 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Rhetoric, Red faces and Retribution
Like it or not, China is now a significant world power.
Years of double digit economic growth, a policy of investment and expansion 'without conscience', not to mention a penchant for buying US dept, now mean that China now commands a fair amount of influence, an dis capable of bribing or bullying a lot of countries into doing a lot of things.
However, there appears to be one small area in which China is all but powerless. One area in which it has no influence, no matter how hard it tries. This being the area of the Dali Lama.
In recent years, China has warned everybody, from established power like as America and Britain, to emerging nations like Lithuania, to 'refrain' from having any dealings with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader. Much to China's chagrin, most countries have resolutely ignored these warning.
The latest country to ignore Chinese demands is Mongolia, which is currently hosting the Dali Lama.
Arrival?
The Dali Lama arrived in Mongolia this Monday, and kicked off his visit, by speaking at Gandantegchenlin, Mongolia's largest monastery, where he was greeted by a crowd of several thousand Mongolian supporters.
According to his retinue, the Dali Lama's visit is purely religious in nature, and will not be used to further the cause of Tibetan independence.
| "There is no political agenda to this visit. He's a Buddhist. He's going to give Buddhist teachings. The Chinese are welcome to come to Mongolia and look at the visit themselves" Tenzin Takla, Spokesperson, Retinue of the Dalai Lama. |
It has been estimated that around 90 percent of Mongolia's population follow Tibetan Buddhism.
His visit, the seventh since 1979, is expected to last for a week. Due to the sensitive nature of the exiled leader, details of his arrival and itinerary were kept secret until a matter of days before the event.
Chinese Fury
As has now become traditional, Beijing quickly responded to international reports on the Dali Lama's visit by issuing a statement calling on other countries to refrain from hosting the Dali Lama, or engaging with him in any other way.
| "[We are] resolutely opposed to any country offering [the Dali Lama] a stage" Foreign Ministry, China |
Beijing's statement was highly critical of the exiled Tibetan, and denounced him as a separatist who was seeking to destabilize and divide China.
| "The Dali Lama is not merely a religious figure, but a political exile who over a lengthy period has engaged in splittist activities and hurt national unity" Foreign Ministry, China |
As is also traditional, Beijing statement was made to the international press but was purposefully kept out of much of China's domestic media.
This is standard practice in China, were the state often acts to suppress stories that show foreign governments openly defying Beijing where such defiance might cause Chinese citizens to ask questions that the government does not want to answer, or where it would loose the government face to admint that such defiance existed.
Retribution?
Although officials in Beijing reacted with unconcealed anger to the Lama's visit, the response from the Chinese embassy in Mongolia was somewhat calmer.
When questioned about the Lama's visit, embassy officials appeared to conquer with reassurances from Tibet and Mongolia, that the visit was 'non-political' in nature, and voiced that they had no plans to add to previous Tibetan or Mongolian statements on the issue, and no plans to lodge an official protest with Mongolian authorities over the visit.
| "We do not have any additional statements or comments on the issue at present" Spokesperson, Chinese Embassy, Mongolia |
However, embassy officials neither confirmed nor denied that Beijing planned to take retaliatory measures against Mongolia for openly defying China by allowing the visit to go ahead.
During the Dali Lama's last visit to Mongolia, in November 2002, China responded by temporarily closing its borders. Briefly halting trade and disrupting transportation links between the two countries. China later confirmed that a number of trains had been delayed at the border, but denied that it had closed the border.
| "The border has not been closed. There is no such case. I don't know where you get this report" Kong Quan, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China (2002) |
According to Chinese border officials, the trains had been delayed due to 'maintenance work' that was being carried out. These 'Delays' lasted for two days.
'Coincidentally', it has been reported that Air China flights between Beijing and the Mongolian capital Ulan Bator (Ulaanbaatar), were temporarily suspended yesterday. With the morning service not leaving until late evening
Officially, this was due to adverse weather conditions. However, weather reports indicate that the route was free from bad weather and there were clear skies between the two cities.
Separatism?
In contradiction to statements from Beijing, the Dali Lama no longer advocates separatism, and has not done so for many years. Instead, he has stated the belief that Tibet's interests would be best served by being an autonomous state within 'Greater China', rather than an independent state outside of China.
| "I am not seeking independence. I am seeking self-rule. I think that benefits both Chinese and Tibetan people" Dali Lama |
This is commonly known as 'the middle way'.
Autonomy?
Despite allowing them to save face and to retain China's current borders, the idea of Tibet having autonomy within China is largely viewed as being 'unacceptable' by Chinese officials, and Beijing has publicly dismissed such overtures and compromises from the Lama as being a 'smokescreen for independence' that would see Tibet claiming Chinese land to form a Tibetan state that 'has no basis in history'.
| "Knowing that his separatist stance has no place in the world today where peace and development prevail, the Dalai Lama now adopts a new strategy of playing down separatist sentiments while trumpeting the highest degree of autonomy of the so-called 'greater Tibet'..... The Dalai Lama's concept of 'greater Tibet' which includes other areas inside the Chinese territory inhabited by Tibetans, has never been formed in history" Legqog, Regional Chairman, Tibet (Speaking in regard to the Dali Lama's visit to Mongolia in 2002) |
Were Beijing to grant Tibet 'true' autonomy within China, it would mean granting Tibet the right to retain its own culture, traditions and national identity. Something which Beijing refuses to do at present because all of the above are distinctly different from China's dominant Han culture, and demonstrate the fact that a high level of separation exists between the two regions.
State of Play
Officially, Tibet is guaranteed a high level of independence under Section 6 of Chinese constitution. Which provides the sub state with the legal right to maintain its own cultural and religious identity under the auspices of their respective regional governments.
| 民族自治地方的自治机关自主地管理本地方的教育、科学、文化、卫生、体育事业，保护和整理民族的文化遗产，发展和繁荣民族文化。 第一百一十九条, 第六节, 中华人民共和国宪法 The organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas independently administer educational, scientific, cultural, public health and physical culture affairs in their respective areas, sort out and protect the cultural legacy of the nationalities and work for the development and prosperity of their cultures. Article 119, Section 6, Constitution, China |
To date, Beijing maintains that Tibetan culture and traditions have been fully respected and supported by the local admnistration and by Beijing.
| "In the past 40 years or so, Tibet has inherited and developed its cultural heritage, Tibetan customs and religions have been fully respected, and people have enjoyed full freedom of religious faith" Xinhua, State Controlled media agency, China |
However, despite reassurances over Tibet, it is the position of the Chinese government and the government of Tibet, which is directly appointed by the Chinese government, that many elements of Tibetan culture and religion are 'dangerous symbols of Tibetan nationalism' and should be either be irradiated or re molded into a more 'acceptable' form.
As such Beijing has long acted to push Tibetans into taking on Han traits imported from China proper. Claiming that they are 'encouraging' Tibetans to advance by discarding their own 'outdated cultural epitaphs' in favor of 'more advanced' Chinese practices.
To assist in this effort, Beijing routinely bans any aspects of Tibet’s indigenous culture that separates Tibetan and Chinese identities, or which Beijing fears could be used to encourage Tibetan nationalism. Such restrictions include a blanket prohibition on the possession of images of the Dali Lama, or a recording of his voice.
In reality, the only aspects of traditional Tibetan culture which are allowed to be practiced freely in Tibet are often those which can be used to:
A) Promote tourism
B) Propagate the idea that Tibetan traditions are ‘relics of the past’ that belong in museums and bare no relevance to the people.
When PRC took over Tibet in the late fifties, they promised "two systems,
one country". Look out, Hong Kong.
Wonderful report and analysis. Thank you.
PRC bases its claim to Tibet on the fact that Tibet used to pay tribute to
the emperors. But there was some confusion as to whether it was tribute or
trade. Ambassadors/merchants gave their presents to the emperor, and, to
show their generosity and superiority, the emperor would give back
considerably more. This knowledge was the reason for the Polo brothers'
journey. But was it really a commercial transaction or an act of
submission?
Okinawa? don't you mean 琉球王国 (The Ryukyu Kingdom).
Have you ever noticed the fact that you never get any hits from the Tibetan
area?
The line between tribute and trade was indeed a fine one, but Qing
suzerainty over Tibet was a bit more than that after the 1750s. They were
one of several Central Asian proto-states that owed their loyalty directly
to the Qing Emperor. Prior to that, No Chinese dynasty could secure
control over the Tibetan plateau, it was the Manchus who finished the job.
Now, this leaves open three questions. The first is historical legacy. 250
years is a long time. Tibet was a part of the Qing before New Hampshire
was even a state. How it came to be a part of the Qing Empire (through the
use of Qing banner troops to crush a Tibetan revolt) might be questioned
but only so far. As one Chinese friend of mine quipped, "I'd be happy to
discuss China's history with Tibet just as soon as the US gives Alta
California back to the Mexicans." The wrinkle, of course, is the second
issue: inherited suzerainty. The Qing Empire was a multi-ethnic empire
under the control of the Manchus. Han Chinese were one part (but by far
the largest) of this conglomerated empire. Was the ROC, as it claimed in
1911, the inheritors of this territorial legacy? (A quite convenient
claim!) The Qing Emperors conquered--and more importantly--controlled lands
that had long remained outside Han control including Xinjiang, Tibet, and
Taiwan. What inherited claims can the ROC and now the PRC make to these
lands? "The Manchus are Chinese, too so it doesn't matter" might work in
2006 but in 1911 the question of Manchu ethnicity was far from settled.
Finally, and this of course is the trickiest, is the issue of national
determination. Should peoples be allowed to separate from a larger state
if they feel it is in their best interests? In most cases, the answer has
been no. The US is preventing the Kurds in Iraq from doing so. The Basques
in France and Spain have waged a terrible and bloody campaign over this
issue to little avail. The examples are too numerous to mention and often,
as in Tibet, involve the inherited remains of long dead empires (whether
Qing, Ottoman, British, French, etc.) So while many in the international
community claim to support national determination, the record itself is
grim.
They can rewrite history if they wish; all conquerors do. They can
re-invent the weather and redefine reality; it's been done before. But to
deny a people their cultural heritage in the name of progress is wrong, and
pointing out that other nations have done it is not a way to excuse it.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
@Sarah, you are correct, two wrongs do not make a right. My argument was
based on applying international precedent to historical circumstances to
show that 'history' might not be the best argument to make in defense of
Tibetan sovereignty. I was trying to avoid making a value judgement about
those precedents. I think we agree more than you might believe. As a wise
man once remarked, "To say that something is indefensible because
undefendable is the ultimate immorality."
Re: J's Chinese friend's comment.
"history' might not be the best argument to make in defense of Tibetan
sovereignty"
The entire notion of "cultural" genocide trivializes the meaning of
genocide. It might be aesthetically displeasing to move from one culture
to another, but it clearly isn't nearly as bad as death. If the choice is
between one culture and a less beautiful alternative, it is wildly
inappropriate to frame it in terms of a "death" that never occurs.
I would have to take exception to that. Genocide is the systematic and
targeted extermination of a people, race or culture. Whether you
exterminate the Tibetans by physically killing them, or by killing their
culture, you are still exterminating them as a people.