Left Flank

Joshua Foust reminds us of the unromantic Tibet. And then, he offers this sage, post-Kosovo advice:

However simply looking down upon China with Holy Western Outrage is not a solution. Ignoring the priggish and quite frankly offensive Han chauvinism (dwarfing even the gaudiest excesses of American chauvinism, which rarely goes beyond empty sloganeering and angry TV pundits), the current Chinese government—which kindly props up our entire financial system through its generous purchasing of our securities and bonds and cheap exports—literally stakes its existence on the government's infallibility. Allowing Tibet independence would require allowing Xinjiang independence… which would also require Taiwan's independence. Many Americans would cheer at the prospect, but hopefully not with the understanding that Chinese society is actually much less homogeneous and far less stable than the CCP likes us to realize. And, like it or not, a stable China means a stable America. We disrupt that at our own peril.

So yes, let us join hands with the spiritual, romantic Tibetan people—I cannot deny their appeal. But let us also do so in a proper context, taking a sober look at the true history and true issues surrounding it. Nothing in anyone's past can justify the horrors visited upon any of the CCP's hundreds of millions of victims. But that is why we should agitate for their redress in a constructive manner—which precludes angrily stomping our feet and shouting slogans. Brave people are literally dying for their freedom in China: let us do them the courtesy of seriously advancing their concerns.

The rest of the post is more informative than all of those western deconstructions on CNN.

The Atlantic's Graeme Wood on Buddhist democracy nails it:

There may be something or nothing to learn about democracy from these spectacles. The first suggests that the movement for Tibetan independence does not answer only to the Dalai Lama, and that China may have a bigger problem, with a wider and more distributed base, than it thought. Would Lhasa consider exchanging the unquestioned rule of Hu Jintao for something more than the unquestioned rule of Tenzin Gyatso? As for the Bhutanese monarch, all signs point to democracy -- except for the often and freely expressed desire of the Bhutanese to keep and revere the monarchy, with or without elections. Whatever else this shows, it should put rest to the notion that democratization of the Buddhist street is any simpler -- or more welcome -- than democratization of the Arab one.

Second place in thought-provoking quotes, though, goes to French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner:

On Wednesday, Kouchner told RMC radio and BFM television that the boycott was not a bad idea. But "it seems unrealistic," he said. "There are a lot of good ideas that can't be put into practice."

"When you're dealing in international relations with countries as important as China, obviously when you make economic decisions it's sometimes at the expense of human rights," he added. "That's elementary realism."

It's no time for sycophantic devotion to one political course, religion, leader, or even state, especially when repression seems to be expanding.

The Dalai Lama is a likeable kind of guy, but I'd like to see, and hear, less of him.

Tibet's case is not helped by world leaders. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's actual words were quite measured, but standing in Dharamsala, the seat of the Tibetan government-in-exile, is incendiary. «We insist the world know what the truth is in Tibet,» Pelosi said.

PRC's Premier, Wen Jiaobao, even more explicitly makes the mistake Pelosi only staged with symbolism: demonizing the Dalai Lama directly.

The EU eschewed the long tradition of childishly pursuing its own foreign policy and spiting every other western state, agreeing with Pelosi not to boycott the Summer Olympics. But still, Beijing can always thank Brussels for relieving the diplomatic pressure.

I also think the Dalai Lama erred tactically by broadcasting his pledge to resign if Tibetan resort to violence. The nature of this gamble exposes Tibet's problem: there are no responsible leaders in Tibet ready to speak for Tibetans. Fortunately, the Dalai Lama maintains that he only wants "autonomy" for all Tibetans in Tibet and in western PRC.

The 73-year-old religious leader was reacting to statements made by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. In a telephone conversation with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Wen said that Beijing was prepared to talk to the Dalai Lama. The condition, however, would be that he could not demand independence for Tibet and he would have to distance himself from the violence.

Beijing accuses the Dalai Lama of being a "separatist and traitor," who talks of autonomy but really means the independence of Tibet from China. The Dalai Lama calls for broad autonomy for Tibet, not only for the current so-called "Tibet Autonomous Region," but also for areas in the neighboring provinces of Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan which have large Tibetan populations.

When asked by SPIEGEL ONLINE whether he might be ready to limit his autonomy plan to just central Tibet, the Dalai Lama said no. The proposal to include other areas as well proves that he has no separatist intentions, he said. For the Tibetans, the only important thing is to "protect their culture."

"I have now repeated a thousand times, it is my mantra: We do not want independence," he said. The Chinese government should take seriously their constitution, which talks of autonomy for certain regions, he added. "It should not only be on paper," said the Dalai Lama.

Of course, Beijing will never consider an autonomous Tibetan zone encompassing western parts of its geo-economically strategic western provinces. For a refreshingly unromantic viewpoint on Tibet, FT reprises the Chinese perception of the Tibetan protests. Yet, I agree with Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom, that Beijing needs to act more responsibly.

Still, the tragic and farcical developments of recent weeks underscore the inherent conflict between China's desire to place itself in the global spotlight and its hope that no one will focus on the nation's flaws. They want internationally acclaimed artists to perform in cities like Shanghai without doing unexpected things--even if, like Bjork, part of their cachet is an ability to surprise an audience. But the Chinese leadership is no more capable of balancing these tensions than Don Quixote was of slaying windmills.

Beijing knows better; Tibet just needs to learn. At 73, the Dalai Lama is past the mark where he can continue to lead Tibetans, who should find their own secular path in a very dangerous region. A new generation of leaders should realize, that simplistic notions of self-determination and autocracy are fighting words where the mountains and rivers run between vital trade, pipeline, and resource routes.

There is opportunity as much as crisis here: even the meanest dictator doesn't want to have blood all over the Internet, or disrupt his cash flow (also check out Tim Johnson's report from Sichuan province).

Military looking vehicles had their license-plates covered or removed and many troops displayed no insignia, suggesting an attempt to cover up the use of army personnel to control the unrest. China does not want the run-up to the Olympics overshadowed by accusations of military repression in Lhasa. But the army is almost certainly playing a big part in the city's clampdown on the ethnic violence that erupted on March 14th and 15th. The authorities say 160 rioters in Lhasa have turned themselves in to the police and 24 people have been charged with «grave crimes». But Tibetans say they fear widespread and indiscriminate arrests.

Ethnic Han Chinese who were targeted in the violence (officials say 13 people were killed by rioters) are fearful too. Several told your correspondent that they would leave Tibet. One Han on the flight from Lhasa to the neighbouring province of Sichuan said he would normally travel in and out of Tibet by train, but he was now afraid that Tibetan terrorists might target the line. No terrorist incidents involving Tibetans have yet been reported, but China—partly in response to an alleged attempt by an ethnic Uighur woman to start a fire on board an airplane earlier this month—has stepped up airport security in recent days.

The huge security deployment in Lhasa has prevented further outbreaks of unrest there, but reports of smaller incidents in other areas of Tibet and ethnic Tibetan regions close to it have continued to emerge. The authorities admitted on March 20th that security forces had fired at protesters in the southwestern province of Sichuan four days earlier, injuring four people. A correspondent for Reuters news agency reported from the area that local residents believe several Tibetans were shot dead. Foreign reporters are now barred from Tibet and several have been turned back from ethnic Tibetan areas of surrounding provinces.

A younger generation of Tibetans raised in the the Dalai Lama's medieval aura, but with feet and senses in the real world, would take a shrewder gamble.

(For those with an open, unclouded mind, check out the bevy of high-quality links China Beat has collected from across the Internet on Tibet.)

Tibet, a Chinese autonomous region, is a geo-economic powder keg disguised as the harsh crimson hues of self-determination and autocracy.

Contrary to the official propaganda, few Tibetans or their allies – not even the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader who lives in exile in India – are calling for full independence from China. Like the Dalai Lama, all the important foreign powers acknowledge Chinese sovereignty over Tibet but want China to respect the human rights and the unique culture of its Tibetan population.

Beijing should therefore stop hiding behind its accusations that «splittists» are behind the troubles in Tibet and start dealing seriously with Tibetan grievances. Negotiating with the Dalai Lama with a view to introducing real autonomy would make a good start.

Unfortunately, there are few signs of such an approach from Beijing. Chinese officials have announced in old-fashioned communist language that the unrest was «meticulously planned by reactionary separatist forces» with the goal of making Tibet independent, according to the Tibet Daily. Ominously, the officials called for «a people's war» to oppose separatism and expose «the hideous face of the Dalai clique».

As the violence spread to towns outside the Tibet Autonomous Region, the Dalai Lama condemned what he called China's «rule of ­terror» and «cultural genocide» in Tibet. But he refrained from joining calls for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games in August. In the current violent circumstances, that is an olive branch, and Chinese leaders should grasp it.

FT's call for restraint contradicts both Gordon G. Chang's call for the Bush administration (and, by implication, Senator Barack Obama's call to respect Tibetan autonomy) to "show revulsion for Beijing's goals and abhorrence of its tactics" and the Tibetan People's Uprising Movement. China Hand makes short work of the Tibet-as-Gaza argument.

In other words, think of Tibet as the new Gaza.

The occupying power games the political/diplomatic system to counter criticism, but relentlessly extends its military and economic reach inside the territory. The occupied turn to militancy. They attempt to create an atmosphere of intense bitterness and anger on the ground through direct action and by the creation of a new generation of militants in religious schools.

The objective is to marginalize moderate and co-optable forces, make a successful occupation impossible militarily, politically, and socially, and finally compel the oppressor to give up and withdraw.
An interesting idea, except it hasn't worked in Gaza, even with sub rosa aid from Iran.

With the Tibet independence forces actively opposed by India and the United States and just about every other government I can think of, I wouldn't think that such an approach would succeed in Tibet.
And it would also involve abandoning the moral high ground that the Dalai Lama has assiduously cultivated for fifty years, turning an esoteric religion and feckless ruling class into beacons of righteousness and hope.

Yet,ethnic Tibetan protest has already spread throughout western PRC. In response, popular Chinese resentment has also increased. James Fallows' Comment is instructive:

The government is full of subtle thinkers, but few are in the propaganda or public security ministries. The propagandists black out news coverage and blame every problem in Tibet on what they call (when they speak in English) "hooligans" from "the Dalai clique." Most people in China assume that Tibet, like Taiwan, Inner Mongolia, or the Muslim Xinjiang region of the northwest, is an integral and inalienable part of its territory. That's all they have ever heard from the media and in the schools. The threat of regional "splittism" raised by riots in Tibet is in this view a true threat to national security.

There's also this update in The Economist (which, according to its own report, is the "only foreign news organization with official approval to be in Tibet"):

Two aspects this report highlights:

1. The animosity between ethnic Chinese Muslims, or Hui, and Tibetans. The People's Armed Police has seemingly asserted control, but there's the possibility of violence between the two populations (of course, this might be what local authorities want foreigners to know).

2. The comments following the report contain Chinese, or pro-Chinese, comments, many of which voice hostile denunciations of western bias against China.

Actually, I wonder now just how wise American and EU support for Kosovo independence was, given the possibility of ethnic violence in Tibet and western PRC. I'm also reminded of Thai Buddhist reprisals against Muslims along its Malaysian border, which helped precipitate the Thaksin coup, as well as ethnic tensions between majority Burmese and other groups in Myanmar. As an NYT article highlights the Tibetan Youth Congress, it might be too hopeful to perceive Tibet in light of the Dalai Lama's "Middle Way". Facile support for both spiritual and political determination is naive.

Tim Johnson, who unfortunately doesn't have official approval, is trapped watching traffic.

Earlier today, I saw probably 100 or more military trucks on a highway heading to Tibet. I have no idea what they were carrying or if it was a routine caravan. It's all part of the riddle of trying to decipher what is happening, and what will happen, in Tibet.

It's Myanmar redux.

Returning to clarity, FT outlines the causes for the Tibetan uprising:

The Dalai Lama's higher international profile has enraged Beijing and been a significant factor in damaging relations with countries like Germany and Austria, and disrupting ties elsewhere.

China has sought to counter the Dalai Lama's enduring influence on multiple fronts, right down to micro-managing cultural practices, such as the wearing of fur during festivals.

Tibetans had refused to wear the traditional fur-trimmed robes at an annual horse-riding event last year after the Dalai Lama said they should not. The Chinese, however, insisted they wear the robes in defiance of their spiritual leader, to the bitterness of participants.

The underlying sovereignty issue aside, China's expanding economy, and the demand for raw materials, has also substantially increased the Chinese presence in Lhasa in particular in recent years, and resentment among locals.

The growth of the Chinese population has been supported by the opening up of the new railway line, the highest in the world, from the next door province of Qinghai.

«In the last couple of years, we have seen an accelerated drive to push through Beijing's economic policies, which is basically to develop the city along the lines of an urban industrial model,» said Kate Saunders, of the International Campaign for Tibet.

The 2008 Beijing games, and the planned passage of the Olympic torch through Lhasa in coming weeks, have been another factor in lifting tensions in recent weeks. The Dalai Lama himself has not supported an Olympic boycott.

Of these causes, I hold Beijing's hunger for resources to be both the most troubling and solvable problem. As the international system becomes more multipolar, Beijing will pushback against the US. But, short of a technological revolution in energy, geo-economics is till a zero-sum game. Beijing needs what Tibet offers, and the access it ensures. Only an international solution that will guarantee economic growth for all states without pause or excessive cost will slake Beijing's hunger.

Finally, Dan at China Law Blog recommends Peter Hessler's "Tibet through Chinese Eyes". I conclude with a comment:

Great article by Hessler, except for his conclusion. What it boils down to I guess is that the people who live in a place should be allowed to live as they please. Hessler's comments about American Indians are true (I'm part Indian) but there is a big difference in 1850 and 2008 - we should all know better by now.

Honor the dead by not heaping more corpses on humanity's bier.

1. Raise Hand, Now Lie!

"The Chinese authorities are really stepping up their anti-Dalai Lama rhetoric and propaganda," Anne Holmes, acting director of the Free Tibet Campaign, said in an e-mail on Sunday.

During a public meeting in December in Lithang in the Kham area of Gansu province, which is populated largely by Tibetans, residents were asked to raise their hands if they opposed the Dalai Lama's return. No one obliged, the campaign group said.

Residents were then asked to raise their hands if they did not have weapons at home. As it is illegal to possess firearms, everyone raised their hand. A photo was then taken and sent to state media, claiming residents were opposed to the Dalai Lama's return, the Free Tibet Campaign said.

2. No "Smut" in China

3. More Nuclear Secrets between Enemies

4. Just Called to Say "I Need You!"

5. You Can Never Return Home to North Korea

6. Take the Authoritarian Challenge!

7. Paul Krugman's Article about China (Not the One about Obama)

8. The Dark Side of the Rosy China Scenario

9. Baby Steps in Foreign Aid

10. Iowa Aftermath

I've never been a fan of Tibetan Buddhism or the Dalai Lama, but I like how he makes Beijing look silly (even if that makes dealing with it difficult for the US).

China has condemned the Dalai Lama's latest proposals, saying similar remarks earlier this month "violate religious rituals and historic conventions".

Critics say that is ironic coming from an atheistic government long accused of suppressing Tibetan Buddhism.

The Dalai Lama has floated numerous proposals for his succession, including one for Tibetans somehow to hold a referendum on abolishing his office altogether. But, Beijing, like a conspirator trapped in a bad plot, is stuck holding onto tradition.

I don't understand US Congress's love affair with the Dalai Lama. I especially can't understand why the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party would want to make such a paltry public relations gesture when the US needs China to consider its role in the world (i.e., Myanmar, India, Sudan) reasonably. It seems, according to The Economist, that Tibetan monks read newspapers quite proficiently, and aren't so contemplative, either.

On this occasion, the confrontation was sparked not by protests, but by some do-it-yourself work. Monks in the Drepung monastery were whitewashing and painting auspicious symbols on the walls of one of its buildings, assigned as a ceremonial residence for the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, who has been in exile since fleeing Chinese repression of an uprising in 1959. The painting celebrated his latest trophy: a Congressional Gold Medal from the United States—its highest civilian honour.

The police wanted to stop the painting. The monastery was then sealed off and surrounded by armed police. The reports tell of a similar showdown at another Lhasa monastery, Nechung, and of various other attempts by Tibetans to celebrate the congressional honour. It is impossible to confirm their accuracy. For all the relative openness of China these days, much of what goes on in Tibet remains hidden from the outside world. New rules introduced at the beginning of the year to make it easier for foreign reporters to travel and report in China excluded Tibet.

The reports are entirely plausible, however. Tibetans revere the Dalai Lama, both as a spiritual leader and as a symbol of a national identity that is not â€ūChineseâ€?.

Howard W. French thoughtful essay goes a long way to understand Tibet as it is.

As with most long-running disputes, the facts that underpin the Tibetan question are full of nuance and subject to competing interpretations. That no major party to this situation has been particularly generous in acknowledging this has only reinforced the overall air of intractability.

China's rulers, accustomed to controlling the flow of information and ideas, and hence how history is taught, skim over - or edit out - parts of Tibet's past that are inconvenient to their narrative.

Tibet's formation as a recognizable nation began as far back as the fourth century. In the early seventh century, Tibetans, under Songtsen Gampo, converted to Buddhism and adopted a written language based on the Ranjana script - both imported from India, it is worth noting.

Tibetans came to control much of their region, including parts of Nepal, Burma, India and present-day Xinjiang (China), and they did it the old-fashioned way, through warfare. They pointedly refused to defer to Tang Dynasty emperors, and in the late eighth century even briefly captured Changan, the Chinese capital, leading to the negotiation of borders between the two states.

Effective Chinese control over Tibet didn't come until the late 18th century and even then was mostly supervisory. Early in the last century, even that began to fall apart, as did China's hold on other parts of its periphery.

To enhance their position in India, the British worked intermittently to reinforce the de facto Tibetan state, which China wiped out in 1950 amid since-flouted promises of «broad autonomy,» and an understanding of this leads to the second important acknowledgement.

Chinese insecurity is driven, and understandably so, by the involvement of Western powers on its periphery. Even as the People's Liberation Army marched into Tibet, Chinese troops were girding to repulse the United States from the Korean peninsula.

Where President Truman saw Communism on the march, China's eyes were fixed on another prize: ending a so-called century of humiliation, which required establishing buffers of its own. The Dalai Lama's popularity in the West arouses Chinese suspicions for much the same reason.

The third unpleasant fact is the ugly record of feudal rule by Tibetan lamas, which China naturally enjoys highlighting.

«Do you know how cruel the lamaism was?» asked Lu Xiuzhang, Tibet's former deputy chief of propaganda. «People were dismembered to be served up in ceremonies, and ordinary people were slaves.» The characterization may not be the fairest, but the man has a point.

Under Communist rule, though, this country committed widespread abominations of its own in Tibet, killing monks, destroying temples and causing famine, yet the only account you can get is of the march of progress as investment pours in.

«Even though the Dalai Lama has agreed to give up the request for Tibet's independence, there's been no breakthrough,» said Wang Lixiong, a Chinese author whose writing about the country's western regions have caused his arrest. «China really doesn't have any intention to solve this issue.»

Wang, like many others, believes China is content to play a game that involves meeting with delegations of exiled Tibetans when the demands of public relations require it, while patiently awaiting the Dalai Lama's death.

That might sound like playing a strong hand smartly, but is it really?

After all, well before the Chinese in Tibet, European colonists and South African whites asked: Why would black Africans prefer independence with poverty to association with deep-pocketed outside powers?

The answer is that self-respect and cultural integrity have no price.

On the surface, Tibet is like Taiwan and Hong Kong, both regions Beijing claims for its own, but which should be independent. Yet, Lamaism is no way to improve Tibet. What Beijing needs to k