|
Protest in Lhasa
There are currently some protests by Buddhist monks in Tibet against the Chinese dominated local government. The western media are running the story as some saintly resistance against a brutal occupation. That view is a bit short of history.
Tibet has for centuries been more or less under Chinese hegemonic rule. Usually the Chinese accepted a local leader to rule over Tibet, but they always demanded tribut and a say in the rulers succession process. In 1789 and 1791 China defended Tibet against an invasion by Gurkhas.
In 1904 Britain invaded Tibet, occupied its capital Lhasa and pressed for a "free trade" treaty. China at that time was weakend through the sino-japanese war but in 1910 the Chinese were back in Lhasa only to lose control a few years later when the Qing dynasty went down in a rebellion. There continued to be constant struggle between Russia, Britain and Nepal over influence in Tibet while China was in a period of warlordism and later under Japanese occupation. After he won control over most of China Mao Tse Tung in 1950 reasserted Chinese rule over Tibet, but allowed the local religious aristocracy and government to carry on.
Then most of the Tibetan people were still working as serfs for the big land owners. These were the thousands of monasteries controlled by various lama lineages, feudal religious ruler clans. Despite the peaceful image of Buddhism the various lamas and monasteries regulary fought over territory and economic benefits.
The most powerful lama lineage is that of the Dalai Lama since it was brought into the top position in the 17th century with the help of Mogul invaders. While the successor of a lama is supposed to be a reincarnation of his predecessor, the selection of the new lineage leader, and his education, was and is always a thoroughly political process.
During the 1950s the Chinese implemented land reform and secular schooling in Tibet. The lamas fought against the loss of their economic, social and political power by sending their monks into the streets. With the active help of the CIA the lamas had some success against the communists, but the movement was crushed when in 1959 the Chinese again occupied the capital and the seat of the Dalai Lama, Lhasa. Financed by the CIA, the Dalai Lama fled to India to set up an exile government.
Other parts of the resistance continued with U.S. support until the late 60s, when Kissinger and Nixon changed the general U.S. policy towards China and the CIA withdrew the financing.
Since he went into exile the Dalai Lama has become a darling of "western" do-gooders and governments who call for his reinstatement in Lhasa.
This week marked the 49th anniversary of Dalai Lama’s getaway and there are again some protest by a few hundred monks in Lhasa. The local government in Tibet has put the three main monasteries in Lhasa under lockdown and will certainly quash any bigger attempt of rebellion.
Predictably the "west" is using the situation to put pressure on China.
Supporters of the Dalai Lama ofter praise the professed peacefulness of Buddhism. While at its core Buddhism, like other major religions, is peaceful, it has been abused in Tibet to suppress the many and to enrich the few. The feudal-religious linage of the Dalai Lama is the biggest symbol of this.
Would his re-installation into the Potala Palace in Lhasa really be for the good of the Tibetian people?
Thanx to Bernhard and all you mind speaking contributors for this absorbing post and its comments.
My thoughts on B’s question – would the Dalai Lama’s re-installation into the Potala Palace in Lhasa really be for the good of the Tibetian people – are based on my general motto when it comes to making decisions, which is along the lines of Kant’s moral imperative, “act (and by implication think) based only on principles which you wish to see applied to everyone”, or in other words don’t do upon others what you don’t want to have done to yourself. In that sense, B’s question can only be answered by Tibetan themselves.
It is nobody else’s beeswax. If a majority of Tibetan residents think they’d be better off under the Dalai Lamas Rule, who are we to say they aren’t. Fact is however that Tibetans can’t express their collective will on this matter via fair elections and the current outbreak of violence is a logical consequence.
On this one the Chinese government has no one else but itself to blame. Any half decent political advisor could foresee that activists and regime opponents within the Chinese territory would use this Olympic once in a lifetime opportunity to rattle the cage. Parallel to the necessary infrastructure being build, political concessions and negotiations for more autonomy should have been initiated to alleviate the need for violent outbursts.
I am in agreement with B tho on his argument that when it comes to separatist movements, where do you draw the line? Having lived for parts of my life in Bavaria, I know for a fact that there is a popular sentiment in that state to cut loose from the rest of the German Federation. It is calling itself still “Freistaat Bayern”, the free state of Bavaria. And with 12.5 million people it would, according to B’s threshold, even classify as a viable nation. Would it make sense tho? I very much doubt it. For a variety of reasons, not least being that even within Bavaria there is no unity. In the early 1800’s Napoleon incorporated Franconia into the Bavarian state, and to this day do the Franks have their own flag and many openly suggest it would be in the Franks interest to secede from Bavaria. Where will it end?
The cultural desire for independence can be found in many countries, from the Basques in Spain, Quebec in Canada, the Chechens in Russia to Kashmir in India, I believe there are few countries which don’t have some group with the aspiration to become independent or at least more autonomous, albeit often for economic reasons the issue is kept on the backburner. If bloodshed is to be avoided what is needed are political processes and channels that would-be separatists can draw on in order to gain more political and financial autonomy within the existing nation state.
Assuming for instance Tibet does win its independence, what do you think the Dalai Lama would say if the Muslim Tibetan population reminded themselves of their historic cultural connection with Kashmiri India and want to split? What if the Han Chinese who’ve been living in Tibet for many many generations now decide they want their own patch? If we support the idea of independence for one people, we’ve got to for all.
I very much understand the sentiment in Tibet to break away from Chinese territory and rule. A seriously corrupt Chinese bureaucracy oversees a law enforcement scheme in which human rights are a joke, all the while busy undermining and eroding the cultural heritage of the region’s traditional owners. Robbed of political and religious freedoms, what remains are the streets.
The massacre during the Tiananmen Square protests is a stark reminder that what we see in Tibet now is not meant to be seen with a surprised look on the face, Tibetans with a bit of foresight could have predicted the brutal crack down. The Chinese government is without scruples when it comes to using deadly force instead of non-lethal means to stop protests.
The governments overreaction is a clear sign of blatant disregard for civil rights, and quite frankly, who wouldn’t want to secede? I surely would if I’d be living there. But would I join groups of people “erupting into anti-Chinese rioting, burning and smashing Chinese-owned shops, offices and restaurants? No, waisted energy.
I am afraid that what is unfolding in Tibet is for Chinese authorities however not so much a Tibetan issue as it is a Chinese issue, precedents are being established, which potentially could have far reaching consequences for the greater Chinese empire, right down to Taiwan. Go easy on Tibetan protests and calls for independence and the chances are you’ll have the whole house on fire before the Olympics end. Hence its hardline stance.
To sum up, I strongly empathize with the Tibetan struggle to end Chinese rule in Tibet, this however not for historic reasons, but because I can identify with the Tibetans need to rid themselves of a brutal and self-serving non-elected government.
Having said that, as much as I understand their motivation – violent protests, especially not if they are directed against ethnical minorities, are however not the appropriate choice of action to achieve meaningful progress on that road. In China they are bound to bring deaths and suffering for achieving very little benefits for the cause. A concerted media and PR strategy advising the world well in advance that peaceful mass protests will be staged in Tibet and Beijing during the Olympics, would have put the Chinese authorities far more under international pressure to let these marches proceed and thus get the world wide exposure for the issues, than a sporadic outburst of smaller demos mixed with violence and broken windows, causing the to be expected casualties and further harsh measures shutting down many of the remaining freedoms.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Mar 16 2008 5:34 utc | 38
|
