A Bit of Devil’s Advocacy on Tibet

« Is a War in Iran Coming? | Georgia on my mind »

A Bit of Devil’s Advocacy on Tibet

by SeasideMan ^Pro @ 2008-08-07 – 15:27:41

These 4 points were all made to me recently regarding the Free Tibet campaign. Your thoughts?

1. Tibet appears to be a stalking horse for US and Western imperialism. The parallels with Kosovo are striking, so why haven’t the US and EU done anything as they did there? Because China is far too valuable a trading partner to upset and that’s why this campaign is doomed to failure.

2. If, astonishingly. this campaign succeeded (highly unlikely though that is), the current external governance would be replaced by a dubious religious elite and it’s accompanying oppressive theocracy.

3. It’s hypocritical to complain about Chinese occupation of Tibet when Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied by the USA, UK and others.

4. This is a distraction from all the other areas of the world with perhaps more severe problems. This trendy middle-class protesting on behalf of Tibet probably makes the protesters feels as if they are doing something worthwhile when all they are actually doing is deflecting attention from elsewhere with very little chance of success.

Cheers, Tom.
Options:
Tags:
- tibet

18 Comments to A Bit of Devil’s Advocacy on Tibet

Hide subcomments

- technomist
- 2008-08-07 @ 15:46:43
1. Tibet may appear like that to you, but its a very real place witha lot of very rel people in it. with a complex history and relationship with China which predates anything called 'Western imperialism'. There are no parallels with Kosovo that strike me. Could you explain it a bit more?

2. If this campaign succeeded the nature of the government of Tibet would presumably be a matter for the Tibetan people. I do agree that a number of people who support the concept of a Free Tibet might be disappointed that the Tibetan people could well find they don't want to have the kind of government they are expecting them to. The free Tibet campaign may well find that themselves.

3. When did being hypocritical ever stop anyone complaining? Afghanistan and Iraq have their own governments, which have been elected, last time I looked. They have been occupied by the USA, UK and others, but the legal fiction is that this is with consent. USA, UK and others do not claim either of these states to be part of their sovereign territory.

4. Distractions are fun. This particular campaign, however is not fun. It looks to me to be more of a gap year project for a few unimaginative and very spoilt rich kids with their parents' full backing. It is not trendy.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-07 @ 15:58:41
  As I mentioned to you on the Free Tibet blog a short while ago, Britain once invaded Tibet too, but that is too far in the past to be significant, as is any history before Western Imperialism existed.
  
  Like Tibet, Kosovo unilaterally declared itself independent. The important difference is that it was officially supported in that declaration by the EU and USA. This official support is strikingly lacking for Tibet. The reason: China is valuable and Serbia isn't.
  
  It's debatable whether a free Tibet would get a government decided by the people. The might just get the oppressive theocracy they had before, and the accompanying massive infant mortality and early average age of death and poor healthcare.
  
  Hypocrisy tastes unpleasant to me. If others are OK with it, that's up to them.
  
  As for your point 4, I agree, except that I do think this is the trendy cause de la jour for middle class university students.
  
  I stress again: I am playing devil's advocate here.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- technomist
- 2008-08-07 @ 16:10:45
I thought Kosovo's declaration only came long about a year ago, long after Nato and Russia had put their boots on the ground after Serbia's orderly withdrawal of its forces. The International Community tends not to support things that are meaningless and which can't be demonstrated to comply with reality. There would be no support for intervention in a place like Tibet while the PLA were sitting there ready to fight the place (which I think they would).

It may be there are some who would want to re-impose theocracy, but something tells me that in reality, any political entity with a ghost of a chance of governing an autonomous or, as this campaign wants, a Free Tibet with the consent of the people and the international community's backing would have to be able to demonstrate a commitment to democracy in some shape or form.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-07 @ 16:26:32
  Yes, the actual declaration in Kosovo only happened in Feb this year, but Kosovo had been under UN administration since 1999, when a NATO force forced Milosevic's army out. No sign of UN or NATO in Tibet, is there?
  
  As someone else put it:
  
  "You have to wonder why the press seems to support independence or autonomy for Tibet—apparently so the Dalai Lama can restore theocracy—when they were so quick to let Muslims take Kosovo away from the Serbian Orthodox Christians who had regarded it as their spiritual homeland since the 14th century. Tibetan Buddhists are somehow politically correct in a way that the black-robed Serbian Orthodox priests are not"
  
  There are certainly some who want to reimpose theocracy, and the Dalai Lama is chief amongst them. He may even be able to do so democratically. Whatever the case, all this press focus on Tibet is rather fascinating.
  
  Tom.
  - - technomist
    - 2008-08-07 @ 16:56:59
    It would be impossible for anyone to send troops into Tibet without the consent of the Chinese. There is no practical way in and they have quite enough forces stationed there to repulse anyone who wanted to. It isn't ever going to happen.
    
    The only way Tibet would ever have more autonomy is gradually, and after negotiations. Where campaigns like the Students for a Free Tibet people turn me off is that they never even begin to set out the type of realistic proposals that could lead to such a dialogue. I am a supporter of self-determination for the Tibetan people but don't accept that the way to go about achieving that is for a bunch of students from London to have hissy fits in their summer holidays. This does not take the cause of Tibetan people any further.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-07 @ 17:04:45
      I agree with both your points there:
      
      It's never going to happen
      
      Those students are wasting their time and moving Tibet's cause backwards.
      
      Tom.
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
- jenray ^Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-08-07 @ 16:18:30
Hmmm...I listened to the parents of the two protesters in China and I was irritated by them and their kids...there were also American Christian protesters against the one child policy in China, which I thought was a darned cheek...with a quarter of the world's population squeezed into a small area of the world, it's intelligent to try to limit the size of families...we've covered in other posts the history of Tibet with China and China has invested hugely in Tibet to try to raise the standard of life for the Tibetan people, as they have for Han people whose dissidents recently killed 16 policemen...whenever I hear interviews with the Chinese on their human rights issues, they ask for patience, they cannot introduce freedom per se in every direction all at once for fear of destabilizing the country. As they have gone from a communist totalitarian country to a capitalist/communist country in a very short time, why should they not be allowed to have time to allow their people the so called freedom enjoyed in the West, which, incidentally, is now be very quickly whittled away leaving only a semblance of real freedom, so it really is hypocritical to talk about human rights to China when we are rapidly losing ours in the West...For forty years, now the Dalai Lama has been quietly trying to get the world to listen to him, and now, all of a sudden, Tibet is put in the limelight and it is certainly only because of the Olympics that the West has latched on to their call for autonomy...personally, I find it gruelling to listen to the likes of Bush berating China on its human rights record with the USA's human rights record having been thrown out of the window since the Iraq War, and going back in history to all its other examples of interference in other countries' politics...so are you for Tibetan autonomy or not since you say you're playing Devil's Advocate? LOL...
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-07 @ 16:34:01
  Lovely description Jen, and one I can find no fault with at all.
  
  In answer to your final question, I think that if a majority of Tibetan people want to be a country rather than a province, they should be allowed to be one. But I also think that there are other regions of the world with similarly good or even better claims to independence that are being ignored because of the focus on Tibet.
  
  Tom.
  - - jenray ^Pro
    - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
    - 2008-08-07 @ 16:56:23
    I think it's classified as a sovereignty...or was...not sure whether it is still, but it's been part of China for centuries...you're right about the abject poverty that existed in it before China invested heavily in it...it would be interesting now to find out just how many people in Tibet would be prepared to give up all the financial assistance China currently puts into it and return to the old ways? This are two or more generations on since the Dalai Lama left Tibet and some people would never have known what it was like in the old days...I am sorry the Chinese destroyed some of the magnificent monasteries when they went in, bit like the destruction of the Buddha statue by the Taliban...it was part of the heritage of the indigenous people and, as such, should have been left alone...but what's done is done sadly...I'm a bit concerned to say the least about all these demands for independence sprouting up everywhere...breaking up countries into ever smaller bits doesn't seem to be a very good idea in my book...especially when some of the claims are only on the grounds that another people now occupy part of a country previously not their own and want it for themselves...it's the exact opposite of what I would have hoped for and that is a coming together of the human race rather than a splitting apart...and I'm not talking about this OneWorld conspiracy thing that's mentioned frequently here, I'm talking about human beings co-operating with each other for the betterment of all...I hate to say this, but the restoration of Israel to the Jewish people was a precedent that is now bearing more bad fruit...many other people now feel that they can lay claim to previously held lands, and that puts pressure on those who must decide whether to support their claim or not...if they don't, they'll be accused of bias because their land is of no strategic value and if they do, they'll anger the people who now occupy the land...a no win situation as happened in old Yugoslavia, and now made unstable again with the West's support of Kosovo against Serbia...very strange period we're entering now...it could all blow up in our faces if not handled very carefully, and I'm afraid of the hot heads out there who would have no qualms about taking measures, which would endanger the whole world....
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-07 @ 17:16:15
      I agree that splitting countries up isn't a good thing. Now should be a time for greater coming together rather than splitting up (as you say), and I wish to modify my earlier statement: a majority shouldn't be enough for independence, it should be a very large majority. Otherwise, 51% could change the country against the will of the other 49%.
      
      There is a growing class of Middle Class Tibetans who have done very well from the Chinese influence. I would expect them to be rather displeased if they lost their status.
      
      The comparison with Israel and Kosovo is very relevant too, although in both those cases the land was given from the former residents. In Israel from Arabs to Jews and in Kosovo from Christians to Muslims. The religious theme continues in Tibet too, of course. I've said this before and I'll keep saying it: religion beliefs should be independent of political geography.
      
      A couple of interesting articles on this subject:
      
      http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/grantwalliser/2008/03/11/free-tibet-like-you-freed-kosovo/
      http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/blogs/bloom/2008-03-31
      (4th article down on that 2nd link)
      
      Tom.
      - jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-08-07 @ 18:50:14
        
        Read both the articles and both were interesting but particularly the second one...very hard hitting...LOL...not sure he's entirely right about China invading Tibet, which was autonomous...I think it was a suzerainty that was allowed by China to govern itself - well that was a Labour politician said on Any Questions a few weeks back when the question was asked about it...sorry can see the man's face but can't recall his name...damn memory...Hattersley!! Got it...interesting site here that gives both perspectives on the subject...LOL
        http://www.rangzen.org/history/views.htm
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-08-07 @ 18:53:26
        
        Fascinating site, thanks for it.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- technomist
- 2008-08-07 @ 17:29:58
Whatever the claims China has for past or even present sovereignty, (I think a discussion of the topic goes better if people can agree to disagree about this, as there is also a lot of good evidence for an independent Tibet) the people of Tibet still do have a right to self-determination and cultural and political autonomy.

I just don't see how they can get there without being far more politically astute than they are now. Ironically, Hu Jintao, as a former governor of Tibet, is a person who the Tibetans ought to be trying as hard as possible to open dialogues with rather than making it hard for him to do that by public posturing: he does know what he is talking about from the Chinese point of view and there may be many generations of political leadership in China before such a person is again at the top of the Chinese leadership.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-07 @ 17:41:27
  What proportion of a population would you say is enough for independence? 51%? More?
  
  A majority of Scots want independence now. Should they have it?
  
  As Jen points out elsewhere in this discussion, this should be a time for more coming together, not greater splintering. Certainly, in principle, everyone should have the right to "self-determination and cultural and political autonomy", but there have to be rational limits on how much splintering is feasible.
  
  Tom.
  - - technomist
    - 2008-08-07 @ 19:28:48
    If put to a vote, yes they should. Such divorces are not impossible (the Czech Republic and Slovakia sort of managed it OK)
    
    Its a difficult question- how to organize a vote about self-determination and independence - as I can see such votes are viewed with suspicion by those arguing for change if they go against them and they did not trust the organizers in the first place, while for instance, votes that reject change ( as happened in Gibraltar), may not be accepted by people who say people should try change on for size to see if it fits first (which I think is what the SNP are up to in Scotland). These problems are exacerbated where there is no tradition of free and fair votes in the first place.
    
    I am not sure the majority of Scots really do want independence, by the way. They like the idea of using a vote for a pro-independence party to squeeze concessions out of the central government, but I think the issue would be more complex if the electorate were faced with reality. I can see how the present arrangement protects the Scots against a nationalist England emerging to the South, while enabling a fair degree of autonomy in Scotland's internal affairs. The SNP have always talked about how Scotland would be friendly with England, assuming very many of the advantages of being completely integrated in the UK would continue, but what if independence was a factor which created a less than friendly England? I have never heard of the SNP explaining to the Scottish people about the national share of the national debt, for instance.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-07 @ 20:08:16
      I think that's a fair summation of the situation regarding self-determination, but I would say that much more than a simple majority should be needed. A 2/3 majority might be better.
      
      And you may be right about Scotland too. Opinion poles are famously different from General Elections. Where I live in Wales, there seems little widespread support for Welsh Independence, although poles tend to indicate reasonable levels of support.
      
      Tom.
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
- thehomelyyear ^Pro
- 2008-08-07 @ 20:17:36
Really difficult & complex, and I have learnt a lot reading these posts. Being brought up in Ireland, I don't know if the argument we should stay together (the British Isles) would ever hold sway for those, who are nationalist in persuasion. Where you come on that one may depend pn whether ypu come from the smaller, or the bigger country
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-07 @ 20:22:08
  I agree with you, this is a very difficult issue. Strong Nationalists tend to be so by upbringing, and like a religious belief such points of view are less susceptible to change than other sorts of opinion.
  
  How do you feel about Northern Ireland?
  
  I'm English myself, but I've lived in Wales for 8 years now and I agree with Jen that splitting up into smaller units seems like a bad idea with the world situation as it is.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink

Tibet and the March 10 commemoration of the CIA's 1959 'uprising'
by StimmeDerDDR on 2008-03-21 – 19:27:43

18 Comments to A Bit of Devil’s Advocacy on Tibet

Leave a comment (Login)