Free Dhondup Wangchen!

The New York Times reports that Dhondup Wangchen, a Tibetan filmmaker who was arrested after recording statements from his countrymen criticising the government’s rule of Tibet, is now on trial for subversion. His film, entitled Leaving Fear Behind, was smuggled out of China shortly before he was arrested in March 2008. He has apparently been tortured while in custody, which, unfortunately, does not seem surprising. Now he has written a letter, smuggled out of prison, saying that his trial on charges of state subversion has begun. This is a particularly blatant and unconscionable attempt by the government to stamp out any public discussion by Tibetans of the issues confronting, and everyone who cares about their own freedom or that of their neighbors should call upon the Chinese government to free Dhondup Wangchen. Furthermore, the public should pressure American authorities and other influential parties to pressure China to show leniency in this case. Since Dhondup Wangchen has apparently not been accused of violent acts or political organising, this seems like the sort of case where the Chinese government might bend under pressure.

Please see the take action page on the Leaving Fear Behind site for suggestions on contacting the authorities in China and in your home country.

http://www.leavingfearbehind.com/take-action.html

The seed of a new Tibet policy in Kham?

The ICT reports on an interesting, if temporary and idiosyncratic, development in rural Dhrango County in Kham (near Nyarong; outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region): at the time of the Dalai Lama’s birthday a couple months ago, instead of preventing the public from celebrating, local officials actively promoted the celebrations.  They apparently handed out photographs of the Dalai Lama and, according to one source, they even “gave a speech in praise of the Dalai Lama”! It’s not unprecedented for CCP officials in rural areas to organise religious festivals, such as, for instance, a festival honoring a local god or King Gesar, etc.;  but a living political figure is something different, and the Dalai Lama is normally considered radioactive in Chinese politics.

About the Sperling-Lobsang Sangay controversy

Thanks for posting about the Elliot Sperling-Lobsang Sangay dissension, Jigme. I had actually intended to do a post on the Sperling article when it first came out, but, unfortunately, I got a bit wrapped up in non-blogging responsibilities. I found Lobsang Sangay’s response quite disappointing, both because I have a favorable impression of him (I lack any qualifications to assess his merits as a potential Kalön Thripa, but I like his bearing) and because I think there is a valid critique to be made of Sperling’s conclusions. And yet, Lobsang Sangay seems to respond only with invective. I don’t think it’s a fair criticism to simply accuse him of orientalism. His arguments make sense — it is very difficult to see how a free Tibet can be achieved through China’s legal system. The problem is that, when  you lack any good options, simply demonstrating the faults of Option A doesn’t prove that Option B is going to work well. So, the question must be: if genuine autonomy is a very difficult goal, how is independence going to be achieved instead? Personally, I agree with Lobsang Sangay that there is a better chance of making gains by supporting the Middle Way plan (or going further, even, and simply asking that Tibet be given exactly the same status as Hong Kong), but, unfortunately, I don’t think that this particular contribution to the debate actually helps make that case.

What is India’s Karmapa policy?

According to this story in the North India Times, the Indian security services have recently been limiting the movements of Karmapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje even more tightly than before.  Since escaping into exile from China in 2000, the Karmapa has been living in Himachal Pradesh at a Gelugpa monastery not far from Dharamsala.  All along, the Indian government has kept an unusually close eye on him: he is constantly guarded by government security personnel, he travels in India only with permission, and he has not been allowed to leave India at all except for a brief visit to the United States in 2008. Now, according to the news story, the restrictions have been tightened further: his visits to Dharamsala are limited and he is largely prohibited from leaving Sidhbari, the town where he resides.

“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?

A Chinese think tank investigates the roots of the March 2008 violence

In May, the Open Constitution Initiative, a Chinese think tank based in Beijing, also known simply as Gongmeng, published a investigative report detailing their view of the causes underlying the violence in Lhasa in March of 2008. The International Campaign for Tibet recently put an English translation of the report up on their site.

The Other Serf Liberation Day and the Appropriation of Chinese Symbolism

As I argued in the comments of an earlier post, the idea that China liberated the Tibetan serfs in 1959 is ahistorical because the standard of living, personal freedom, and political rights of the Tibetan public do not appear to have improved afterwards in the 1960s. In other words, if nothing changed for the better, there’s no way that can be described as a liberation. On the other hand, some aspects of life in Tibet did improve in the 1980s, when the Deng economic reforms were extended to Tibet and relatively liberal political policies were followed. If somebody feels like celebrating a “Serf Liberation Day”, the official government date doesn’t make any sense, but maybe May 29 would instead.

On May 29, 1980, twenty-nine years ago today, Hu Yaobang, who was then the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, gave a speech in Lhasa to 4,500 party members and government officials. Hu harshly criticised the policies that had been followed in Tibet up to that point and offered six points for a new policy, which amounted to implementing autonomy for Tibet, (“You should according to your own characteristics, draft specific decrees, laws and regulations, and rules to protect the special interests of your own nationality.”); flexible economic policies as opposed to rigid socialist measures; respect for and promotion of Tibetan culture; and a dramatic shift in power in the TAR from Chinese cadres to Tibetans (“Today there are 300,000 ethnic Han, including military, in Tibet. How can that ever do?”)