CHINA 3 Months In China, March-June 2008

I am interested to learn the sources of information quoted in "More on Tibet" (2/5/08). The Tibetan people did not ask China to invade their country and, in fact, sought assistance from the United Nations to prevent such action. I agree that, like China, America and Europe have less than perfect human rights records throughout their histories, but this does not justify China's invasion of Tibet.

Your harsh judgement of the Dalai Lama contradicts all that he stands for. Last year I attended one of his teachings in Australia. When questioned about the plight of Tibet and its people, he emphasised three main points. First was his desire to engage with Chinese authorities, and work towards a mutually acceptable peace. Secondly, he expressed a willingness to embrace Chinese presence in Tibet, providing the Tibetan people are afforded Spiritual autonomy, and that the fragile environment is better managed. Thirdly, The Dalai Lama asserted that lasting peace cannot be achieved by force.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of these views, as the Dalai Lama has been consistently seeking dialogue, and expressing a willingness to work with the Chinese, for many years. The depth of sincerity on the part of Chinese authorities, however, cannot be measured until after the Olympic Games, when the world spotlight on their human rights practices begins to dim. Only then will we learn the true level of China's commitment to engage with Tibet in an ongoing and meaningful way.

The "cultural genocide" alluded to by the Dalai Lama is not referring to China's One-Child Policy as you suggest. Tibetan culture encompasses their spiritual and intellectual develpment, customs, and understanding of and connection with their environment - the very fabric of their society.

I welcome further communication from you,and from others, so that we can better understand our diverse points of view.

  Jean May 10, 2008 7:34 PM

I wasn't expecting any comments yet, as I haven't gotten my journal quite ready to announce. Did it show up on a search you did?

I only reluctantly discuss such overtly political topics in my newsletter. I almost omitted mention of Tibet at all. I did so because we never hear the Chinese point of view in America. American media and politicians harangue China without learning the reasons and history behind Her motivations. I am primarily here to point out the existence of the other point of view, not to take sides myself.

In case you missed it, here is what I say in "On Tibet" in "The Beijinging" journal:

Tibet was part of China when Columbus was just a
smile on his Papa's face.

It is far too early for me to form an opinion
on "freeing" Tibet--I haven't even been there yet--
but I can and do question the wisdom of basing
one's opinions on what is spouted by Western
politicians wishing to talk about things other
than their own records, and Hollywood-types who
have yet to learn that the thinking organ
functions better when not ensconced in the
defecating organ.

* * *

Until a few months ago I felt much as you do about the Dalai Lama, except to the extent that I have a skepticism about all religions, which I believe are generally constructed as methods to control people rather than to facilitate genuine spirituality. The Dalai Lama did seem to be a deeply spiritual person; and who can argue against "freedom?"

As I learn more, I do find "reason to doubt the sincerity of (his) views."

I have spent most of my 7 1/2 weeks so far here in Muslim China. I have not seen any sign that the government impedes "their spiritual and intellectual develpment (or) customs." Every day I am amazed by the extent to which the reality in China is not what I was lead to believe it would be. I will be spending time on the Tibetan Plateau later this year, and part of next year, and will then be in a much better position to report first-hand on that region specifically.

You ask for "the sources of information quoted" but since I didn't quote anybody I need you to be more specific on what you would like referenced.

Your statement that "The Tibetan people did not ask China to invade their country and, in fact, sought assistance from the United Nations to prevent such action" is intriguing. Since 95% of Tibetans had no voice in how the country was run, how is it that "the people" asked for UN assistance? Wasn't it the Ruling Class that did so? In order to preserve the system that vested in them unchallengeable power, power that was preserved by use of the very force the Dalai Lama says cannot achieve lasting peace? That's like saying that "the people" in the American South did not ask to be invaded by the North during America's Civil War, and in fact asked for international assistance to prevent such action (making it therefore unjustified).

The difference being that in the American South, a much smaller percent of the population was enslaved and deprived of the right to express their opinion on the matter formally.

* * *

There should be some kind of prize for "First Comment." I'll buy you dinner in Golmud this autumn. Then we can go south in search of the Truth.

Will

  bodiekern May 11, 2008 2:30 PM

My apologies Will if I caught you unawares. I found your post, and assumed you were ready to receive comments. Your travels sound very interesting.

The source of information I am interested in, relates to the assertion that Tibet was ruled by a "monarchy of monks and nobles", making up only 5% of the population. This statement differs from my understanding of Tibetan leadership, and I am interested to learn the basis for your statement.

In most countries decisions are made for the people by those who represent them - whether democratically elected or by birthright or other forms of selection. The issue I don't understand is why anyone would assume that Tibetans would be better off or happier under oppresive Chinese rule than when they were managing their own affairs, including their spirituality. After all, China did not invade Tibet as a good samaritan gesture. It did so for its own ends.

I acknowledge that in the Western world we are not always presented with accurate information about China by our politicians and in our media. This, of course, works both ways. I have been reading comments on the Internet for months regarding Tibet and, in particular, the Dalai Lama, and feel saddened by much of what I read. Many comments by acknowledged Chinese nationals are nothing more than rantings of hatred against the Dalai Lama.

I look forward to further comment from you, and will be interested to read of your Tibetan Plateau impressions later in the year.

I will be interested to read of your experiences and thoughts on the Tibetan Plateau later in the year.

  Jean May 11, 2008 5:23 PM

I don't want to spend a lot of time right now on the Tibet issue. For the past month I have been observing how China's policies have affected the Hui minority--because it is they whom I have been among. For the next few weeks I will be in lands peopled by Uighurs, Kazhaks, and other minorities, and it is they I will try to learn about during that time. Then I will be among Mongols for three months. In autumn 2008 I will be in Sichuan, Qinghai and Tibet to see first-hand how accurate the common Western perception is regarding the treatment of Tibetans. So far my own Western prejudice has been wrong a colossal portion of the time, and I am glad to be shedding my unfair ideas about China.

Everyone knows the Dalai Lama's position on Tibet; he gets all the publicity he asks for, and his statements are largely accepted unquestioningly in the West. Most don't know China's position, so here it is in summary:

Evaluation by the People's Republic of China

The government of the PRC maintains that the Tibetan Government did almost nothing to improve the Tibetans' material and political standard of life during its rule from 1913-59, and that they opposed any reforms proposed by the Chinese government. According to the Chinese government, this is the reason for the tension that grew between some central government officials and the local Tibetan government in 1959. The government of the PRC also rejects claims that the lives of Tibetans have deteriorated, and stated that the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to self rule before 1950.[71] Benefits that are commonly quoted include ¡ª the GDP of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is thirty times that of before 1950, workers in Tibet have the second highest wages in China,[72] the TAR has 22,500 km of highways, as opposed to none in 1950, all secular education in the TAR was created after the revolution, the TAR now has 25 scientific research institutes as opposed to none in 1950, infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000, life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000, the collection and publishing of the traditional Epic of King Gesar, which is the longest epic poem in the world and had only been handed down orally before, allocation of 300 million Renminbi since the 1980s for the maintenance and protection of Tibetan monasteries.[73] The Cultural Revolution and the cultural damage it wrought upon the entire PRC is generally condemned as a nationwide catastrophe, whose main instigators, in the PRC's view, the Gang of Four, have been brought to justice. And whose reoccurrence is unthinkable in an increasingly modernized China. The China Western Development plan is viewed by the PRC as a massive, benevolent, and patriotic undertaking by the wealthier eastern coast to help the western parts of China, including Tibet, catch up in prosperity and living standards.

source: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/tibet

********************************************************

My sources for much of what I have previously written on Tibet include various articles and interviews that have appeared in China Daily newspaper since March 21, 2008. I haven't saved the articles. I initially viewed China Daily as a suspect news outlet which I would read with a grain of rice. One of my big surprises in China has been the willingness of the government to openly acknowledge its failures, past and present, and to take bold steps to improve. China is increasing the lot of her citizens faster than occurred at any time I am aware of in Western history. She just got a late start after a few horrendous decades.


Much of the criticism of China's actions in Tibet are unfairly used as examples of anti-Tibetism on China's part. The infliction of infrastructure, different ideas of what comprises "human rights," the use of superficial or historically inaccurate cultural sites to attract tourists, growth at the expense of the environment--these exist all over China, and improvements are at hand. Tibet is overly sensitive, thinking that She has been singled out for mistreatment. Likewise, China Herself is overly sensitive to criticism from the West, thinking that She is being singled out, whereas the West casts its self-anointed superiority far and wide. We decry others' motes and never mind our own beams.

  bodiekern Jun 20, 2008 9:02 PM