Tibet question and Olympics

Tibet question and Olympics-IT is not hard to imagine how perturbed the Chinese leadership must be over the misadventures of the Olympic torch on the long road to Beijing. This year’s Summer Games were intended, after all, to showcase the tremendous achievements that the vast nation has notched up in recent decades.

Instead, the focus has shifted to Tibet and the awkward question of human rights more generally, amid widespread talk of a boycott, at least of the opening ceremony. Suddenly, the idea of an influx of western visitors in August no longer seems so attractive.

Be they in Lhasa or in Dharamsala, Tibetans can hardly be blamed for exploiting a once-in-a-generation opportunity to highlight their cause. But is that all there is to it? China is almost universally deemed to be on the brink of becoming the world’s dominant economic power (with India not far behind). Its stature in this respect provides plenty of cause for envy, particularly to the dominant superpower, which faces the prospect of a recession and inevitably resents the idea of being superseded. The extent to which the United States has played a role in stoking unrest is unclear for the time being, but there can be little question that it relishes the embarrassment caused to the leadership in Beijing.

The Tibet question is by no means as simple as either side would have us believe. The notion that Tibetan territory has been part of China for untold centuries is as spurious as the contention that Tibet had a long tradition of independence until Mao Zedong’s communists overran it in 1950.

Under the Yuan (1279-1368) and Qing (1644-1911) dynasties, for instance, Tibet was very much under China’s thumb, and in the interim it owed obeisance to Mongol princes, who were responsible for the advent of the Dalai Lama (‘ocean of wisdom’) in 1642.

In 1720 and again in 1792, Tibet appealed to Manchu China for assistance in driving out Mongols and the Nepalese, respectively. (There is a degree of irony in the fact that, in 2008, Nepal appears to democratically be favouring Maoists while Tibetans are striking out against Mao’s heirs.)

Tibet proclaimed independence only in 1913, a year after Sun Yat-sen proclaimed the Nanking republic in China; even so, a year later, representatives of Britain, China and Tibet signed an agreement at Simla, whereby Lhasa recognised Chinese sovereignty, after a fashion.

It nonetheless enjoyed de facto independence until 1949. Two years later, under a 17-point plan, it obtained ‘autonomous status’ within ‘the big family of the motherland’ and was permitted to retain its ‘existing political system ... and the established status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama’.

The Dalai Lama did not formally repudiate this agreement until 1959, when he opted for exile in India, after Beijing had reneged on many of its commitments. Nearly 50 years later, the demand for independence is not endorsed by the Dalai Lama, who formally accepted Chinese sovereignty in the Strasbourg Proposal 20 years ago. On the face of it, he is seeking no more than autonomy within the context of the People’s Republic.

Is that too much to ask for? A response to that query depends on what autonomy would mean in a practical sense. Tibetans are wary of the recently established rail link to Lhasa, notwithstanding the value of the engineering feat, because it has led to an influx of Han Chinese, who already control most of the businesses in the territory’s capital.

There can be little question that the Chinese connection has led to a phenomenal amount of development in the past two or three decades, but Tibetans have not, it seems, been the primary beneficiaries.

Although they are, no doubt, far better off than they were under the feudal arrangements that preceded the 1950 takeover, the progress has been blighted by uneven development.

However, Tibet is hardly exceptional in this respect: the triumph of those who were once dismissed as ‘capitalist roaders’ has led to extreme disparities of wealth right across the country. Although it is this phenomenon that accounts for much of the discontent in Tibet, the majority of those who purport to be Tibetan allies have no quarrel with this concept. Residue from the Cold War mentality pinpoints Chinese communism as the crucial issue, whereas in reality the culprit, in many respects, is capitalist growth.

China is more or less unique in hosting a thriving free-market economy amid a political system that relies on total control — a system, furthermore, whose commitment to equitable social justice has been sidelined by the imperatives of capitalism. All the same, given the predominance of Han Chinese, there is no logical reason why Beijing should be wary of allowing Tibetan culture to thrive.

The attitude isn’t restricted to Tibetans, of course: the Communist Party apparently is intimidated by the Falun Gong movement, and its efforts to control the Internet have long been ridiculed.

Ultimately, the contradictions between laissez-faire economics and a party stranglehold in the political sphere will need to be resolved. However, that’s not exactly what the present disputes are about. One of the most illuminating dissertations on the subject that I have come across was a column last week by the octogenarian Israeli politician, peace activist and writer Uri Avnery, who pointed out that while he had no objection as such to demands for Tibetan autonomy or even liberation, he wouldn’t demonstrate on their behalf, because that would suggest this particular quest is somehow superior to efforts to advocate the independence of, for instance, the Basque region in Spain or the Kurdish territory that straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, or Chechnya.

Not surprisingly, given his record of proactive support for a fair two-state solution to the main Middle Eastern conundrum, Avnery also brought up the Palestinian issue. However, for some reason he did not bring up either Iraq or Afghanistan. The circumstances in these two cases are, of course, vastly different to those of Tibet. But then, to paraphrase Tolstoy, every occupied nationality is unhappy in its own way.

It would make a great deal of sense for the Chinese leadership to resolve its issues with the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama and his followers, as well as other minorities, such as the Uighurs of Xinjiang, through negotiations, given that repression, apart from its morality, is bound to exacerbate separatist tendencies.

At the same time, however, the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Condoleezza Rice cannot seriously expect their denunciations of the Chinese administration to be heeded for as long as the fate of Iraq lies in the hands of David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker. n

writer is a journalist based in Sydney.

mahir.worldview@gmail.com

Thanx Mahir Ali n thanx Dawn

Tibet question and Olympics