Over the last few days I’ve seen a few dumb things said about Tibet from both sides of the issue, so I want to address each of them:
Tibet was a living hell under the Dalai Lama, so Tibetans should be grateful to the Communist Party. Life is better than it was before…so lay-off. –As seen in Global Times.
Of course, this statement is subjective and plenty of Tibetans would disagree with it. However, it should be acknowledged that the current and former Dalai Lamas were no saints. And the situation in Tibet prior to the PRC takeover was awful by many non-official accounts.
So let’s indulge the Chinese state media and take this idea to its logical conclusion in the way that Xinhua did a few days ago: The Dalai Lama is Hitler. Let’s say he is that bad and life for Tibetans under him would be like Europe under the Nazis. If that’s the analogy we’re going to use, then the Chinese government in Tibet is Stalin (we won’t say that in the ideological sense, although with the police presence, restrictions on religion, speech, assembly and contact with the outside world, one could certainly make that argument).
Stalin could truthfully say that he saved the Russians from Hitler. And when comparing 1953 Russia to 1943 Russia, Stalin probably does look better by comparison. So we’ll concede that things are better than they might have been. But does that justify the fact being thrown back in the face of whoever complains that things should be better? Stalin thought so, and apparently so do Xinhua and Global times.
It’s time for the US to send China a message on its human rights situation in Tibet. –As seen in New York Times by US Senator Dianne Feinstein
This week Senator Dianne Feinstein ran a letter to the editor in NYT that said:
I believe that the United States must send a clear message against this continued repression and violence [in Tibet]. We can start by passing a Senate resolution I recently introduced with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman that calls on China to suspend religious control regulations, reassess its religious and security policies, and resume dialogue with Tibetan Buddhist leaders. […]It’s time the United States insisted that China end these oppressive policies.
I’m having a hard time imagining in what universe Feinstein thinks this will have a positive effect. Does she believe a Chinese leader will see this and say, “Wow. I made these policies on Tibet because from my angle they seemed like the best thing to do. But now, this non-binding resolution drafted by senators from our rival country has shown us (and the whole world) how despicable we’ve been. Janis, hold my calls. We’ve got some freedom to dish out.”
I didn’t need to visit Feinstein’s webpage to realize she’s up for re-election this year. Resolutions like this play well for domestic politics, but they won’t bring Tibet one step closer to any kind of positive change. It just plays nicely into the Chinese official line that the US-led western anti-China conspiracy is meddling in Tibet to destabilize the country. It gives state media nationalistic fodder to reinforce the Chinese public’s defensiveness over Tibet.
These kinds of high level calls have their time and place and it’s in meetings with Chinese leaders behind closed doors. Public indictments make the Chinese government lose face and give it no choice but to double-down so as to avoid the image that it’s capitulating to Western demands. Just try to ask Chen Guangcheng what foreign admonishments have done for him.
No matter which side of the Tibet issue you’re on, if you’re going to say or do something in the name of the Tibetan people, have the sense to learn if it will actually bring them any benefit. It’s good to report the truth, it’s good to have principles, and it’s good to combine these in a way that can bring a positive outcome. Global Times, Xinhua and Dianne Feinstein have all failed to do this.
Re: Cheng Guangcheng – errrr . . . what foreign admonishments? If you’re referring to Bale et al, then you at least have to conceed that their efforts have left him exactly where he already was, and almost certainly would still be if foreigners had done nothing.
There are plenty of political prisoners being held with no connection to foreigners whatsoever – this has not helped them. If anything, they receive even harsher sentences – just compare the cases of Guo Quan (not foreign linked, published critical articles on the internet, 11 years for inciting subversion) to Liu Xiaobo (allegedly foreign linked, published critical articles on the internet, 10 years). Liu Xiaobo has the support of many, Guo Quan of virtually none. If Guo Quan was mysteriously ‘disappeared’ tomorrow, there would be no outcry – but can the same be said of Liu Xiaobo? Obviously he could not be so easily gotten rid of.
No, I don’t think Feinstein’s resolution would cause the CCP government to budge an inch, but please, don’t dish out this “don’t disagree with things that are disagreeable because the people you disagree with will disagree with you” spiel.
Up until a few years ago, it was still common to hear the argument that there was a faction supporting political reform within the CCP and that taking the softly-softly behind the scenes approach stengthened rather than weakened that faction. Then it became obvious that, apart from a few platitude-filled speeches by Wen Jiabao, nothing had been acheived by this faction, if it even existed, in more than ten years, and that during that period the situtation had arguably worsened.
Even the downfall of Bo has not changed this – at most it means that things are less likely to continue getting worse.
I therefore see no real problem with Feinstein’s resolution beyond it being a probable waste of time.
If any kind of change is going to be brought about, it’s going to have to come from Chinese. Foreigners certainly have a role to play in disseminating information and making arguments that can sway Chinese opinion though. Bale was great for this since he was just a movie star – presumably having no affiliation with the “western anti-China forces.” He just highlighted what was happening. The foreign admonishments I was referring to re:Chen were by people like Hillary Clinton.
But on Tibet, a toothless US congressional censure of China just lets the Chinese government spit the “foreign forces will stop at nothing to see China in chaos” line which by-and-large pushes imperialist-hating buttons and sells pretty well in China. It just pushes common Chinese further toward the government’s side. That does more harm than good for Tibet.
It’s true that the characterizations of Tibet pre-Revolution are subjective, but one can make a number of statements without controversy. It was not a modern nation-state and was certainly a non-liberal/non-progressive society, if not feudal. There were many practices that present-day present-day supporters of a free Tibet would have trouble reconciling with their own conceptions of the good life, never mind human rights. One suspects that for many, visions of the pure oriental spiritualists clouds their judgement, and that at the very least, activists need to recognize that self-determination/independence is a process that might bring about a less than desirable Tibet in the future. Having said this, I’ll go with self-determination and accept the unintended consequences which, whatever they may be, circumscribe the next struggle.
As to Chen Guangcheng and others, I don’t think there is much question that foreign pressure has a positive effect. China is concerned with its image abroad. However, principled foreign activists must surely recognize that the outcry against China on these matters hardly amounts to a peep. I would suggest that this is because the target of protest is misplaced. The case of the South African boycott of the 80s demonstrates clearly that the more effective target of mass protest in a case like this would be the bottom lines of Apple and Walmart. Unfortunately, clowns like Mike Daisey have proven themselves incapable of much more than self-aggrandizement.
Sinostand, your views on this issue are wrong. China is very much obsessed with its image abroad. Dianne Feinstein and her husband has a long record of engagement with China, and she has been a longtime supporters of the Tibetan freedom struggle.
I enjoy your blog, but on this issue you are unfortunately providing a very simplified and incorrect assessment of reality. Furthermore your historic relativism borderlines apologetic for China occupation and colonization of Tibet.
Silence is not golden in the face of oppression, in fact, silence makes you an accomplice. Stand up against oppression anywhere, and use your voice. Dont be misled by cultural explanations for oppression.
I never said she or the US government should be silent, but they need to be strategic in how they engage the Chinese government on Tibet. Making public government resolutions telling China what to do pushes historical imperialistic buttons among Chinese (the only people with real power to change Tibet) and pushes them further into buying the party line. The party does care about international image, but when a foreign government purposely tries to make them lose face to get what they want, the CCP does not and will not respond well. If anything, they’ll double down on what they’ve been doing just to make a point.