From my old textbooks, I do know that this is a region that has been under Chinese suzerainty for a very very long time. In fact, one could argue that it was due to Kubilai Khan and later Yuan emperors showering of favors and prestige that established the lama's powerful position in Tibetan society. They "gave lamas greater prestige and privilege than any other religious order, alien or native, had enjoyed in Chinese history, and one of the reasons for subsequent Chinese vilification of the Yuan rulers is that they allowed lamas to abuse their privileges and immunities outrageously."1
For hundreds and hundreds of years, Tibet has been under Chinese suzerainty. It would seem to me that this situation has been facilitated by the region's rugged geography. It is just easier this way to maintain your sovereignty over such a region.
For bit of historical perspective, in round numbers, Chinese suzerainty over Tibet started about 800 AD, which predates the Kingdom of England. If you don't like that date, then certainly you'd have to accept the mid 1200 AD with Kubilai Khan. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215 AD and the Kingdom of Great Britain wouldn't exist for another 500 years.
While it has had its moments of autonomy, when the bigger players in the neighborhood have been distracted or weakened, Tibet hasn't been a completely independent country since about 800 AD. Thus, to my mind, calls for "Free Tibet" are lacking a historical context. Independence? Sure. Self-determination? Sure. But, in the 50's, Tibet wasn't like a France so China didn't roll across the border like Germany did decades earlier.
Toward the end of the last imperial dynasty, the Chinese ability to maintain the integrity of its territory was severely challenged by European presence. To the North and North East, there was Russia. To the East, there was Germany. To the South and South West, there was Britain. And then, of course, there was the Japanese invasion. China was the Sick Man of Asia. During this time, Tibet was controlled by warlords and monasteries. The common people were serfs. By the time China was able to reclaim its sovereignty over Tibet, I have little doubt, and there seems to be little dispute, the region was a miserable place to live, unless you were a warlord or the inner circle of the monastery. I expect that when the Chinese reclaimed Tibet in the 1950's, those with money, and opportunity, fled, leaving the serfs behind.
The PRC likes to use the word "liberated" when speaking of reclaiming the territory. In a sense, I would agree. However, the action would have been very disruptive to the common man's daily life. And then came the huge disastrous social experiment: Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Tibetans are famous for how important religion is to them. Time and again in popular Chinese culture2, Tibet is seen as a holy place. I can only imagine how terrifying that period of time must have been to Tibetans. On one hand, the Chinese have displaced and replaced the old masters. In doing so, they have disrupted the monasteries, only source of solace they understand. And then, there the years of unmitigated disaster, otherwise known as, the Cultural Revolution. I can understand how uncertain Tibetans must feel, especially those outside of China.
More recently, things across China are more optimistic. China has spent a lot of money developing the region. Over the past five years, the annual GDP growth in Tibet has averaged 12%.3 With the train between the rest of China and Tibet open, the prospects of economic growth should look even brighter.
On the economic side of the issue, the separatists suggest that Tibet could have modernized on their own. I doubt that. In 1950, power was held in the hands of an few on the backs of serfs. That simply isn't the sort of structure that lends itself to modernization. If China didn't claim Tibet, India would have. Failing that, the Americans would have used the region to create instability for China during the Vietnam and Korean wars. Moreover, today the population in Tibet is shy of 3 million. Where would the capital come from to build anything? And then rebuild after the region self destructs, as it would have done eventually with warlords and serfs facing each other down. No, the separatists contention that Tibet could have modernized on its own is empty.
From my viewpoint, as tenuous as it is, it would seem that the issue is cultural identity. As a Canadian, I am no stranger to the winds of cultural identity. At times, it seems intangible and difficult to understand for those who are on the outside. But, from observation, those caught in its path are carried along inextricably. But, when you think about it, your cultural identity is bound to your own individual identity. Erode one you erode the other as well. In this light, all the cash in the world China dumps into the laps of Tibetans will not fix anything. In fact, it would only make matters worse. Neither money nor economic development can fix an identity issue.
When there is an identity issue, all sort of other issues get distorted, like the issue of the Han4 "settlers." Talk about using loaded language: "settlers." Where in the world have we found settlers recently? The Middle East and South Africa are two examples. Make no mistake, when the Western media uses the word "settler," they are purposely loading their message with political baggage. The meaning is a purposeful agenda of displacing an indigenous population. When does migration become settling? At what point should I label the Newfoundlander working in the oil patch in Alberta as a settler?
When I read about Han migration into Tibet, I was curious about the numbers. Especially when I read that Fabian Hamilton stated that "when we were in Lhasa (capital of Tibet) we saw Chinese everywhere and more were due to arrive."5 The population of the whole of Tibet is about 2.74 million.6 The population of Han is about 6.1% of the total or about 167,000. About half of the Han population live in Chengguan District, the urban area of Lhasa. In this district, the Han make up about 1/3 of the population. That is a pretty visible portion of the population. Outside of the district, Han make up just 3.5% of the population. The Han influx is predominantly urban. These are the people driving the economic development of the region. Because the region is distant, harsh, and isolated, I am not surprised that the government has incentives for these people to move to Tibet to work or run businesses.
I can understand how a Tibetan living in the urban district of Lhasa might feel displaced. Even though 1/3 of the population is Han, I would expect that almost all of the new employment opportunities are from Han businesses. He might not be comfortable speaking Chinese. He might have difficulties reading Chinese. With about 1/10th of the Tibet population living in the urban district of Lhasa, I expect that urbanization is also a new thing in Tibet. So, our young Tibetan moves into his capital city from the countryside only to find that most of the jobs will require reading/writing Chinese because the boss is Han. There is no surprise that he will experience a crisis in identity and culture shock.
But, I would not go as far as calling the Han migration settlers. The government does need to ensure that the new development is inclusive. Training and education of the Tibetan people is critical for them to play a role in their own future. Also effort needs to made to help the Han newcomer to a cultural setting that would be new to him. But this would just be a start.
In trying to understand the primary issue of cultural identity, I recalled the stark difference between Beijing and Kaohsiung in terms of religious identity and symbolism. In Kaohsiung, the temples are numerous and alive. People go there to worship and to interact with the religious symbols. Tourists are a very small minority. In Beijing, the temples are museums. They are almost completely bereft of religious life. Very occasionally, you'll find, almost in defiance, some incense burning. Or you'll find a quick clasp of hands and bowing of the head of an old man or woman.
I am not sure if the government, or even the general Chinese population, is capable of getting their minds around the issue of religious identity. I think it is as baffling to them as someone in North America with a grade 5 or better education believing in Young Earth Creationism is to me.7 So, while tourism is big economic plus to Tibet, the "museumification"8 of Tibet would undermine the very foundation of the Tibetan's identity. In that context, education and training efforts by the government would invariably be met with suspicions.
In order to develop Tibet, China needs to invest capital into people and infrastructure. Tourism is a huge opportunity for Tibet. The people coming in aren't there to farm the side of a mountain. They are there to build business in the urban center and that business is going to depend on tourism. There is nothing sinister here. Tibet separatism isn't going to fix this. Any government in Tibet, if it wants economic prosperity, is going to be doing the same thing. The geography and small urban population base are the determining factors here.
Thus, this crisis of identity is something that Tibet would encounter regardless of China's action. All that a separate Tibet would accomplish is a return to a system of the wealthy and powerful few (monasteries) owning the many serfs as that is the only type of system that can work in the Tibetan context of harsh geography and limited or difficult to exploit natural resources.
China's challenge in Tibet has been to develop the region where the population is predominately rural with strong religious traditions. Any nation would find this a daunting task in of itself. Complicating China's efforts is a powerful political and religious figure in the wings, who has never had to govern, who has much popular currency to gain, and who by his very existence can incite action.
What do I think needs to be done?
I think the place to start is with understanding the crisis in identity, religious or otherwise, of the Tibetan people. But it is hugely complicated. If you slow down economic development, you'll have a different crisis. If you train or educate, you can be seen as trying to erase Tibetan culture. If you include one part of the Tibetan mosaic, you'll alienate the other parts. For example, focus on urban solutions may leave your larger rural populations feeling in the dark. Of course, while the leadership must come from the Chinese, a broad representation of the Tibetans must be invited to the table.
What about the Dalai Lama? Optimally, he should be included at the table and that table should be in Tibet. But, I would be very surprised to see him return to Tibet. He is far more powerful and influential to his own agenda on the outside.
I think the Chinese government is making a stupid mistake by vilifying the Dalai Lama. All they are doing is giving him more power. The tactic might make good propaganda in Beijing but, in Tibet and in the rest of the world, it makes him more and more a symbol for the cause. The problem with symbols is that change is not in their best interest. Moreover, they lose the power to lead. Instead, they are used by others for their own agendas. Thus vilifying the Dalai Lama is counter productive towards finding a real solution. Furthermore, the problem the Dalai Lama represents to Tibet is that he is cute like a harp seal pup. This makes him very lovable to the Western media. It also makes the Chinese government look like a Newfoundland fisherman swinging a hakapik9 when it harps on about how evil the Dalai Lama is. Still, he is a factor the Chinese must work with as he is integral to the cultural identity of the Tibetans.
I understand to the Tibetans the Dalai Lama is a very important religious figure. He's like the Pope is to the Catholics. Disrespect the Dalai Lama and you disrespect the people. But, within my own context, he is just a man. And any man, living or dead, is not immune to analysis.
I don't know a lot about the Dalai Lama. But I found it interesting his declaration to resign if things get more violent in Tibet. I was reminded of another politician, the leader of the Reform Party of Canada, Preston Manning. The situation surrounded the Meech Lake Accord. At the time, the Accord was promoted as critical to the unity of Canada as it would finally bring Quebec fully into Canada by it endorsing the Canada Act. There was a crucial point where the Federal Liberals and NDP both supported the Conservative government by agreeing to the Accord. Would the Reform join in with the rest to create an historic chapter in Canadian history? Preston Manning sequestered himself to give it some thought. When he emerged, he did the only thing that would give him the most political bang; he opposed the Accord. Watching him speak, I knew in my gut that he made a conscious choice to take the action that would best benefit himself and his fledgling party. Everything else was just rational.
When the Dalai Lama made is declaration to resign if things got worse, I was looking at a man making political hay. The Chinese had already established control over the region. But more importantly, it was a promise that was beyond his power to execute. The religious, spiritual, and political leader bowing out of the role given to him by his religion by his virtue of just being. Could it happen? But what did he offer to dissolve? The government in exile? His role as Dalai Lama? His involvement in the Tibetan issue? Hardly. The declaration was pure political drama played for the West. At that moment, I had a sudden appreciation for the Chinese leadership's harsh words for the Dalai Lama.
And now, the Dalai Lama is trying to drive the "cultural genocide" nail home. This is a convenient no loss play for him. If China didn't invest money and people into Tibet, he could condemn them for letting the people languish in a cultural genocide. But because China is investing money and people into Tibet, he says that China is doing a cultural genocide. Genocide. That ought to be a word reserved for when the sky turns gray with ash or the soil red with blood instead of mere political hyperbole.
I think a better strategy for the Dalai Lama would be to shift from the "doomed to fail" and "evil liar" sort of rhetoric to something more concrete. And, when I shift from Western media sources, I actually see that the Chinese are doing just that10. Which begs the question: Just how strongly anti-China is the Western Media? This is a question much broader than what's happening in Tibet. But, as China becomes the biggest player on the world stage, it is going to be faced with this issue more and more.
I think I'll wrap up this essay with the Dalai Lama's own words: "It is important to investigate."11 When we saw on the BBC, CNN and other media outlets, police beating monks, we were told or left to conclude that the police were Chinese. In fact, these notorious images were, in fact, Nepalese policemen beating Tibetans.12 The ones who have the most to gain from deaths in Tibet, such as the five young women who perished in a fire started by the protesters13, are the Dalai Lama and his government in exile. The ones with the most to lose from independence are the people of Tibet.
- Charles O. Hucker, China's Imperial Past, Stanford California, 1975, p 361
- For example, the movie called 《天下无贼》A World Without Thieves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_World_Without_Thieves
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region#Economy
- Han is the name of the ethnic Chinese people. It comes from 汉人 (Hànrén).
- http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/londontibetday1.htm
- Population statistics come from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhasa
- Okay. That last comment is not really fair to Tibetan religious identity as you've got to be really whacked to buy Young Earth Creationism.
- http://www.international-relations.com/wbcm5-1/WbPaulette.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakapik. Interestingly, the Canadian government is restricting the access of foreign journalists to the seal hunt. http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXYbSGZccwEPi0quqY-2jKKRmccg
- http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/27/content_7868617.htm
- http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/19/dalai-lama.html
- http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/28/content_7877535.htm
- http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/21/content_7835582.htm
