Left Flank

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.

Mindanao is The Philippines' Kosovo. Manila favors regional stability over self-determination. The Kosovar declaration comes amid Mindanese protests against Operation Balikatan, a joint RP-US exercise that has reached the "humanitarian" stage.

"Considering the existing sensibilities in the region, continued dialogue should be encouraged among all the parties concerned to ensure regional stability," Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo said in a statement.

He said the government "would prefer a settlement of the issue...taking into account the internationally accepted principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity."

The country is concerned about its own Muslim separatist movement in Mindanao, where the government is in talks with the rebel Moro Islamic Liberation Front on granting significant autonomy to Muslims.

On Monday, 3,000 local residents, led by national legislators, protested the exercises.

Rebutting the government's claim that the holding of the «Balikatan» exercises was in accordance with the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), Ocampo said the document did not allow for successive military exercises.

«Continued or successive joint military exercises violate the Constitution and even the provisions of VFA. And as we see now, these are not even joint exercises but a one-sided conduct of civic actions by American troops,» he said.

Lt. Col. Julieto Ando, spokesperson of the 6th Infantry Division, shrugged off the accusations, saying the exercises would focus on medical and dental missions, engineering works involving road openings, and school building construction in poor communities.

«We assure them there will be no combat exercises,» Ando said.

Ocampo and Maza lambasted the government for allowing American troops to conduct civic missions in the country.

«Why use uniformed military troops from the United States to conduct these civil and engineering works when it should be the government doing this? If the United States wants to help, it can provide the funds, but it should be Filipinos, not US troops, who should build the bridges and schools,» Ocampo said.

Maza said the humanitarian missions evoked by the US government was just a cover. «These are just an excuse to allow US troops to enter our communities and pursue their real agenda of justifying their war against terrorism,» she said.

Another group of Mindanese legislators is miffed about being left out of the loop.

«Tradition has it that elders and datus are duly consulted on matters of general interest to the populace. This has not been so in this instance as the impending exercise came unannounced, no consultation or prior information dissemination.»

Yet, according to Roger Montana Balanza, assassinations continue and are expected to increase.

I'm reluctant to praise full-bore Kosovo's independence from Serbia. I'm not alone in my skepticism of self-determination, although I'm not pleased with the company, or their reasons.

Fears that the move could inspire other separatist movements were confirmed almost immediately. On Sunday the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia announced that in the light of Kosovo's move, they would ask Russia and the UN to recognize their independence. And on Monday Chechen rebels fighting to secede from Russia hailed Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, comparing Pristina's fight against Serbia to their own struggle against Moscow.

Are we confusing self-determination with separatism? Separatist aspirations might not necessarily reflect democratic or majority impulses.

I'm even more skeptical, though, when Beijing's queasiness about self-determination is applied to Taiwan.

First, China could scale back the number of flights that its air force regularly makes over the straits. This would reduce the possibilities of an accident and could be visibly verified by the Taiwanese military and media, thereby building goodwill.

More permanently, China could announce a freeze in its military buildup across the straits from Taiwan. While the Chinese military has steadily manufactured short-range ballistic missiles, many are re-loads for existing launchers based in Fujian Province. Relocating those facilities might prove a logistical challenge, while storing reloads farther from their launch points would be rather meaningless. Declaring a freeze on the manufacture of new missiles and on the deployment of new units to launch them would make a significant contribution towards ensuring a peaceful resolution.

Additionally, China could expect a reciprocal response from Taiwan - as well as the United States, which has been steadily increasing its capabilities in the Western Pacific, including deployments of submarines and aircraft.

The peaceful emergence of Kosovo as an independent country provides an example which can contribute to a new, peaceful paradigm for China and Taiwan.

The threat to use force does not automatically ensure Taiwan's cultural and economic affinity with China, nor has it served to prevent Taiwan's steady press for independence.

Dialogue and renunciation of violence will better serve China's interests in ensuring a peaceful resolution of Taiwan's status.

There's an important distinction between Taiwan and Kosovo. Taiwan is de facto independent now, in ways Kosovo can only hope it can achieve, especially with so many states opposed to its new status. PRC, Russia (probably the most egregious offender in this cabal), and Serbia could adopt non-interventionist policies, regardless of their intentions concerning self-determination, because it is good for business. Accepting the advice to "go-slow" doesn't mean we have to penalize the aggrieved, to placate the bad intentions of the imperialistic. Criticizing the aggrieved states' position, but not the offending ones', for being equally, and antagonistically, destabilizing, is self-serving and hypocritical. The international community should guarantee the economic and civil liberties of disputed territories without undermining political tempers. The only way to avoid precipitate moves toward independence is to render the tactic unnecessary, not ask Taiwan to play dead.