Tibet: trying to find a long-term solution

I think the DL has already lost control of the situation. The recent violence is an indication of that. The Uighurs have shown a way to do this and the T*betans are just learning their trade. But with a much more militant and surviver culture in T*bet, the T*betans may not be able to do it with covert means.

"The region's only chance for full independence is with the overthrow of the Communist party,"

If this is the understanding of "your correspondent" of the Tibet issue, the rest of the article will hardly have anything worth reading.

@cc:

Do you honestly believe the CCP is ready to sit down and negotiate full independence for Tibetans? Relinquish all influence on the region? And if so, why, and under what terms?

Cam，

不管是CCP还是KMT掌权，中央政府都不会允许西藏独立，即便中国成为民主国家也一样，这和哪个执政没有关系。

西藏独立的唯一机会是中央政府积弱不堪，无力管束。

This has got to be the most poorly thought-out analogy of all time:

"The Communist party is like the parent to the Tibetan people, and it is always considerate about what the children need. The Central Party Committee is the real Buddha for Tibetans"

-- Zhang Qingli, Secretary for the Tibetan Autonomous Region.

Or maybe it's lost in translation. Any thoughts, cc?

Cam,

To answer to your question, I honestly believe that there is no way that the Chinese government, whether CCP or not, is ready to sit down and negotiate full independence for Tibetans, unless China would be so weak that it could not stop the ball rolling. (Even during the early stage of 20th century, Tibet could not have FULL independence, except de facto independence).

Full independence is out of the question. It does work either in terms of legality or practicality. It works only in moral terms of one side, the pro-Tibetan independence side.

The point I am making has also been pointed out by Prof. Goldstein. The key questions are who controls the territory? to what extent? who decides what goes on in that territory?

Ideology has hardly any part in this regard. The argument about the right of self-determination and the right of a multi-ethnic nation to maintain its sovereignty is similar to the one about eggs and chicken. Unfortunately, most people in the west fail to realise where the rub of the problem lies.

When people in the west talk about replacing the CCP government in China with a democratically elected government so that the Tibet problem (and many others) would be solved, they are either naive or have a seperate agenda, I would classfiy "your correspondent", who proclaims that "the region's only chance for full independence is with the overthrow of the Communist party," in the latter group.

A different Chinese government may change its tactics but not its strategic position. Also, those who want full independence at whatever costs, e.g. Tibet Youth Congress, will still pursue their agenda even the CCP government is replaced with a democratically elected one.

In short, it is a conflict of interests, not a conflict of ideology.

CC...

I actually agree with you. I also believe that full independence is out of the question. When I say "overthrow" of the CPC, I don't necessarily mean replaced by a "democratically elected government". Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was attempting to draw the same conclusion as you: the overthrow of the government would most-likely only come about during a severe period of chaos and/or crisis which would weaken the central government to such a degree that Tibet would be able to pull itself out from under Chinese rule.

The chances of this happening are close to nil, at least in the near-to-medium term.

I also understand China's position fully, and I don't portend to believe that a democratically-elected government will be the solution to the Tibet issue.

What I've consistently said on this blog is that China needs to listen to the concerns of Tibetans in order to pacify them. This can be done, but not through religious oppression, violence, and the vilification of the DL.

Cam,

I agree with what you said.

To put it in another way, Chinese media has been communicating the strategic position of the Chinese governement in relation to Tibet much in the way as it is and as it should be. However, many tactics that have been employed to achieve the stategic objective are ill-designed and/or ill-implemented. The full story has not been communicated with the general public either.

On the other hand, the western media has been (deliberatly?) diverting attention from
the issue of national sovereignty vs. self-determination to ideology (communist vs. capitalist, democracy vs. authoritarian). In tactic terms, they are primarily focused on the ill-designed and/or ill-implemented policies of the Chinese government, which are hardly covered in the Chinese media. Also consistent with their intention, i.e. attention diverting, they hardly have any interest in reporting some of the positive policies of the Chinese government in Tibet that have nothing to do with ideological issues, because that would be politically incorrect.

The western media keeps pumping bad things in Tibet into their western audience's ears,whereas the Chinese media keeps pumping good things in Tibet into their Chinese audience's ears.

As a result, the public opinion in both China and the west have been manipulated and pushed away from each other further and further.

Cam,

A second thought on the three specific issues you raised: religious oppression, violence, and the vilification of the DL.

These three issues are interrelated. I don't think religious oppression should be examined at its face value. Control of religious groups are not new in China, neither is it new in this world. The primary motivation for this practice is the fear of the emergence of an organised force challenging the authority of the government. (Just consider why so much emphasis is widely put on the seperation of religion and state in this world?)

In this case, the challenge comes from the Tibetan monks' worship of the DL.

I have no doubt on the legitimacy of worshipping the DL from a religious point of view. Any attempt by the Chinese government to stop that can be classified as religious oppression, as it is currently, widely believed. However, as I have repeatly stated, there is another part of the story. The DL is not only a religious figure. In this regard, what the Chinese government says about him is true. Remember, the DL is also the head of the Tibetan-Government-In-Exile. He is also a symbol of a political cause (TI). The DL, besides the Pope, perhaps, is the only political leader in this world who also has a supreme religious authority over his people.

If religious oppression is the intention of the Chinese government, why the worship of Budda and Jesus is not banned? Simple, Budda and Jesus are pure religious figures and they are "dead". They are not the head of a government-in-exile which seeks the independence of a part of Chinese territory (as it is now).

On the issue of violence, the Chinese government has a lot to improve in their tactics. The key is to find a tactical compromise in relation to the first issue. Both sides need to back down from its current positions. Afterall, the DL is neither a pure political figure nor a pure religious leader. However, if the monks and others intend to challenge the national sovereignty of China, e.g. publicly demanding TI, the issue would have nothing to do with religious freedom or oppression. The Chinese government, democratic or not, will have no choice but to act, perhaps violently if the other side is so determined. So, a religious cause and a political quest need to be seperated, so are the government policies.

In terms of the vilification of the DL, I think this has a lot to do with history. It would be very difficult for the Chinese government to change its official line that has been followed for decades after 1959. Again, a better tactic should be employed given the current superstar status of the DL in the world.

Nevertheless, personally I don't think the DL has given up TI, although he has said it repeatly. Given his past record (e.g. CIA check) and what he demands and broadcasts now (e.g. the Greater Tibet, cultural genocide), I would be equally suspicious of his real intention if I were the Chinese government.

@ cc,

That’s a very insightful comment you posted. From reading that and others, I think that deep down our viewpoints on many things are not so different. But I would like to offer an opinion on one thing you mentioned in your comment:

“It would be very difficult for the Chinese government to change its official line that has been followed for decades after 1959.”

Ain’t that one unfortunate side-effect of single-party rule… the difficultly in veering from the “official line”? Lord knows how long it took before the green light to mention the CR was given… and then suddenly it’s referenced in nearly every story that you read! And I won’t even go into certain other “official lines”. If other countries in the world – especially the major powers – still had to stick to “official lines” since 1959, the planet might long ago have been rendered a nuclear wasteland.

I really hope the C-Gov can work out some system under which they’ll be able to change the “official line” without re-writing history in the process. Then the country can really move forward, instead of trying to progress with one foot stuck in cement, and the other chained to a wall.

Balboa,

For that to happen, they need to hire me to be in charge of their PR:-)