Beware of Fantasy

by Charley Reese

Coffee sippers who think it might be a good idea to free Tibet from China are about 58 years too late. China is not going to free Tibet, and Western encouragement of Tibetan resistance will only get people killed needlessly.

Tibet was part of China for centuries. In 1913, when China seemed to be falling apart, the British Empire encouraged Tibet to declare its independence. It did, and that lasted until 1950, when, at the end of the Chinese civil war, China invaded and reclaimed the area. By then, the impotent British Empire was in no position to help anyone even if it had been so inclined. America chose to do nothing.

If you are not willing to make your way to the Tibetan plateau and face Chinese guns and prisons, then you certainly should not sit around some coffee shop and urge Tibetans to do so. Tibet is a strategic area of China, and the Chinese government is not going to give it up or grant it independence or even autonomy. To paraphrase a famous outlaw, it is enough that we know that China will do what it has to do.

As for us, we should do nothing. Tibet is part of China, and what happens there is an internal affair of China. The rest of the world has no right to interfere, and other than bloviating for a while, I seriously doubt that it will. Unfortunately, in this age of global communications even bloviating can cause bad things to happen to people.

Boycotting the Olympics is a foolish idea by a tiny minority of fanatics. The Olympics have nothing to do with Tibet, just as they had nothing to do with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Boycotting the games would be a cruel blow to athletes who have been sweating and training for four years. It would accomplish nothing. It would further politicize the games, which should be encouraged to return to their amateur status.

China was awarded the Summer Games in a fair international competition and has spent a lot of money getting ready for them. Any attempt to spoil the games will do a great disservice to the athletes, the Chinese government and the Chinese people. It will do nothing positive and will only harden attitudes and end up making the world even more dangerous than it already is.

Americans in particular should keep in mind that we are currently engaged in mismanaging two occupations of two countries that we illegally invaded. Neither enterprise is going well. Neither is our economy. In short, we have enough on our own plate without trying to steal a bite off of China’s plate. We should make sure that Afghanistan and Iran are the last wheezes of the sick American Empire and shut it down and return to our republic.

I don’t know why some Americans seem to have trouble realizing that the days of the European empires are over. Part of the problem is that we have way too many vocational intellectuals and way too few real intellects. A vocational intellectual is someone who makes a living writing or talking. Such people tend to live inside their heads. Delusions of grandeur and fantasies about the real world are constant occupational hazards for such people.

No country in the world has to do what we tell it to do. Certainly that’s the case with the big powers like China, Russia, Japan and India. As you can see every day in your morning paper, even a little country like Iraq can cause us more trouble than it’s worth. It’s a crime against humanity that our sons and daughters are dying in the desert dust while fat politicians cavort about in Washington. Don’t encourage Tibetans to die in some futile fantasy about independence. They are not independent. They are part of China, and part of China they will stay.

March 29, 2008

Charley Reese [send him mail] has been a journalist for 49 years.

© 2008 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

Riots and Unrest in Lhasa

Various sources on the happenings:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7296041.stm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/14/asia/china.php

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/14/tibet.china3

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1722509,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080314/ts_nm/china_tibet_dc_16

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080314/pl_afp/chinatibetreligionprotestsrightsusambassador_080314145403

http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-32492120080314?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299597.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299530.stm

Video:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/14/tibet.unrest/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2FtB_P-uWZI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZLzKBvvGMg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/mar/16/xiahe.gansu 

The Tibetan Struggle: The Balance Between Protest and Compliance?

Within the Tibetan movement for independence or true autonomy there seems to be two popular schools of action in regards to how the Chinese government should be dealt with: protest and compliance.

Within the school of protest we have followers who might engage in direct demonstration and confrontation against the Chinese government through protests, boycotts, education of a Tibetan history that directly conflicts with the Peoples Republic of China’s account, and protest missions within China itself which the PRC works hard to contain and suppress. The complete independence of Tibet and the withdrawal of the PRC would be sought after by followers of this school since anything else would be perceived as a form of concession to the PRC. Examples of organizations inclined towards this school of thought would be Students for a Free Tibet, Free Tibet Campaign, and International Tibet Independence Movement.

Followers within the school of compliance adopt a view which they perceive as more practical and pragmatic in approaching the Chinese. Certain demands from the PRC would be complied with in order to win favour and alleviate any tensions between the two groups so that negotiations can be made. This includes not engaging in direct protest and confrontation with the PRC and omission of past events in order for easier future progression to be made. Therefore past events may be perceived as irrelevant in negotiation. They may have also, under the same pragmatic approach, adopted a “middle path” plan in which they aim for true autonomy within Tibet and not for a full independent Tibet. An example of an organization within this school of thought would be the Tibetan Government in Exile, and its various other branches.

By using the example of these organizations as adherents of these “schools of thought/action” I don’t mean to imply that they are the two extremes of the spectrum or exact opposites. Meaning that although the TGIE engages in more compliance and concession, than the SFT, in order to deal with the PRC but they still engage in forms of protest and in fact the “Middle path” strategy also implies their view of taking a moderate approach.

In my opinion it is a mistake for anyone fighting for the Tibetan cause to completely or solely adopt one of these schools of action and thought as their approach in dealing with the PRC. Within these two schools of action and thought, there are both positive and negative reactions, outcomes, and effects. Thus in order to avoid the possible negative features of either approach, one must adopt both approaches in order to cover the flaws of both:

Protest:

• Pros: Warns the PRC that their actions are being monitored by those who protest their occupation of Tibet. Lets the PRC know that the Tibet issue and support is still strong and relevant thus the PRC’s unfair or immoral actions within Tibet can be expected to be met with an international outcry and direct opposition.
  • As a result the PRC might feel more inclined to be cautious of what reactions their actions in Tibet will create.
• Cons: Further emboldens China‘s resolve to remain stubborn within Tibet. Inclines the PRC to be more suspicious towards those who might possibly be opposed to their occupation, particularly towards Tibetans.
  • Alerts China to remain closely watchful of Tibet related activities. Protests notify the PRC that the Tibet issue is still relevant and that people are still displeased and opposed to the Chinese control of Tibet.

Compliance:

• Pros: Could do less to arouse the suspicion and anger of the PRC which then could make way for negotiations and talks to take place. Also gives the PRC a more favourable dealing on the Tibet issue instead of a complete and full withdrawal of the PRC from Tibet which followers of the other school wish to accomplish through pressure on the PRC.
  • The followers of this school of thought present themselves as advocates of a solution that is much more favourable for the PRC, thus making themselves more appealing to the PRC.
    
• Cons: Possibly lull the PRC into a sense of unconditional authority to act as they wish within Tibet. Also might give the impression that the Tibetan struggle has been severely weakened or died since moderate actions are less likely to draw international coverage and thus resulting in a possible loss of international support for the Tibet struggle.
  • Would also involve the approval of the PRC’s account of Tibet’s history, thus the retraction of our claim as a previously independent nation.

Much of my views on this may be projected through my perception of the nature of the Chinese government, so feel free to disagree.

 

Autonomy vs. Independence

Here’s a quick run through of what I perceive to the pros and cons to autonomy and independence, should Tibet obtain either:

Autonomy:

Overview:
-A self governing state that would manage its own internal and local affairs. However international affairs and military would be managed by China.

Pros:
-Economic benefits from China’s rich and quickly growing economy.
-Command of Tibetan internal affairs.
-Military protection from China.
-Quicker infrastructural development.

Cons:
-A dependency on China.
-Larger Chinese cultural influence on Tibet.
-No international relations as a separate state.
-Media and educational censorship.
-Totalitarianism of CCP(Chinese Communist Party): therefore little say in national government affairs and also possibility to be overruled by the CPC government.
-Capitulation to the CPC justification of Tibet having been always part of China.
-Accepting China’s national policies and international baggage and policies.

Independence:

Overview:
-A self governing state, at every level, not under the control of any other power.

Pros:
-National pride as an independent Tibetan state.
-The satisfaction of accomplishing a long hard struggle.
-Complete command over Tibet’s own independent national government.
-Ability to deal with the large Chinese population within Tibet. Whether that means deportation or denying Chinese migrants entry into Tibet.

Cons:
-Most probably, bitter relations with China.
-A land locked state, thus no access to any ocean.
-Poor economy.
-Vulnerability to foreign influences/control.
-Difficulties to create infrastructure or development at a much slower rate.

These are the few that quickly came to mind for me, if I can think of any others I’ll edit and add them. Comment on what your think should be added to the list or maybe taken away.