Thoughts

I listened to an NPR program about the situation in Tibet this morning and the
dialog was fascinating. The first thing that surprised me was that we had normal
Americans (however sympathetic to the Dalai Lama ) acknowledging that normal Han Chinese were targets of violence from the militant Tibetans but this “was a
reasonable and understandable reaction to the Chinese government’s policies”. If the civilians had been Israelis and the militants were Palestinian, or civilians
anywhere else for that matter, would any Americans sided with those who at other
times would be called the terrorists?

The Chinese government has tried to develop the Tibetan economy, maybe with the thought that wealthier Tibetans would be happier and less religious and separatist. The crowning achievement of this was the railroad to Tibet (a very expensive engineering feat given the mountains to scale) that some people hope to extend to India one day. (The Indians are very interested too.) This railroad is creating much new economic opportunity as well as more immigrants from outside Tibet . This railroad was cited by the one of the NPR panelists as one of the new Chinese offenses that forced the civil unrest.

This was the second thing that surprised me. When I
hear the complaints from other remote low economic activity areas, the
complaints are usually the opposite: “The local economy is stagnant, there is no
future here for our kids, we need the government to do something to help the
local economy.” This is the one time when the locals apparently don’t want a
better economy.

In the past, when I thought about Tibet , I used to have an anti
communist knee jerk, wishing freedom for the "oppressed" Tibetans. I also wished
independence for Taiwan because the PRC was communist and anti freedom. I don’t
think of the PRC like that any more. China is a country going through tremendous
changes and with a government that is firmly in charge. This will probably
change over time, but for now it is good to have a government that can do what
is right, to build infrastructure, and not always have to worry about opinion
polls and getting re-elected. I have talked to many Indians who wished they had
a government like the Chinese. If you imagine that China was the US and Tibet
and Taiwan wanted to secede, you probably would be less sympathetic to the
secessionists. At least Lincoln was.

I now view the Tibet issues as an inferior economic system being unable to defend itself against a stronger economy that is taking over what looks like unclaimed or at least under exploited territory. It is less extreme, but it is the same process that wiped to the Native American culture. Historically China started controlling Tibet in the 1200s. (The Mongols who conquered China in 1271, the Yuan dynasty, took Tibet in 1244. China has exercised some control over Tibet ever since, so the Chinese claim to rule Tibet is more ancient than any border in Europe . The only time Tibet had real self-determination was between 1913 and 1951 because British interventions and China’s internal turbulence and civil wars (and WW2 and Japanese invasion). When China reasserted itself in 1951, it gave Tibet Proper special autonomy but some outlying areas in the east, closer to populated China , were treated as China
Proper which meant “full land redistribution” communist style. This was opposed
by the old local land owners (aristocrats and monasteries) who rebelled. The
rebellion spread to Lhasa but was crushed in 1959. This is when the Dalai Lama
left.

From what I can tell, Tibet was not a good place to be in 1951. Most
people were serfs and there were even slaves, signs of a very poor and backwards
country. For the average Tibetan in Tibet Proper, things only got better when
the Dalai Lama left and full land distribution was implemented in Tibet Proper
too. It is always possible to play an “us versus them” game, just look at the
“ethnic cleansing” in old Yugoslavia , and the same happened in Tibet .

While the average Tibetan benefited from the Chinese takeover, both economically and from a human rights perspective (imagine how strange it is to think of the PRC
as the bringer of human rights, but it is true!), it was always easy to find
Tibetans resenting the Chinese. To me, this is the main reason I have changed my
view on Tibet and China .

It seems to me that it makes perfect sense that Tibet stay part of China and as time goes on becomes more and more integrated. The main opposition to this inevitable trend is the old elite. This elite pushed a self serving and backwards way of life that was completely non competitive with the rest of the world. The normal way of fixing Tibet would have the oppressed majority kick out the old oppressors on their own, including predictable problems such as some level of anarchy and economic hardship. (This may happen in neighboring Nepal , even though Nepal is much more advanced than Tibet was.)

China ’s takeover avoided that necessity, but because of our support for the old
regime there is always a ready loudspeaker for, and instigator of, any local
discontent. It helps that the current Dalai Lama is very charismatic and that
Tibetan Buddhism is non violent and attractively philosophical. The crass truth
is still that people want to use religion as a divisive (us versus them) and non
progressive political force. Would we be as sympathetic if the Tibetans were
Islamic?

I’m certain that the upcoming Olympics are part of the reason for the
current unrest. China views the Olympics as a coming out event, and views a
possible boycott as a disaster. Everybody knows that the Chinese response to any
challenge will probably be more muted than it will be after the Olympics . I
have even heard rumors that the Dalai Lama himself encouraged the initial
demonstrations this week as “our last chance for independence”. While I like the
Dalai Lama as a person, I can’t support him as a political leader because a) I
prefer not to mix religion and politics, and 2) I can’t support the politics of
the Dalai Lama regardless of how good PR he gets.