Published Mar. 24, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Published Mar. 24, 2008 by uwire.com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Mar. 30, 2008)
Published Mar. 25, 2008 by BYU NewsNet Online
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Mar. 30, 2008)
The Chinese government is currently moving truckloads of troop reinforcements into what it calls the Tibet Autonomous Region to combat widespread rioting against Beijing’s rule.
China’s claim to Tibet comes from Tibet being a part of several old Chinese kingdoms as a result of temporary defeats in border conflicts of previous centuries. Most recently, Tibet was invaded and forcibly made a part of modern China by Chairman Mao’s forces in 1951. Tibet’s most definitive claim as a sovereign nation stem from treaties signed with the British in the early 1900’s. It is accepted internationally that a treaty can only be signed between two sovereign nations or peoples.
The Chinese presence was never welcome, evidenced by the 1959 uprising against Chinese rule. That uprising was brutally quashed. The Dalai Lama, spiritual and political leader of Tibet, was forced to flee to India.
During China’s rule, the distinct Tibetan culture has been systematically suppressed. Monasteries, the nerve centers of Tibetan culture, have been destroyed. By law, Tibetan words on signs have to be smaller than the corresponding Chinese, and be located in less prominent positions. Tibetan is banned in schools, and anyone seeking state employment or university admission is required to speak Chinese.
China often points to improved transportation infrastructure as proof of its good works in Tibet. However, these have only resulted in a massive influx of Chinese from other areas. Most businesses and commerce are owned by Chinese, and Tibetans in general remain crushingly poor while much of China is increasingly prosperous.
The primary advocate of the Tibetan cause has been His Holiness The Dalai Lama. As befitting his office and personal beliefs, he has supported non-violent resistance as the means to alleviate Tibet’s sorrow. He has been compared to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi in shunning violence over his fifty-year struggle.
As revered as he is, his methods are not without detractors. These are mainly the younger generation, who never knew life before Chinese occupation. While careful to not insult His Holiness, many voice frustration at the lack of measurable progress of his methods. They support — and engage in — direct confrontation. They are the ones leading and spreading the current protests inside Tibet, which mark the 49th anniversary of the 1959 uprising.
In their actions and philosophy, the younger protesters are more akin to Stokely Carmichael than the MLK-esque Dalai Lama. Much as Dr. King sought peaceful and just coexistence of all Americans, His Holiness seeks an autonomous — not independent — Tibet coexisting with the rest of China. Many believe his long and largely fruitless struggle against the Chinese monolith has caused him to soften his stance and seek instead a more easily achievable goal. Regardless, Tibetans still living within its borders and many expatriates decry this abandonment of what they see as Tibet’s birthright as a nation. The more confrontational protest movement’s genesis can be traced to the Dalai Lama’s initial calls for coexistence.
As events have shown, his Holiness is not in control of the massive protests currently going on within Tibet. This is the first time that the acknowledged leader of the Tibetan rights movement has been powerless to stop or temper such protests. He has admitted so publicly, after the Chinese government accused him of fanning the flames of violence. It seems that the cause of Tibetan independence now has two distinct and somewhat disjointed groups trying to carry its banner.
While this may be uncharted territory for the Tibetans, this has occurred before in other movements — including the Civil Rights Movement in America, which compares rather well with the struggle occurring in the high Himalayas.
Both focus(ed) on bringing equal rights to a highly oppressed people. In each movement, there was initially one dominant philosophy. The peaceful resistance of Dr. King and that of the Dalai Lama share this common mantle. In the later stages of the Civil Rights movement, another philosophy — that of direct action — emerged, championed by figures such as Carmichael and Malcolm X. The same is occurring in Tibet right now.
It is still too early to see if the confrontational protests will work. They have, however, succeeded in refocusing global attention on one of the world’s great injustices. His Holiness’ methods, while never letting us forget about Tibet, never quite grabbed the world’s attention in the same way as the new protests. Without any authorization, aid or allies, the ragtag Tibetans have managed to greatly tie up Chinese resources. They have also handed China a major public-relations nightmare when it can ill afford it, with the Beijing Olympics starting in mere months.
Beijing has acted as expected, and is trying to completely stamp out any semblance of rebellion. It’s increasing its standing pressure on the Dalai Lama to abandon criticism of China, while simultaneously unleashing its military in Tibet.
One of the most crucial aspects of any movement or revolution is unity and communication among its perpetrators. This is absolutely necessary, at least in general terms. This unity and agreement between different figures and ideas was the main reason that the Civil Rights Movement was ultimately successful. All other successful such movements, like Poland’s Solidarity or the African National Congress in South Africa, had these above attributes. Every failed movement, like the 1857 Indian Sepoy Rebellion or the 1936 Arab Revolt, failed largely because unity and communication were lacking.
By choosing to confront the Chinese head-on without the Dalai Lama’s knowledge or direction, the Tibetan protesters tread dangerous ground. His Holiness’ dissociating himself from the violence, while understandable on religious grounds, further highlights this nascent disconnect. Neither he nor the protesters gain anything from this situation.
Instead, it seems China has another weapon to yield in its quest keep Tibet subjugated forever — newfound Tibetan disunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment