’re the same thing). Why is this? Indoctrination at school? Censorship? Xenophobia? A collective mentality? Answers on a postcard….
I think one problem about people’s fears is that people like yourself who are concerned about this sort of thing don’t challenge the nationalists either in real life or on the internet. They prefer to keep their heads down and not draw attention to themselves. Well they’d better hope the mob doesn’t turn their attention on them one day.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I just came across this blog and to #51 Hemulen, Thank you for your eloquent and moving piece. As a Tibetan who has lived and have relatives in Tibet and now living in-exile, you expressed so well how perilous the minority Tibetans are against the Han Chinese rule in Tibet. Not just the CCP government but also the majority of ultra-nationalistic, Han chauvinistic citizens.
I also want to thank Allen for his candour in expressing his feelings that ironically generated this beutiful piece by Hemulen. This sentiment by Allen is so common amongst the Chinese including the ‘moderate’ like Allen who have been brought up with the Chinese version of the history of China/Tibet in their education system that produced citizens that are so dangerously nationalistic in China and in Tibet’s case so one-sided information/history that many are simply not true. I don’t mean to be sarcastic but I truly believe that Allen is a moderate but the majority of the Chinese population are far more nationalistic and less tolerant then Allen’s views on Tibet especially the younger Chinese under 30 generation. It’s not hard to get sense from other blogs such as ‘kill all Tibetans’ and recent pro-China protests that happened around the world and in China.
It’s very very scary times for the Tibetans in Tibet. At a whim, the PRC CCP with support from their citizens could punish the Tibetans without any recourse and knowledge from outside. Tibet is still lock-down with heavy repression and police presence which is even admitted by one of the top officials last week.
I don’t want share too much of my personal experience but one of my cousins, who I met last year in Lhasa who is a monk at Ramoche Temple was arrested in April after the March protests and along with five other monks have literally disappeared. My aunt and relatives have searched at all the nearby prisons in Lhasa and could not locate him. I am not making this up and no need to in this forum but that’s a personal experience of one Tibetan living in-exile who has directly in-touch with family members in Tibetan and in this case being directly affected. They are hundreds of cases like him in the vast Tibetan plateau since the March protests that Tibetans have disappeared.
So I am NEVER been so fearful of the Tibetan people in Tibet as now. Knowing that Tibetan people to be generally stubborn, courageous, fiercely independent that they will continue to resist and will meet the wrath of this incredible powerful CCP govt. This more dangerous for the fact of it being one-party, non-transparent, repressive with a long history and absolutely no-hesitation of using force and brutality to suppress dissent or anyone who is considered a threat to ‘national sovereignty’.
I had truly believed in the ‘middle-way’ solution as proposed by HH Dalai Lama to resolve the Tibet-China problem but now come to the conclusion like Dalai Lama that China is not sincere and will not make any concession. The hardliners within the PRC have won over and control the Tibet policy. This is further corroborated by a an article by forement Tibet-China expert Wang Lixiong that PRC CCP will not make any concession and these discussions are just meant to be end of itself with no solution. HH Dalai Lama is the hope for every Tibetans and he is only person who can convince Tibetans to become citizens of China willingly. Any other person would be considered a traitor. I am afraid to say this reality when a person like Allen and as mentioned millions of other greater nationalist will simple NOT accept this reality. With the collapse of this dialogue for a peaceful solution due to hardline police of PRC, it’s scary times for Tibet.
Once again, thanks to Hemulen and other like minded for your support for freedom, democracy, truth, individual rights, decency …
Regards, Lobsang
Here is Wang Lixiong’s article. They are many more others he wrote.
[This essay was written in January 2007. This is not to say that he is
prophetic, but that the facts speak for themselves: "Beijing sees the
talks as an end in themselves. They do not need any resolution, and
do not want any resolution, just the process is enough. From the
start, their objective was to prolong the process as long as
possible."]
Tibet-China Talks Dead-End
by Wang Lixiong
In 2000, when I met Mr. Lodi Gyari in the United States, he asked me
what I thought about the possibility of Tibet and China resuming
dialogue. I expressed pessimism. I said that face-to-face talks are
not so simple, first there must be an agreed agenda, what are you
trying to achieve, and can this objective be achieved? If the Beijing
side is in no position to make any concessions, then it is clear that
the talks will be for talking’s sake and reach a dead end. Because I
don’t see the Communist Party’s intention or ability to make
concessions, I don’t believe that the basic prerequisites for
fruitful dialogue exist.
But subsequent developments proved me wrong. The dialogue resumed,
and are into their fifth round. But the outcome is just as I
suspected. Beijing has made no concessions, and will not make any
concessions. When I predicted that the talks would not even begin, I
mistakenly believed that the intention of both sides would be to
resolve the outstanding problems. The Tibet side of course has this
hope. What I was not anticipating is that Beijing sees the talks as
an end in themselves. They do not need any resolution, and do not
want any resolution, just the process is enough. From the start,
their objective was to prolong the process as long as possible.
This is a clever strategy. It can delay more sanctions from the
international community, and quiet the criticism from other countries
accusing China of refusing to even talk. Aren’t we talking now? We
just have not reached a consensus. And this consensus will never be
reached. Round after round of talks, on the surface things look much
better than before, I listen to whatever you have to say, but we
don’t reach any agreement on concrete action. In any case Tibet is in
our possession, talking once or twice a year is no skin off our
backs, we can talk endlessly. What is not endless is the Dalai Lama’s
lifespan and the Tibetan people’s patience.
I believe that this is the present state of affairs in the
Tibet-China talks. The Tibetan side should have no illusions. Under
these circumstances, except for time passing, these talks will
accomplish nothing. The old cliche: “Tibetans will eventually lose
hope” may finally come true under these circumstances.
But if you ask me if talking is better than not talking, I say that
talking is better because there is always hope that sudden political
change can take place in China. Although there are no overt signs of
this at present, history often surpasses our expectations. At least
if the Tibetan side keeps talking it will maintain the moral high
ground in the eyes of the international community, and preserve for
Tibet’s future the potential for a justly deserved outcome.
Just as hope should never all be placed on one pillar, other options
should always be explored.
What Beijing should note clearly is that the strategy it is utilizing
toward Tibet is exactly the one that Taiwan is using toward it.
Taiwan can continue delaying any substantive resolution to their
talks until its independence is a de facto reality.
What Beijing does not like being done to it in its talks with Taiwan,
it conversely should not do to Tibet in its talks with them.
Beijing January 2007
November 15th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
@Jane55
Ahh. . . the problem is one of racism and lack of introspection by people of European descent.
Glad we’ve sorted that one out.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
When no citizen ‘disappears’, we have an acceptable democracy in China. We’ve a long way to go.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Allen, you are not the first majority to make such threats towards a smaller group. What you forget is that Tibetans have resisted and will continue to resist and fight for our freedom. For the past five decades, China has still not been able to completely stifle the hope of freedom in Tibet. If that goes against your nationalistic/jingoistic fervour, so be it. China and Chinese people talk about humiliation and colonisation by foreign powers yet it continues to do the same to another nation.
The protest across Tibet, not just in Lhasa but also outside “TAR”, by monks and nuns, men and women, youth and even by Tibetans in Beijing showed that Tibetans are not happy inside Tibet. This is not due to some PR problem. Tibetans have genuine issues with the Chinese government and unless that is resolved, no amount of spin doctoring will work. What the reaction of the Chinese govt made clear to many Tibetans is that solution will not come with PRC but without the PRC. Before anyone jump the gun here, the issue is not just economics but the Tibetans having no say in their own future which can be seen quite clearly by the attitude of many Chinese here.
The present Dalai Lama will pass away some day but the Tibetan issue will remain unless Tibetans get what we believe is our right. It will be foolish to think that the Tibetan people will stop when the present Dalai Lama passes away. And then there will surely be a 15th Dalai Lama.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
@Lobsang / #57
A Chinese co-worker asked me to visit this site. I really don’t know much about China or Tibet. Pardon my ignorance, but I read U.S. papers always with a grain of salt.
The average American knows – the 3.14 Lahsa riot was coordinated to coincide with the Olympic torch relay protests to generate maximum PR for the Tibet issue. I believe the Dalai Lama is responsible because he is the leader of the exhiles. You might argue that it is the more extreme exhiles who were responsible – but that only means the Dalai Lama is not as representative. If the Dalai Lama secretly condoned all these activities, that makes it all the worst – he is hypocritical.
The Dalai Lama has being on a path to build international pressure against China for a long time, so I believe both sides have given up on the talks for just as long.
I read an article a ways back by some guy in London – Patrick French or something – arguing the Dalai Lama’s cause has been hijacked by NGO’s like the Campaign for Tibet etc.. The Dalai Lama will need to reign these groups back in. To me, that’d be the best use of his energy.
Sorry to say, but if your cousin was involved in the looting, burning, or even in the killings of innocent people on 3.14, its likely he is locked up some where. My take is that the Chinese police made sure enough evidence was collected before they moved in.
Anyways, the only reason India continues providing shelter to the exhiles is because China supports Pakistan. But if relation between India and Pakistan normalizes, I think the exhiles will get an even tougher time. Peace between India and China – 1/2 the people on this planet – is actually very important – lot more so than the few of you – sorry to say.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:09 am
@Raj 56
If you are comparing Dalai Lama to someone of the stature of the likes of Ghandi or MLK, you are wrong. Someone like MLK would condemn violence from anyone including the black panthers. However, the Dalai Lama doesn’t come out and condemn violent actions from the Tibetans, either in the Lhasa voilence at 3/14 and he even encourged the 1959 uprising. If the Dalai Lama wants to work out a deal with the Chinese, why not work with them directly (not just with envoys) instead of pandering to foreign leaders to point out the China as the bad guy? People like MLK or Ghandi work in a grass roots level, whereas the Dalai Lama never talk directly to the Chinese about his ‘peace’ message. So he is not the best Ambassador to represent to Tibetans or to this so called ‘peace’ process.
Comparing the Chinese to the Nazi Germany is totally false, comparing to how the Tibetans treat its citizens before the Chinese ‘invasion’ in 1951.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:11 am
@m.wolfe68: “Sorry to say, but if your cousin was involved in the looting, burning, or even in the killings of innocent people on 3.14, its likely he is locked up some where. My take is that the Chinese police made sure enough evidence was collected before they moved in.”
Maybe they did, but my personal take is (shouldn’t it be about what happens to be true, not opinions?) is that authorities here take people on the slightest suspicion, and it’s not like you can sue them for it. I know this guy who got into a lot of trouble before because police suspected him to be a member of FLG, and it took him almost a year to be cleared of charges. It wasn’t that the investigation was done professionally, either.
Another thing worth notice is that demonstrations began at 3.10, not 3.14. There you have four more days to count on, during which there was no burning, looting or killing. It’s because Chinese media didn’t report this that it looked like everything suddenly erupted that day.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:23 am
@tenzin
I agree with you that a lot of Tibetans are not happy with the Chinese rule. But I wish you can belive that not everybody, not every Tibetans are like you that put your ideology/religious issue above all others. And while you pursue your goals, you are damaging others, many of your Tibetans brothers and sisters’ goal to take a road to material prosperity. Obviously the root of the problem is not the economy here. But economy is one of the important factors that I wish you would not ignore when making up your choices.
I also agree with you that the attitude of a lot of Chinese does indicate a problem and changes are indeed needed. But taking the street with a goal of being independent is unfortunately not a workable solution here, let alone that even if you made it, you still have to figure out how to feed all your Tibetan people, assuming that you won’t be a puppy state that lives on west aid. The road to independence is economically not doable and politically not doable. You have tried for 50 years and it went nowhere. You can continue trying 100 years and I doubt anything else will come out of it. Give it a few decades of peace and China, along with Tibet will progress into a much more matured society and only then both sides can learn how to better understand and respect each other.
@Wukailong:
You are asking China to conduct “professional investigation”. China could not give professional investigation to whole lot of issues, not just to Tibetans. You need to understand the whole situation there. China can not afford its average citizen a life like the west, it can not afford that to Tibetans either. The country as a whole is making a lot of progress, but it’s still a very poor country. Why? Ultimiately it comes down to the people. In another word, people there are not as well educated or skilled as you are. President Hu can declare “no one is above the law” while the local police officer still doesn’t even have a clue about what laws are out there. Will it be good if the country is ruled by law? Absolutely. Will the country ruled by law tomorrow with so many such “unprofessional” police officers? Absolutely not. It will take time for them to be educated or die out. In the mean time, injustice, I might add a lot of them, will happen.
So many of you believe that you have a better way to run the country. Just like a seed can not grow into a tree and bear you fruit overnight, no country can change from a developing country into a developed country overnight either. In the mean time, you just have to stop hoping the tree will give you fruit now. While the tree is also silently hoping you won’t chop it down because it doesn’t have any fruit yet.
Peaceful demonstration has been very well reported by media all over the world. Nobody is trying to hide that part. But just because you went through a few peaceful days before you went violent does not excuse your violence. When you go the street killing, burning and looting, you will have to be stopped and locked up.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:45 am
I know some will slam me again for this … but I will say what I think is the truth.
Some people here would like to compare the DL to Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela or Gandhi. But in reality, the DL cannot hold a candle to any of these giants of peace and justice.
All of the three above mentioned are leaders of peace who lived within the society they are trying to promote justice. They lived side by side with the people they claim to be oppressed and preached message of peace in the face of actual dangers.
The DL is none of this. Instead helping his Tibetan brothers and sisters achieve peace and justice, he prefers to play geopolitical games on the international stage. Instead of helping to build a more open and better China, he jets around the world drumming up anti-China feelings using Western rhetoric, flying false flags of “genocide” and then when disproved, “cultural genocide.”
I wish to welcome DL back to China as a true brother some day. But I know I am only living in my own fantasy. The DL does not care about China. He does not care about coming together to build a better society together.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:52 am
@tenzin 60
Maybe you are thinking of the perspective from a nationalistic Tibetian. Perhaps there are alot of Tibetans who are arrested but China does have a policy that they go after people who wants to destabilize the government; that includes Tibetans, Muslims and even Han Chinese. Muslims get arrested for talking to foreign reporters. Han Chinese get arrested if they want to protest about some factory producing pollutants. While most Westerners thinks Tibetans are repressed by the Chinese government, most Chinese citizens are less sympathetic because Tibetans want to get ’special treatment.’
Another thing, if you think that there is prejudice of Tibetans could not leave China, you are wrong. In the documentary that Allen provided, he explains of a wealthy Tibetan Hotel owner who was able to go to Nepal legally. It is true for the Han Chinese, I know some people whom my wife works with who has gotten grief in the visa process to the US. The Chinese government wants to make sure that these Han Chinese citizens are not intending to leave China permanently. Some of these people have to show that they actually have their bank account still in China, if you know what I mean.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Wow, this thread had gotten completely out of hand.
I’m glad to see it’s starting to calm down again.
Lobsang, tenzin, thanks for your posts. I really appreciate hearing your perspective. I’m sure I’ll have a lot of questions for both of you.
jc, I think most of what you said was quite reasonable and you put forth a fair argument. I just wanted to comment on one thing you mentioned.
When you said that with an increased economy, everyone benefits; I thought back to the 1950s in America when the economy was booming. Did African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans or Native Americans benefit? I think if you asked them, they would say no. The “system” might make it seem like they could but unlike most here, I’ve actually done business in China.
If a Tibetan wants to build a hotel, he needs financing from the banks; he needs all sorts of government approvals, etc. And to get those, he would need to hand out “hong bao” to a variety of officials, he would need to have guanxi with various authorities, he would need to host elaborate banquets for government officials, etc. Where does he get the initial funding to do this? How does he develop those contacts? China’s system might seem complex if you’re new to it but once you get used to the procedures, it’s pretty consistent no matter where you go. When dealing with the non-Tibetans there, I’m pretty sure the Tibetans are at a distinct disadvantage in these matters. Lobsang, can you add your thoughts to this since you lived there?
Only a Republican like Reagan could have made peace with the Soviets; a Democrat would have been labeled “soft on communism”. Only a Democrat like Clinton could have balanced the budget and reformed welfare; a Republican would have been “pandering to the rich”. That is why only someone like the DL can negotiate for the Tibetans. From everything I’ve heard, the vast majority of Tibetans both in and outside Tibet believe in him. Many people on this thread have said that China should not negotiate with the DL or his representatives. Isn’t who represents the Tibetans for the Tibetans themselves to decide? If not, how can that person have any legitimacy?
It’s a very old technique for governments to promote an outside “bogeyman” to its people as the prime instigator of their troubles and their true enemy. It makes the government indispensable to the people to “solve” their problems or “destroy” the enemy. Hitler did it with the Jews, Gipsies and Slavs; the Japanese did it with the “west” that held their development down, the States and the Soviets did it with each other in the cold war, the Arabs do it with the Jews, Hindus with Moslems, etc. Is China promoting the DL as this outside “bogeyman” so they have someone in particular to blame for any difficulties there?
I’ve seen the Tibetans referred to in this blog as our “brothers and sisters” and that most of them want to live in peace inside China, and appreciate the economic development and benefits that China has given them in the last 20 years. If that is so, then why does Lobsang write “Tibet is still lock-down with heavy repression and police presence which is even admitted by one of the top officials last week.”? Why do you need this if almost everyone sides with the government? There is a disconnect here…
If the exiles are completely separated from the Tibetans themselves, how can they have so much control over them? It seems many on this thread blame the DL, other exiles and foreign governments for whatever takes place in Tibet. But then I hear that most Tibetans like being part of China. Why would people who like being part of China rebel against the government? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Tibet is referred to as an “autonomous” region. I looked up the definition of autonomous and it said, “Self-governing with respect to local or internal affairs: an autonomous region of a country.” So my question is, how can you call Tibet an autonomous region if Tibetans don’t govern their own region? How can Tibet be an autonomous region if people from other regions are allowed to emigrate there without the approval of the Tibetans themselves? Who is the party chief for Xizang province, a Tibetan or a non-Tibetan? If you agree to give a region their autonomy but don’t follow through on your agreement, how can they trust you?
The DL has said many times he wants real autonomy for Tibet within China. Many on this thread have referred to statements he made in 1959. That’s almost 50 years ago! Outside of Jerry and I, most of you weren’t even born back then. Are the Chinese saying they can’t trust a guy because he changed his mind from a statement he made almost 50 years ago? Would they put the same onus on their own government? If I remember correctly, in 1959 China was smack dab in the middle of the “Great Leap Forward”. Are some of you telling me you can’t understand why someone back then would not want to be a part of a country with that policy?
As we are wont to say on this blog, maybe both sides ought to chill a bit. Yes, some people rioted earlier this year. If I remember correctly, some people rioted in Guizhou recently because of the rape and death of a high school student whose supposed perpetrators were let go by the police because two of them were related to police officials. There were burning vehicles and government buildings, etc. Does that mean that all the people living in that city need to be rounded up and live on reservations? Doesn’t it sound absurd when put this way?
Allen, I’ve finished three of the six BBC episodes on Tibet. I thought the incident with the taxi driver was interesting, and also the two approaches used by the pregnant wife. That incident with the hotel sign and how it was handled reminded me of my time in China. I want to finish all of them before I comment or ask questions. Thanks for posting them. Oh, and I have to say I’m glad you explained that comment. The way you wrote it definitely had an extremely negative connotation. It just didn’t sound like you so I figured you’d explain it and glad you did.
I read Foster Stockwell’s article but when I got to the part when he said, “The landlords and top-level monks retaliated by announcing, in March 1959, the founding of a “Tibet Independent State,” and about 7,000 of them assembled in Lhasa to stage a revolt. Included were more than 170 “Khampa guerrillas” who had been trained overseas by the O.S.S. and air-dropped into Tibet, according to a former C.I.A. agent. The O.S.S. also gave them machine guns, mortars, rifles and ammunition.”
The O.S.S was disbanded in 1945, a month and a half after the end of the war. He also makes mention of the O.S.S. operating in Tibet after WWII, which again is impossible. If he can’t get this right, how can I trust the rest of his research?
@Wukailong #30: I hear you, but the way he put it used an illogical fallacy. If this blog was not open to Tibetans then a complaint would be justified, but since it is open to all it is not really valid. I’m very glad we have a few commenting now and I’ve love to hear from more. What michael could have done was let his Tibetan friends know about the thread and encouraged them to join. That would have been the responsible action and contributed a lot more to everyone’s understanding.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Allen, #65:
Mandela? This man was, to quote Wikipedia, “the leader of the ANC’s armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK), which he co-founded.” I am not a pacifist, so I would look at the context before condemning him, but I’m sure that if Mandela had been resisting the Chinese government, you would tell us that he’s the devil in the flesh.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:57 am
Dalai Lama and his followers should get over it. It’s time for them to come out and recorgnize China’s soverignty over Tibet. Dalai lost two wars since 1950s (one with the help from CIA). It’s time for them to put aside their utopia and move forward to 21th century.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:57 am
For #61, I suggest you learn more about Tibet as you admitted you are seriously lacking some knowledge and not just obtain information about Tibet and history from Xinhua, CCTV sources, especially the root causes of the March protests and Tibetan grievances. CCTV showed wonderful footages of riots in Lhasa as if it’s English football hoolganism but discussing the root cause is banned just as grievances of Tianneman Squre, Earthquake victims etc. Lhasa was one of over 100 protests that occurred across the Tibetan plateau. Again my friends, need to have some critical thinking skills and don’t be afraid to listen and learn the Tibetan side.
For the record, my cousin did not participate in any of the violence that you saw on CCTV. He like thousands others engaged in the peaceful protests and calling for ‘return of Dalai Lama’ and freedom for Tibet. At Ramoche Temple they were also calling for the release the monks of Sera and Drepung monasteries who were arrested a day earlier. As # 63 correctly mentioned, the protests started on March 10. You know why as every Tibetan knows that’s the Tibetan uprising day when China invaded Tibet and Tibetans rose on March 10, 1959. Then PLA shelled Potala and killed 86,000 Tibetans according to the Chinese source. So every March 10 is time-bomb that don’t have to be planned as Tibetans from all over know that date. For detail accounts of the March 10th protests in Lhasa, read Robbie Barnett’s excellent article (search google) which was also in NYTimes Kristoff’s blog.
I see this monolithic views by majority of the Chinese on Tibet, which many are consistent with the PRC’s propaganda departments and Xinhua’s editorial. Of course the standard views on Tibet as always part of China, old Tibet was slavery and the PRC CCP liberated the Tibetans, Tibetans are ingratitude people despite all the fovourable polices and billions of grant from the central govt.
One fact I will mention is that Tibet had lived side-by-side peacefully for thousands of years and seen many emperors and rulers of China. At no time in the history, that Tibet was under direct, absolute rule by China as now, which means Tibetans had always been governed themselves and had the freedom. Sure they were influences from the Mongol (Yuan dynasty) and Manchus (Qing dynasty) but it was peaceful and coexisted quite well, where the ruling Mongol and Manchu emperors became Tibetan buddhist converts. That’s huge influence of Tibetan culture on the Chinese ruling class. Unfortunately the Han Chinese never had much interactions with Tibetans as the Han Ming dynasty never showed much interest in Tibet. Since 1950 it’s ruled by the Han athiest communist who were absolutely intent from day one to destroy this culture and assimilate the people. That’s basically the clash. Simple as that of the rise of this conflict.
Now this blog tries to be little more intelligent and here are more of the ‘moderate’ and ‘more knowledgeable’ Chinese. Let me list a few and my comments in bracket:
-Tibetan issue has been used by outside anti-China forces and not representing the will of the Tibetans.
(If this was true – why are Tibetans in Tibet risking their lives to express their feelings at every opportunity)
-Dalai Lama and Tibetan-exiles don’t represent the majority Tibetans in Tibet who have mostly benefitted and supportive of China
(I don’t need to comment on this as results speak volume and the fact that no foreign media is allowed in Tibet and Tibet is the most restrictive province in China)
-Dalai Lama has not done anything for Tibet and Tibetans and if he was courageous why he left and not fight in Tibet
(If DL was in Tibet, he would be dead just as the second highest Panchen Lama who stayed back who paid heavy price of 10 years of imprisonment and then mysterious death. Majority of the Tibetans in Tibet believe that PRC agents poisoned Panchen Lama)
-Tibet issue is well financed and financially supported by the US government and even CIA
(Last time I checked CIA funded Tibetan guerallas until 1970 with such a small budget that it must be one of the smallest operation of CIA in their history but Tibetan Khampas fought hard with some success such as the escape of Dalai Lama)
-The March riots were orchrestrated by outsiders
(Laughable – Tibet is under military police rule with unbelievable restrictions and control with so much fear).
-Why are exile Tibetans write so well in English and educated.
(well Tibetans in Tibet don’t have voices and obviously exile Tibetans got better education)
Allen, Keep in mind that Tibetans are fighting for their cultural survival and carrying on a struggle peacefully. Gandhi, ML King were far more critical of the British and the American policies than Dalai Lama was against the PRC. Gandhi fought this within the British law and in their own land. He even went to Britain to fight using the British laws and leave India and won so many English influential supporters in the UK. Can we expect that the mainland Chinese for support on Tibet? You know damn well if PRC will tolerate this type of dissent in Tibet if DL was there and ruled far more harshly. So don’t give me your han chauvinistic views and bs about hurting Chinese image in the world when a nation is trying survive with real people suffering and dying in Tibet.
Someone mentioned to hear the Tibetan voices, well I am one representing the Tibetans in Tibet. I have lived there and been there talking with the locals. I know you guys are incredulous. If you don’t believe why is China so afraid of letting the Tibetans in Tibet voices heard with so much restrictions and repression.
I am not sure the purpose of these blogs but if you truly want to learn the Tibetan grievances, listen and find out the root cause of the March protests and not come with preconceived views and conditions.
I don’t see too much value in engaging in these discussions with people who have been fed so much one-sided and false information by this regime and now is incredibly difficult to learn some truth. For majority of the Chinese it seems so much easier to believe in the points I raised (blame others and there are no serious problem in Tibet) and live in delusion which is what this regime wanted. Then try not to understand the root cause of the problem and trying to find long lasting solutions.
So I hope the participants in this blog are not in this category and have some critical thinking, pragmatism, intelligence to engage in meaningful discussions, which I would be willing to spend some time to contribute.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Jane #55,
And yet the fact remains that the settlers of North America were illegal invaders and the westward expansion was a conquest that destroyed whole societies. Given that it so thoroughly merits opprobrium, we aren’t doing anybody any favours by failing to call a spade a spade and an invasion an invasion in other cases. The problem here is the euphemistic description of American history, and if you want to see more public discussion of that, I wholeheartedly agree. I wish there were a venue for discussion of American Indian politics with as high a quality level as this blog.
To my ear, “settler” has an aggressive sound; I would not like to be described as one. I’m not sure if it sounds that way to other people. Talk of “brave pioneers” sounds like something out of a children’s book, and, yes, I think it is pretty sick that we still teach American children that stuff.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:07 am
@Steve 67
What you said about the Tibet-China situation reminds me of Mexico-US situation.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27941
58% of the Mexicans believe that Southwest US belongs to Mexico and most of them believe that they don’t need permission to come to the US. This is all because of the Mexican-American War which happened more than 150 years ago. I’m sure that alot of Tibetans think they can freely go to and from Tibet and Dharmsalia as they want. I’m sure that most Mexicans who ‘made it’ to the US are content that Southwest US belong to the US. That being said, I am not surprised that there are significant number of Tibetans who live outside of China believe that Tibet is not part of China.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:34 am
@Lobsang Don’t give up on us. I think most posters here are quite reasonable, as willing to listen as give our stubborn opinion. We would be missing a voice on this and other topics if you actually get tired of the stubborn voices on the other side and stop posting.
Ok, my turn to play with fire.
I see some parallels between Arafat-palestinians-israel and DL-tibetans-PRC. With the relationship A-B-C, A is the unifying voice that goes around and grabs international support for B. B listens/follows A but live on territory controlled by C. A and B claim oppression by C, C does not negotiate with A.
I think Arafat pushed for more violence to gain an edge at the cusp of peace. That or he’s not in control of his more radical followers and is no longer the one to negotiate with. After Arafat is gone, the palestinians turned into two factions, one more violent than the other.
One of the posts up there mention DL either instigated the violence or is not in control of the radical elements who did. In other words, DL is no longer the one to negotiate with. I think DL might actually be the voice that’s restraining the more radical elements of the movement but is slowly loosing control as they lose patience. Now I’m not saying the tibetans would go militant but I also wouldn’t be surprised to read about qassam rockets in tibet in the future.
Hope those in charge can see the wisdom of negotiating with someone before there’s no one to negotiate with, just attacks.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Tibet is not a case like small East Europe countries, nor Palestinians and Israel situation, nor HongKong or Taiwan situation. The only meaningful way out of this historical mess is for Dalai Lama and his followers to get OVER it, by dropping their utopa and recorgnize China’s sovereignty over Tibet.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:02 am
@pug_ster #72: Good point. That’s why I’m always asking about Tibetan opinion in Tibet itself. Allen’s BBC link was one way to see at least a small slice of life there.
One thing I noticed when living in Taiwan. Before we went, living in San Diego we knew many Taiwanese, and naturally they loved to discuss politics at parties and dinners, etc. But when I actually lived in Taiwan, I discovered that all their political opinions were based on the time they lived in Taiwan, not on the present day conditions. I think that is true of any culture. When an expat, I followed news from the States very closely, but when I got home I realized I really had no idea what was going on politically. I just couldn’t get a feel for the mood of the country.
Quite a few times in Taiwan, locals there would complain about Taiwanese Americans coming to Taiwan to vote in their elections, contributing money to candidates and then go back to the States. They would say, “Why don’t they worry about American politics? They don’t even live here.” It seemed absurd to them that someone no longer living in Taiwan would get involved in their political process.
That’s why I would take the opinions of people not living in Tibet or who have never lived in Tibet with a grain of salt. Because Lobsang lived there at one time, to me that gives his viewpoint more credibility. If a non-Tibetan posted on this board who had lived or was living in Tibet, I’d also like to hear his take.
Incidentally, I don’t think the issue is independence. Tibet isn’t going to be indepedent no matter what happens. I don’t believe there is any international conspiracy to “free Tibet” except among Hollywood actors. For me, the question is the autonomy of Tibet; how to continue the political incorporation while allowing greater autonomy to the people so they can maintain their culture while lifting themselves into the modern world.
When the argument on China’s side talks about conditions in Tibet in the 1800s or even in the post war era, I feel that is misleading. If I apply those same conditions to China, it would be hard to justify the current CCP government. No one can say what conditions would have been like in Tibet today if China had not taken over the province; that’s pure speculation. Projecting a condition from one time to a future era isn’t accurate; how can you compare the pre and post Deng eras? China’s economy has been absolutely roaring for the last 20 years but there was no indication it would do so in 1975.
Lobsang brings up a good point. How can a Tibetan living in Tibet represent the Tibetan people with the Chinese government? He would have no autonomy to voice their sentiments. Sorry, but the nature of the Chinese government to anyone who doesn’t toe the party line is very harsh, whether Tibetan or non-Tibetan. So doesn’t it fall to a Tibetan outside China’s control to represent their interests? Who else but the DL could do that? Who else but the DL has the trust of the people there? Everyone who states the DL does not represent the Tibetan people is non-Tibetan. Every Tibetan I’ve read says he represents them. Again, there’s a major disconnect here… can someone explain this to me?
November 16th, 2008 at 5:05 am
@Shane9219: I’ve read several times that the DL recognizes China’s sovereignty over Tibet and is negotiating for autonomy. If that is true, why do you keep asking him to do what he’s already done? If you don’t think it is true, why not?
November 16th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Shane9219,
The Dalai Lama did that already. I suspect you have additional conditions in mind.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:23 am
@steve #75
The core of current Tibet issue is precisely whether China’s sovereignty over Tibet is being recorgnized.
It is true for members of United Nations, and British is the latest one (a few days ago). But it is NOT true for Dalai Lama and Tibetan-in-exile community, as well as those support “Free Tibet” causes. Organizations from Tibetan-in-exile community, like Tibet Youth Congress, Student For Free Tibet, and International Compaign for Tibet etc, dedicate their causes to achieve some form of Tibet independence. The core position for these organizations is to dispute China’s sovereignty over Tibet.
Unless Dalai Lama and Tibet-in-excile community step out and truely acccept China’s sovereignty over Tibet, no meaningful result can come out of any dialog or talk.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:34 am
I will contribute while I have some time. Thank you for the points on Steve # 67.
I am not going to regurgitate. The middle-way as proposed by Dalai Lama and pursued sincerely by the Tibetans, accepts China’s sovereignt over Tibet. Tibetans agree to forget the past history as history is for historians to judge and cannot be changed but we are willing to forgive the atrocities committed against the Tibetans during the rule (water under the bridge) but Tibetans will become part of China willingly since it’s win-win for both as Tibet will gain economically and China can still have Tibet. In return Tibetans be given a right to govern themselves to look after the domestic affairs.
I know with the stature and devotion of Dalai Lama, he can sell this proposal to the Tibetans. I wholeheartedly supported along with majority of the exile Tibetans (I believe 90% based on a referendum).
What baffles me and many Tibet/China experts is why is PRC not willing to make a deal on this proposal.
Again this is NOT taking quarter of PRC; This is not ethnic cleansing of asking non-Tibetans to leave Tibet; This is not asking PLA to leave Tibet; This is not restoration of old Tibet govt; This is not even two systems one country like Hongkong. As per interview with Nicholas Kristoff on NYTimes recently, Dalai Lama is even willing to accept socialist govt in Tibet.
This is simply practice what’s in the Chinese consitution and protection of minority rights which was originally conceived by the Soviet Leninst policy on the minority rights with the ‘autonomous region’. This following the 17 point agreement as proposed by Moa that was signed under duress by the Tibetans. Read 17 points agreement and tell me if middle-way proposal is unreasonable. This is also crafted by DL based on promised by Deng Xiaopeng to Dalai Lama in 1979 that except Independence anything else can be discussed on Tibet.
What Tibetans will NOT accept is current policy of repressions, assimilation and unrestricted migration of non-Tibetans in Tibet.
So post # 74 and many others, don’t spread false information as Dalai Lama and the Tibetans were supportive of the middle-way proposal of accepting Chinese sovergnty over Tibet. Again I wouldn’t believe all the PRC CCP propaganda lies on Tibet.
So PRC CCP doesn’t want compromise deal, so the struggle continues and will go on as the spirit and will is strong. I tell other Tibetans to lower expecatations and think of long struggle but never give up. I agree with Wang Lixiong that CCP will never make concession. So CCP is 60 years old and perhaps they have perhaps 10, 20, 50 years more to go, we will be patient for better understanding from the future government and people. Not sure China will follow and become western liberal democracy like Taiwan, Korea, Japan but they will be more open, democratic and will have more freedom. With tolerance for dissenting views, free press and information, hopefully Tibetan views will be heard by the majority Chinese and more enlightened and confident future China.
Also the majority of the protestors in Tibet and outside Tibet early this year were younger generation, educated Tibetans in both China and outside. So it’s a long struggle but will go on as the younger generation will take-on, they will be 15th Dalai Lama to carry-on the struggle since the current PRC doesn’t have the courage and poltical will to make a deal. I surely hope and pray it remains non-violent.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:35 am
@steve #76
Dalai Lama did mentioned in several occassion his intention to accept China’s rule over Tibet. But if you look into the key points in his middle-way proposal, you can see his true intention is to accept it by name only, in exchange for his covert independence status. He wants China to pull all troops out of Tibet, he also wants all non-Tibetan to move out of, not only Tibet, but the “greater” Tibet region.
The argument from Dalai Lama and Tibetan-in-exile have been consistently dispute the legitimacy of China’s soverignty over Tibet. They said Tibet are currently being occupied, thus give a proper cause for their independence movement.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:50 am
@Shane9219
And the TAR is autonomous in name only right now. Must the tibetans unconditionally surrender to all PRC demands (and be unautonomous)? I thought these were negotiations.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:54 am
@Lobsang #79 & Shane9219 #80: Your statements contradict each other. Is it possible for either or both of you to document the Dalai Lama’s position regarding PRC troops in Tibet and the future status of non-Tibetans in Tibet?
Shane9219: I believe the “occupation” status you might be referring to pertains to the autonomous agreement that Lobsang mentioned. If this agreement is not being observed by the current PRC regime, then it would be understandable for Tibetans to feel their land was occupied. Again, I think the key word is “autonomy”. What does that mean? Is it being followed? I don’t know the answer to that question and am not willing to assume anything. I think I need to hunt for the 17 points to see what the present agreement is, then it would be easier to understand these arguments. But at this stage, if you say the DL said this or that, you might want to document where he said it so your argument has legs.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:56 am
@Lobsang 79
Although Dalai Lama and Tibetan-in-exile are entitled to hold their own belief, it is against Buddhism teaching to take a violent approach. Every country has strict laws to safe-guard its border and territorial integrity.
Some people in Hawaii favors the causes of Hawaii independence from US. But their actions have to be withtin the laws.
On the other hand, if the current leadership of Tibetan-in-exile truely wanted to lead its people out of wilderness, fully accepting and embracing China’s sovereignty over Tibet is the most important step to take.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Ya, I know, sovereignty cannot be compromised, blah blah blah.
But what happened to “大国的作风” big nation attitude. Accusing the other side of “not being sincere” doesn’t sound all that big. Sounds more like bad blood and unwillingness to find a solution.
Looks like the only thing keeping qassam workshops out of a future tibet will more security forces which makes tibetans less happy and more likely to secure weapons like running qassam workshop which begs for more security forces …
November 16th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Shane9129, you’ve slipped into a circular argument. Unless you can document what you keep saying, your argument isn’t valid.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Steve # 82, sorry I don’t have all time to cite all the sources and answer all the questions but you or anyone else can check to corroborate or refute. I just write on the fly and for those interested to dig-up the source and reference.
# 73 Thank you for the encouragement and I know Tibet has many friends and supporters all over the world including many sensible Chinese people. It is truly a David and Goliath struggle and that’s how we see it (sorry for the rhetoric).
#83, are you trying to provoke me or you can’t read or don’t have the reasoning skills that you learned in the PRC education system. Yes now I am being sarcastic.
Has Tibetan struggle been violent so far despite all the grievances and injustices. NO. You know why. Dalai Lama and the Buddhist believe of non-violence.
But again never know they might be young Tibetan athiest or even communist educated in PRC but deeply Tibetan nationalist that might stage violent struggles against China .
November 16th, 2008 at 6:20 am
17 point agreement:
In english:
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/17-point-agreement.html
In chinese(simplified):
http://www.fyjs.cn/viewarticle.php?id=134971
Looks like they match (no hinky translation). Enjoy all you lazy bums
Actually, not that lazy if you open it up to read and not lazy at all if you found it on your own.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:23 am
@Lobsang #86
I just try to comment on your own statement, like “I surely hope and pray it remains non-violent.”
We all saw what happened during recent torch relay in London, Paris and SFO. I just hope and pray things won’t get nastier than that.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Thanks, cephaloless, you just saved me the trouble to find it, so I guess I’m only partially lazy.
But it’s time to sleep so I’ll read it manana…
November 16th, 2008 at 6:43 am
#88 – Are you serious or you are joking. This is getting rediculous and funny. You are concerned about the ‘violence’ during the Olympic torch relay.
Tibetan in Tibet are getting shot for staging peaceful protests with live ammuniation as in March protests and thousands getting incarcerated and even disappearing for staging peaceful protests in Tibet. Police and army are everywhere on the rooftop in Lhasa and spies all over. (Read an Australian reporter article last week from Lhasa in the Australian newspaper (first western reporter since the Olympics).
If you are caught with having a photo of Dalai Lama in your home or in your possession you are breaking a law and will be subjected to interrogation and arrest.
If you are caught discussing about your devotion to Dalai Lama you are breaking Chinese law of.
The Internet is completely filtered and if you are caught with news on Tibetan activities outside and listen to religious discourse or speeches by Dalai Lama you are breaking law and put in jail.
The phones are tapped, the Voice of America or Radio Free Asia are jammed. Tibetans in monasteries and schools are subjected to daily patriotic education of having to attack Dalai Lama and write critisism letter and if you don’t you will be tortured and jailed.
This list goes on of basic human rights being denied in Tibet.
Not sure if you have lived in China but you have and are Chinese you should ask your parents what is like during cultural revolution and it’s happening right now in Tibet.
And you are concerned about the ‘violence’ at the Torch relay and hurting China’s image abroad.
Some you say Dalai Lama and exile Tibetans are hurting China’s image, when DL is so mild and supportive of China on so many things including Beijing Olympics. Well tell PRC to treat Tibetans better, then image will get better.
Are we living in different planets like Mars and Venus … sorry I am just amazed at the lack of understanding of the Tibetan situation by the majority of the Chinese population. Again good job being done by the PRC propaganda dept.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:58 am
I don’t understand what is the point of digging out the 17-point-agreement. I personally have nothing against it and don’t mind it being used as a starting point, but I don’t think it’s fruitful doing so when I’ve read many times that the DL has pronounced the agreement void and null.
Here is an excerpt from the Dalai lama’s website:
Has the DL changed his mind to consider the 17-point-agreement now good and valid?
November 16th, 2008 at 7:01 am
@Lobsang #90
Actually, what you said is not true. At personal level, I always felt for your own situation, for Dalai Lama (he is now over 70, has an urgent need to prepare his next life and to carry on Tibetan tradition), and Tibetan-in-exile community in India. I believe most Chinese , living either inside China or abroad, has the same view. Like an old saying, Tibtan and Han are brothers and sisters.
But when coming to the issue of sovereignty and legitimacy of a nation, it is the collective belief and world reality that matters.
There are so many tough historical issues on this world. From the scale of 1 to 10, I would rank Tibet issue as 5. I hope Tibet-in-exile community do NOT make it harder to solve. I als truely hope that one day both sides can soften their stance and embrace each other like brothers and sisters.
However, Tibetan-in-exile community needs to reach its own sense of reality, that is, Tibet situation is not like HongKong or Taiwan or small countries in East Europe. It is also not helpful to dream that one day people inside China could have an up-rise and hand over a quarter of their homeland.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am
@jc: “You are asking China to conduct “professional investigation”. China could not give professional investigation to whole lot of issues, not just to Tibetans. You need to understand the whole situation there. China can not afford its average citizen a life like the west, it can not afford that to Tibetans either.”
No, I didn’t ask for that. I just told somebody who thought too idealistically about the Chinese police force that he should think again.
“So many of you believe that you have a better way to run the country. Just like a seed can not grow into a tree and bear you fruit overnight, no country can change from a developing country into a developed country overnight either. In the mean time, you just have to stop hoping the tree will give you fruit now. While the tree is also silently hoping you won’t chop it down because it doesn’t have any fruit yet.”
I know very well that development takes time, but unlike you I don’t believe these things just happen because the economy as such gets better. That might be a contributing factor, but people who have more time and money to contribute their opinion will also do so, more and more. If all developing countries persecuted their people, I would be happy to agree with you, but I don’t think that’s true.
Finally, the lack of ideals in modern China is due exactly to this fatalist idea that things will happen sometime in the future and there’s no idea to bitch now. People have learned to be helpless even though it sometimes spills over like in Weng’an.
“Peaceful demonstration has been very well reported by media all over the world. Nobody is trying to hide that part. But just because you went through a few peaceful days before you went violent does not excuse your violence. When you go the street killing, burning and looting, you will have to be stopped and locked up.”
Well, what about the level of development in ordinary Tibetan people, etc. Perhaps they will be better in 50 years and not stage any violent demonstrations?
November 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
A couple of month ago, I encountered an European who run travel business in China. One of his tour packages is driving tours in Tibet. He is based in Sicuan and has been in Tibet many times.
Due to his very international background (European, studied in the US, worked everywhere in the world including many years in China and Hongkong) and first-hand experience in Tibet, I asked his view on this issue, he paused for a couple of seconds and said (not exactly his original sentences大意):
Tibet has only 6 million people, a very small proportion of the Chinese population. The reason that they can attract so much attention world-wide is because they have a good PR person – DL.
Actually, Chinese government doesn’t treat Tibetans particularly bad; The government treat the whole Chinese population like this. I understand the Chinese government putting down the riot. Since there are many unrests in the country, you have to control, otherwise it’s like fire spreading out.
And, Tibetans are religious fanatic (this is the original word he used. i was thinking to put ‘deep religious’ instead, then finally decided to leave like this…)
November 16th, 2008 at 10:37 am
@Wukailong #93
@jc #64
I see the fatalism and determinism in Chinese people here, in Taipei, too. Probably to a lesser degree than in da lu, but I don’t know, since I have never been there. Taiwanese seem resigned to their political situation here (amongst other issues to which they seem resigned), for the most part, in spite of angry demonstrations occasionally. One of my Taiwanese friends was telling me yesterday that she thought that Taiwanese people are boring and humorless. To which I sarcastically retorted, “Why would a fatalist have a good sense of humor? What’s to laugh?” How many Taiwanese comedians do you see in the the US compared to the many Jewish comedians? My crazy humor is one of the reasons she says she likes me. We Jews had to develop a sarcastic, introspective, self-effacing, cynical humor just to cope and survive. As my dad says, “It is better to laugh than to cry!”
We Jews used to be fatalistic and deterministic. We slowly woke up to the lies of the Rabbis, the “angry” Yahweh, the promise of the messiah, etc. The Jews, at least in Russia, suffered internal repression and persecution as well as boatloads of external repression and persecution. We finally said we aren’t putting up with this crap anymore. And thank god that my grandfather, 100 years ago, broke with his immediate family and came to the US. Best thing that ever happened in my life, long before I was born.
Yes, WKL, I just don’t understand why anybody would be fatalistic and/or deterministic. I would be depressed and helpless if I were fatalistic. Hence, I could never be Chinese. Never! The gulf between me and the Chinese here, save for a very few, is as Richard Bach titled it, “The Bridge Across Forever”.
—————-
JC, in #64, you said:
JC, what the hell do you expect? You’re surprised? That everybody is going to be docile lambs when subject to misery, oppression and persecution? I don’t think so. Why isn’t the CCP and PRC accountable for their part in causing the violence?
In case you think I am just picking on China, I ask the same question of my Israeli brethren and fellow Americans. Why isn’t the Israeli government accountable for their part in the creation of terrorism in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank? Why isn’t the American government accountable for their part in creating terrorism against the US?
WKL was way too nice to you in responding to your “stopped and locked up” comment. All I would say to you is, “JC, it is very easy to make such comments when you aren’t the subject of misery, oppression and persecution. I would love to see your reaction if the shoe was on your foot.”
I hope you never become the subject/victim of misery, oppression and persecution.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
@sophie: “Actually, Chinese government doesn’t treat Tibetans particularly bad; The government treat the whole Chinese population like this.”
I think I made that point elsewhere; it’s just that the attitude of the majority (mostly Han) and Tibetans are different. If there was no Tibetan nationalism, I’m pretty sure the “fire would have been extinguished” a long time ago, but because of historical reasons, they react much stronger to the cons of being under one-party rule. It’s the difference between the feeling that your own government oppresses you, and that another government does. Also, I think Zang might be less fatalistic than their Han brethren.
Also, religion is definitely a factor. Religion and (formally) Communist governments have never been friends. Under a Nationalistic government, I guess there could have been a sort of uneasy balance, but under CCP rule you are going to have more uprisings. Perhaps that will change if the recent talks of giving more room to religious forces in the harmonic society is seriously meant.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
@Jerry, WKL
Most of the miseries in the world are not caused by governments’ suppression of citizens political rights; instead, economic stagnation and decline, collapsing or failing governments and revolutions caused most of the untimely deaths and unlivable lives. China has experience more than its share of that in the history.
You maybe puzzled by Chinese incomprehension for other peoples’ desire for for independence and political rights. In fact the reason is very simple, 30 years ago, China turned over one of the darkest pages in its history, which happen also to be the most ideological with associated death and misery. The last 30 years China also had a taste of what’s it like to be freed from that ideological burden. There is almost no way to budge Chinese from their single-minded pursue of economic development.
Look, everything can be said about Tibet has probably already been said — just on this blog. The full and complete sovereignty over Tibet is essential to China’s security and its future. In this light, other issues are but bargaining chips at the best, noises most likely. I believe the basic Chinese stand towards minority groups with nationalistic aspirations is this: give it up and join us in the pursued of better lives. This stand is narrow minded, near sighted, fatalistic and “lacking in ideals”; but it is the best thing happened to China for at least a thousand years.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
An article from National Geographic published in 2002.
Tibetan Moving Forward, Holding On
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/tibetans/simons-text
The article gives us a glimpse of what the Tibetans’ current life look like. The writer didn’t think Tibet is part of China, but he tried to present the situation in a balanced way.
Some extraction:
Beyond these individuals I was also surprised to find signs of the modern world spreading across Tibet: robed monks wearing sunglasses and riding motorcycles; nomads’ tents powered by solar panels; slopewalled adobe houses sprouting TV dishes. At Gonsar monastery on the eastern plateau, 20,000 people massed for a week in a sea of white tents to pay homage to a five-story-tall golden Buddha statue newly installed in a hilltop shrine.While some came on horseback, more drove in trucks, vans, SUVs, and wagons pulled by coughing tractors.
The greatest shift taking place everywhere in China is that with economic freedom now a reality, people are becoming increasingly independent minded. Tibetans are beginning to follow, but slowly and fearfully. Initiative does not come easily to Tibetans, conditioned by Buddhism to be content with their lot—overwhelmingly as impoverished serfs and nomads—and to await happiness in the next life. Added to this, Beijing’s spending on agriculture, transportation, and other infrastructure has helped foster a culture of dependence.
…
While Norbu is a devout Buddhist, rebellion is the furthest thing from his mind. He believes that he and others like him have the ability to improve their own lives and the welfare of Tibet. “We are taking our fate into our own hands,” he said. “By growing rich we’re able to support our religion and our language so that our children will be able to remain Tibetans.”
…
Huadon and his family certainly seemed comfortably off. As is the custom each summer throughout rural Tibet, they and about 20 other families were spending three weeks relaxing, camped in a grassy field riotously spread with yellow and lavender wildflowers against a stunning backdrop of snow-streaked mountains. A hacking gas-powered generator, a sure indicator of rural prosperity, provided electric light and pumped Tibetan and Chinese pop tunes over the fancifully embroidered large white tents.
…
People like Huadon and Norbu, who use their participation in the new economy to help preserve the old ways, represent the leading edge of change in Tibet. I spent my most comfortable night of the trip in a shiny new hotel in the burgeoning town of Jyekundo, a few hours drive from Huadon’s camp. Proud of his success, Gama Sera, the owner, was pleased to let me use his real name. “I was working for a state-owned bank and came to realize that because of this town’s location at the juncture of six counties, a decent hotel could do well here. So I proposed that the local government lease me the state guesthouse for 20 years. Very quickly, they agreed.”
…
(the end)
In these ways do the old and new, tradition and change, exist uneasily side by side. Among the Tibetans, even while those like Norbu, Huadon, and Gama Sera are embracing change, I found a people conflicted by that change. Some candidly acknowledge the hardships and inequities of life under the Dalai Lama. Others grudgingly concede economic progress under China. No one wants to return to the old, often abusive, theocracy. But no one wants the Chinese to remain in Tibet either. They don’t miss the old days and its old ways. They simply want their country back.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
@Sophie: Thanks for the article!
I hope more people would write articles like this, just about everyday life. That goes for most countries. It’s not like people understand China just because they know what political system it has – it’s time to move on.
@Wuming: First of all, I know quite well what China went through and what momentous changes have happened since the Cultural Revolution. Very few people these days would say that what has happened economically and socially is anything but revolutionary.
But please separate the process of reform from the way people think about it. It didn’t come to pass just because of the very fatalism and lack of ideals you seem to espouse. It happened very much because of the craziness of one man (I use that word in a positive sense here) who dared to brave the conservative forces of Soviet-era planning and go forward into uncharted territory. Hua Guofeng favored going back to 50’s state capitalism, which would surely have put China on the backburner for another half a century or so. Deng Xiaoping was a true visionary.
In the same way, even economic reform isn’t helped by people who only want to shop. China is as helped by a more and more creative people that dares to take risks and take more part in the patterns of change unfurling in front of them. Remember, it’s been 30 years of reform. It’s not that it started yesterday. The idea that you only need to put the pedal to the metal on the economic car might have been feasible 10-15 years ago, but is outdated today.
As ridiculed the concept has been, I still see the Harmonious Society as something very positive, a good ideal for this era. It might just be a start in the process of fixing the loopholes of single-minded economic reform, but it is an important step.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I love how young 21st Century Chinese crap on about how the non-Chinese bits of the defunct Qing Empire (which the Qing certainly never considered ‘Chinese’) are part of ‘their homeland’.
Then in the next breath they crap on about China’s history as a victim of imperialism.
Reprehensible scum aren’t they?
November 16th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
@Steve #67:
I think you’ve touched an interesting topic here, which is the minority status.
People who post here obviously do not have much problem with English. So let’s take that as an example. Let’s say you, who I assume can speak/write English without problem, and an ethnic Tibetans, who grew up with their native language, are competing for a top level executive position in Coke. Coke obviously requires whoever takes this position can speak and write perfectly in English because most of its other high level executives are English speaking people.
The situation doesn’t look very fair for the Tibetans because he/she has to put out a lot of effort just to be able to complete with you on the same level. Is Coke to blame here? I guess not. The Tibetan candidate might just have to give up a number of other things such as his traditional attire in order to land the job. However the fact that the Tibetan candidate does have a shot for the position is a positive thing. This is the one opportunity for he/she to grab. Giving a lot of hard work, he/she might be able to grab it.
China as a poor country itself doesn’t have many Coke executive level positions to offer to Tibetans. But things starts little and small. As some other people mentioned here, Tibet is changing. It’s those change that will progress and accumulate and eventually lift Tibet into the modern world. Those changes may not be enough, but it’s better than nothing. So a rational approach is to keep going on that road but keep trying to improve it.
Being a minority, there are inherited disadvantage in today world and that can’t really be blamed on anybody else. Of course there are a lot of things the majority can do to make things easier for them. But it is always unreasonable to say it’s the majority’s fault just because of the existence of such disadvantages for the minorities.
For China’s part, while there are obviously a lot of problems on its Tibet policy, it’s working very hard to make life easier for Tibetans. Please keep in mind that Tibet has an average elevation of 16,000ft. It’s a very challenging physical environment. China has been investing heavily on the infrastructure, road, rails, housing, etc for them. Those are very hard work and a lot of them are completed by PLA soldiers because the job is just so harsh. It will be very difficult for Tibetans to do those by themselves. Without those infrastructures, without the airport, the highway, the rail road, without people who actually knows how to do business actually doing some business there, how are Tibetans going to be able to lift themselves into the modern world?
As to the lock down, I don’t think “almost everyone is happy there”. My view is that there are still a large portion of them that are obviously not happy. In a society of 1000 people, if you got 100 people (1/10) of them are very unhappy, you obviously got a very serious problem at hand because these 1/10 of the people is capable enough to causes enough trouble for the rest 900 people who are mostly fine with their current life. So that might be one reason that the lock down is still in effect. Another thing that might be worth mentioning is that the lock down wasn’t there before the riot. 2006 and 2007 was two relatively good years after Qingzang railway was built, the atmosphere wasn’t that bad then. So I would hope that eventually the tension can die down and return to that atmosphere. Of course, as someone else here pointed out, Beijing should be extremely cautious not to over react on “potential” troubles because such behavior creates new tensions. In any case, I would like to see the lock down to be gradually lifted.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
@Lobsang #90: You bring up a good point; in Tibet, the DL is basically against the law. That’d be like having the Pope be against the law for Catholics in China. Oops, I forgot; the Pope IS against the law there.
I think we can all agree that Tibetans are very religious people. Sophie’s friend labeled them “religious fanatics” but to many Europeans, anyone who goes to church is a religious fanatic. That is simply a matter of perception. When I think of “religious fanatic” I think of forced proselytization, holy wars, etc. I don’t think of someone spinning a prayer wheel in a religion that preaches non-violence. There is also a contradiction at work here. Because Tibetans are so religious, they would not follow a religious leader that preached violence. Isn’t non-violence is the first precept in Buddhism, straight from the Sakyamuni Buddha himself?
I had friends in Shanghai who were members of the Communist Party there. They had to go to “patriotic lectures” and study the sleep inducing “Three Represents”, “Eight Honors and Disgraces”, etc. The only one that they paid any attention to was the “Deng Xiaoping Theory” because it actually accomplished something and Deng’s style was straightforward. Comparing that with monks in Tibet having to write DL criticism letters is “apples & oranges”.
@Allen #91: You’re correct; the 17 Point Agreement was signed under coercion. Thanks for the link to the DL website. When I read the “Middle Way”, it said there was no issue with independence, just autonomy. I can understand China not accepting everything that was stated but if it was meant to be a starting point for negotiations, why should that matter? You don’t put your final position on paper as a starting point since you have to make concessions in negotiation. For instance, the CCP army will never withdraw its troops from Tibet, no matter how peaceful it becomes. The major reason for the incorporation of Tibet into China is strategic and without troops, it loses its strategic value.
@Wukailong #93: For me, your position on this issue is pretty moderate and you are trying to understand both sides. You bring up a good point; just because many non-Tibetans have a fatalistic view of life, that doesn’t mean Tibetans have that same view or that view is necessarily the best view to have. Because cultures are different doesn’t make one “right” and the other “wrong”. Each culture has its own set of values that work within that culture. I believe the biggest mistake an expat can make, and one that most expats DO make, is to apply their own culture’s values to the culture they are living in. This usually happens because they mostly hang around with people from their own culture and constantly compare their cultural values to what they see around them. Of course, their culture always comes out ahead but it’s a stacked deck. I believe non-Tibetans living in Tibet are doing the same thing. That’s a hard one to change because human nature inclines most people to behave this way.
@wuming #97: I understand what you’re saying and agree with you that this is a non-Tibetan perspective. Correct me if I misunderstand you, but it seems what you are saying is that because of the political and economic upheavals in China that finally ended 30 years ago, non-Tibetans believe the pursuit of economic gain should be the overriding goal of everyone and since China’s economy is very productive with no end in sight, why worry about the goals of spiritual or personal freedom? Let’s just work hard, make a lot of money and buy stuff, and we’ll all be happy.
But aren’t the non-Tibetans making assumptions on behalf of the Tibetans themselves? First, they didn’t initiate the GLF or the CR; they had nothing to do with either but suffered the consequences of Mao’s stupidity. (sorry, I can’t put it any other way. Backyard furnaces to surpass England’s steel production? Are you kidding me? He had competent managers in Deng and Liu, but didn’t listen to anyone but himself) Second, for Tibetans, material wealth does not buy happiness, though lack of material wealth can buy misery. Once you can have the basic necessities plus a little more, you can concentrate on emotional and spiritual happiness. Life needs to be in balance. Isn’t the lack of ethics in the current Chinese business climate a lack of balance?
@sophie #98: I’ll echo Wukailong and say again, thanks for the article! From what I get out of it, Huadon and Norbu are trying to create and preserve balance in their lives.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
@sophie
@WKL
Actually, Chinese government doesn’t treat Tibetans particularly bad; The government treat the whole Chinese population like this.
Both of you know that this is not true. You know better than that. Tibetans and Uighurs face serious discrimination in the labor market and many other areas. Recently there have been reports that hotels have been instructed not to accept Tibetan and Uighurs guests.
It has been raised in this forum that Tibetans benefit from affirmative action when it comes to hiring and university admissions. What we forget is that this affirmative action disproportionately benefits Tibetans who speak perfect Chinese and that this is part and parcel of an incentive structure to Sinicize and assimilate minorities. A monolingual Han Chinese can prosper in Beijing and Lhasa. A monolingual Tibetan may have trouble finding a government job in his own home town! To speak Chinese with an Uighur accent is a stigma on the job market.
Also, government regulation on religion also discriminates against minorities. I have heard that Chinese parents have been prevented from taking their kids to a local temple to burn some joss sticks and pray to the Buddha. But Uighurs under the age of 18 are not allowed to go to a Mosque. Tibetan religious practices are surrounded by red tape. There seem to be an assumption that Islam and Tibetan Buddhism are dangerous and have to be constrained, but what you forget is that this is a fool-proof way of turning lukewarm believers into devout religious activists.
There is also a clear double standard when it comes to repression and violence. When local Chinese police shoot at Han Chinese demonstrators, Chinese cyberspace boils over with netizens clamoring for an inquest. I have yet to see the same thing happen when Tibetans are shot at.
This is especially clear when it comes to everyday violence. When Han Chinese snap and go violent, people look for external explanations like pressure at work. Violent Uighurs and Tibetans are never get that kind of sympathy; “they are like that”. Just think of the guy who stormed into a police station and killed several police officers. He actually become sort of a hero. Several dissidents signed a petition in is favor and I have never heard that they haven gotten any heat from Chinese patriots. Coiuld imagine that happening to an Uighur or Tibetan doing the same thing? When the Chinese columnist Chang Ping called for an objective inquest into the March riots, he was hounded by cyber nationalist and denounced as a traitor.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
@jc #101: I always enjoy reading your viewpoint because I think you are trying to be fair to both sides and have an open mind.
About the Coke position, I think I can bring something to that discussion because when I was in China, my task and challenge was exactly what you describe; I had to start up a division from scratch of a multinational company. Speaking english was a prerequisite for employment since communication with divisions in other countries would take place in English, and training would also take place in English.
However, I had no desire to hire the best English speaker. The most important job qualification was to understand and be a part of the local culture. I could teach the rest. Coke may “manufacture” in English but the buyers of Coke “drank” in Chinese, if you get my drift. If I’m working for Coke in Tibet, I’m definitely hiring a Tibetan, since that’s the market I want to penetrate. That Tibetan would need to speak the local language, but also speak putonghua and English. That way they could communicate along the entire supply chain.
What’s the expression? “Think global, act local.” The whole goal of an overseas operation is to eventually have local management and eliminate the need for expats. That’s one reason we give them 2 year contracts.
The ability to speak and write perfect English is not the most important factor. The ability to be understood in English is what matters.
jc, why do you think there are a large portion of people in Tibet who are unhappy with the situation if all these economic advantages exist?
Remember, I am not preaching Tibetan independence here. I’d hope that each side can find a peaceful way to allow autonomy for Tibetans while preserving Chinese sovereignty.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
@jc
I get your point that China is a developing country and that many problems in “minority” areas are a consequence of that. But I guess that from a Tibetan or Uighur perspective, that is actually a very strong argument against Tibet and Xinjiang being part of China. Forget about becoming a executive at Coke. If you are treated as a foreigner in your home town and the economy is taken over by people who refuse to learn the local language, you have to ask yourself what the raison d’etre is for a government that permits that to happen and imprisons those who speak up against that state of affairs.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
@Cuddly Jewish Gayboy #100
Being sarcastic does not make your remark look cute or factual based.
Manchu (Qing) Dynasty has been an integral part of Chinese history. Manchus were able to flourish in their time because of their ability to adopt Han culture. Manchus remains an ethnic minority in China today, but it is a lot easier to find someone who are both Manchus and Han in places like Beijing due to cross marriage.
Your point of view has been popular among a small circle of western people. They intend to dissect Chinese history into fragments as a way to provide a legal basis for certain historical issues, and to escape the collective guilt of their colonialism and imperialism heritage.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
@Otto Kerner #68,
You wrote:
And the DL was armed by the CIA – both when he was inside and outside Tibet. What’s the difference?
And I don’t think I will call the DL “the devil in flesh” if he had stayed with us and worked within China to help promote Tibetan values and religion because he would at least not be trying to be splitting the country (promoting Tibetan values is not intrinsically traitorous, it is the manipulation of it to foment independence that is). I may have disagreements with his policies (same as I have disagreements with policies of CCP or KMT) – but it would be a lively, respectful disagreement, not one based on disdain and distrust.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Suppose that an American Indian Chief/Medicine-man ( called Sitting Bull II) wanted all the former Indian lands to be combined to become one state (call it the Native American Autonomous State or NAAS); no US military personnel would be allowed to station in the NAAS; the mainstream American culture and language were not allowed to dominate (or to use his word “genocide”) the Native American Cultures and languages; American citizens were allowed to stay in the NAAS only with the approval of the tribal Council which were to be chaired by Sitting Bull II; those American citizens who wanted to stay in the NAAS would have to be proficient with one of the Native American languages; the NAAS would have the sovereign right to conduct its own state affairs including military affairs and diplomatic affairs, etc. etc. If above scenario were indeed happening, then the Sitting Bull II would be considered as so out it in the fantasy land that he would be laughed out of every living room and even every tepee in the world.
Well, guess what? That is what basically what DL is demanding of China with his so called Tibetan autonomy or middle way, and yet no one is laughing or even snickering? Am I missing something? Or there is a hidden double standard when it comes to China?
November 16th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
@Steve #102,
Your wrote:
Not to be condescending Steve (you know I’m not), but if you study up a little history of the Tibet even as recent as right before Tibet’s liberation, you will find your (unhappy) answer to all of your questions above…
Nonviolence is not incompatible with Tibetan Buddhism per se – but unfortunately, Tibetan history under Tibetan Buddhism has been all to full of it.
You also wrote:
Your comment smack of disingenuousness to me (sorry – that’s for effect). I mean … shall we call the surrender agreement of Japan and Germany void because they were signed under “coercion”?
Please note that the agreement was signed in 1951. And the agreement was not allegedly repudiated until 1959, after the DL had fled to India. In the interim between 1951-1959, what do you think happend? The DL was held under house arrest?
No, the DL actively participated with the CCP in carrying out reforms in Tibet. The DL and his cohorts tried to instigate an uprising and fled to India years later only when they realized reforms would curtail too many of their feudal powers and benefits.
Regardless of history, about today’s “negotiations,” why can the DL demand his “initial” point for negotiation and CCP (presumably) not demand theirs? In my view, the DL can bring his “Middle Way” and whatever else he wants to the table, and so can the CCP bring their conditions and whatever else to the table also. But all parties need to be realistic. There is no “right” or “wrong” here. Each should realize that each has his walk away point. And thus far, I suppose neither side is willing to budge enough to truly negotiate. I don’t see any problems here…
And as for your comments several times on this thread regarding that the DL is only fighting for autonomy not independence – those words do not ring true to me (based on my informed observation of the DL over the years) becasue of his past actions, current diplomatic acts, his rhetoric, his ideology, his association, his books, etc., etc. I do not intent to argue and hog up this thread – that’s not my point – but Steve, if you really believe that the DL is not fighting for independence, then we are worlds apart on this one issue.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
#97 said everything about Tibet has been said in this forum. I don’t think so. Not the Tibetans voices. It’s like an arrogance of someone (an idiot in hindsight) who said 100 years ago, everything that has to be invented had been done. Well if this forum has discussed everything, why we don’t see it demonstration of this understanding. So sincerely believing in the middle-way is not acceptable to Chinese and continue label as separation then I don’t know what other concessions Tibetans can make.
Well for one the lead author, Mr. Allen has put it so well the feelings of the majority Chinese. Empathy is so lacking and for a lot of them this Tibet problem started just since the March ‘riots’ and the subsequent world-wide condemnation. It was intense and the world’s conscience was on the Tibetan cause. It was complete shock to lot of the Chinese which was like a volcano or better the first earthquake to take them by surprise since the PRC propaganda did such a good job. Not knowing that Tibetans with the help from many friends/supporters have been waging this struggle for the last 50 years peacefully around the world and when uprising in Tibet happened, the world rose up against the mighty PRC.
Sure the financial problem is taking the world’s attention now but Tibet issue will not be forgotten and in people’s conscience. Just read that President Sarkozy (current President of EU) is going out of his way to meet Dalai Lama in Poland next month, despite huge pressure, threat and bullying from PRC. Again don’t blame the DL and punish the Tibetans, blame PRC leaders for not resolving the Tibet problem peacefully at this perfect time. Well it’s good to know that as in this forum there are many Tibet supporters both Chinese and non-Chinese who stand for truth and not afraid to be muzzled. There is good in this world and it’s not all evil and hopeless.
So the good effect from the March protests is that the majority Chinese woke up that there is a Tibet issue. Sure it’s not exactly what we wanted as PRC effectively stroke the ugly Han chauvinistic nationalism as us against them. Eg. Anti-China western imperialistic using Tibet issue and DL to hurt China.
Also Tibetan side neglected educating the Chinese population on Tibetan grievances (not possible in China) but could have done better jobs to the large Chinese diaspora, especially the recent immigrants from China (difficult due to years of indoctrination but could have tried). We have done such a good job in educating the people in the free world but somehow did not target the Chinese population per se except our Taiwanese friends. So this forum is good if it helps educating our sensible Chinese brothers and sisters about Tibet.
Tibet unlike any other parts of current China with deep civilization, history and geographic isolation and long years of ‘independence’ had formed a strong identity with strong culture. Like I mentioned no Chinese rulers had direct control over Tibet and its people as now by the CCP. No doubt CCP is the most powerful empire in the history of China.
At the same time, we are living in a 20th century and old empire, colonial attitude by the government and its people is in line with current reality.
I see future Tibet to be like Scotland within UK, Quebec within Canada, Basque within Spain and then I will proudly say I am a citizen of PRC and even Chinese. In a developing countries you can pick many states in India’s North east frontiers consisting of many ethnic tribes having so much autonomy, benefits. and more importantly freedom.
I am not going to go into systemic discrimination, contempt, racism that Tibetans have to endure and more so since the March protests as mentioned by Steve and Hemulen.
One point I am going to mention is that until a political solution is reached, others such as economic development will not solve the root cause of the problem. Until the root cause is tackled, looking at the symptoms will not see the reality. Unfortunately the PRC is adamant and don’t have the courage and confidence to solve the root cause.
What I see PRC CCP policy is total integration and assimilation of Tibet just as they have done to other minorities such as Mongols, Manchus and the rest of the 55 minorities. Tibetan identity is strong and if not Tibetan issue would have been gone like the rest. So why not the PRC accept this reality and accept Tibet part of China of true autonomy.
Until then, I am yet to meet a Tibetan in Tibet and outside who can say I am Chinese. Also Tibetan exiles consist of Tibetans from Tibet and born outside with strong connection to Tibet and people there and not some group disengaged from the Tibetans in Tibet. It’s proper to say Tibetans in the free world and Tibetans in Tibet as they don’t have voices due to unbelievable repression and fear.
On the economic development, keep in mind that for Tibetans, Chinese language is a second language, and without mastering this language, Tibetans will not benefit from the economic development. So why not make Tibetans official language for Tibet. Look at Quebec, States in India as an example where it can be done if there is a will. Also language is the most important aspect of retention and protection of ones culture.
So the Tibetan side eagerly awaits the results of the upcoming meeting of leading Tibetans on the future course of Tibet next week.
DL said it best, he tried it best to propose a win-win solution and it takes two to make a deal. His faith in the Chinese people is strong but to the PRC CCP govt its thinning and worried about the future Tibet. For that some Chinese will call him expressing ‘anti-China’ and Tibetans will say he is not strong enough to express the outrage when Tibetans in Tibet are suffering right now.
Also one more to some Chinese posters, don’t ever feel pity to the Tibetan exiles who are doing incredible well and respected around the world (most successful refugee as called by UN agency) on very little financial support from outside. Instead feel great pity to the Tibetans in Tibet who are suffering with deep mental anguish and don’t have freedom and can’t fulfill one wish in their life to see their beloved leader which is slipping away as the talks break down.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
@Lobsang 110
I’ve said it and I’m going to say it again. The problem with the Dalai Lama is that he is talking to his supporters pandering his ‘middle way’ solution but not his critics. Ultimately, the critics (the Han Chinese in China) are going to decide his ‘middle way’ solution and not his supporters (the foreign leaders) who are not going to deal with the local situation.
It reminds me of the US presidential campaign where Barack Obama went to out of his comfort zone to go to in Republican states in order to get votes. As a result, he won states that are normally Republican states like Virgina, North Carolina, India, and Nevada. Imagine if Obama campaigned in Democratic states or worse, even pander to foreign leaders on why he should be the leader of the free world complaining about George Bush. Heck, GWB is very unpopular in the eyes of foreign countries, but ultimately the those Red Republican States, and not the Democratic states nor foreign influence will decide whether Obama will be president or not.
Ghandi and MLK confronted his critics in order to get his message across. You can complain that most typical Chinese are brainwashed by the CCP propaganda. But the fact that the DL had never even try to reach out to them, even the overseas Chinese which leads most Chinese to think that the DL is nothing but a yellow-bellied chicken.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
@Steve #67,
Hope you don’t mind the many terse (hopefully succinct) replies I am going to make to some of your many questions raised in #67:
Of course not. It goes without saying that broad economic development alone is not sufficient for social justice. The fruits of the development must be somewhat equitable. We all know the gap between the rich and poor is wide in China (same goes for U.S., despite its much more developed status). It’s a good issue to discuss how to make China an economically more equitable country. It’s however not useful to cast it narrowly and strictly as a Tibetan-Han issue.
You – like many Westerners – seem to start with the presumption that the CCP is not “legitimate.” You also presume (ok maybe not explicitly, but I think implicitly) that the DL (the former slave owner) is somehow the “legitimate” ruler of all ethnic Tibetans.
I personally find such attitude disrespectful and condescending (even though I know you as a person are not so to the Chinese people). China today has a legitimate government. Treat it with the respect and legitimacy it deserves – or else we are back to square one.
No. China is busy enough dealing with its domestic issues face on. The interference from outside is genuine and real. I hope you didn’t write the above hoping that someone can actually “disprove” the theory…. (if so, I can come up with 10 million theories for you to “disprove” also!
)
I distrust many of what the exiles write (as you admit you do, too) – and of course, a lot of what the CCP promulgates (as you do, too). The reality is probably somewhere in between. In my view, Tibet is not a police state, but neither is it a “normal” state.
So why is Tibet not “normal” after all these years? For me, the answer is not that hard to find. You only need a few bad apples to ruin a basket of fruit. After 911, the U.S. became a very different country because its security was threatened. People’s lives changed even though there were in actuality very few terrorists.
The same principle works in Tibet. At the heart, China is still a weak country. The CIA has sponsored uprisings in Tibet and military training for exiled Tibetans. The West and the exiles has continued to apply geopolitical pressure on China with respect to Tibet. Given the strong media disinformation and harsh rhetoric in the West in the lead up to the Olympics, I certainly don’t expect Tibet to be “normal.”
To be honest, I was actually surprised that the CCP had so few police ready for the March riots. They were obviously caught off-guard (despite people’s vision that Tibet is a police state). The current security arrangements sounds reasonable to me, given the March riots as well as the continued international pressure. I wish Tibet would return to being “normal” soon (and I believe it will), but I admit it is not “normal” for now – for understandable reasons.
See above. It only takes a few bad apples to cause problems.
We must read “autonomy” in context (I’m surprised you went to a dictionary to strictly construe the term! That’s not how diplomats, lawyers, political scientists interpret documents like these…). The CCP has always been willing to grant cultural and religious autonomy to Tibetans at all times, but it will not allow political autonomy (e.g., dictating deployment of military, restricting flow of people into and out of Tibet) in the guise of cultural and religious autonomy.
Now the outlawing of the DL pictures is probably stupid … but as I mentioned above, Tibet is not strictly “normal” now in the way that the U.S. is not “normal” after the 911 attacks. In addition, what defines autonomy will probably be like the “commerce clause” or “freedom of speech” or federalism issues in the U.S. – it will surely flow with the time and develop in accordance with the needs of the moment. It is something to be taken internally over time…
I don’t think the CCP (or I) has ever said the impasse today is due to actions the DL took 50 years ago. No – the impasse is due to acts, rhetoric, ideologies, etc. of the DL today. I refer to acts from 50 years ago to show context and continuity… not as basis for impasse today.
It does sound absurd. Where did you get the idea that Tibetans need to be rounded up solely because they rioted? If they are agents of the DL – they need to be rounded up – the same way terrorists in the U.S. need to be rounded up.
But yes – I admit – to the extent that CCP is racially / ethnically profiling the general ethnic Tibetan population in the wake of the riots, the situation is sad. But the situation is not unprecedented or not understandable.
We have discussed in other threads about the status of “Muslims” in the US after 911 also. Muslims have been targeted for racial profiling at airports, in sports stadiums, in concert halls, at police checkpoints, etc. In politics, even Pres. Elect Obama shuns questions about him being a “Muslim” as a political hot potato.
I’ll be the first to agree that singling any ethnic group under any guise is definitely not conducive to a peaceful and harmonious society. However, please understand the reality of the world we live in. Please do not hold China to a higher standard than the U.S. – at least not just yet!
November 16th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
@Lobsang
Tibetan have a strong culture and religious identity historically. This is still true in China today, even though some folks would dispute on the details. Tibetan are not forced to leave their land, change or disvow their religious beliefs and everyday practices. It is also factual that DL represents just one of the major Tibetan religious branches (Yellow Hat ?). His personal worship in TAR has been a taboo subject becasue of his political representation as the head of Tibetan-in-exile government.
China itself is under transition and transformation. As China increases its standing, some western people or countries are alarmed either by what China represents, or by whether her prosperity comes at the expense of old establishment. As the result, resentment was developed and wide-spread before 2008 Olympics. But it is wrong to take a page out this by thinking the whole world supports Tibet independence causes. To me personally, it was just a convenience and will not last long. It was also not clear to me which side used the other side.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
@Lobsang #110
DL and his followers chose a path to exile, and they fought a war with the help of CIA. Now this small community came back and asked China to cede a quater of her homeland. Not realising such utopian idea, they felt like a victim. Something wrong with this picture. Tibetan-in-exile community needs to step out of this self-victimhood and face the 21th century reality. Time passes on and reality should sit in.
“.. total integration and assimilation of Tibet just as they have done to other minorities such as Mongols, Manchus and the rest of the 55 minorities ..” — such argument is more fear than fact. Why not take a trip around China and see for yourself. Manchus, in their time, chose a path to adopt Han culture, and became flourish. If Tibetan today chooses to stay true to its own root and culture, I don’t see anything wrong with this picture.
Fear and hatred will not solve any historical issue.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
# 112, Allen, I am absolutely disgusted by some of your writings of disseminating hate, intolerance and a lot of LIES and untrue statements on Tibet and situations. To put is simply you hate all Tibetans for embarassing China as it rises to become a super-power. Your purported ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ on Tibet are bunch of lies that Tibetans will not accept. You can keep on hating Tibetans. Good luck and hope you feel better.
You can call it Tibetan exiles and Dalai Lama but it’s really all Tibetans you feel deep contempt. It’s dangerous views you hold as you have some interest in Tibet and some knowledge but with your strong han chauvinism you are totally misguided on what Tibetans want. This will be my last posting on this forum as I am not sure what the purpose is if you don’t want to listen to Tibetan views discussing about Tibet and start labeling and blaming others. Like I mentioned, Tibetans need to be patient and will just have to wait for the new generation of Chinese in the distant future who would have grown up in the future ‘free’ China (after CCP PRC dynasty) for better understanding. This is almost hopeless for the current group of Chinese generation grown up with this PRC education system with distorted history/conditions in Tibet and ultra-nationalism with han chauvinism to expect better understanding of Tibetan grievances and history. We are NOT asking for anyone’s sympathy but better understanding and seek truth from facts.
PRC CCP unlike the old imperial British empire, Israel, South African, US, where Gandhi, MLK, Mandela, Arafet had some freedom within those countries to fight against the oppressors using their laws. That’s simply was not and is not the case in PRC. PRC will NOT tolerate any dissent. If DL was in Tibet, he would be dead by now. There were also large sympathizers from those people such as British supporting India’s right for freedom, white South African (mostly english decendents instead of Afrikanas) supporting Mandela, Jewish groups supporting Palestinian plight. The biggest difference is that PRC CCP rule in Tibet is far more repressive and tigher control than any of the others. Do we have hope from sensible Chinese for better understanding of Tibetan situation?
You will not find that many true Tibetan Chinese as a model Chinese citizen that PRC and you wanted (assimilated and think like Chinese) and I am yet to meet one. Even the Tibetan officials cannot be trusted because they demonstrate strong identity, such as Bapa Phunwang (Tibetan communist party founder and top official in the 50’s during Moa and official translator between Mao and Dalai Lama who was imprisoned for 19 years). Anyone showing strong Tibetan identity is considered thread to national security and soverignty. For those interested I recommend, to read his political biography written by Tibet expert Melvyn Golstein (University California press is the publisher). My father-in-law was a high-official in Tibet and now retired and learned lots from him and his friends on Tibetan officials views and it’s definitely not what PRC wanted. Therefore so far there has not been any Tibetan as the top leader in Tibet, unlike all the other regions in China.
#111, pugster, Agreed completely on your statement which I admitted on # 110. That Tibetan side has neglected reaching out to the Chinese people but it’s not easy. This has been the top priority of Dalai Lama in the last 5-6 years or longer. If you can find any Chinese people who are sincere in understanding the situation, I can guarantee you that you will have no problem having a one-to-one meeting with the Dalai Lama. With his busy schedules and large number of people who want to see him, he will set aside time for any Chinese audience who want to listen to what Tibetans want. This is not what Allen and many others long-held views that are hindrance to this understanding. I know during the Sichuan earthquake Tibetan exiles held prayers, raised funds and in some cases worked with local Chinese community. I would be willing to hear what Tibetans can do for better understanding from the mainland Chinese?
#113, shane, not sure what you are saying but seems like you want to learn Tibetan grievances and curios but can easily be manipulated by Allen and many other like minded of us and against them, so my advise don’t fall into this if you are open minded. One correction DL was the spiritual and political head of Tibet and not just from one sect. He is from the Gelugpa lineage but is recognized as the spritual head of entire Tibetan buddhism (all four sects and one pre-Buddhist Bon tradition).
Good discussion and good luck talking about Tibetan issues with your like-minded without Tibetan peoples input. Ironically this is exactly what’s going in PRC. Non-Tibetan, powerful Chinese people discussing and making decisions and implementing policies for Tibetans instead of truly listening to what the Tibetan people wanted. Anyone who raises Tibetan grievances and strong identity are muzzled and worse labeled as separatists.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Many Chinese commentators seem to amplify the stereotype Chinese attitude towards Tibetans. If a Tibetan has a different view about what he/she wants for their future, they are either “slaveowners,” “CHina-hater” or “seperatist”. And baseless accusations are thrown at us without realising that DL is not asking for separation and he wants Tibet to be a part of CHina provided Tibetans have some say in their future. Please read the memorandum that was released today by the envoys of DL who was recently in BEijing that was rejected.
Allen justifies the situation inside Tibet by bringing up sept 11. Two wrongs doesn’t make one right. There is such contempt for Tibetan thoughts and ideas. There is such deep-rooted ignorance about Tibetan history even amongst the educated ones.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
@Steve / #102
I have to agree with Allen’s positions (#112). I would simply say you are still a bit too self-righteous in your thinking.
You said: “Isn’t the lack of ethics in the current Chinese business climate a lack of balance?”
Which business climate is “ethical” in your standards?
Is it correct to interpret you are saying that if the Chinese have ethics such as the Tibetan’s in exile’s devotion to non-violence and other ideals of Budhism, the business climate in China would then be ethical?
I would argue Islam, Budhism, Christianity all have similar ethics. Confucianism – while not a religion – also has similar ethics.
Not fair to say they (the Chinese) “lack a balance.”
November 17th, 2008 at 12:24 am
@Steve #104:
I can’t agree more with you on “think global, act local”. There are a lot for Beijing and Han Chinese to learn about that. That might just be a business doctrine for you, but if they can made significant progress on that, I am sure it will be a very positive development both economically and politically.
I do believe that there are a lot Tibetans that are unhappy because there are a lot of indicators. The 3.14 riot itself is an indicator. The attitude taking by a lot of Chinese, as some manifested in this blog, is surely another indicator. I also agree with Tibet exile that some of those problems they described, top among them are religious/culture issues, are very serious problems and deserve attention, even though I believe they have significantly exaggerated the situation for their own causes. In short, I do believe there are a lot of problems in Tibet, and every single of them can make a lot of people unhappy. My view differs from many people on the severity and scale of various problems, the priorities between different problems and what’s the best and most particle way of solving them.
Political/religious/culture/ethnic issues definitely exist; those alone can make a lot of people unhappy. That’s nothing new and a lot has already been discussed on that. Economy situation, while greatly improved, can also cause a lot of trouble. When everybody in the village was making $1 a day and they knew nothing else better, everybody is happy. However when things are moving forward and most people are now make $2 a day, but one particular dude making as much as $5 a day, you might start to sense some problems. The problem becomes twice as worse when that dude is actually the son in law of the local party secretary. And when it is revealed that secretary and son in law are both Han Chinese, you know where it is going to get. These are serious problems that can make a lot of people unhappy.
When you get such a situation at hand it’s very difficult to deal with. China itself got such problems all over. What are you going to do? Put everybody back to $1 a day? Well not to say that on every aspect that’s a step backwards, even if we put that aside, people has already seen $2 a day and they are not going to settle with $1. Put all wealth together and equally distributed to everybody? Well, nobody is going to work after that, not to mention that the all mighty “wealth distributor” will surely keep a good chunk before distributing it. Arrest the party secretary and hang him? There are a row of other problems — first of all, the party secretary might actually be one of the few guys that actually know how to get to $2 a day from $1 a day and made this happen at the very first place, not to mention that the persecutor might be one of his closest allies. Obviously this is not a simple economy issue.
China itself has gone through such and is still going through such difficult times, it has only gradually getting better in recent years due to a growing middle class, implementing a row of reforms such as land/property reforms and a rudimentary social security system, and slow but steadily improving on law and order. Many people argued that a democratic system is going to solve the problem. I do not believe it will. No doubt it can fix a lot of problems, but it will cause a row of other problems for China. China today is able to do a lot of things that are not “popular” but necessary and acts much quicker on a lot of issues is largely attributed to its non-democratic political system. When it comes to Tibet, a democratic China won’t do Tibet any good simply because Han Chinese would be making up 95% of the votes. The current system can get a lot done and still keep that 95% under the lid.
Given China’s economy and political environment today, it’s not practical to expect Tibet to have a Hong Kong style autonomy either. For one thing, who is going to take care of their infrastructures? You can’t tell the Han Chinese that they need to completely get out of your everyday life except that they should continue building road for you. This is not to mention that DL wants the autonomy region to cover all regions that Tibetan inhabits. Tibetan not only lives in Lasha, but also in neighboring Sichuan and Gansu province. That means China needs to fork out almost a quarter of its map (more than 2 million square km) and hand it over to a minority of 6 million people. As a comparison, Hong Kong has roughly the same amount of people living on a lit bit over 1000 square km. Countries like Indian probably would love to see that. But how would CCP be able to do that? Even if they had made such an honorable decision to do it, how are they going to sell this to over 1 billion Han Chinese? You might just get an PLA general in Sichuan decides to go against the central government and rolls his tanks into Lasha instead. From there on, everything goes down the toilet and worse. How many times has that happened in Africa?
When it comes to Tibet, the fact that it is still a very poor, physically challenging, land-locked region needs to be considered; The fact that it is a very distinctively different but small minority ethnic group needs to be considered; The fact that they have their own very different religions/culture/history needs to be considered; The fact that China itself is what it is today and still have a lot of problems needs to be considered; The fact that many other countries would use Tibet as a bargain chip with China needs to be considered. And most important of all, the well being of Tibetans along with Han Chinese who have settled in the regions needs to be considered. When you consider all those, you would probably figure that it’s not as easy as many of you thought. Mr. Deng has said “to be rich is glorious”. Indeed that might be the easiest glory for now.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:02 am
@Lobsang #115,
You wrote:
To Lobsang, the admin and everyone else, I consider this my personal failure. I’ll gladly ban myself from writing and just listen for a while if anyone (including Lobsang) feel that will be helpful. I don’t want to mess up Foolsmountain because of my big mouth and “distorted” view.
I do know some things about Tibet but admit I do not understand (on the emotional level) the exiles’ vision.
And for Lobsang, in case you are curious: I was born in Taiwan and grew up detesting the CCP, knowing them only as communist bandits. My family and I moved to the U.S. when I was 10. I would subsequently go to graduate school (in Engineering) as well as law school (focusing on international law, human rights, and IP in developing countries) in the U.S. My view of Tibet is based on my independent research and study. Of course, that does not mean I cannot be grossly mistaken. But my mistake would not be due to CCP “propaganda.”
November 17th, 2008 at 1:05 am
@tenzin #116,
You wrote:
Please understand I am not comparing Tibetans/exiles/DL (whatever you want) to Al Queda; that’s an unfortunate effect of my example. My point was to compare China to the U.S. when two societies are faced with what they perceive as “external” threats.
I see Tibetans as “terrorists” only to the extent (if it is ever proven to my liking) that the Mar riots were instigated by DL agents.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:16 am
#Lobsang 115
First of all, if you haven’t noticed, there were plenty of Chinese Nationalists overseas that the Dalai Lama could’ve reached. They were there in France, London, Sanfran, Australia, etc… who don’t like the way those Tibetan protesters acted. If you haven’t noticed already, every time when the Dalai Lama goes to some university to speak or see some foreign leader, there are always Chinese protesters who are going to greet them. Of course, the Western Media won’t report on those Chinese protesters because the Western Media wants you to think that Overseas Chinese are on Dalai Lama’s side when they are not. The fact that the Dalai Lama won’t even meet with those critics shows that he is indeed a yellow bellied chicken.
If the Dalai Lama wants to do something about the Tibet-China situation, he should stop pandering with foreign leaders like Sarkozy this week. Dalai Lama should face those overseas Chinese critics who wants answers of why Lhasa attack on 3/14. The Dalai Lama should confront those Tibetian Youth league who thinks violence is the answer to Tibet-China problem. The fact that the Dalai Lama does nothing of that sort makes him unfit as a person who can fix this situation. Maybe it is better if he had passed on or let someone else to take over his job to deal with the Tibet-China situation.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:18 am
@Steve #67:
One more point about your post #67.
You wrote:
Steve I am surprised by what you wrote here. I remember you writing in another thread that you pride yourself on reading widely and triangulating any given issues from different angles. You don’t trust any one source, and in fact, that is one reason you like to travel so much… getting different perspective from different people.
Anyways, no one source is objective – especially in an issue as politicized as Tibet currently is. You will not find any one source that will be 100% objective, 100% true – not just because of the politics, but also because of the secrecy and lack of good open information on many events surrounding Tibet – after WWII, during the cold war, and even today.
I hope you will approach Tibet by reading widely and considering all sources on Tibet – each with its warts and distortions – and not disregard any one source simply because of some imperfections you happen to see (they all have imperfections).
Good luck on your journey!
November 17th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Lobsang,
Thanks for your comments so far. I really appreciate having your voice here. I do want to ask you about something you said in comment #115:
“That Tibetan side has neglected reaching out to the Chinese people but it’s not easy. This has been the top priority of Dalai Lama in the last 5-6 years or longer. If you can find any Chinese people who are sincere in understanding the situation, I can guarantee you that you will have no problem having a one-to-one meeting with the Dalai Lama. With his busy schedules and large number of people who want to see him, he will set aside time for any Chinese audience who want to listen to what Tibetans want.”
This topic has come up on Fool’s Mountain before a few months ago, and it does seem to be a shortcoming of the Tibetan exile effort. I will take your word for it that the Dalai Lama will meet with any Chinese person interested in sincere discussion; from what I’ve heard, he is quite generous with his time in giving personal audiences, especially for the purpose of outreach to non-Tibetans. On the other hand, what about outreach efforts in Chinese-language media? There must be print and television outlets in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore that are at liberty to cover the Dalai Lama’s point of view fairly. That seems like the best opportunity to communicate with the Chinese people in their own language. I’m not saying there has been no coverage at all, but has this really been made a priority? Regular appearances by the Dalai Lama and his spokespeople on Hong Kong’s Phoenix Television would be especially valuable, since it has some availability on the mainland. Of course, I have no idea what has gone on behind the scenes. Perhaps the Dalai Lama has offered to appear, and has been refused, or perhaps accepted only with unreasonable conditions that would have made it impossible for him to deliver his message?
Although a lot of the specifics are unknown, it’s not clear to me that Chinese media outreach has really been sufficiently prioritised.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:43 am
I wonder if there would be any interest from the main participants in Fool’s Mountain in creating sort of a spin-off blog/discussion site specifically for discussion about Tibet. I’ve noticed that Tibet posts tend to generate a lot of interest on this site, and yet they are sometimes seen as distracting attention from the wide range of other issues that relate to China. There have been several times when I’ve noticed commenters mention that they are holding back a bit from participating in threads about Tibet for fear of having too much Tibet discussion. I agree that there are a lot of other interesting things to say about China, but, if there is persistent interest in a high volume of Tibet talk, perhaps that calls for the creation of a separate forum for it.
There are already a lot of websites out there dedicated to discussing the Tibet issue. And yet, of the ones I’ve seen, none are very satisfying for discussion, because they tend to attract only one kind of reader or commentator. To wit, most of the English-language sites tend to cater to the pro-liberalisation (autonomy or independence) side, while a few (such as the Tibet section of anti-cnn.com) are designed to cater to the pro-PRC side. Although I make no secret of being part of the former, I have very little interest in listening to a soliloquy from either side. The intriguing thing about Fool’s Mountain is that it attracts readership and comments with a dynamic variety of different opinions, and, although I am occasionally disappointed with the level of discourse, for the most part it does not degenerate into a flamewar.
Anyone who is interested in discussing this idea with me can feel free to reach me at okerner2007 at yahoo.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Well the memorandum docuemnt presented to the PRC a couple of weeks ago is now public. This is the first time, any contents of these secretive talks have been published publically.
Here it is:
http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=533&articletype=flash&rmenuid=morenews
Here is more meat on what the middle-way means as starting point to start the serious negotiations to resolve the Tibet problem for good. Apparently the PRC representatives pretty much threw it away and the dialogue came to a grinding halt. This accompanies a press conference by the Tibetan envoys.
I would ask all those who seriously want to understand the Tibet issue to please read this and tell me if it can be starting point for further discussions and negotiations. Please don’t make these hyperpole conclusions that you don’t trust what’s on the paper and it’s a cover for independence. Just read it face value and see if it’s reasonable. Now this is exactly what’s presented and every other allegations are just not true.
Allen, Thanks for sharing your background. So you are one of those Taiwanese who wannabe Chinese citizens. Interestingly your background is not too different than mine on the age coming in the west and type of education received and now fortunate to make a successful living. The only difference is that I have strong roots in Tibet and travel to China and Tibet often and know first hand the Tibetan peoples’ feeling and psyche.
I have seen some serious hate mondering on the Tibet issue and Dalai Lama from some Taiwanese ultra-nationalist on youtube from one of them in mandarin. Hope you are not associating with one of these. Some are extremely racists and almost like KKK views of Han chauvinism/superiority complex and against the barbaric Tibetan people to be eliminated …
Let me be absolutely clear that this distorted history of Tibet was started not by Moa and the communist but the father of modern China, Sun Yat Tsen over 100 years ago. So the Kuomintang nationalists really started this whole myth of modern China of this vision of trying to be middle-kingdom consisting of five races and occupy Tibet and others as part of the motherland. It’s just that Moa realized the dream and the rest is history. Tibetans had huge problems with Kuomintang government policies and claim on Tibet from turn of the century to right until late 80’s until Teng Wei Lee’s government when he right the wrong policies and around the rise of DPP. So now Tibetan government in exile and Taiwanese govt get along just fine but as you know they are large number of serious ultra-nationalists wanne be Chinese in Taiwan.
#121, pugster (btw I have pug dog; very loyal and devoted but little stubborn sometimes so as a Tibetan Khampa myself has some of the traits).
Thanks for your comments. If you don’t know then don’t mention it’s not done. Just this year, I was in Seattle when Dalai Lama was there and met some of these Chinese students handing out the pamphlets to the 60,000 sold-out audience at the football staduim and other sold-out events. I challenged some of them their grievances and what they are handing out and their complaint has been ‘biased media’ on China. I said Tibetans are protesting in Tibet for freedom just like the Chinese students in Tianneman Square. Then I said don’t be hypocrite to support the Chinese students but not Tibetans. Also mentioned don’t believe in Xinhua and PRC on Tibet issues and use the freedom in this country to understand Tibetan side.
Anyway during Dalai Lama’s visit in April to both Seattle and Mayo clinic area in mid-west, he held a closed press conference to only the Chinese media including Xinhua and explained the situation. In particular what he meant by ‘cultural genocide’ and answered any other questions. However, forget about Xinhua but even overseas Chinese language media didn’t report the press conference and the contents. I heard newspapers like SingTao, SingPao have been pressured by the PRC not to publish articles on Dalai Lama’s views and engagement to the Chinese audience. At Mayo clinic visit he walked to the Chinese students and talked with them that he is not seeking separation and then called five of them inside for a talk. According to his accounts three students were too emotional and wouldn’t listen and he jokingly mentioned that if it wasn’t for the long table and the US secret services they would have been physical, but he also said two listened quitely and seriously.
So at every visit abroad he meets with Chinese people who want to listen. Now on the Chinese students protests by this summer visit of Dalai Lama to the US, there were none. I was in Madison in July (also heard other places as well) and didn’t see any of the Chinese students protesting so perhaps they learned a little more truth on the Tibetans are seeking which is freedom and not separation. BTW, The only protesters on his every visit were the the all western people Shugden cult followers but that’s different topic.
Also what do you mean by control ‘radical or violent’ Tibetan youths. Like I said Tibetan struggle has been steadfast non-violent. If you call the Olympic torch relay protests as violent, well you ain’t seen any violence.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:21 am
So, what is cultural genocide? Aren’t you tibetans-in-exile constantly practicing cultural suicide by posting in English?
“all western people Shugden cult followers”
Pot, meet kettle.
“If you call the Olympic torch relay protests as violent, well you ain’t seen any violence.”
Bring it on, brah.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:40 am
#125 Lobsang,
Anyway during both the Seattle and Mayo clinic area in mid-west, he held a closed press conference to only the Chinese media including Xinhua and explained the situation. In particular what he meant by ‘cultural genocide’ and answered any other questions. However, forget about Xinhua but even overseas Chinese language media didn’t report the press conference and the contents.
and I see this article about the Mayo clinic visit if he had any ‘closed press conference’ and there are no indications of that.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/17834639.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycU9PhDcUU
And yes, there are Tibetan ‘terrorists.’ The article explains that Tsewang Rigzin, president of the Tibetan Youth congress, one of the more militant activist groups.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/12/ap/asia/main4595701.shtml?source=search_story
Today, the clearest divide is between those favoring Tibetan autonomy and those favoring independence. But there are also endless sub-permutations, with various factions urging more protests, angrier protests, boycotts, more pressure on Western nations and, among a small group, a push for sabotage of China’s infrastructure.
Protests, angrier protests, boycotts, and pressure on Western Nations obviously didn’t work. These violent protesters will throw a monkey wrench on Tibet-China situation, as you can see on the Lhasa 3/14 incident. Never in the article mentioned that the Dalai Lama wants to actually talk to the Chinese people. No offense, I take your argument that the Dalai Lama actually want to talk to the Chinese with a grain of salt.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:54 am
@Lobsang,
Let me know if you’d be interested to start a new thread using the memorandum as a starting point. One possibility is for you to write a “letter” with points you want to discuss. Another is to have one of us other more neutral editors (I think I’ll recluse myself for this project) to start a new thread using this as a thread.
Another possibility is to leave the memorandum alone for now but, given the start of the exile meeting this week, to open a new thread for exiles to post notes giving us updates of the meeting. We’ll make it clear that the new thread is not for “flamming” or “debate” per se but for our exile “friends” to give us an eye regarding what is going on in the conference.
If you or any of the exiles is wiling to do any of the above, I would greatly appreciate it. Of course, if this is too much to ask for, that’s ok. I hope you and/or others will be able to continue to make contributions in the future.
The point of any discussion is not to convince me of anything. There are many other readers here who are more moderate than me, and I think it’d be more important for you and them to reach out to each other if possible…
Best Regards,
Allen
November 17th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Let me first ignore # 126, sorry Mr. Bob, I don’t respond to threats, sarcasm and provocation. You did all three.
#123, Otto Kerner, Thanks for your comments and your suggestions. I agree with DL that Tibetan movement priority and infact top priority should be to reach out to the Chinese population on what the future Tibet looks like within PRC. Even that’s not easy when PRC consulates and Chinese communities under the consulate advise and influence, see Tibetan diaspora communities with deep contempt.
I tell my Chinese friends in China and they seemed surprised that Dalai Lama is amazingly accessible to anyone who is sincere and wants to see him. They seemed awed since they heard him from the 50’s meeting top PRC leadership and engaging with them until now. Especially I noticed to the Chinese audience and definitely any Chinese media and better it’s politics and not religious reasons. Sorry the western friends and Tibetans have to take a back seat behind the Chinese people who want to see him. It’s quite amazing with over 1 bilion population, he is determined to reach out one by one ( that’s going to take a long time and perhaps an indication of continuing in his next life). At this time the competition is not that great as over 1 billion in China are denied access.
Also as I had mentioned the PRC consulates and others do pressure Chinese media overseas and Chinese communities and large businesses such as the Murdoch media empire etc that will willingly censor these things that the PRC doesn’t approve.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:00 am
It would be interesting to collect statistics of these discussions. I noticed the following in this thread:
* Only pro-PRC commenters have mentioned the concept of “cultural genocide”, and then only for the sake of ridicule.
* Most pro-exile commenters think the main problem is the Chinese rule in Tibet, whereas most pro-PRC commenters think the main problem is Dalai Lama and the demonstrations against the torch relay.
* Most pro-PRC commenters even deny there is a Tibetan problem at all.
I guess the last point is really the most important one. In mainland China you used to see sayings such as “so-called human rights problems” or “so-called Tibet problem”, which has become much rarer these days. In Taiwanese media I once saw the saying “so-called Taiwan problem”. I guess the main strategy for the different camps are to put their head in the sand and say a problem doesn’t exist, and blame the first “foreign power” they can think of, to reduce the whole question to guilt by assocation.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:04 am
@Allen: Thanks for a good idea! I think that would be better, because frankly speaking, the Tibet discussions usually get nowhere (though I’m always dumb enough to be an eager participator
).
November 17th, 2008 at 4:32 am
#125 Lobsang,
I dug thru another article regarding the Seattle visit from the Dalai Lama and have the article here. And yes there were Chinese protesters.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/13/nation/na-dalailama13
And I quote from the article:
In an onstage conversation before his performance, Matthews, the Dalai Lama and NBC news anchor Ann Curry exchanged ideas on topics including war, peace, music and motherhood.
Asked Matthews: “How can you know what your enemy understands if you don’t talk to them?”
The Dalai Lama responded that enemies can become friends through respect and respectful dialogue. Compassion can be extended to enemies, he said.
I personally don’t know how can you make friends of enemies by ‘respectful dialogue’ without talking to them. Sounds like more rhetoric from the Dalai Lama.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:47 am
@Otto Kerner #124
Good idea, please let me know if I could be of any help.
@ Allen #128
You may not be a neutral editor, but you are definitely honest and fair. BTW, have a great vacation.
@ Lobsang
Like Allen said, we really appreciate your contributions and it would be great if you could take up Allen’s suggestions.
We had a thread a few months ago on the Dalai Lama’s efforts to communicate with the Chinese
( http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/06/21/dalai-lama-tries-speaking-to-the-chinese/ )
One thing I notice is that his official Chinese site ( http://chinese.dalailama.com/ ) is only in traditional Chinese. It would be nice if there is a simplified Chinese version.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:51 am
I will create a “place holder” thread soon for the conference in the hopes that people (such as Lobsang and Tensin and others) will update us on the conference throughout the week.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:59 am
I don’t have a lot of time to contribute so sure you can start another forum and will contribute as I have time. It would be good to discuss the memorandum which should be the basis for any future discussions on China-Tibet problem and then interpret as you wish. Then for clarification from the Tibetans side on some specifics etc, I will try to obtain …
Again this is the middle-way proposal that DL clearly admitted last week as failure with dozens of talks and no results to show for. Keep in mind that this is not acceptable to the PRC.
So hopefully we will know by end of next week if middle-way is still going to be pursued or if it’s independence or self-determination as other options then I guess this may no longer be valid and will follow more hardline approach from the Tibetan side finally.
On a personal note as I had mentioned earlier, my mind is filled with the conditions of one of my cousins in Lhasa who has disappeared in Tibet since April and I need to do something to first to try to get info on his whereabouts and if alive then try to find out if they are charges laid against him. I have photos of him and short bio that I know of. I could use any help, especially any Chinese who have contacts with authorities there. So I will be spending a lot of my alotted ‘Tibet’ time on this case.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:39 am
My my… I figured I’d get a few interesting replies to my posts but ended up with more than I expected. I’ll answer as best I can.
@WW #108: Your example is a good one and I agree with the conclusion at the bottom of your first paragraph if that was the final position. But for negotiating purposes, starting with that position isn’t laughable or even a double standard, it’s just a starting negotiating position. The Chinese government had one prerequisite for negotiation; no independence. If that is met, then negotiations can start and both starting positions get modified over time. China’s starting position would sound just as inflexible and that is also to be expected. The important thing is for there to be actual negotiations.
I’ve negotiated contracts in China and no one starts anywhere near their final position. In fact, that’s true all over the world but there are variations in negotiating techniques depending on the culture. For instance, negotiations with the Japanese are very tough but once the agreement is signed, it’s ironclad. But when negotiating with the Koreans or Chinese, you have to leave something to be given after the contract is signed because negotiations don’t stop there. It’s the old story of “When in Rome…”
@Allen #109: Allen, I always give you the benefit of the doubt.
Are you saying the DL is preaching non-violence while encouraging violence behind the scenes? Tibetan history has been full of warfare; I’m aware of that. I wasn’t talking about Tibetan history; I was referring specifically to the DL. Later in your post, you seem to strongly indicate that you think he IS encouraging violence behind the scenes. If that is what you believe, then I can understand your position regarding the DL on all matters.
On the 17 Point Agreement, my bad. You had linked to the DL’s website and the idea of coercion came from him, not from you. I misrepresented your position so my apologies. The lesson is: don’t write long posts before bedtime.
I can’t confirm or deny your reasons for why the DL instigated an uprising in 1959 but since it was in the middle of the GLF, could that have influenced him? It was a crazy time in China, from what friends of mine who lived through it told me. I honestly don’t have any idea what truly happened back then, except what I’ve read in books. There are two sides to that story and I’ve never read anything that proves it one way or the other. I’ll put that in the “past history to be figured out by historians” department.
About today’s negotiations, I’m sure the CCP can bring whatever they want to the table, and I would expect their initial position to be just as unreasonable as the DL’s side. That’s just the real world of negotiations. I think we are in agreement here.
Per your last paragraph, it seems you are saying that if the former positions of a leader are incompatible with their present day positions, then you would be a fool to trust them. When Nixon met Mao in Beijing, both were changing past positions for the benefit of both countries. Should neither have trusted the other since those positions had changed? Both Mao and Nixon were ideologues in their time, and both had plenty of printed and spoken words to throw back in their faces to say they weren’t sincere and weren’t to be trusted.
But in the end, if China is unwilling to negotiate with the DL because they believe he is not sincere and cannot be trusted, then the alternative is to wait for him to die (which seems to be their current strategy) and negotiate with some future person who they believe will be easier to work with. If that is so, shouldn’t they be doing everything they can between now and then to bring the Tibetan people into the fold? From what every Tibetan contributor has told us, they would not accept anyone but the DL to be their negotiator at this time. Isn’t China also taking a gamble that once the DL dies, things could get very, very ugly with no one to keep the radicals under control? I can’t see this not being a consideration with the CCP. They say over and over that the prime goal of the government is to create a harmonious society.
@Allen #112: I wasn’t trying to cast it narrowly as a Tibetan/non-Tibetan issue. (I’ve decided to stop using the term “Han Chinese” because I think it is too narrow based on our other discussions). I used many minorities as an example and applied it in that sense.
“You – like many Westerners – seem to start with the presumption that the CCP is not “legitimate.” You also presume (ok maybe not explicitly, but I think implicitly) that the DL (the former slave owner) is somehow the “legitimate” ruler of all ethnic Tibetans. “
I gotta admit, this next part really threw me. I didn’t write either of those, so you must have assumed them. Is your viewpoint causing you to create assumptions on my behalf? I’ll make this as clear as I can.
I don’t have any presumption that the CCP isn’t legitimate. I also don’t presume that the DL is the legitimate ruler of all ethnic Tibetans. First of all, he doesn’t rule anything. Second, every Tibetan who has contributed to this blog says he represents them and their interests. I was referring specifically to the Tibetans themselves in their negotiations for greater autonomy. Since the CCP has already negotiated with the DL’s representatives, that means they have given them legitimacy or they would not have negotiated with them in the first place.
However, you didn’t answer my question. Who decides who negotiates for the Tibetans in their dealings with the CCP?
Your next statement also confused me. “The interference from outside is genuine and real.” Are you referring to the DL as the source of outside interference? Since he lives in India, your statement is accurate. I asked the question, is China promoting the DL as a bogeyman regarding the situation in Tibet? Your answer sure looked like a big “no”. I didn’t say he was, I just asked if people thought he was. There are difficulties in Tibet, no? China has blamed the DL for causing them, haven’t they? Where do we disagree?
Allen, I would not compare the situation in Tibet with 911. No one blew up thousands of people in a matter of minutes. Is the security of the non-Tibetans threatened anywhere outside of Tibet? I hope their security isn’t threatened inside or outside Tibet, but I’d feel much safer as a non-Tibetan if I were in another province. Wouldn’t you? From what I read, the major threat around the Olympics was coming from Xinjiang, not Tibet. I agree with you that the Lhasa riots were caused by just a few people. The riots in Weng’an were also caused by a few people as compared to the population in Guizhou. Aren’t most riots caused by a small percentage of the population? Isn’t most police brutality caused by a small percentage of policemen? Isn’t most corruption practiced by a small number of politicians? I’m sure there were a small number of police in Weng’an also. No one ever expects a riot.
“At the heart, China is still a weak country.”
I’ve been reading posts on different topics on the FM blog, and this sentence brings to mind a question I’ve been meaning to ask everyone. Is China weak or strong? I keep hearing both from the same people. If you want to be treated as a strong country, that’s fine. If you want to be treated as a weak country, that’s also fine. But you can’t keep changing your mind depending on the issue. I would say China is a reasonably strong country. I would not say she is weak at all. I would say she is on the rise. But my viewpoint doesn’t change from post to post. Maybe I’ll write that up as a new thread.
“The CCP has always been willing to grant cultural and religious autonomy to Tibetans at all times, but it will not allow political autonomy (e.g., dictating deployment of military, restricting flow of people into and out of Tibet) in the guise of cultural and religious autonomy.”
Fair enough, but are you saying they are willing to grant this after negotiation or have already granted it? I’m with you on the dictation of military; that can never be a provincial decision. As far as restricting the flow of people in and out of Tibet, from a tourist POV of course you are right. From a relocation point of view, can there be any restrictions or do you see that as off limits? Would cultural and religious autonomy, with more provincial leadership positions filled by Tibetans, be acceptable to most Tibetans?
“I don’t think the CCP (or I) has ever said the impasse today is due to actions the DL took 50 years ago. No – the impasse is due to acts, rhetoric, ideologies, etc. of the DL today. I refer to acts from 50 years ago to show context and continuity… not as basis for impasse today.”
I have read quite a few diatribes against trusting the DL where his position from 50 years ago is mentioned. What was the CCP’s position on issues 50 years ago? Context and continuity are fine if we’re talking about 5 or 10 years ago but that’s not been your argument. Your argument is that what the DL says is not what he means. You seem to feel what the DL’s initial negotiating position is would be his only position without the chance of compromise or modification.
“Where did you get the idea that Tibetans need to be rounded up solely because they rioted?”
I didn’t; someone else mentioned it earlier in this thread. I just thought the whole idea sounded absurd.
If I seem annoyed on this thread it is because I am. Unlike other threads, even the Taiwan threads, too many see this topic as strictly black/white, with a few exceptions who have tried to empathize with both sides. I came into this thread (my first one commenting on Tibet) with the idea that independence is not an option for Tibet, China isn’t going to grant Tibet full autonomy (it’s just not realistic) but that with certain concessions, China can make the Tibetans feel more a part of the country, more a part of China and less willing to feel threatened or coerced in their everyday living. That would be a win/win situation for everyone. I would say that’s pretty much a realistic position, actually closer to the Chinese than Tibetan side. I have NEVER advocated independence for Tibet.
So I asked a lot of questions and when people spouted propaganda without any facts to back them up (though I asked for those facts) and mostly didn’t even bother to answer or comment on any questions I posed, (Allen, you addressed some of them and I appreciate it), I called them on it. Don’t you want the situation in Tibet to get better? If so, how do you approach it? All I seem to hear is that the Tibetans better do what the Chinese government tells them; no compromise, no negotiations, no nothing. Opinions are offered as facts with nothing to back them up. Allen, you want me to take Foster Stockwell seriously, yet he didn’t footnote a thing and included such an obvious error, how can I take what he says seriously? If someone is writing an article about China and talks about how Mao started the economic reforms in 1990, what would you think? Would you give serious credence to the rest of that article? If Foster Stockwell was writing an article taking the Tibetan side and made a blatant error, would you be so quick to defend him? Bad scholarship is bad scholarship.
Having spent so much time in China, I read either the China Daily or Shanghai Daily every morning at breakfast. I can assure you that there was an article about Tibet written from the Chinese government’s POV, every single day. I read every article. I bet I’ve read more of those articles than you have. In fact, I’d bet I’ve read 5 to 10 times more articles than you have. I was there for a long time. I’ve read surprisingly little from the Tibetan POV.
If I ask a question that questions the Chinese government’s POV, everyone on that side seems to want to categorize me as “pro-Tibet”. Instead of answering the question, I get a statement assuming I have a certain position or belief, though all I did was ask a question. How can I learn more about this issue without asking questions? If you’re pro-China; fine. Back it up. Answer the question. Debate instead of insult. I went through the thread and also noticed that though everyone thinks it’s great to have Lobsang, Hemulen and Tenzin on the board, none of the China guys have asked them any questions. It’s been statements, statements, statements, all against his position. Lobsang lived there; why no questions? How can he participate in a discussion if no one wants his opinion? If no one asks them questions about their perspective, isn’t that being closed minded?
I’ve spent my entire career finding solutions for my customer’s problems. Some of those solutions were complex, took a long time to solve and were industry firsts. Very few were easy. Why was I so good at it? I asked a lot of questions. Questions and finding the answers to those questions are the way to create solutions. Looking at a problem from my customer’s POV was not only necessary, it was imperative. Asking questions is the only way to truly define a problem. I hear a lot of insults being thrown around, but not many questions or solutions…
November 17th, 2008 at 5:46 am
@Lobsang
Just out of curiosity, are you the Lobsang from Salt Lake City, UT, who was mistakenly identified as Jin Jing’s attacker back in April out of a google flesh search?
November 17th, 2008 at 6:14 am
@m.wolfe68 #117: “I have to agree with Allen’s positions (#112). I would simply say you are still a bit too self-righteous in your thinking.
You said: “Isn’t the lack of ethics in the current Chinese business climate a lack of balance?”
Which business climate is “ethical” in your standards?
Is it correct to interpret you are saying that if the Chinese have ethics such as the Tibetan’s in exile’s devotion to non-violence and other ideals of Budhism, the business climate in China would then be ethical?”
m.wolfe, I owed you an answer and didn’t want to include it in that last long post. Your question is understandable and I wanted to give you a thorough answer. Maybe when I’m done you might not think I’m so self-righteous…
I don’t know how much business you’ve done in China, but I’ve done a lot. Not only is the current ethical standard low, everyone acknowledges it. Ask a Chinese businessman who he’d rather do business with, a western corporation, a Taiwan company or a fellow Chinese. You’d hear the western corporation or the Taiwan company. Why? Because he knows he can trust that what is agreed to will happen the vast majority of the time. Ask a Chinese high tech professional if he’d rather work for a Chinese company or a multinational company. Virtually all would choose the multinational company. They even rank it by countries. There’s a joke that went around China about the good life and the bad life, listing countries for each area. In the good life you work for an American company and in the bad life you work for a Chinese company. It’s a Chinese joke, not a western joke.
Colleagues of mine told me horror stories about working for Chinese companies. For non-Chinese, the Koreans and Japanese were considered the worst to work for.
In Asia, the most ethical businesses are in Singapore and Hong Kong. The Japanese and Taiwanese are also very ethical. Koreans are ok but you have to be more careful. The Philippines are a step below. China, Vietnam and Indonesia are the ones you really need to watch.
If you want to call me self-righteous for saying this, you’d also have to include virtually all highly educated young professionals working in China. I worked with the professional elite in the country; mostly Qinghua and Shanghai Jiaotong University engineers and managers. I was in the semiconductor manufacturing business, if that matters. I don’t want to waste blog space, but I could give manifold examples confirming what I’m saying.
I’m not sure where this particular business trait comes from or what would cause it to happen. I have no idea whether it’s related to religion; I just know that’s the way it is at this time. Unfortunately, my colleagues didn’t have much hope of it changing anytime soon. Since it is not a problem in either Hong Kong or Singapore, it’s not inherent to the Chinese culture. Maybe you can tell me what causes it?
Have you done business in China? If so, what type?
November 17th, 2008 at 6:18 am
@ Allen: Hey, have a great vacation! We’ll miss you here… well, at least I shall.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:24 am
@Wukailong #130,
To your observation:
I’d add:
November 17th, 2008 at 6:26 am
@Steve #139,
Thanks! I won’t be leaving till Tuesday … but I’ll definitely be tapering down starting almost immediately … to get ready for the trip, tie up loose ends at work, etc.
See you all when I get back…
November 17th, 2008 at 7:06 am
” Since it is not a problem in either Hong Kong or Singapore, it’s not inherent to the Chinese culture. ”
I think this has very little or nothing to do with ethnical / religious culture – Perhaps it’s to do with [adapting to] “Modern civic / Metropolitan culture.” And then there is the problem of the means and manpower to enforce established National ethical & civil laws within a province, district, city, town, village.
IN HK/Singapore, for example, if you ran a red light, lit up a fag in some indoor public place, spit in public, litter, parked your car any which way you like, drove in the opposite direction or on bicycle lanes etc….the chance of the law coming hard on ones ass and wallet is probably 80+% – Beijing during and since the Olympics is a good example.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:22 am
@Lobsang
Every perspective has its own limitation. There is no need for me to repeat how strongly Tibetan-in-exile community felt their historical grievance. How much of that is justified is a different subject for discussion. For the new generation with western education background, a mix of anguish with idealistic western ideology can be dangerous. Let me just caution you here the possibilty of leading Tibetan-in-exile community into strand. Both sides of Tibet issues need to take a long view on such complex problem.
I have lived in both China and US long enough. Under drastically different social, economical and historical environments, things just work so differently at these two places. I do not dare to impose my own POV on China onto my kid when she asked me questions (a lot of them). Instead, I encourage her to get education there, to form her own POV on people in China and the future of China through her own interaction. She told me she has been enjoying her expereince so far .
Good to know you traveled into China, please do not limit yourself to Tibet region only, go to see more places. China is still very much a developing land, but transformation does happen very fast. Even I have had a hard time to catch up through my own reading and traveling.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:47 am
,
November 17th, 2008 at 7:48 am
@Steve / #138
You indeed have extensive personal experiences to attest to.
“Maybe you can tell me what causes it?”
Hongkonger / #142 above essentially explained my position. I also think it has nothing to do with culture or religion. You are observing a China that is in the process of creating new laws and not all the participants are operating with a legal mind-set.
I think China will get there as Singapore or Hongkong has.
I manage an R&D organization for a large Japanese firm in the USA. If anything, I’d add that the Asian culture (Japanese/Chinese/Korean), makes them the genuinely most hard-working employees.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Lobsang,
Do you know how native aborignals in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and USA live ?
Do a little research before blaming Han chinese, please.
Remember : you, Dalai Lama, Tibet exile government are just tools for those who hated China, whether you like it or not. You will sit when they tell you to sit, stand when they tell you to stand, bark when they tell you to bark. Didnt you see Hu JingTao standing next to Bush in G20 meeting ?
Chinese troops out of Tibet ? are you a political moron ? you think West and India will leave Tibet alone after Chinese troops leave Tibet ?
If, for some reason, you dont mind West and India put “peace keeping” troop in Tibet but mind China have troop in Tibet, it is because of your thirsty of political power and you can have power in Tibet by driving Chinese out. If so, please dont pretend you are fighting for Tibet people cuz you are fighting for your own ambitions.
Also, 20 years ago, when I traveled to Tibet, I couldnt find a grocery store to buy tissue. do you know how poor your tibetan brothers and sisters are ?
Tibet infants have very very very high mortality rate cuz tibetan pregnant women refuse to go to hospital.
DID YOU AND YOUR EXILE GOVERNMENT EVER, I MEAN, EVER, THINK OF SOMETHING TO HELP THEM LIVE BETTER ?
DID ANY SO CALLED HUMAN RIGHT ADVOCATES EVERY, I MEAN EVER, THINK OF SOMETHING TO HELP THEM LIVE BETTER ?
DID YOU AND THOSE SO CALLED SHAMELESS HUMAN RIGHT FIGHTERS EVER, I MEAN, EVER, THINK OF SAVING THOSE INFANTS ?
November 17th, 2008 at 8:12 am
@Allen: I agree completely.
I think that we could add a group of common opinions Westerners and Chinese in general hold, but it would go outside the scope of the Tibet discussion. These opinions often appear in the discussions though (like “Chinese are brainwashed by their government”).
November 17th, 2008 at 8:14 am
@Wahaha: “You will sit when they tell you to sit, stand when they tell you to stand, bark when they tell you to bark. Didnt you see Hu JingTao standing next to Bush in G20 meeting ?”
Please explain – I don’t exactly understand how these two sentences are related.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I am very happy that some Tibetans participate to this debate.
It was sounding somewhat strange to see Chinese and ‘Westerners’ exchanging ideas without the principal characters, the Tibetans themselves.
@ m.wolfe68
Sorry, I stand with Steve on this point. The ethical standards are indeed very very low in the PRC these days. And, in my opinion, nothing to be justified with Confucianism.
@ Allen
We will miss you here … enjoy your holidays on the beautiful island
November 17th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
@m.wolfe #68: I’d like to add something to what I said last night, because it can affect the future of China. My colleagues over there were some of the nicest, kindest, finest people I’ve ever known; very intelligent and always tried to do their best. Their personal, moral and ethical standards were beyond reproach. They don’t like the current system any more than you or I do.
I could see three “generations” by age group when working there. The oldest, people around my age, are running things now and quite honestly, have the lowest ethical standards overall. The next generation would be from 28-40. They are the ‘tweener generation and though they accept what’s going on, they don’t like it. The youngest generation, 27 and below, are the “one child” generation and they get very angry when dealing with this topic. Many criticize this generation as being selfish and spoiled and there is some truth to that, but I also see them as being more openminded and willing to think outside the box.
Can they overcome an established way of doing business or will they succumb to finally accepting it since as the elite of their generation, they would be the beneficiaries of this low ethical standard? Only time will tell but I feel optimistic about their chances. I think many of them realize that for China to take that next step in her development, things need to change.
The fish rots from the head and for China to truly change, the government has to change. By far the lowest ethics are when you need to deal with government officials. How the party can actually change this under the current system is something beyond my comprehension. They can put bandaids on specific blatant reported instances but at this time the problem is so endemic that I think it would take a complete change in the system. How do you create checks and balances within a one party authoritarian system to deal with this?
From a productivity POV, the problem was never working hard; all my colleagues were very dedicated. The problem was more of a mindset of having to put in very long hours. You can’t work from 9 to 9 at a high productivity rate. You’ll burn out. So everyone slows down to get through such long days, which I completely understand. It’s no different in Taiwan. The other barrier to productivity is getting someone to actually make a decision, since everyone has been taught to keep bouncing the decision up the chain of command or else come up with a consensus decision. Meetings to make rather small decisions can drag on for a very long time. They were always amazed when I’d come in, ask what was going on, hear the alternatives and just say, “Do this at this margin, etc.” I could see the relief in their faces. I don’t think I was too successful in changing that particular mindset; it was just too deeply ingrained.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I took some information from an article written by an American writer – ‘Tibet through Chinese eyes’ published at the Atlantic in 1999 Feb. The article put the Tibet POV and Chinese POV side by side. The data is a bit old, but it gives some sense and scale of things.
Seeing the end part of the article, Tibetans unrealistically believe that Americans will come to save them, I am wondering if this believe, a lost opportunity perhaps, make them more unhappy under Chinese government? This American sentimental is also mentioned in another article I recommended in this thread. I am asking where this idea comes from considering they are living in a remote area with limited English level?
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/tibet.htm
Info. from the article
1. The Han migration
‘According to Beijing, Han make up only three percent of the population of the Tibet Autonomous Region, whereas some Tibetan exiles claim that the figure is in fact over 50 percent and growing’ (i look up online – in 2002, official data shows Tibetan accounts for 96% of the population in Tibet)
‘Tibetans see the influx of Han as yet another attempt to destroy their culture; Chinese see the issue as Deng Xiaoping did in 1987, when he said, “Tibet is sparsely populated. The two million Tibetans are not enough to handle the task of developing such a huge region. There is no harm in sending Han into Tibet to help…. The key issues are what is best for Tibetans and how can Tibet develop at a fast pace, and move ahead in the four modernizations in China.”
2. The scale of investment
‘Foreign reports often refer to the exploitation of Tibetan resources as a classic colonial situation, which is misleading. Although Beijing is certainly doing what it can with Tibet’s timber and mineral reserves, China spends an enormous amount of money in the region, and if self-sufficiency ever comes, it will not come soon.
In 1996 China spent some $600 million in Tibet. One foreign observer who has studied the region puts this in perspective: “For that same year the United States gave a total of eight hundred million dollars in aid to all of Africa. That’s all of Africa — we’re talking about hundreds of millions of people. In Tibet there are only two and a half million. So if they become independent, who’s going to be giving them that kind of money?”
3. Special tax support in Tibet
‘Taxes in Tibet are virtually nonexistent; Tibetan farmers, unlike those in the interior, receive tax-free leases of land, and a preferential tax code has been established to encourage business. Low-interest loans are available, and business imports from Nepal are duty-free. ‘
4. The education
‘Before they (CCP) arrived, in 1951, there were no public schools in Tibet, whereas now there are more than 4,000
Likewise the schools I saw were impressive facilities with low student fees. In one town I toured the three local middle schools; two of them were newly built, with far better campuses than I was accustomed to seeing in China. The third school, whose grounds featured massive construction cranes fluttering with prayer flags, was being refurbished with the help of a $720,000 investment from the interior. Unlike students at most Chinese schools, those at the local No. 1 Middle School paid no tuition, and even high school students, who generally pay substantial amounts in China, had paid at most $70 a semester, including board.’
5. Tibetans’ American dream
‘…less-educated Tibetans…invariably had great faith in American support and believed that President Clinton, who was then in China on last year’s state visit, had come in order to save Tibet. ‘
‘(In front of the Jokhang temple, the writer encountered) two Tibetans who were eager to speak with an American, and they had a great deal of faith in America’s ability to help solve the Tibet question.’
‘(Another Tibetan workers said to the writer) “You need to tell the people of America what it’s like here,” he said. “You need to tell them what needs to be done.” I nodded and shook his hand, but I realized I had no idea what I would recommend, or what the people of America could do. Perhaps we could build casinos.’
For people want to have some insight of Tibetan-in-exile group.
here is a blog by a Tibetan wrier Woeser: woeser.middle-way.net
It’s in Chinese. Woeser is either pro-Tibetan-in-exile or part of them. Our Tibetan posters here posted Wang Lixiong’s article earlier. Wang Lixiong is her husband.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
(to Sophie ), speaking of population..
When Tibetans refer to ‘Tibet’ they are talking about the entity comprising the three provinces of U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo. The two Tibetan provinces of Kham and Amdo are now largely incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Qinghai and Sichuan Tibet’s traditional territory now accounts for one quarter of the landmass of the People’s Republic of China.
When the Chinese talk about ‘Tibet’, they are referring only to the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), an administrative region created by the Chinese occupiers in 1965.
Check out last March uprising in Tibet. You can tell where Tibetans are located. Not just southern Lhasa area..
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/03/images/tibet.jpg
November 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Sophie, thanks for the link. That article seemed pretty fair to me. The writer tried to show both sides and how people on both sides just seem to be at cross purposes with each other while not trying to do so. Near the end the author wrote:
“There were definite benefits of Chinese support, and I was impressed by the idealism and dedication of some of the young Han teachers I had met. But at the same time, most efforts to develop the region were badly planned, and it was frustrating to see so much money and work invested in a poor country and so much unhappiness returned. And often I felt that the common people, who knew little of Tibet’s complicated historical and cultural issues, were being manipulated by the government in ways they didn’t understand. But although I was certain that nobody was truly happy (most of the Han didn’t like being there, and most of the Tibetans certainly weren’t happy to have them), I wasn’t sure who was pulling the strings. One could go straight to the top and probably find the same helplessness, the same strings. It was mostly the irrevocable mistakes of history, but it was also money — simple economic pressure that drove a mother away from her son to a place where the people did not want her.”
This reminds me so much of Peace Corps aid to Africa in the 1960s. Young, idealistic students went there to help the people. They had the best intentions. They built schools, bridges, showed better ways to farm, etc. But today, some of those same workers have gone back to the villages they lived in so many years ago, and discovered that the school they built hasn’t had any maintenance for 40 years and is falling apart, the bridge has no roads on either side, the farming methods have been abandoned. It all seems like such a waste and the conclusion many of them reach is that you can’t help people, they must help themselves. The best thing you can do is train the trainers.
Tenzin, looking at that map you linked to, is the majority of the Tibetan population located in western Sichuan province? Are they getting the same level of investment as the TAR? I remember one of my Shanghai colleagues took a bus from Chengdu for a three day ride to the high plains and lived in a maikhan for a week. She just loved it! When I saw the photos, I hadn’t realized Tibetans were located in that part of China.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
@Sophie 151
I don’t think the problem is with the economic investment within the Tibetian region. In fact, the Dalai Lama actually thanked the Chinese government for doing that. The major problem as Tenzin or Lobsang says are Religious repression, Han Migration and assimilation.
If the Dalai Lama want the Chinese and Tibetans to live together in ‘harmony,’ I see the reversing the Han Migration and assimilation is contradict as what he says. It seems to me that what he wants is segregation between the Han Chinese and Tibetans. Sounds that he wants to go back to the 1960’s segregation like in the Southern US and in South Africa.
In the documentation that Allen provided, it seems to me that Tibetan’s culture is largely unchanged. What has changed is that economic prosperity has brought cultural changes. For example, the documentation shows the young monk in training who doesn’t seem to be interested in being a monk because of the galore of modern technology. Yet the Han Chinese are being blamed for not allowing enough monks in the monsterary. In HK, my Wife’s Aunt used to be a nun until she died a couple of years ago. In that monastery, there are very high demand for nuns and many wanna-be-nuns going thru nun-hood quit after they become adults.
As someone mentions about Religious repression. Unfortunately, religion is heavily regulated in China for both the Hans and the Tibetans. Why else is there those underground Christian Churches and FLG being banned alltogether? I think the Tibetan exiles see what they want without looking at the current condition within China. They seriously don’t considered the current state within China or the ability to see things from the Chinese point of view.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
@152. I wonder whether the Tibetans outside TAR have been assimilated to Chinese or local cultures. When I was in those areas as a tourist, the Tibetan culture/dance was shown to me many times.
The Indians in US have a better life when they assimilate than those in reservation even with huge welfare benefits. Steve, can you verify that?
November 17th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
@Steve,
I agree with you. Good intention doesn’t necessary lead to the good result. But, is the result really that bad? even the two articles I posted here written by the Western writers give a bit different pictures.
When talking about unhappiness of Tibetans, considering there are unhappy people in any society, I would ask several questions: is it the majority of Tibetans who are unhappy? or the majority people are OK with current situation but they have no voice(’silent majority’)? Are Tibetans unhappier than people in the rest of China? if it’s similar situation, then I assume it’s not an ethnic issue. Do people really believe if Han people leave Tibet then Tibetans will be happy?
As well, I don’t know how to justify this huge investment in Tibet. There must be some political or security reasons? a colleague of mine coming from the Inner Mongolia jokingly said: look, our mongolians have never made troubles and therefore we got nothing from the central government. whereas look at Tibet, they got so much money…
@Otto #123
About your suggestion that DL reach out to the Chinese people, i can think of one potential barrier. Currently his talks can be accepted by the western audience who don’t know Chinese history. If he addresses to the Chinese people, he has to change his stories, since some of his talks won’t be accepted by Chinese. for instance, in the recent report, his official cited the disappearing of Manchu culture as an example of Chinese ‘culture genocide’. Westerners may accept this reasoning, Chinese can easily tell this is not true. It’s Manchu emperors who choose to become the master of Chinese culture in order to rule the big Han population (it’s a common knowledge among Chinese). So, how can DL present 2 versions of the story?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
@sophie
It’s Manchu emperors who choose to become the master of Chinese culture in order to rule the big Han population (it’s a common knowledge among Chinese).
This is not accurate. While it is true that Manchu emperors sponsored Chinese culture and that the spoken Manchu language almost disappeared at the end of the 19th century, Manchus remained a distinct ethnic group right until the end of the Qing. The dressed differently from Han Chinese, they spoken different Chinese dialects, they lived in separate quarters and had different names. At the time of the Xinhai revolution 1911, Manchu men, women and children became the targets of nationalist mobs and tens of thousands of Manchus were massacred in cities such as Nanjing, Xi’an and Taiyuan. This is something that was widely reported at the time. After that, the pressure to assimilate was irresistible, and Manchus were forced to cover up their identities in order to pass as Han Chinese. The famous author Lao She was one of them and pretended to be Han Chinese for decades. This is something that almost any Manchu in China knows about and can relate to, but it is not surprising that most Han Chinese have basically no idea about it. Was this “cultural genocide”? Possibly, but the main problem here is that the self-perception of Han Chinese is out of tune with many “minorities” and it is very difficult to challenge that self-perception. Just look at some rather outlandish claims made at this blog.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
@pug_ster
“Unfortunately, religion is heavily regulated in China for both the Hans and the Tibetans. Why else is there those underground Christian Churches and FLG being banned alltogether?”
The situation is not that simple, you happen to single out Christianity, which has a historical and political problem within China; and FLG which is widely viewed as a dangerous cult. On the other hand, Buddhism (including Tibetan Buddhism) is thriving in China with little or no restriction from the government.
As for the complain of the prosecution of the Tibetan Buddhism, much of it is related to the (rather porous) restriction in worshiping of Dalai Lama, but it is often due to Dalai Lama’s political role instead of his religious one.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
@pug_ster #154: I agree with you; without a doubt the Chinese government has tried to bring infrastructure to the TAR. Without infrastructure, you cannot build an economy. I think all the new roads and the new ultramodern train are a good thing; anything to tie the economy to the rest of China (and through China,the world) should help all Tibetans eventually. These days, being too isolated can really leave you high and dry.
I wonder, though, about the religious repression. Christianity is a foreign religion and FLG is a new religion/philosophy/whatever (I’m not quite sure what it is, to be honest) but Tibetan Buddhism is very old and established. To be a Tibetan Buddhist is a conservative, traditional practice. Do the Tibetans look at the non-Tibetans and think, “Well, they can repress religion among Chinese since that’s their culture, but our culture is religious”? As long as the Tibetans don’t try to impress their religion on non-Tibetans, wouldn’t it make sense to allow them to worship? Or do you think the Chinese government is so worried about establishing a precedent for the rest of China that they have no choice but to heavily restrict it? The question becomes, does the restriction benefit China in the long run or would it benefit her more to remove it?
@TonyP4 #155: I can’t say a better life, but a different life. Definitely a more materialistically successful life. Most of my experience with American Indians are with Navajo and Cherokee, but primarily with the Navajo. The guys I knew off the reservation made fun of reservation Navajo, saying they paid for all that welfare with their self respect. Also, don’t forget that most American Indians are not pure blood. Neither are most African Americans. There is already a mix in the culture. Tibetans might still be mostly pure blood, so they might have a different outlook about integration. My guess based on other areas in the world similar to the Tibetan plain is that life on the high plains is very unique, poor but spiritual, suited to some but not suited to many. I would expect the best option for a Tibetan is to have many options, to be able to live that life or to be able to live a life in a big city, or maybe even in Chengdu or Shanghai if that was desired.
I have the feeling most who are posting to this blog, including me, live in somewhat decent sized cities. In city life, your mind is constantly occupied by the minutae of everyday life. Constant stimuli are bombarding us without us even being aware of it happening. But life in an isolated area is very different. When it’s mostly just you and nature, nature can be overwhelming. Religion seems much closer, always there, not only when you go to a temple or church. The need to fill that religious void can’t be un-taught, can’t be propagandized away, it’s just too powerful.
My guess is that over time, the two cultures, Tibetan and non-Tibetan, will synchronize but not be the same. The synchronization factor will be modern life. When I was in Shanghai, in most ways life was just as modern as in San Diego. The cultural differences were there but nothing too hard to overcome, since we both shared a similar outlook. I think a person from the high plains of Tibet would feel at home in eastern New Mexico. The culture would be different but the general outlook would be the same. A strong country needs both urban and rural outlooks; one is not better than the other, just different. A strong and confident country can be united without everyone being similar or having the same culture or outlook. You just need to love your country and appreciate the differences rather than condemning them.
@sophie #156: Those are good questions. I think that we need to look at the cause of unhappiness. The rest of China might not be happy but it is usually based on economic priorities and corruption issues. Outside of the FLG and maybe some Roman Catholics there, I don’t think religion is much of an issue in non-Tibetan China excepting the Muslims in Xinjiang. For Tibetans, their main cause of unhappiness is, IMO, that their culture is being superceded by what they perceive to be a foreign culture where they feel like strangers in their own land. I don’t think they want all Han to leave the TAR. For me, that is a bad idea anyway. They just don’t want to be overwhelmed by them. They don’t want to become a minority in their own ancient cities.
The Mongolian observation is pretty interesting. Tibet is geopolitically important because it is the roof of the world and forms a strategic border with Nepal/India. Much of that new infrastructure has a dual purpose; to build up the economy but also to bring military assets to quickly bear in case of war or the threat of war. But Mongolia lies near the border with Russia, and Russia has historically been the greater threat. The Mongolians have a point.
Sophie, I completely agree with you in terms of the history of the Manchus. Hundreds of years of integration with the non-Manchu population changed the Manchu identity forever. Also, non-Manchus had to observe certain Manchu rules so that also changed the non-Manchu identity.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
@Hemulen
“… Manchus remained a distinct ethnic group right until the end of the Qing. The dressed differently from Han Chinese, they spoken different Chinese dialects, they lived in separate quarters and had different names. … ”
They dressed differently mostly to show their distinct higher ranking in the society. While their dialect is very well preserved in Beijing dialect to this day.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I don’t have a lot of time to respond to questions but read the postings with great interest.
Since I haven’t been on this forum much and will be candid. Is this forum mostly consists of overseas Chinese instead of mainland Chinese from China and recent immigrants sucn as since June 4, 1989 thousands of students asylum seekers in the west and more recently lots of skilled immigrants to places like Canada, Australia etc.
It appears from the posting, I get an impression they are more overseas Chinese such as from Taiwan, Singapore, Hongkong, Malaysia, Indonisia etc than China proper.
Not that it makes much difference but good to know from experience sometimes overseas communities are more nationalistic and conservative than the the country proper. Just curios …
November 17th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
@152
“three provinces of U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo”
It’s only in the fantasy land of the tibetan exiles that these three “provinces” exist, when in reality Kham and Amdo haven’t been under the rule of Lhasa since the collapse of the Tubo empire in 9th century AD.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Hemulen，
I firstly learned Chinese history from my Chinese teachers. Then i didn’t stop there. I was curious to see our history from other point of view. So I read almost all books about China by Professor John King Fairbank who is the famous Chinese expert and the founder of the Fairbank Centre for Chinese Studies at the Harvard University, books by Chinese American Historian Huang Renyu and book ‘my country and my people’ by Lin Yutang written in 1930’s (Lin was nominated for Nobel Prize). None of the readings raise doubts to this part of history. If you can provide your reference, I will be happy to read.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
@Tenzin #152 and zhihua #162: I found this in Wikipedia: “There are, however, significant differences in traditions and beliefs–even physical appearance–between the peoples of Kham and Lhasa. At least one-third of Kham residents are speakers of Qiangic languages, a family of twelve distinct but interrelated languages that are unrelated to the Tibetan language. Many Khampas are members of the Bön religion or ‘Black sect’ of Tibetan Buddhism, a group that had been largely marginalized and stigmatized by other Tibetan sects.”
If this is true, then it would seem zhihua has a point. However, I’d like to ask zhihua why the people in this area protested and rioted last summer if they don’t feel a part of the rest of Tibet? Was it for religious reasons only? Or for something else?
Tenzin, I think zhihua was referring to this: “Since the collapse of the Tibetan Empire in the mid-9th century, the peoples of Kham had aggressively maintained their independence from Lhasa. Local chieftains ruled their respective territories with hereditary titles bestowed by Chinese emperors. Chinese control was minimal, however, and chieftains were able to rule with a large degree of independence from both China and Tibet.”
Does this area now want limited autonomy from both China and Tibet?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
@wuming
What can I say to you, but 顾左右而言他. I mention a couple of verifiable events and their possible impact on Chinese identity. You talk about dress code and dialect. Whatever. What-frigging-ever.
@sophie
I have the greatest respect for the names you mentioned, but they have not done primary research on this particular event. The standard account of the atrocities of 1911 is Edward Rhoads’ recent book. Manchu & Han. Take a look.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Allen,
I heard you will be travelling to Yunnan on holidays. I was there a couple of times and one of my best holidays and had a great tiem. I am sure you will travel to Kunming, Dali and Lijiang. Then you have an option take 3 hours drive to a Tibetan aread called Gyalthang or now renamed ‘Shangri-la’ (quite silly but that’s what’s the real name’). Then if you are adventurous you will take another 3-4 hours to Dechen to see Mount Kawa Karpo (the current Tibetan Prime Minister for the Tibetanan Govt in-exile Samdhong Rinpoche is from that area). So you might get to the Tibetan areas which is like 2000 miles from Lhasa but they are 100% pure Khampa Tibetans and look up to Lhasa as the spiritual and cultural capital instead of Kunming.
Below is an article from NYTimes on this trips to that area and reporting on Tibetan sentiments.
I would suggest to check if other minorities have really kept the culture or they are mostly assimilated. I thought the latter as they speak Mandarin and dress native for tourists only. Naxi have kept some identity and then for sure Tibetans have kept strong identity (so far).
Now my request to you, knowing your love for China and PRC, if you tell to the Tibetans that you are from the US, they might trust you and say things that are breaking the country law such as their devotion to the Dalai Lama or if you have photos of him as mentioned below or worse something else. I could tell the NYTimes reporter is ethnic Chinese and some Tibetans have confided some sensitive stuff to him. Now my request to you, I trust you won’t do it but will you PLEASE not turn them in by mentioning to the tour-guide (informants to the Public Security Bureau). They trust you because you are American and that’s not fair for breaking this trust to them. As you might know this will get them in serious trouble and ruin their lives. I am not being sarcastic nor trying to offend you but since you are going there and knowing your deep feelings, I just had to say this sincerely. Sorry no offence.
Have a great holiday and Yunnan is just beautiful. I could live in any of these towns.
Regards, Lobsang
Now here is excerpt from the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/world/asia/18tibet.html
Perhaps nowhere is there a better example of the “middle way” attitude promoted by the Dalai Lama, the exiled Buddhist avatar who advocates a nonviolent movement for Tibetan autonomy within China but not outright independence.
“Whatever he does, we do,” said Tashi, a driver who keeps a portrait of the Dalai Lama on his dashboard even though such images are banned in China. “We don’t want to make trouble.”
In this remote area, pilgrims flocking to the sacred snow mountain of Kawa Karpo carry photos of the Dalai Lama. Farther south, in a sprawling monastery outside the town that Tibetans call Gyalthang, known to the Chinese as Shangri-La, a monk’s eyes lighted up when he learned a visitor was from the United States.
“Have you seen the Dalai Lama?” he asked.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
@Hemulen,
Cool down please. I may have been 避重就轻, but they were parts of your statement, and I particularly put in “…” before and after to show that I am not addressing all you points. I am speaking as an old Beijinger where the mixed Han and Manchu cultures formed its unique character that is very different from the Putonghua culture. More importantly though the newer generation is adopting the Taiwanese/Hong Kong accents, the old Beijing culture is still carrying its weight in arts and literature of China.
You may have threads of arguments going with other people, but I am not part of them, you are free to dump this shitload on me only when I join those.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
@wuming
Whatever.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
@ Steve and Lobsang
Alexandra David-Néel is a woman who has traveled (sometimes illegally, I have to say) all around Tibet in the 20’s-30’s (Kham, Amdo, Po country, even in Lhasa), and she was truly in love with the Tibetan culture.
Fascinating travel books for me (I don’t know if it has been translated in English, Chinese, or Tibetan).
According to her (from my memory, the books are still in Beijing), the Khampas and Amdopas were traditionally quite reluctant to the rule from Central Tibet / Lhasa (U and Tsang provinces).
That does not necessary means that they don’t feel Tibetans.
Lobsang, what is your opinion about what she wrote?
“Me and my brothers against my cousins, me and my cousins against my village, me and my village against the world”, as they say in Kabylia.
ps: as for the bons, which is a ‘pre-buddhist’ religion, she said that it had been mixed with Buddhism to create another branch of Tibetan Buddhism. She didn’t mentioned real tensions between bons and other Buddhists. At least, not more than between ‘Red Hats’ and ‘Yellow Hats’.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
@wuming
You may have threads of arguments going with other people, but I am not part of them, you are free to dump this shitload on me only when I join those.
Whatever. Whatever.
Look, everything can be said about Tibet has probably already been said — just on this blog. The full and complete sovereignty over Tibet is essential to China’s security and its future. In this light, other issues are but bargaining chips at the best, noises most likely. I believe the basic Chinese stand towards minority groups with nationalistic aspirations is this: give it up and join us in the pursued of better lives. This stand is narrow minded, near sighted, fatalistic and “lacking in ideals”; but it is the best thing happened to China for at least a thousand years.
Whatever.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
@Hemulen #165 and sophie #163: The book that Hemulen recommends can be found in its entirety on the net: http://books.google.com/books?id=QiM2pF5PDR8C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=manchu+and+han&source=web&ots=xUz58GJQiC&sig=J7fk4RIsFNINKqJmDZAxEweFLAk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPP1,M1
Hemulen, this looks like a well researched book and I intend to read it. However, I must point out that John K. Fairbank went to Beijing in 1932 when the Qing imperial archives were opened, so he also worked from primary sources. I have no doubt that Edward Rhoads worked from those same sources and might have had other newly discovered sources to aid his research, but that is just my guess.
Sophie, that brought back memories. We used one of Dr. Fairbank’s books in a college class I took many years ago. Like you, I’ve since read most of his work. It was always Fairbank on China and Reischauer on Japan.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
@159 Steve
Bringing in infrastructure improvements to Tibet is mostly positive and like what Sophie says, it is a thankless job for the Han Chinese who did it. However, it seems that the Tibetans in exile don’t understand that Han Migration is necessary in order to do it. I don’t know what do the Tibetans in exile think when they expect Han Chinese to pour time and money to build a Shangra-la that Tibetans would expect, hand over the keys to the Tibetans and leave. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
As for Cult and religion. I think China sees the Dalai Lama seen as a threat almost (but not quite) at the same level as Jim Jones or David Koresh. The Dalai Lama seems to be acting more like a Pat Robertson. Still people like that in China’s eyes is considered a threat. Heck the Pope is harmless compared to the Dalai Lama yet China don’t recognize the Pope as a Christian Leader.
As the way I see it, this whole 1 week pow-wow by the Tibetans in exile is useless as they seem to be scheming on how to make China look their way. When I check out wowser’s ‘middle way’ website about Tibetan in Exile’s demands, I would not help but to shake my head. They think they can convince the world’s leaders to carve up China like how they can carve up East Timor or Yugoslavia. These guys should focus on what they can realistically do rather than what idealistically they want to do.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
@Hemulen,
I don’t challenge what is described in your post, but this needs to be put into historical context. I wouldn’t interpret it as a forced assimilation by Han People (not mention an example of ‘culture genocide’). It was in the middle of revolution throwing the ruling class (manchu) and transferring China into a modern country. Some revolutionaries used anti-manchu to get support from the majority people.
Furthermore, this assimilation had happened long before 1911 and it’s initiated by Manchu court.
Below is from wiki:
During the Qing Dynasty, the Manchu government made efforts to preserve Manchu culture and the language. These efforts were largely unsuccessful in that Manchus gradually adopted the customs and language of the surrounding Han Chinese and, by the nineteenth century, spoken Manchu was rarely used even in the Imperial court…
Near the end of the Qing Dynasty, Manchus were portrayed as outside colonizers by Chinese nationalists such as Sun Yat-Sen, even though the Republican revolution he brought about was supported by many reform-minded Manchu officials and military officers. This portrayal quickly dissipated after the 1911 revolution as the new Republic of China now sought to include Manchus within its national identity.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
@bt #169: I hadn’t heard of Alexandra David-Néel before but found her official website here: http://www.alexandra-david-neel.org/anglais/acca.htm I read her biography; she was certainly a unique individual!
I also checked amazon.com and her books are available in English.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
@ Steve
Ah, Steve, you might be elected one day ‘the most curious poster’ of the FM blog
Alexandra David Néel is somewhat special for me: she is ‘responsible’ of my travels in Asia.
If you are interested in her writings, I might advise you to start with:
- Tibetan Journey (org. title “Au Pays des Brigands Gentilshommes”)
- My Journey to Lhassa (org. title “Voyage d’une parisienne à Lhassa”)
“The Superhuman life of Gésar of Ling” is also very interesting.
There are some books about her life in China before and during the WWII, but the link you provided says it is only available in French or German. The other books are related to some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, or her life in India.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:09 am
@ bt: They have “My Journey to Lhasa” over at amazon.com. Here’s the list of books they have in English: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_1_15?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=alexandra+david-n%E9el&sprefix=alexandra+david
No luck in finding “Tibetan Journey” or “The Superhuman Life of Gésar of Ling”.
My wife is responsible for my travels in Asia. She said “time to meet the family” and off I went.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:12 am
@Lobsang #166,
Thanks for your thoughts in #166. I will see if I can visit some of the more ethnic Tibetan areas.
However since I am traveling with my wife (who is not really adventurous; she is “scared” enough as it is that we are going to the “Mainland”!), I probably will not get too far out alone myself to the remote areas this time … but definitely next time when I get a chance to travel in the area.
And regarding your comment about me turning Tibetans in – I understand where you are coming from, but I also feel a little indignant that you think that is the purpose of my trip…. In any case, I will definitely look out for the abundant spirit of the various people and land that is Yunnan ….
November 18th, 2008 at 12:25 am
@ Steve
Hahaha, we all have women shaping our lives
* Tibet Land of Gentlemen Brigands: Retracing the Steps of Alexandra David-Neel (Journey Through the World & Nature) (http://www.amazon.com/Tibet-Land-Gentlemen-Brigands-David-Neel/dp/8854400599/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226967503&sr=8-14) is “Tibetan Journey” (might be several English editions). This one is the travel in Kham and Amdo. “My Journey to Lhassa” is the most famous however, cos’ of the hype around the trip (‘wow, first Western woman to enter Lhassa’).
November 18th, 2008 at 12:41 am
@Hemulen
Your whole argument in this thread is about history, which is distinctly not part of my argument. I don’t hold the view that Chinese civilization has been particularly peaceful or tolerant. Instead, I am holding the view that China is finally on a right path where it will broke no distraction. It offers the same formula of economic development to all Chinese citizens, Han or otherwise.
It is extremely convenient and tempting to laugh at such simplicity, but what are the alternatives? We, the intellectuals of the world are in the habit of believing that if we were in the position of making these decisions, things would turn out much better, particularly in the case of China. But even a cursory inspection of the world reality should have shaken us out of these day dreams. The failing financial institutions of the West were, until several months ago, the crown jewels of the post-industrial western civilization, the failing automakers of US were the crown jewels of the industrial western civilization. These institutions can become shells of themselves within mere fraction of time through massive institutionalized fraud and incompetence with the full complicity of democratic governments should have make us all question many of the basic premises of our moral and intellectual stands. The fact that a democratic country like US can keep the criminal regime of the Bush government in power for eight long years should suspend most of arguments for the superiority of democracy until further review.
The historical research you quoted in your argument would have been much more valuable if it was not selectively sited to justify an intrinsic distaste with everything that is the modern China. Your writing now typifies the perfect marriage of the spiritually corrupt political correctness of the Western Utopia with the hollowed out pseudo-spirituality of the Eastern Shangri-La. What a waste.
I am writing all these just so I deserve all the bile that got dumped on me. I am sure it does not deserve your further response. But as you so eloquently put it – whatever
November 18th, 2008 at 1:12 am
hi mr wuming
you say that china is on the right path finally.
what about all those thousands of young chinese who were killed on the tainamen square in 1989.
they stood up against the brutal and corrupted regime. todays leaders are all part of this masacre.
you know that no one talks about it because its a hot potato that burns all there hands. honestly, you must be a son of one of these chinese leaders who benifited from the results of killing your brothers and sister.
also what about all these contaminated milk products that killed your own han siblings and others.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:31 am
i personally think that the title of this blog is out dated.
moving a mountain today no fools thought. we can do it.
we can blow up the whole china mountain in tibet.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:55 am
@loten namling
It is only sad that you still believe in the Utopia/Shangri-La, where it is corruption free and nobody dies before his/her time. I will not assume anything about you ancestry, but it would be nice to get real for the sake of our siblings, Han or Tibetan.
You know very well that the Tibetan Buddhism that Dalai Lama preaches to his western converts is but the hollowed out New Age mumble jumble. The real thing is the old world one that is demanding and brutal, requires much more than the monetary sacrifices those Hollywood stars can easily afford. This particular picture painted by his defenders like you where the simple but holy monk fighting against corrupt dehumanized cyborgs can only serve to radicalize yourselves. I see as I am writing this you already worked yourself up into the fantasies of blow up mountains.
To borrow a phrase from our newly elected president, stop clinging your gods, guns and grandiose fantasies. Was it that Buddha himself said that “苦海无边,回头是岸”?
November 18th, 2008 at 2:08 am
@Lobsang #115
Lobsand, you wrote, and, let me add, perniciously, pathologically so:
If this were an Israeli or Jewish blog, you would fit right in. And that is not a compliment. Methinks that the hatred lies within you. It seems that any opposition or criticism is an invitation for berserk, hateful diatribes and invective. They are off-putting on a major-league basis. I immediately dismiss your comments and future comments as seemingly wacko. Why should I waste my time reading your hateful comments? That is why I have taken so long to respond. I seriously considered not responding on this topic, ever. But I changed my mind.
Lobsang, I am Russian Jewish American. I am very troubled by the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and Lebanese Arabs. Arabs are our Semitic brothers and sisters. There are many Jews who will discuss these subjects in a rational manner. Unfortunately, there are too many who wish to hurl the hyper-charged term, “anti-Semitism” at any who challenge them, disagree or merely want to engage in a discussion. If a Jew wants to challenge them, they call the Jew a “self-loathing Jew”. Even my father is an “Israel Firster”. So is one of my aunts. I know many Jews who are members of AIPAC, who tend to be very rabid and irrational in their support of Israel. So when I read your comments, I felt like I was in a “flashback” or déjà vu. Oy vey.
First of all, you are free to do what you will. That said, I have a suggestion. IMHO, I would tone down the rhetoric, and cut out the clownish, ad hominem attacks. You are not helping your cause, whatever that is. Straightforward is ok; I for one appreciate it. It’s the hyper-charged, loaded words which cause me to be dismissive of your remarks and your credibility, words like, “disseminating hate, intolerance and a lot of LIES and untrue statements on Tibet and situations.”, “To put is simply you hate all Tibetans for embarassing China as it rises to become a super-power.”, and “dangerous views you hold”.
I responded in #64 to JC. I felt JC’s comments were inappropriate and trivialized the suffering of the Tibetan people. I will say what I feel and believe. I try to stay away from ad hominem attacks and diatribes. I will speak to the issue.
You wrote, “We are NOT asking for anyone’s sympathy but better understanding and seek truth from facts.” Lobsang, what are “truth” and “facts”? Lobsang, isn’t everything pretty subjective? I don’t know what “empirical truth” is. I don’t know what “objective” is. Even eyewitness is questionable. I think each of us humans is “self-referential”. Maybe “truth” and “facts” are loaded words to encourage others to submit to your views? Much like the use of the hyper-charged term, “anti-Semitism” is for certain Jews trying to bring some gentiles into line with his/her views.
All that said, I don’t blame you for being angry and hurt. Nonetheless, anger and hurt can become toxic. They can become bitterness and hatred. And those toxins can eat you up alive.
Take care. I wish you the best, Lobsang.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:27 am
@Steve, #136
I am glad that you agree that the DL’s so called “meaningful autonomy” or “the middle way” is “laughable” (you are a wise man, Steve.
). Actually, there are plenty of models in our world as to how governments have been dealing with unreasonable (or “laughable” as you put it) minority demands or minority problems. We have Spain’s model in dealing with Basque separatist problem. We have Russia’s model in dealing with Chechen secessionist problem. We have American model for its “Indian” problem (Oops, I mean “Native American” Issues). We have French model in dealing its Muslim population problem. We have German model for its Turkish population problem. And we have British model in dealing with IRA terrorist problem. We even have the model of how the little Georgia was dealing with its Ossetian Separatist problem. As far as I am concerned, any one of these models would be fine with me. What do you think? If China’s way in dealing with its Tibetan problem is so “unethical” to you, do you think the countries mentioned above are “ethical” enough for your taste in handling their respective problem-minority(ies)? My question to you is, Steve, aren’t you just little bit unfair to the country in which you have been making your living? Maybe just a little bit?
November 18th, 2008 at 2:45 am
All,
Consider who you stand with. How well do you know them? What dark secrets could they be hiding that you trust aren’t there? Are you putting your hopes in those who don’t deserve your trust? Now decide how firmly you want to make your statements.
And finally, do your words make them wish you wouldn’t speak on their behalf.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:15 am
It took a while but Jerry # 183 gave me some real whipping, lecturing my conduct.
Don’t worry despite many hardships and suffering, Tibetans in general are very cheerful people and will not get ‘ toxins can eat you alive’. So don’t worry. That’s perhaps the inner strength of the Tibetans who are able to withstand huge suffering and pain in stride.
Sure I was upset with Allen’s comments on # 112 a lot more than his earlier on #32 about sacrificing Tibetans. I was never angry or hateful to eat me inside. I guess you just don’t know Tibetan psyche.
Let’s look at his #112 . Subjective or not it’s simply untrue and I repeat bunch of lies. Empirical or subjective truth or not, I am not going to let this get away and have a right to express my feelings, right.
“the DL (the former slave owner)”
The old Tibet never had slaves, sure there were servants for the few aristocratic families but never slaves. Some have called it serfs but never slaves. There is a book written by a European expert on medieval kingdom and concluded that in old Tibet was not feudal like old China and medieval Europe with rigid structure. In the old Tibetan society there is freedom of mobility of structure. The best case is join the monastery and everyone is treated equally and you are promoted by your academic qualifications and spiritual standings. He calls DL slave owner. The beauty of DL system is that he could be reincarnated in any family. In this case, he was from a poor peasant family. If he was truly slave owner, why you don’t find any Tibetans especially the liberated slaves attacking him to say mildly. Instead the devotion and love is unbelievable despite 50 years of absence from all Tibetans. If old Tibet was so bad, why are Tibetans not embracing this liberation and continues to resist and wants their beloved leader DL back. How can they be so stupid? Think!
“You only need a few bad apples to ruin a basket of fruit. After 911, the U.S. became a very different country because its security was threatened. People’s lives changed even though there were in actuality very few terrorists.”
“The current security arrangements sounds reasonable to me, given the March riots as well as the continued international pressure. ..but as I mentioned above, Tibet is not strictly “normal” now in the way that the U.S. is not “normal” after the 911 attacks. …It does sound absurd. Where did you get the idea that Tibetans need to be rounded up solely because they rioted? If they are agents of the DL – they need to be rounded up – the same way terrorists in the U.S. need to be rounded up.”
“We have discussed in other threads about the status of “Muslims” in the US after 911 also. Muslims have been targeted for racial profiling at airports, in sports stadiums, in concert halls, at police checkpoints, etc. In politics, even Pres. Elect Obama shuns questions about him being a “Muslim” as a political hot potato.”
He is comparing Tibetan uprising (mostly peaceful) in March in over 100 different places by over 30,000 (Chinese source and check Robbie Barnett’s detail accounts) incredibly courageous Tibetans to the terrorists attack on 9/11. It’s unbelievable. Is he equating Tibetan uprising as terrorist attack equal to 9/11. All these protesters were asking is ‘return of Dalai Lama’ ‘freedom for the Tibetans’. This peaceful except one riot in Lhasa were met with live ammunition and brutally suppressed. As I had mentioned one of my cousins had been arrested and disappeared along with thousands of others. I am afraid he is dead. I don’t need to tell you that torture is rampant in Chinese prison. So is Allen suggesting that these Tibetans are terrorist like the 9/11 Al-Queda.
You should know as a Jew if Tibetans are terrorists. Also I had thought you would know the pain and suffering your ancestors endured dreaming of a homeland for hundreds of years. So I didn’t expect a lecture from you perhaps a Chinese but not with your background.
I have so much to express the pain and sufferings every Tibetan had undergone under the Chinese rule but let’s leave it at that for now.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Cissy #137,
FYI, Lobsang is an extremely common name. Tibetans often make use of a very small set of names, usually with religious meanings. I think we can also safely suppose that the Tenzin who has commented in this thread is not Tenzin Gyatso!
November 18th, 2008 at 3:25 am
#177, Allen,
Thank you for responding and reading my note before your trip. This makes me feel lot better knowing that my message got through. I would higly, highly recommend you visit Gyalthang (Chinese name Zongdian and renamed Shangrila) which is beautiful and really in Tibet for all intent and purpose. This has an airport with many flights from Kunming. Once you are in Lijiang it’s only 3-4 hours drive but on 9,000 feet altitude.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:49 am
@loten namling #181
Be careful about what you are saying. You can not even match to the border, let alone trying to take over Tibet by force. With the past history involving CIA, do you think you can get any serious support from people outside China.
Chinese people as a whole, I think, are sincere to solve all these historical issues. They are also resolve, patient and creative. No need for me to mention the good situation in HongKong, Machu and Taiwain. Many border issues are also resolved peacefully over the years.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:57 am
Steve #136,
I’m afraid I can’t agree with you that WW’s analogy in #108 is a good one. It’s certainly not that I think that American Indian issues in North America are not important or worth discussing. They are very important, and I am happy to discuss them. However, in order to draw a meaningful analogy, we also need for two issues to be similar, and the situation in the United States today is just not very similar to the situation in Tibet today. WW’s analogy ends up becoming ridiculous as he struggles to point out similarities that aren’t there.
I want to see Tibet become a more free place without anybody being forced to leave their homes, and especially not being forced out of places where they were born and raised, rather than having moved there as adults. If an American Indian group wants to talk about independence in lands where they are actually still the majority, hell no, I don’t think that’s laughable; I think it would be great. Now maybe you do or don’t think that’s fair, but it’s beside the point regarding Tibet, since Tibet is a place where mostly Tibetans still live, and all they need in order to have a free Tibet is just to be left alone.
I think it’s kind of bitterly ironic when pro-PRC types try to make an analogy with historical U.S. treatment of indigenous peoples, since the obvious conclusion to take from that is that they admit that they are following the same sort of genocidal policies. In defense of the Chinese people’s honour, allow me to point out that, in fact, the PRC’s policy, while atrocious, is not as bad as that was, WW’s inadvertent implications notwithstanding.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:07 am
@ 172 pug_ster
“There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
That is very well said. Everything comes with a price tag, and, I suppose that’s the reason why the Tibetans don’t seem as thankful as you’d like toward their big brothers. Nobody doesn’t want a railroad, but they probably realise that it’s not a gift — it’s a down payment.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:56 am
@Coolcat #184: I have no idea what you’re talking about. What I said in the first paragraph was “But for negotiating purposes, starting with that position ISN’T laughable or even a double standard, it’s just a starting negotiating position.” I highlighted the word “isn’t” because it seems you never noticed it. Since you continued to quote me on “laughable” throughout your post, none of it made any sense to me and I have no idea on what I should base my reply. Then you highlight the words “ethical” and “unethical”, but don’t give them any context. I’m happy to discuss this with you but you have to write coherently, not take single words out of context and not misquote me.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:04 am
#186 Lobsang
Thanks for your comments, Lobsang. My remarks are not so much lecture as expressing my feelings, experiences and views. When I feel it necessary to say something, I do. Sometimes not very sweetly. Sometimes pretty rough.
Lobsang, I have no problem with you expressing your views, beliefs and feelings. I encourage you to speak out. What triggered my reaction was the way in which you couched your remarks. Trust me on this one. I have seen enough of that kind of response to fill several lifetimes. I just don’t like ad hominem, personal attacks. Feel free to dispute issues, views, beliefs, definitions, descriptions, etc. I have no problem with that. Honest disagreement and arguments do not trouble me.
Thanks for your comments about the DL and Tibetans. I will reflect. I know very little about Tibet. I have never been there. I have seen movies about Tibet, but they are movies. I see articles in the media. It is so hard for me to make any sense of Tibet, and what is “fact” and what is “fiction”. So I tend to stay out of those discussions. I tend to be more reflective and contemplative when I am trying to figure out something.
Some comments. I don’t believe that Tibetans, in general, are terrorists. Call me incredulous, if you would like, because I am. Further, terrorism is a political, hyper-charged word which I think is vastly overused in too many contexts. I don’t like its indiscriminate use. I do not believe everything I read, see or hear; in fact, I believe a whole lot less. I like to sift, ponder and reflect. When I see ad hominem, personal attacks, forget the sifting, pondering and reflecting. I am more than incredulous at that point. I will just flat out discard/disregard the remark and the author.
Now, Lobsang, these are just my opinions, views, beliefs, prejudices, whatever. I am not representing Jews, Americans, American expats in Taipei, Jews in Taipei or any group. I am just speaking for me.
I went back to Allen’s remarks in #112. He used the following analogy, “Tibet is not strictly “normal” now in the way that the U.S. is not “normal” after the 911 attacks.” I don’t like that analogy. It does seem to be equating the Tibet protests to terrorist actions. Maybe not intentionally, either. And I don’t know exactly what Allen is implying by his term, “agents of the DL”. It is just way too ambiguous for my taste.
I know less and less, at least with certainty, as I get older. As I said, I don’t believe that Tibetans are terrorists. Yes, there may be a few Tibetan terrorists; the same goes for Americans, Israelis, Chinese, Taiwanese, etc. There will always be some criminals and some terrorists. It is not the exclusive territory of any people, country or continent. BTW, I don’t know what being a Jew has to do with determining if someone is a terrorist. I don’t have any special powers of observation, wisdom, omniscience or credibility, as far as I know. I am just me. I don’t even have a cape or special superhero’s costume. Sorry.
::LOL::
I am well aware of the suffering of my people and have written much about it. I am well aware of my people’s overarching desire for a “homeland”, for centuries and millenia. My lecture, if you want to call it that, was not about the substance of your feelings, views, beliefs, pain, etc. It was about the way you expressed it via ad hominem attacks. I will just as easily criticize an American, a Jew, an Israeli or whoever for engaging in ad hominem attacks. I am not a prisoner of my background, culture or my family. And I do empathize with your suffering and your pain.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:08 am
@Otto Kerner #190: Your point is well taken. I read WW’s analogy as a very hypothetical situation rather than as anything that could ever come about, the “ridiculousness” that you mention. I should have been more critical of the setting. Thanks for pointing it out. But again, I didn’t say it was “laughable”, I said it “isn’t laughable”. Your reaction to that part confuses me.
American Indian history is a great topic that is wrapped up in a lot of myth and misunderstanding. It could make for a long and fascinating discussion but it unfortunately wouldn’t fit this blog’s theme. My oldest son is 1/4 American Indian and I’ve spent a lot of time studying his background and the overall history.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:13 am
@ Jerry #183
@ Lobsang #186
Jerry said:
“…, I don’t blame you for being angry and hurt. Nonetheless, anger and hurt can become toxic. They can become bitterness and hatred. And those toxins can eat you up alive.”
I agree with Jerry 100%. Lobsang, speaking as a fellow human being if not as a compatriot, you should heed Jerry’s advice – Life is too short to be “angry and hurt” and be consumed with “bitterness and hatred” the way you are. For the sake of your own mental and physical well being, you should get over it and get a life. Please don’t let “those toxins eat you up alive.”
I, too, “I wish you the best, Lobsang.”
By the way, please don’t kid yourself, Lobsang, DL and his followers are mostly a bunch of priest/aristocratic slave owners or the descendents of priest/aristocratic slave owners who have turned terrorists and criminal felons in trying to grab their land back and put the slavery yokes back over the necks and shoulders of the liberated Tibetan slaves and their children. I suggest that you should give up such hopeless dreams for your own sake and for the sake of most Tibetan people, , as well as for the love of God.
Aigain, I, too, “I wish you the best, Lobsang.”
November 18th, 2008 at 5:24 am
“all they need in order to have a free Tibet is just to be left alone.”
Well, as long as the evil imperialistic Chinese Commie aethiests leave, we’ll be left alone. The rulers of Christendom and the operators of the global military-complex will leave us alone because they have fought and financed our cause out of compassion and altruism. Oh no, the Capitalists would dare not JV with us and set up base here because we are a resiliant, tolerant, cheerfully longsuffering, brave and peace-loving people.
Hmm…An intereting idea:
Tibetan Serfdom is in fact not real slavery.
The long tradition & history of Tibetan’s feudal servitude where the practice of working for someone for no pay, given minuscule human rights, afforded no free-will or career choice, is at any moment’s notice be transferable from one lord to another at the owner’s pleasure, and so on, is and was in fact a free-to-serve-and leave-at-will serf system unique to this particular theocracy, whereupon the neigboring and outside secular evil infidels prey and seek to spread lies about.
In Capitalist ruled plutocracy/Oligarchy pseudo-democracies, they call it white-collar, blue collar slavery, even white-slavery. In China today, some are willing, voluntary salves to money. In the bible, only the slave masters can free his slaves, um, or is it serf….or maybe simply a bond servant? A salesman is now an Account Executive, a General Manager is now a Chief Embezzelment Officer (CEO), a lunatic is sadly someone who is mentally challenged under the influence of the moon. A serial killer is innocent for suffering fits of temporary insanity, a rapist is a really a poor victim of incest. A rich flamboyant nut-case is just wonderfully eccentric, a wealthy debauched sex-maniac is a dashing charming playboy who misses his abscentee mother or parents, etc etc etc, Talk about euphemism ad nauseam.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:25 am
@Monk #195: You said, “DL and his followers are mostly a bunch of priest/aristocratic slave owners or the descendents of priest/aristocratic slave owners who have turned terrorists and criminal felons”. I don’t care about the descendants of slave owners since no one has control over their ancestor’s lifestyle, but I do care about present slave ownership, which is abhorrent. I also care about terrorists and criminal felons.
I didn’t realize it still existed. Can you please document exactly who currently owns slaves in this priest/aristocratic class? Can you also document the terrorists and criminal felons in said organization? These people need to be spotlighted and it would certainly make your argument much more credible if you named names.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Steve, thanks for you comment #194. Actually, I did get a little confused between what you actually said and what some other guy said that you said, and that was sloppy of me. Sorry about that.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:48 am
mr.shane and other chinese chauvunists,
this is exactly what we tibetans wanted to resolve. for almost fifty years we have tried to negotiate for a peaceful solution. for that reason whole world of peaceful people supports us, morally.
taiwan ,honkong etc that you mentioned are chinese origins. we tibetans are tibetans and have nothing to do with chinese habits at all, by race,culture…way of life.
.only money has given the chinese the power to buy the support of business community.but that will not last long. world economy is anyway crumbling because of these same greedy business people who deal with the chinese govt for sheer money.
i have no problems with the chinese people as such. only unfortunate thing isthat many of them are still blinded by the residues of last hang over of the communist propaganda. i hope they open thier eyes soon.
cia may have supported tibet for some time but thats normal. america was at the time supporting any nation that had problems with communists. but that stopped any way when president nixon of usa slept with mao in blooded bed of chinas cultural revolutuion.
in the end we dont need support from anyone. we will march to tibet eventually and get it what ever method it takes. dont think we are afraid of guns. there are thousand out there tibetans who can fight.
frreeee tibeeeeetettttttttt
November 18th, 2008 at 6:28 am
@Jerry (#183): I don’t like ad hominem attacks either, but I wonder if Lobsang is particularly guilty of it? Some of the other postings on this thread are pretty extreme (and I’m happy to see that the worst one seems to have been completely ignored. Not mentioning any names, the one with all the capital letters at the end
) and they should heed your advice too.
@cephaloless (#185): I think you’re basically saying the same thing I’ve tried to express a couple of times: people believe in what they’ve heard, and mostly it’s their education or the media. Chinese education begins with patriotism at an early age (like cute children’s stories about the love between the mainland and Taiwan) and how evil the DL and his slave owning fellows were/are. It’s on the level of mythology. As a contrast, I received no patriotic education, but we were taught the greatness of democracy at school and how other countries don’t care about their inhabitants. There was an illustration in a textbook I had at the age of 14, showing the difference between democracy and dictatorship. In the first picture, you saw small blue, green and red figures (representing the population) and how these small arrows pointed up to the government. In the other picture you saw a huge, brown arrow pointing from the government towards a bunch of gray figures (oppressed people).
DL is a bit like a Che Guevara figure, and I have to say, one that I respect even though I also understand he’s a complex political figure. I’m happy to listen to other versions and I believe there were a lot of problems in Tibet, but I just don’t believe in the mythology of a “wolf in monk’s clothing” and the 95% serf thing. The latter sounds too Soviet and cold war to me. And considering how everyone who is critical against the PRC government in any way, like Martin Lee, Chris Patten, Chen Shuibian or Harry Wu is labelled “traitor” and lambasted in the official press just makes it incredulous. The mainland press has been crying wolf too many times to be taken seriously. It just can’t accept any viewpoint that’s not pro-CCP.
@Jerry (#193): I think one of the most important things to come out of this thread was what Allen mentioned, the state of fear that seems to be permeating China and the US. I wonder if there is a psychological need to always have an outer enemy in these two countries. This fear can also explain the extreme anger displayed by the angry nationalist youth here and elsewhere…
November 18th, 2008 at 8:09 am
@ Otto Kerner #190
Although time-wise or by demography the analogy is a bit stretched, the hypothetical analogy is valid by substance.
To characterize the Manifestation of the destiny of the American Nation and its westward push of the West as “genocidal”, I think most American people would not agree nor appreciate that kind of fringe PC nonsense. Without the guiding and pioneering spirits of the Manifestation of the destiny of the American Nation and its westward push of the West, America would not have been a great nation as we know it today (the evil Nazi Regime and the Japanese Empire would have prevailed in the WW2, to say the least). Now I can tell that you must be a bleeding heart liberal.
No wonder China’s leaders preferred to deal with conservatives such as Dick Nixon or Henry Kissinger.
@ Steve
I understand perfectly what Coolcat was talking about; in fact I think he (or she)’s got a point. I happen to agree that some Tibetans do have problems of assimilating into the mainstream society (not unlike Muslim population in France or the Turkish population of Germany) and some of them even have various degrees of terroristic tendency (not unlike the IRA terrorists and the Basque terrorists of Spain…). Claiming not knowing what the other was talking about is most common ploy people use for various reasons, but hey, this is a free country and you are a free human being, right?
Anyway, I think that I am a little too presumptuous to speak for Coolcat; I am sure that he/she can speak on his/her own behalf.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
@Wukailong #200
I am not picking on Lobsang; he is not particulary guilty of it. I just happened to catch Lobsang and Allen’s discourse. I had read some of Lobsang’s previous posts, and honestly was surprised. Then I saw Allen’s response. Then I started to contemplate. I got motivated this morning. Actually, I felt a connection with Lobsang and just started to write. I sensed that he was hurt and confused, thus he lashed out.
If you are referring to our friend with the appended supernumerary numbers, his/her comments were sarcastic, provocative and engaging in absurdism. I should also add, very fatalistic and deterministic. I just did not feel like responding. I am sure glad that my Russian Jewish predecessors did not follow such advice as “get OVER it” or “accept the sovereignty of the Russian tsars.” The acceptance of persecution, oppression and imposed collective misery, as a way of life ad infinitum, does not sit well me. Thankfully, it did not sit well with my grandfather and grandmother, who came over to the US as young adults. It changed my life forever, and I was not born until 43 years later.
Several comments. Fear of the bogeyman has been used by leaders to keep people in line and distract them from the real issues and social unrest. During the Cold War, fear of Russia was prevalent in the US. US leaders also use fear of Muslims and Iranians. They also used shock and fear to get Patriot Act I and II passed. They used it to get the FISA law rewrite. Might also be that exploitation of that fear makes certain defense contractors a lot of money. I bet you that Eric Prince of Blackwater, Halliburton/Cheney, Boeing, and other major players really enjoy all those huge military contracts. Just think of the bogeyman as Santa Claus to the super rich. Look how easily they pried, from American taxpayers, nearly $2 trillion ($2,000,000,000,000) for the Wall Street and bank bailouts. Fear of the economy collapsing!!
In the words of a C&W song which Ray Charles sang so well, “Here we go, again!” When will we ever learn?
Naomi Klein has written about this in “Shock Doctrine”. BTW, she is a Quebecois and Jewish.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
This blog has provided all of us a wonderful platform to exchange views. I can see a lot of different viewpoints all evolve around the notion that the Tibetans claims they are hurt and everybody else either claim they are not, or they should not, or they deserve it or they are truly the victim and why etc, etc.
I do have a lot of questions to people like Hemulen, who are obviously very frustrated. I would appreciate if him, or any one else in a similar position can provide their point of views on the following questions:
1. Hemulen mentioned “The whole reward structure is set you to favor Han Chinese and sinicized Tibetans. Han Chinese are not expected to learn Tibetan, and can set up shop in Tibet and do just fine, whereas Tibetans are treated as foreigners in their own country. If the Tibetan language was made the language of government and Han Chinese settlers made an effort to blend in and learn the language, I think a lot of Tibetan resentment would go away.”
What do you think would be the best way to lift Tibet out of poverty? Tibet as a poor minority has many inherited disadvantages, how would you overcome these disadvantages? Or do you care about providing them a road to the modern world at all? I ask because I would imagine if Tibet started to mandate Han Chinese to learn their language, then I don’t know how many Han Chinese will do business with them. And that doesn’t seem to go well with lifting them out of poverty.
2. Assume that China agrees that Tibetan to be self-ruled, how would you resettle Han Chinese inside TAR? Do you expect them to happily live under a Tibet government? Or do you plan to drive them out? If you expect them to stay, what if they showed more skills and hold more resources than Tibetans and continue to marginize Tibetans? If you drive them out, what’s your plan to resettle them or you do not think you have to care about that at all? What’s your plan for Tibetans outside of TAR such as Neighboring Sichuan and Gansu province? I ask because those appear to be things that obviously need to be addressed if “true autonomous” or independence is to be achieved;
3. Do you live inside or outside of TAR? Have you ever set foot on TAR and have real life experience on how most Tibetan there thinks about your cause? Do you believe the government in exile, who is not only not being officially recognized by world powers, but also only represents a fraction of all Tibetans, have the right to represents the whole Tibetan population and should determine all Tibetan’s future? And Why? I ask because I notice that a lot NGO around the world, especially in developed countries, are among the most furious supporters. Thus I sense a disconnection between these well educated, English speaking, living a high living standard Tibetans and those remote, poor, not having much formal education at all Tibetans;
4. Giving the obvious problems between Han Chinese and Tibetans as evident even in this bog, how would your own government get along with them well and gain their respect and support? Or do you think that you do not need them at all? I ask because I would expect for Tibet to thrive, they do need China’s help. To the least extend, you don’t want a very hostile neighbor next door. What Tibet in exile is doing now and what DL preaches goes well with the west powers, but it obviously does not go well with Han Chinese;
5. Finally from a negotiation point of view, what do you plan to offer in order to get something as return? If you do not plan to offer any, what makes you believe that you can win the game by getting all you want and your opponent, in this case, a huge China, gets nothing? I ask not only because it doesn’t sound very promising to me if you are not ready to give up anything, but also China’s experience soundly points to the opposite. China itself has gone through a lot of humiliation from foreign powers. For decades even till now most Chinese still felt so. Yet China made English a mandate course for all school kids a long time ago. China welcomed foreign investors and business mans and supplied its own hard working citizens as cheap labors to sweat shops set up by them. At times, “Korean boss”, “Japanese boss” were almost identical to “mean” and “cruel” in mainland China. Yet that is largely what enabled China to gradually rise to where it is today. So China paid a heavy price. So my question is, is there anything DL and the exile government, or all Tibetans in general, are willing to pay?
November 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
@WW #201: WW, I wasn’t trying to avoid Coolcat’s question, I just couldn’t figure out what he/she was asking in reference to anything I said. I said “isn’t laughable” while I kept getting quoted as saying “laughable”, thus the confusion. I claimed to not know because I didn’t know; what’s so hard to understand about that? I invited Coolcat to be more specific in referencing what I said to a specific question and I’d be happy to answer it. Based on what was written, my guess was that Coolcat didn’t see the word “isn’t” and just misunderstood what I had written.
Yours was clearer so I’m happy to reply. Do some Tibetans have problems assimilating into the mainstream society? I’m sure they do if they happen to live there, but the mainstream society in the TAR is Tibetan, so what do they have to assimilate into? If I’m driving through the Navajo nation, the culture is Navajo and I’m the one who has to adjust. If that Navajo moves to Albuquerque, then he/she has to adjust. I’m sure some don’t adjust very well. Turks are not native to Germany and Muslims are not native to France; both have had problems assimilating. Tibetans are native to Tibet. Per Sophie’s article, the mostly Sichuan Chinese living in Lhasa dont’ like being there and have no desire to assimilate; they just want to make a living and go home to Sichuan. Being they are temporary, why assimilate? That’s understandable to me.
Do some have varying degrees of terrorist tendencies? I have no idea, since I can’t see into the minds and hearts of the people there. I’d only know that if terrorist acts were actually committed. The IRA and the Basque have committed and threatened to commit terrorist acts in the past, so wouldn’t they fall into a different category?
WW, do you think Tibetans have varying degrees of terrorist tendencies? If so, why? What have they done that makes you think this? I’ve been asking a lot of questions on this thread because there is plenty that I don’t know about the situation there. I’ve read about riots but not about terrorism. Did I miss something?
I’ve read the arguments on this post so far. They seem to fall into several repeating categories:
1) Pro-China argument: The DL is not an acceptable representative of the Tibetan people. The vast majority of the Tibetan people are satisfied with life under the China government. There are a few troublemakers inside the Tibetan areas, but the vast majority are located outside China. They have used a sophisticated propaganda campaign led by the DL to discredit China’s huge investments in the Tibetan zones. The DL and his people have planned the demonstrations and riots that took place in Tibet. Local GDP has increased exponentially since China reannexed Tibet in 1950 with increased lifestyle benefits to the Tibetan people. Educational opportunities are much better than before. Under the DL, there would still be slavery/serfdom and rule by an elite religious oligarchy. If Tibet was allowed to become autonomous or independent, this style of government would return and oppress the Tibetan people. Tibet is part of China; it has been a part of China for centuries and China would go to war in order to maintain the unity of the country. All China wants is a harmonious society where Chinese and their compatriot Tibetans live in peace and prosperity.
2) Pro-Tibet argument: The DL is a holy, religious man who represents the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the Tibetan people. He has given up any hope for independence years ago and has stated this many times. He wants true autonomy for the Tibetan people so they can maintain their cultural and religious traditions. He is a man of peace, without whom the situation there would probably have already descended into violence and rebellion. The vast majority of Tibetans both in and out of Tibet believe in him and his leadership. He has tried to negotiate with the Chinese government but they refuse to take him seriously and are trying to delay any negotiation until after he dies. Tibet has been allied with China in the past but has never been a part of China and has always had autonomy. The people there, while appreciating the investments China has made in their infrastructure, have not received the job benefits from that construction. The jobs have gone to non-Tibetans so unemployment and underemployment is rampant. Tibetan should be the main language of business and government. Non-Tibetans should be required to be bi-lingual. The playing field in the job market is not level; a non-Tibetan who speaks fluent putonghua has a huge advantage.
3) Pro-Tibet argument: Tibet has never been and will never be a part ot China. Tibet needs to be independent and get her freedom. Autonomy is not enough. The DL has tried to compromise but this has achieved nothing. There will be a war for independence and the Tibetans will fight to the death in order to break free. The world is with Tibet and against China.
4) Compromise argument: The current situation has problems and needs to be tweaked. Tibet is a part of China; this has been achieved both de facto and de jure. Tibet is too strategically important for China to give up. The dilemma is how to give more autonomy to the Tibetans without compromising China’s sovereignty. China should conduct serious negotiations with the DL as his status with Tibetans is valid. Each side has certain arguments in its favor and certain arguments against it. Compromise is possible where the Tibetans can gain more autonomy; not to the degree they would prefer but more than they currently have. The worry is that once the DL dies, rebellious forces both inside and out will cause the situation to deteriorate and innocent people will die.
Those seem to be the four positions I’ve read so far. The first three are not willing to compromise or even entertain any aspect of another position. The fourth position is discredited by the other three, who try to fit the compromisers into one of the other three categories, since they feel you are either “with us or against us”. They feel any position besides their own is extreme.
Does this make sense? Are there any other positions anyone can add? Rather than hurl invective at each other, we can just say which position we support with any adjustments we might want to make.
Since almost everyone who has commented is in one of the first three positions, there isn’t much to discuss from my POV. None of those positions have much wiggle room or compromise built into them.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
admin, I thnk jc’s comments in #203 should be highlighted.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
@Wukailong 200
DL is a bit like a Che Guevara figure, and I have to say, one that I respect even though I also understand he’s a complex political figure. I’m happy to listen to other versions and I believe there were a lot of problems in Tibet, but I just don’t believe in the mythology of a “wolf in monk’s clothing” and the 95% serf thing. The latter sounds too Soviet and cold war to me. And considering how everyone who is critical against the PRC government in any way, like Martin Lee, Chris Patten, Chen Shuibian or Harry Wu is labelled “traitor” and lambasted in the official press just makes it incredulous. The mainland press has been crying wolf too many times to be taken seriously. It just can’t accept any viewpoint that’s not pro-CCP.
Many people would romanticize the Dalai Lama as Che Guevara figure but his deeds does not match his rhetoric. He says that he is a peace loving and compassionate figure, but he doesn’t have a problem getting aid from the CIA and allows his Tibetans to use violence to attack the Chinese. If he teaches love and compassion, why does his fellow Tibetan in exile spew hate toward the Chinese? If he is for religious freedom and tolerance, why does does not allow dorje shugden’s teachings and persecute them if they do? If he reaches out and ‘loves’ his enemies, why does he reach out to the Chinese and talk to (and not AT) them about his message of compassion? He cares nothing about the Chinese government and its people, only for the Tibetans and othes who will follow him. I have another quote to describe the Dalai Lama and Che Guevara; ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’
November 18th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Steve, great post.
That’s why I don’t comment on Tibet … It’s like discussing politics with pro Israel/pro Palestine supporters.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
@ bt: I’m learning…
November 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
@wuming
It offers the same formula of economic development to all Chinese citizens, Han or otherwise.
My argument is not just based on history and no, as I have argued consistently on this blog, the Chinese formula of development does not offer the same opportunities to everyone. A Tibetan who only knows his native language will have problems fidning employment even in his home town. A monoligual Han Chinese settler in Tibet can serve as a party secretary, building worker, tourist guide, bus driver or street peddler. Some people are more equal than others.
What do you think would be the best way to lift Tibet out of poverty? Tibet as a poor minority has many inherited disadvantages, how would you overcome these disadvantages? Or do you care about providing them a road to the modern world at all? I ask because I would imagine if Tibet started to mandate Han Chinese to learn their language, then I don’t know how many Han Chinese will do business with them. And that doesn’t seem to go well with lifting them out of poverty.
This is the Han chauvinist position in a nutshell: only Han Chinese are capable of developing Tibet. If Tibetan was made a legitimate medium of communication in Tibet, you could train Tibetans to build roads and other infrastructure. That would have incredible spin-off effects for the local economy. That is not being done and that is why you can describe Tibet as a colony of China.
I’m not against Tibetans learning Chinese, I’m against creating an economy that rewards assimilation and a political system that disproportionately benefits outsiders. If Tibet was part of China like Quebec is part of Canada or Geneva part of Switzerland, you’d have very little complaints about Han chauvinism.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
@bt #207
@Steve #208
Steve and bt, I guess, in some weird way, that I have had lots of practice at discussions like these. For that I am grateful. Oy gevalt. I feel like telling some of the posters here, “A bi gezunt”!
I earlier wrote to Lobsang about how his post was like a “flashback” or déjà vu. Some of these posters, if they wrote so vehemently about Israeli or Palestinian issues on certain blogs, forums,