I think the difference between a New York/Texas stereotype, a national-regional stereotype of any kind, and that expressed by the young Tibetan woman, lies in the question of power.

If those holding the stereotype also hold the power to deprive–of security, status, income, etc.–then this is something much different than typical regional characature of outsiders.

A New Yorker or Texan will still be an entitled American, no matter how bad the stereotype.

I’m not sure that Tibetans have the same security of identity and place when it comes to Han stereotyping of them.

I don’t see these are provincial or ethnic discrimination neither a dreadful situation. These becomes less and less after more understanding, more communication , more contacts between different Chinese people from different area.

Regarding the clothes and languages, many of the younger Han people in the cities don’t speak their local dialects anymore and don’t ware traditional Han clothes anymore. And many feel shameful if they are not able to speak good mandarin. Also the government work units wouldn’t allow a very traditional Han funeral in their memorial hall either. It’s just not a particular situation towards Tibetans.

carlfcao 13 Apr 2008 17:21

Well, to truly understand the situation in Tibet, we will have to separate the strategic and the tactical.

Richard and his colleagues, however sometimes misplaced, are doing what they should to expose the human rights abuses in Tibet and in China; for that matter, one can hardly blame them. For example, the shooting of a young nun trying to cross the border to/from nepal into Tibet is clearly an abuse and I am buffled by why no reporter or good natured citizen in China had followed up on that with the chinese authorities.

Was it established policy to shoot to kill? Has that policy being changed since the abuse being exposed? Was it just because of the sholdier who was trigger happy? Who is responsible for the policy, if it is indeed policy? Or has the soldier being charged if it was not official policy? While, no one likes people to cross their borders at will, e.g., passports and papers, there appears to me no need to open fire especially given this is a tourist area and for the last 20 or more years there had not been armed infiltration in Tibet. It is like if I try to cross the US-canadian border at will and at non-designated locations. I will surely be in trouble but shot at I will not be. That is the difference between civilized (US/Canada) and the not so … dare I say barbarous (China). Exposing such abuses have good value and make a tangible contribution to the debate and the further advancement of the Chinese state.

Now back to the real topic. The above, however deplorable, is a tactical situation. The root of the problem is strategic. I do not believe the Chinese just bend on just trying to be evil. Even the jihadists have their reasons - however misplaced to you and I may think. As an ancient civilization, the Chinese are not employing repressive means just for the fun of it. It is a tactic to pacify the region such that it does not get in the way of the overall national strategy for stability and development. While human rights abuses should be deplored and addressed, there will always be times to resort to the convenience of abuses to achieve its strategic goal. In fact, seeing in this light, the overall human rights conditions in China has its roots. Until that is the national development is fairly advanced, abuses will continue.

The real Tibet problem is about history, geography, strategic needs, religion, and irreconcilable differences between the Tibetan exiles and China (yes, I mean its people and its government). It requires immense wisdom and mutual understanding to come to a civilized settlement.

First we lay the context:

1) The Tibet exile community is at its heart an independence movement. It operated that way for 20+ years and has been forced to change its tune to autonomy in the last decade. However, its ideology still is clearly independence, however masked by the Dalai Lama’s statements.

2) The fate of the Tibet problem was sealed when the Dalai Lama was installed as both the temporal and spiritual leadership of Tibet by the Chinese emporer.

3) The geographical and religious status of Tibet is such that since the Tang there has always been a problem. At one time, the Tufan empire extended to most of western China.

4) Western China has always been a hotbed of ethnicity and conflicts and because of the nomadic nature of peoples, contestation for supremacy has been the rule rather than the exception.

5) The Tibetan population extends far and wide in western China and since ancient times, the nomads go to where the grass is green and therefore there has always been an explosive mix of ethnicity.

6) Since the Yuan Buddhism has been established in Tibet to such an extend that a large percentage of the population had been monasterial and that left a huge vacuum for its own defenses and had been a problem for the stability of the whole region.

7) Concept of nation state is a new invention to the region only in the last century. Before that, the primary drive for choices was chaos or stability - that was the realities of the peoples in the region. Modern concepts and aspirations should not be imposed on the people of the day.

I take the above as just realities, not truth, and not ideology. These are in fact the gifts of the history to the Chinese, Tibetans, and their leadership, by which I also include his holliness the Dalai Lama. I will leave it to the good reader to dig up the scholarly research, and not so scholarly, to decide for yourself whether these realities are true.

Now let us proceed to the analysis of the strategic issues, dilemma, and likely solutions.

Since they fled in 1959, the Dalai Lama and his group had based its ideology on independence. Funding and campaigns had been sought from the Americans and the British in the 60 until the 80’s. Armed guerilla war had been conducted with infiltration into Tibet from Nepal. However, because of the special condition of Tibet, no one, not even the US at the height of its support for the exiles could come forward to support them for independence. However, Dalai Lama and his group have managed to persuade themselves that independence is their goal for the reason that is the only way to unite the various factions of the exiles. In 1989, his holliness brought himself to proclaim that China should splinter into 7/8 pieces and he will be back as the temporal and ecclesiastical leader of Tibet, which he later murmured to be just a big mistake.

By the last decade, strategic conditions have dictated that independence is unattainable and hence the subsequent change in tactics whereby offensive for autonomy and human rights abuses became the preferred method. As I pointed out earlier, this is only meaningful from a tactical point of view by gathering sympathy from the western societies (because these human rights abuses are real) and put the chinese on the spotlight. Nevertheless, the western leadership and the Dalai Lama should be quite clear in their mind that it is not going to lead to a strategic settlement of the issue.

At the minimum, the Dalai Lama can be accused of duplicity and “when he speaks to the man he speaks human language, and when he speaks to the devil he speaks the devil’s language” - as the Chinese say.

In the last 30 years, there had been many negotiations between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. Real opportunities had been presented several times (e.g., death of the Penchan Lama, Pilgrim to the Wuta Mountain Temple - a buddhist shrine, and selection of the new Penchen Lama) and in all cases Dalai Lama had recoiled from taking those opportunities. I do not believe he is evil and bend on upstaging the Chinese either. What really happened - only my opinion, and this is for future historians to analyze - is that in the final calculation he was overruled either by himself or my his apparent minions that in all cases they will likely to be viewed as deviating from the independence party line by their followers and that it risks too much to lend credibility to the Chinese that Tibet is not independent. Can he break out of this ideological coffin and initiate real negotiations on autonomy with the Chinese? If this were to happen, then these negotiations will have to happen in secret otherwise the pressure from the exiles will be too great.

Viewed from the Chinese side, given the Dalai Lama and his group’s history of violent struggles for independence, there is a long way to go for him to establish its true credendials as an autonomy seeker.

Why then not independence for Tibet? After all, do we not uphold self-determination to be one of the cherished civilized principles?

Well there are principles and there are realities. Because of the mixture of ethnicity and lack of dominant leadership, Western China had always been a problem. The Chinese could rely on eastern and central China for their livelihood and taxes, etc. However western China had always been a lunchpad for raids into the settlements on the fertile plains. That wall in China is just a reminder how much they wanted to just stay in and mind their own business. Under the Yuan (mongol) dynasty it was not a problem; all lands were under their rule. With its deprived male population, Tibet is not a military threat and the spiritual contributions made it also a valuable tool to provide comforting thoughts to the whole country.

Had it continued, we will see a very different China. Perhaps equally successful as a civilization and maybe even dominant in the way that the US is. However, the mongols were incompetent after Kublai Khan and the dynasty collapsed. Before the mongols were driven into exile they also took the empiral seal. So in a way, the Ming dynasty was illegitimate, which also excercised little if any control in Tibet and because the mongols and Tibet had been completely disunited, it was no bother to the Ming anyway. The MIng had much bigger things on their mind with the high seas and teh re-surgency of the Manchu. Now, enter the Manchu. The Qing allied with various Mongol tribes and in fact got the empiral seal from the mongols; the Qing had their power in the alliance with the Mongols and Han chinese defectors from the Ming. However, by this time the mongols were a splinter of tribes. They had used Tibet as a base for mischief in western China and of course the Qing courts cannot tolerate that. Had Tibet been stable it probably would just end up like Korea and the Qing would have minded their own business. But lack of male fighting forces had led to Tibet being used by the outlaw mongol tribes and invaded by Nepal. Further and further weaknesses had compelled the Qing court to consolidate its grip on Tibet more and more.

By the 1900’s, it no longer is a matter of stability and control. This time the Chinese empire was the victim. Tibet was viewed as another case of western imperialistic designs and for strategic reasons, the Brits and Americans were just as eager to please China to keep out the Russians and trade in their priviliges in eastern China; the spoils there far outweigh any inch of snow covered dirt in Tibet as long as, that is, the border with India is stable.

So it is the case, the Tibetans did not have a nation state and not recognized as such. The Chinese has claim over a multi-ethnic state including the Tibetans and were recognized widely. Nevertheless, we were in 1900 and the Tibetans lords have heard about it, and something stirred in their hearts, that they can also have their nation state. Wouldn’t that be nice to be rid of the corrupt and weak Chinese. With the collapse of central power in China accompanying the Manchu dynastic ruin, they had finally grasp of their own fate, but China was not just going to give up and nobody want them to be masters of their own fate. Curiously, for whatever reason they did not make a formal declaration of independence either, perhaps still have not grasped the concept of nationa statehood fully. In any case, despite its weakness and war-lordism, the Republic of China certainly was in no mood to see their country to be nipped away piece by piece. Despite lack of real control, it maintained its claims and fought every opportunity of external recognition tooth-to-nail. With past sins in mind, the Brits and the Americans were just as enthusiastic to prop up the integrity of the multi-ethnic Chinese state.

Enough said about the dead.

Here we are in 2008. The Dalai Lama with his burden of independence cannot gather enough wisdom and strength to overrule his minions to take a deal on autonomy. In all the opportunities he had been presented, he had upstaged the chinese and opted for pleasing his western backers than to do the right thing for his ethnic brethren to provide a stable livelihood. How can the Chinese trust him now? Just look at the risks and the dilemma they are in.

His holiness is not just a religious figure. He has temporal rule over the Tibet TAR area. But ethnic Tibetans are spread over a wide area in western China, amongst the Mongols, Hui Muslims, Han Chinese. Let’s just imagine what happens in western China if he returns to Lhasa in his current capacity. In the morning prayers, all Tibetans, in the TAR and elsewhere deep in other provinces, will be praying to his picture frames. At noon, he orders an edict that taxes shall be collected for each 100 yuan earned and sent to the this-and-that monastery. Oh, worse still the town head shall be appointed as this-and-that name. Does this apply to the TAR or does it apply to all of the ethno- Tibetan areas in western China? If it applies to all areas, what about the Muslims, the Han chinese, and scores of other ethnic groups who live alongside the Tibetans. This is precisely the reason why the 1959 agreement had failed. So as I said the problem is a mixture of ecclesiastical and temporal issues.

Worst to come, with his proven independence streak, what if the Dalai Lama calls for an independent Tibet once he is installed in the Potala Palace. As I said, the time for independence was gone with the 1911 ambiguity and the great powers rejection of Tibetan lords request for recognition. No Chinese body-politic, communist, socialist, republican, nationalist, reactionary, progressive, liberal, etc. can permit China to be now torn apart. So if the Dalai Lama chooses to play mischief once in Tibet, what would happen? Would the Chinese have to send the troops? The ensuing bloodletting would not be something we want to see. I do not believe the Chinese will want to see it either. A moralistic and practical question would be “do we prefer the inconvenience of human rights abuses here-and-there or the full scale killing if the solution provided further aggravates the problem?”

So as I said before autonomy is the only way out. At the same time, some give-and-take have to happen such that not only Tibet TAR but also the ethno-Tibetan regions will need to have substantial autonomy so they do not feel under-privileged compared to their distant cousins over that lake. So what about the Hui muslims and Hans living alongside. Well, we are talking about full- blown democracy. But I do not think China can afford that right now - that is just reality. That is a different topic and not really related to this. All I will come back to is that old wisdom: “Ruling a giant state is like stir-frying a wok of small fish” - dated Wendi era (Han Dynasty).

So the Dalai Lama, if he truly wishes to care for his ethnic brethren in his life time, will have to take a firm stand against independence to establish his credentials of not playing any mischief once installed in Lhasa. For one reason or another - all internal to the exile community, my opinion only - he cannot bring himself up to that task. It is too convenient to make TV speeches. Whatever he is saying he has to back it up with action. Further still, given his past he has to act in that direction than what may look to be reasonable. For the Americans, think of it as a Nixon making a deal with Mao - why it could not have been a Kennedy?

Nevertheless, autonomy is coming to the Tibet TAR and beyond. That is with or without his holiness. The Chinese leadership, I will still say they are the best crop of leaders today (if you take your ideology out), is not stupid. If I can, they can recognize a big problem is at their hand and they will have to make policy adjustments. Given the only way out is autonomy, you can expect some form of that will be in place in the next 10 years gradually. The Chinese are full of proverbs and they do follow them. They probably will not care too much about who is in charge in Tibet “as long as he/she catches the mice” - that is a stable Tibet and within China. Before that were to happen, again, they are going to be “feeling the stone at the riverbed to cross the river.”

here is one from the Tang dynasty. 汉儿尽作胡儿语，却向城头骂汉人 (Sons of Han all speak the language the Hu, then curses at the Han people at the city gates.) Keep in mind definition of Han back then is different from now.

In the end it better to keep an open mind to all cultures, otherwise it’s bad. 如果汉人搞大汉族主义，歧视少数民族，那就很不好。