BBC to Help the Chinese Government in the Exploitation of Tibetan Culture and the Marginalization of Tibetan People

On May 25th, Chinese media released stories on the BBC’s decision to broadcast a promotional commercial in December on its World Channel free to help promote Lhasa’s tourism (See article here)

At the West China Counties International Investment and Cooperation Forum held in Hong Kong late April, the BBC World showed great interest in Lhasa’s tourism and promised to make a short film costing 100,000 Yuan on the topic.

“This will be the first time for Lhasa to publicize its tourism worldwide. With this 30-second short film, we hope to enhance Lhasa’s international image, help the world know the city better and attract more people,” said Gao Fu, deputy director of the Lhasa’s Tourism Bureau.

This decision by the BBC must be reversed. By choosing to collaborate with the Chinese government in publicizing Lhasa’s tourism the BBC will only add to the exploitation of Tibetan culture, the marginalization of Tibetans in Tibet by supporting the dominance of Chinese owned businesses and enterprises who overwhelmingly control the tourism industry in Lhasa, and the spread of the Chinese propaganda on Tibet that is administered to the tourists in Tibet.

“What about the other 55?”

Over at the blog Chinageeks, the proprietor, C. Custer, takes a skeptical view, to put it mildly, of Tibetan independence and the Free Tibet movement. In part of a response to a comment on his post about a Free Tibet concert in Taiwan, Custer writes, “What about other ethnic minorities, shouldn’t they get countries too?” I wanted to highlight this because it’s a line I hear pretty frequently, often in the form of “China has 55 ethnic minority peoples — they can’t all become independent (or have home rule), can they?”

The Empire

Razib over at GNXP has an interesting post up on “the Shape of Empires Past”, about the history of China as part of the Qing empire and the uses of history to justify modern policies. This is in response to a recent article by Charles Hill in Forbes Magazine,  “The New Great Game“, which argues that “The People’s Republic of China is an empire desperately trying to make the world think it’s a state.” Both are well worth reading (although I would not necessarily endorse the implications for American foreign policy that one might take from the latter).

Happy birthday, Dalai Lama

Happy 74th birthday and wishes of long life to Tendzin Gyatso, HH the 14th Dalai Lama. AFP reports that he hopes to live to be at least 100.

“My job is too big for one man”

That was the sentiment expressed by the Dalai Lama in a recent speech, as reported by the Independent.  As Andrew Buncombe describes it:

In a speech that underscored the pressures he has had to bear during his life serving as both a spiritual and political leader, the Dalai Lama has said there is no need for his successor to perform the two roles.

Now, the Charter of the Tibetans in Exile, which is basically the constitution of the government-in-exile, specifies that the Dalai Lama is the chief executive. This is not a figurehead position, since it is given broad executive powers and a veto over legislation. So, we’re talking about amending the Charter to remove the Dalai Lama’s powers? It seems like that would be politically difficult to do if the incumbent Dalai Lama doesn’t suggest it explicitly. So, is that what he is suggesting?