Sunday, March 16, 2008
CHINA and TIBET
My views on China and its relationship to Tibet are complex, and probably not suited to the kind of brief blog post I have time for this weekend. But a couple of quick takes can illustrate that complexity. For instance, here's a quote from the Dalai Lama:
The Dalai Lama said China, as the world's most populous nation, deserves to host the Olympics but it must look seriously at repairing its human rights record "in order to be a good host." This statement must come as a surprise to the Richard Geres of the world, who see the question of Tibetan independence in simple black-and-white moral terms. The Dalai Lama is likely being politic here. He knows that 1) China simply will not "let Tibet go" and 2) that the better part of valor here is to do and say things that can lower tensions and decrease violence in the short term, while 3) preserving his position as someone with some influence over events.
Playing the role of chief advocate for and protector of the hugely powerful reservoir of Han Chinese nationalism is one of the key foundations of power for the Chinese Communist Party today, and has been since its founding in the days of China's most abject humiliation in the face of Western and Japanese imperialism. Since the time of its long contest with the Guomindang in the 1920s through the 1940s, the CCP has attracted support from a broad swath of the Chinese population by promoting itself as the best and most effective expression of Han Chinese national power. The actual record certainly has and continues to support that claim to preeminence as a nationalistic force.
While there may well have been "revolutionary" communist motivations among some Party ideologues in the initial seizure of power in Tibet in the 1950s, and its suppression of the power of the Buddhist lamas was couched in "anti-feudal" ideological terms in the 1960s and 1970s, the CCP's mandate there is based today on the expression of Han nationalism. Given the state of Han Chinese nationalist sentiment today, China abandoning its control over Tibet would be like the United States ceding control over strategic areas of the western part of the country to Native Americans in the late 19th or early 20th century. In other words, it's inconceivable.
In this regard, there's a huge disconnect between the rhetoric of Western "pro-Tibet" campaigners and the perceptions of both the CCP and the huge majority of Han Chinese people. Although there is a proportionately tiny cadre of Chinese people who have a real grasp of contemporary Western views about human rights and cultural and ethnic self-determination, the vast majority of Chinese people and the CCP's leadership are simply not that cosmopolitan. Richard Gere speaks in terms of human rights and political self-determination, but the Chinese HEAR anti-Chinese Western imperialism. They hear, "Blah, blah, blah, blah, Chinese people should give up some of its territory because we know better than you what's right and wrong, blah, blah, blah, blah, we Western people support China's enemies, blah, blah, blah."
GB, THHotA
posted by Greg 9:28 AM
|
|
