No Cocaine Here, But Let's Yak about Tibet

This morning, Dr. Ray forwarded me an Economist article and blog rejoinder on Tibet (the article and post can be found at: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11293645, and http://www.chinavortex.com/2008/05/whats-wrong-with-the-economists-angry-china-article/). I don’t have anything terribly insightful to add to the online articles and discussions that have multiplied in recent months, but I did feel that I should put down and organize some of my own thoughts on the Tibet issue.

As someone who’s had some (very limited) experience in the human rights field, I can’t think about the Tibet situation without cringing. My discomfort doesn’t come from the fact that there have been over 50 (mostly unreported) uprisings in Tibet, Qinghai, etc, although the pictures and stories I’ve heard from the human rights community are horrifying. Instead, my feelings result from the fact that, whenever I walk by the Tibetan protestors near campus or hear mention of the Tibet issue, I become immediately and inexplicably defensive and paranoid.

The Tibet issue is something that I was unable to think about until relatively recently. A week or two before the protests began, I had a conversation with a Korean American friend on the topic that nearly reduced me to tears. I couldn’t articulate any substantive reasons why Tibet should remain a part of China, and was rather resentful that he was throwing everything I said back in my face. I was defensive and illogical and found myself whining like a pubescent 13-year old.

I heard that same wavering voice in media outlets not long after, except it wasn’t me doing the talking. The same arguments that I had made weeks earlier echoed through the media and the blogosphere—the Chinese deserved their sovereignty, there’s a pro-Tibet bias in the Western media and human rights community, we just can’t let Tibet break off, damn it!

All this is true to some extent. The Chinese—like all others—deserve sovereignty and the ability to conduct their own affairs. There is a very real fear that Tibetan independence—or even a viable separatist movement—would fuel other separatist movements on the Chinese border. And yes, there is a Western bias towards coverage of abuses of civil and political rights, while China’s enormous achievements in socioeconomic rights go unmentioned by human rights activists.

Looking outwardly at Western missteps, however, is to some extent indicative of insecurities within. The tendency to focus on Western reactions illuminates the Chinese struggle to break with historical specters and accomplish the difficult task of finding foothold on the modern political stage. In fact, however, the Chinese should not be impeded by the fear of a second Taiping or their nostalgia for the dynamism of the May 4^th movement. The insecurities that arose from being the “sick man of Asia” are not really applicable to a country that has made such enormous—albeit uneven—economic achievements in the last few decades. However, the Chinese—on both individual and national levels—seem unable to fully divorce themselves from historical insecurities, and have thus been somewhat hampered in the Tibet dialogue.

With this said, I think the most significant discussions—both for the resolution of the Tibet issue and for the continued prosperity of China more generally—are the dialogues taking place among the Chinese themselves. The many issues that confront the country are complicated. While international media sometimes portray the Chinese as being unified and monolithic, the Chinese themselves actually hold diverse views on Tibet, the economy, the government, the enforcement of law and order, etc., and feel simultaneously torn between these multiple forces (see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/world/asia/02china.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=carrefour+boycott&st=nyt&oref=slogin).

What is the West’s role in all of this? I think it should be a more passive one than most Americans would like to have. There should be no appeasement, and the West should continue to accept Tibetan refugees while firmly pressing for the opening of Tibet to media. Criticisms, however, should be tempered by encouragement and reassurances. Active engagement and a focus on exchange would also be enormously helpful. Beyond that, there is little that can be done except to wait for the Chinese to come to their own conclusions about who they are and the directions the country should be headed in. I have reason to believe that the bystanders will not be disappointed.