April 25th, 2008Cause and Effect With Political Activism
Many Canadians who watch TV or pick up a newspaper to read the latest installment of the Western protests against the Chinese Olympic torch relay must be pretty pleased with what they see. People from around the world are apparently pursuing the noble cause of helping the Tibetan people gain independence from the oh-so oppressive Chinese government. What’s disheartening, though, is that the biggest victims of this hypocritical posturing will be the very people these protesters are trying to “set free” as a new wave of Chinese nationalism is unleashed upon the sparsely populated autonomous region.
The story most of us have been told about Tibet is as black and white as they come. The West is trying to protect the human rights of the innocent Tibetans who have recently lost their independence to the oppressive Communist government of China. Because of this, people around the world who try to present themselves as being politically aware decry “Free Tibet!” and make an ass of themselves at every media-saturated opportunity. The leaders of many nations, hearing this cry from their voters, then try to shore up votes by deciding to boycott the Olympics’ opening ceremony, which does next to nothing to aid an otherwise landlocked nation gain independence.
What’s really interesting about this, though, is that not one Western nation has ever challenged China’s sovereignty over Tibet.
Ever.
A Mile In Their Shoes
Let’s, for the sake of argument, look at this very same situation through the eyes of a well-educated Chinese person. Historical records show that China has held dominion over Tibet for over 700 years. The amount of control has certainly ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but this is equally true for most other parts of China. Central control of the capital has never been consistent, and this inconsistency of Chinese rule over Tibet mirrors that of the centralized government.
That said, China has been in control of most of its territories longer than most western nations have existed. More importantly, the Chinese remember quite clearly the last efforts to separate Tibet from China during the 40’s and 50’s when British and U.S. CIA agents were caught encouraging Tibetan independence when China was still weak. The Chinese have very clear memories of British perfidy, having been forced by the Brits to accept opium as payment for high-quality tea. The Opium War, when Hong Kong was also seized by Britain, is a distant and forgotten memory in the minds of Western citizens, but the humiliating chapter in Chinese history remains a fresh wound to millions in China.
When protesters scream for the freedom of China’s autonomous regions, it’s perceived as rubbing salt into this still-fresh wound. Almost no educated Chinese person believes that the European or North American governments are pursuing this cause because they actually care about the fate of the Tibetans. Instead, they are convinced that these are only the latest efforts to dismember and otherwise destroy an emerging Chinese global power.
Distrust Of The West Is Not Limited To Terrorists
Is this cynicism to Western human rights campaigns justified? To understand, let’s continue to look at this situation through the eyes of an educated Chinese person. America, led by former President Richard Nixon and his NSA advisor Henry Kissinger, fell in love with China right when the nation was recovering from the destructive Cultural Revolution that started in the 1960s. During this time, human rights were barely mentioned.
Fast forward thirty years, when the Chinese were experiencing their best quality of life in centuries, American and European concerns focused on China’s human rights deficiencies. Make no mistake here; Western interests drive Western policies towards China, nothing more.
But this isn’t the only reason China doesn’t trust their mostly-Caucasian neighbours. Let’s remember what happens every time foreign leaders visit Beijing. Virtually all of them spend most of their time trying to sell American and European products to China. Then, as an afterthought, they’ll quickly say that they have to mention human rights issues because when they go home, the citizens of their nations will expect to hear that the issue was raised.
The Chinese leaders were given a very clear message about this routine: this is a Western tradition that you can safely ignore. The very leaders that scream the loudest for human rights in China, coo the softest in Beijing. Looking at this display of obvious duplicity, it’s not surprising that Chinese leaders have little respect for their foreign guests who insist on making grand gestures on human rights to their domestic audiences. This would be no different than allowing Chinese President Hu Jintao to visit Canada and issuing a demand to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to stop lying to his citizens about his military spending ambitions.
The Real Cost of Uneducated Protesting
The real tragedy here is that the true victims of these violent and messy protests will be the Tibetan people. So far, even though the Chinese record of rule over Tibet is less than perfect, the Chinese leaders have tried to preserve autonomy for Tibet. It’s also true that, in theory, there is no fundamental disagreement between the position of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. The Dalai Lama is advocating autonomy, not independence. The Chinese government also believes in autonomy. The official Chinese government policy paper on Tibet says that it regards exercise of regional ethnic autonomy in areas where ethnic minorities live in compact communities as a basic policy for solving the ethnic issue.
Western leaders should try to narrow the gulf between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government rather than wedge it ever further. Only quiet and reasonable diplomacy can achieve this. Allowing idiots with pickets to make an ass of themselves on camera will only lead to the emergence of a stronger version of Chinese nationalism, and we can see it take shape already. Should this happen, Tibetans will be one of the first to suffer. They stand to lose every benefit to their current autonomy grants them, which means much less freedom in the long run.
This is the true price the Tibetans could pay for the uncontrolled actions of uninformed Western peoples.
I do agree that many people in the West are ignorant of the situation regarding Tibet. They throw out the “free Tibet” statement (like I have done once before) without realizing that the Dalai Lama does not advocate independence, he advocates working with the Chinese government for more autonomy for Tibet.
The Dalai Lama does advocate for more religious freedom for Tibetans so in that sense the “Free Tibet” statement does apply.
Please note that I do have strong disagreements to one of the commenters on your previous post and I replied to them. I do respect his opinion but I just don’t agree with what he says.
Having recent seen a disabled Tibetan woman having to be protected by 4 armed police men whilst offering a singular demonstration against the torture and suffering of her own people by Han Chinese, who passed her by chanting “death to traitors”, my feelings are somewhat different from yours as to who are the heroes and who are the “asses”.
What is the point of quibbling over autonomy versus independence when you are a native tribe suffering cultural cleansing and a deliberate policy of apartheid shored up by forced and sponsored migration by FAR MORE economically dominant invasive tribe whose interest, and let’s be frank about this, are not social work but environmental exploitation for the sake of capital rewards?
I think your grasp of the issues is so wide off the mark that it is exhausting thinking about how to respond to them … a) since when have Western leaders been in the driving seat of concerns over human rights issues anywhere? and B) how do you equate with the prejudicial legal, social and financial policies severely discriminating against native Tibetans in their own land and for immigrant newcomer Han with the magnificence of “preserving autonomy for Tibet”?
And why do you think the CPC is pouring immigrants into the region in the first place?