China’s ban this week on tourists to Tibet — in the run-up to a Cold War era style military parade — will further strengthen the resolve of supporters of the Dalai Lama and, at first glance, the unrelated Chinese pro-democratic movement. Every time they restrict
Tibet’s freedom, they, ironically, bring freedom’s day closer.
In Beijing last year, I was a chance witness to one of the most riveting political conversations I’ve ever been privy to. It is a matter of public record, and I will recount some of it. But first, a brief word about China. I was overawed at the “Middle Kingdom’s” transformation since my first visit in 1992. On that trip, the train journey on a drab communist train from Hong Kong’s border to the still-then-new Shenzhen was a journey between two different planets: a stark contrast between glitzy, decadent Hong Kong and a still dreary communist society that I recall in the grainy black and white tones of an old movie. Today Shanghai’s Pudong skyline looks like a futuristic scene from The Matrix. Pretty chic women draped in haute couture and sharp-suited men with western haircuts throng the business quarters of Beijing and the European boulevards of Shanghai’s Bund, sipping espressos and Evian. (Although, I should add, it is quite a different story in the rural hinterland).
I was equally amazed at the savoir faire of China’s diplomacy. The scheduled meetings ran according to the precision of a Swiss railway timetable. When Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who I was accompanying, visited the Forbidden City, security men formed a semi-circle fanning away people who came too close. A guard of honour snapped to attention as his car pulled away after visiting Mao’s Mausoleum and the traffic halted so that his car could pass by. They did this for a South African politician and, of course, they do it everyday for leaders and opinion-makers from across the globe. As we were leaving an early-ish evening meeting and dinner at one of the government’s well-appointed guesthouses in Beijing, a long motorcade of black Cadillacs with the next lot of visitors was slowly winding up the drive.
China’s diplomats work flat-out, day-in and day-out, to promote China’s soft-power policy and interests. Suddenly even America’s statecraft seemed, by contrast, low key.
Then there is the Dalai Lama. This diminutive and delightfully smiley monk with a penchant for Gucci shoes remains in China’s corridors of power, to put it politely, a persona non grata. During our visit, Buthelezi had a one-on-one with Mr Li Jinjan, the Vice-Minister in the International Department of the Communist Party’s Central Committee (CPC). (This conversation is a matter of public record). Li was incredibly well briefed about South Africa and, for a de-facto communist, he was a visionary: all-in-all an impressive man. As the obligatory one hour meeting came to a close and copious amounts of green tea had been consumed, Buthelezi — who himself has a penchant for impeccable manners and diplomatic etiquette — turned to the minister, warmly smiled — and, uhm, expressed his admiration for the Dalai Lama! (The previous day there had been a desultory meeting in Shenzhen between representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government). I remember thinking “not now” and groaned inwardly. I knew where this would go.
Krakatau!
Li said that he could not express harsher views of the Dalai Lama than those with which he proceeded to do. He said that China had shown great “restraint” towards the Tibetan movement; that the CPC’s policy of ethnic regional government was working well and that, on the contrary to what Buthelezi said, the Dalai Lama did not accept Tibet was part of China. Whilst the “door of dialogue” was always open, the conditions that the Dalai Lama’s representatives attached to a settlement were unacceptable.
Getting into his stride, he said that the Dalai Lama wanted to establish a “feudal democracy” which did not fit into China’s “constitutional architecture”: the Tibetan’s demands were tantamount to “de facto” independence (I wanted to laugh thinking about the analogous debate here about the Zulu Kingdom). He went on to claim that the Dalai Lama’s representatives wanted to build a greater Tibetan region which would encompass ¼ of China’s territory, and that it would be unacceptable for China to have to withdraw the military from a quarter of its territory. His pièce de résistance was that the Dalai Lama only wanted Tibetans to reside in Tibet and that, improbably, the Han Chinese who moved there only did so for a couple of years to establish infrastructure, but did not settle because of the “high altitude”! “Come on”, I thought — even ‘Yours Truly’ who does not travel well adjusts to altitude after a couple of days in mountainous regions!
But let us be blunt here, some of what Li alluded to is rooted in the reality of modern geo-politics. The concept of the “nation state” is, largely, to quote the late and great British statesman Roy Jenkins, “illusory”. Not even a landlocked Himalayan kingdom, and the spiritual home of a revered sky-god, can keep the world out. In statecraft there are many shades of grey, and I hate it when politicians — as opposed to statesmen — mouth populist platitudes. Many Tibetans are rightly concerned, by way of example, about the impact of the pan-Himalayan railway line; an extraordinary engineering feat, which is impacting upon their way of life. Yet the Director of Lhasa’s economic development zone, Huang Yutian, said in 2007 that 112 businesses from as far away as Beijing and Guangzhou (close to Hong Kong) had already signed up to use the new industrial zone that is served by the line. These are involved in industries such as mining, and processing Tibetan wool and dairy products. Yes, China has committed heinous crimes in Tibet since its invasion over half a century ago, but I don’t think Tibet can set the clock back to being an isolated theocracy.
Yet, somehow, I don’t really think the real issue is about granting the Dalai Lama’s modest demands for self-autonomy and demilitarisation (no matter how much they detest him).
China is afraid that if it makes concessions to him, the floodgates will be breached.
China’s other separatist movements are already making similar demands from the Urumqi region to the Mongolian plateau. But most worryingly for Beijing, modest concessions to the Dalai Lama would inspire and galvanise China’s pro-democracy movement. The Chinese, unlike most of us lazy-SKY NEWS-24-hour-news-fed-junkies, understand Charles Darwin’s majestic “hand of time” through the ages. They know the entire edifice, in the end, collapses when the smallest chink in the armour is pierced.
And there, of course, on China’s bleak mountainous western borders, lies India: the world’s biggest and most chaotic democracy. She, at the moment, lacks China’s order and infrastructure, but she pulsates with free thought and enterprise. Like the proverbial tortoise and the hare, she will overtake if China does not democratise soon, because freedom and an authentic free-market are indivisible. Even so-called “yellow river capitalism” cannot buck this rule. But that’s for another day.
China, for now, has got quite enough to contend with an orange-swathed Buddhist monk. From his nest, this iconic bird must gaze longingly towards home over the snowy vistas and wonder if he will return. I hope so.
1. China did not ban visitors to Tibet for September and October (Please get your facts right first before you rant)
2. Please post evidence and write in detail your description of “heinous crimes” committed by China
3. India will overtake China (please elaborate btw India claims she will overtake China in 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2020) Right now we are a few months to 2010.
4. Westerners please study more (i am in Singapore and a singaporean I am not a “brainwashed” person like how people always insult Asian education)
rule of thumb dictates that we should follow the money. Tibet is a mineral rich territory that has strategic value for the Chinese.
The Dalai Lama on the other hand wants control of his theocracy back. I know that the world has been painted a noble picture of the Dalai Lama, but the truth is that the Lama class in Tibet suppress their subjects with the best of the dictators. More despicable is that they claim that their right to rule is divinely inspired.
Having spent time with his Monks in India, I can definitely understand the appeal of the religion, but it is worth considering the possibility that Chinese liberated the Tibetans from a theistic tyranny.
Does Wong Ying Jie really believe that Tibetans are happy with what the Chinese have done in Tibet over the past 50 years?
He writes: ” Please post evidence and write in detail your description of “heinous crimes” committed by China”
Well here’s just one example…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nangpa_La_shootings
And there must be thousands of similar stories.
Wong Ying Jie has picked the wrong audience to lie to. As South Africans who remember the Apartheid era, we know that wherever governments crack down on the independence and freedom of the press then you can be sure that terrible things are happening.
@Wong Ying Jie
Check link:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jTGwEv7h5gGgfTpeW3-zSMzwciXQ
You could personally verify this by popping along to the efficient Chinese consulate in Singapore (I’ve dealt with them before – excellent service) and try to get a tourist visa to Tibet this week! I did not write that there is a two month ban.
Heinous crimes – you could start with the Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2000/06/12/human-rights-violations-tibe
The verdict is open on India’s future – for a scholarly read:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=95&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=95
@Robin, yes. But note that I said that Tibet cannot turn the clock back to being a theocracy and nor would it be desirable. The Dalai Lama does not seek a fully-fledged restoration. The Tibetan people merely seek self-determination and demilitarisation.
@ Robin Grant
Have you even read about the atrocities perpetrated against Tibetans in Tibet by the Chinese? About the imprisonment and torture of hundreds of monks, the ethnic cleansing, the ecological desecration? The deliberate import of Han Chinese? The media blackouts? Does that fit with your conception of the Chinese invasion as a “liberation”?
If China’s intentions are noble, why do Chinese (and your own) descriptions of the Dalai Lama’s requests not square with his own accounts of those requests (available at http://www.dalailama.com)? What reason does HHDL have to lie, compared with China’s motivations for lying?
The Dalai Lama does not want “his theocracy” back. He has many times offered his resignation as head of state (in the face of fierce popular resistance) and has had to insist on the secular democratisation of the Tibetan Government in Exile. He has said that the institution of the Dalai Lama may cease with his death, if that is best for Tibetans and the world. Your idea that he wants his theocracy back is a completely absurd and false fabrication.
Please do your research and do the math before you volunteer your ignorant theorisations. You merely make it harder to expose the truth and refute the systematic propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party.
What I find amazing is that NO-ONE in this debate ever suggests that we ask the Tibetans what they want. That would be the democratic route, neh? A simple referendum of a few million oughta do it. But we can’t do that – might turn out to be what neither side wants.
Two more thoughts: nation states are not passe. One can be part of a global world without paying tribute to a big fat monster like China, or India, or the USA.
China is not just terrified of othr regions following suit, it wants to retain hold of the water: “Tibet is the water tower of Asia and rivers originating in Tibet flow into various regions in Asia. The Mekong, the Yellow river, the Yangthze, the Yarlung Tsampo (Brahmaputra), the Indus and the Karnali all originate on the Tibetan plateau and support hundreds of millions of people downstream.” (Futurewater.nl – Circle of Blue also goes into this concept.)
China’s actions in Tibet were not liberation, but a quest for hegemony. Any liberating they did was accidental, and may well have been wiped out by their own oppression – please,Wong Ying Jie, do some research yourself – try Amnesty International for starters.
Cayzer, on an earlier post on the Rhema sect you elaborated quite extensively and knowledgeably on the bible. Tell me, who is the patron saint of lost causes?
First the IFP and now the Dalai Lama!!!
1. China celebrating the success of robbing Tibet from Tibetans.
2. China celebrating the success of killing 1.3 million Tibetans in Tibet.
3. China is celebrating the success of arresting and torturing Tibetans.
4. China is celebrating the success of giving suffering and problems to Tibetans.
5. China is celebrating the success of terrorising Tibetans.
6. China is celebrating for the success of getting happiness by making Tibetans to suffer and making Tibet and hell for Tibetans.
7. China is forcing Tibetans to honour Chinese killers, Chinese robbers, Chinese liars, Chinese terrorists and Chinese torturers.
1. China, stop destroying Tibetan culture, language, religion and traditions.
2. China, stop arresting, torturing and killing Tibetans in Tibet.
3. China, shame on you for celebrating the success of robbing the independent Tibet from Tibetans and making Tibetans to suffer in their own land.
4. China, shame on you for begging everywhere and everyone for support of making Tibet as a part of China.
5. Every nation on this earth is not ashamed of saying independent Tibet as a part of China and fearing of even saying few workd against China’s human right voilations in Tibet.
6. Every country on this earth is trying to appease China by not supporting the truth and rights of Tibetans. You left Tibetans to suffer in the hands of cruel China.
@Jean
That was very naughty – and very funny…