Letter from Beijing: China and Tibet

Here's an op-ed I wrote for the Poughkeepsie Journal which should come out sometime this week.

April 13, 2008

LETTER FROM BEIJING

It’s been almost a year since I wrote in these pages. I had just arrived in Beijing and the major issues were safety concerns about Chinese exports to the U.S., environmental pollution, and the Beijing Olympics. The first two issues are still there but have been eclipsed by the protests in Tibet, and their effect on the Beijing Olympics.

We will be here for the Olympics and are watching this global drama unfold with great interest, and some anxiety. We have an uneasy feeling that there may be more than sporting events taking place in Beijing for our entertainment come August.

The Chinese government now has its huge propaganda machine at full throttle. In the first days of the Tibet protests, there was little news and many Beijing residents knew nothing about the protests. Then suddenly, the news about Tibet began to appear with every conceivable spin on the protests and the response by the international community.

In the eyes of the Chinese media, the Tibetan protests were violent, the Dalai Lama was behind this violence, and pro-Tibetan protests abroad were the work of a small number of Tibetans. Most Chinese here accept this view, although a small group of Chinese intellectuals did call for an independent investigation of the protests.

For those of us here with access to other sources of information, a very different picture emerged. In this picture, the Tibet protests started off peacefully before turning violent, the Dalai Lama called for dialogue, and the outrage over China’s treatment of Tibet was not limited to a small number of Tibetans. Instead, we were hearing from a wide range of human rights activists, political leaders, and other prominent voices in the West.

Some of these anti-Chinese protests and criticisms have been thoughtful, but others have engaged in China-bashing that borders on racism. One CNN commentator has called the Chinese a bunch of goons, and said that China hasn’t changed at all.

Complicating these two contrasting images is a third picture of Chinese around the world rallying in support of the Chinese government. These Chinese do not understand why the world is picking on China just when it’s having its big coming-out party. They point out there are other oppressed groups, and dictatorships much worse than China. They ask why China is being portrayed as the big bully when not long ago it was a poor country picked apart by Western and Japanese imperialists? Why doesn’t China get credit for expanding opportunities and freedoms for a billion plus people and bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty?

This response by Chinese who have access to other sources of information should make us think twice about how we in the West respond. This event is unlike the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests where Western critics were joined by many Chinese at home and abroad. In the case of Tibet, any Western criticism must contend with a unified front consisting of the Chinese government and Chinese people. Tibet is also unlike the food safety scares where international criticism prompted the Chinese government to make changes in its regulatory system. The Chinese government is unlikely to budge on Tibet which it sees as an issue of territorial integrity.

So am I saying that we should not criticize China, stand by and do nothing? No, I would encourage people to make their voice heard but to do it in a way that will both apply pressure and promote dialogue. China does care about its image and international opinion. But I would advise against China-bashing, which is counterproductive and will only make the Chinese government dig in its heels. It is important that we express our outrage, but more important that we do so in ways that engage China and the Chinese rather than turn them away.

The one thing I would add to my closing words is that we could all benefit from learning more about the history of Tibet and China. For a short primer, see this New York Times editorial by Elliot Sperling, a Tibet specialist, in the April 13, 2008 New York Times.

Don't Know Much About Tibetan History

By ELLIOT SPERLING

Bloomington, Ind.

FOR many Tibetans, the case for the historical independence of their land is unequivocal. They assert that Tibet has always been and by rights now ought to be an independent country. China's assertions are equally unequivocal: Tibet became a part of China during Mongol rule and its status as a part of China has never changed. Both of these assertions are at odds with Tibet's history.

The Tibetan view holds that Tibet was never subject to foreign rule after it emerged in the mid-seventh century as a dynamic power holding sway over an Inner Asian empire. These Tibetans say the appearance of subjugation to the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th and 14th centuries, and to the Manchu rulers of China's Qing Dynasty from the 18th century until the 20th century, is due to a modern, largely Western misunderstanding of the personal relations among the Yuan and Qing emperors and the pre-eminent lamas of Tibet. In this view, the lamas simply served as spiritual mentors to the emperors, with no compromise of Tibet's independent status.

In China's view, the Western misunderstandings are about the nature of China: Western critics don't understand that China has a history of thousands of years as a unified multinational state; all of its nationalities are Chinese. The Mongols, who entered China as conquerers, are claimed as Chinese, and their subjugation of Tibet is claimed as a Chinese subjugation.

Here are the facts. The claim that Tibet entertained only personal relations with China at the leadership level is easily rebutted. Administrative records and dynastic histories outline the governing structures of Mongol and Manchu rule. These make it clear that Tibet was subject to rules, laws and decisions made by the Yuan and Qing rulers. Tibet was not independent during these two periods. One of the Tibetan cabinet ministers summoned to Beijing at the end of the 18th century describes himself unambiguously in his memoirs as a subject of the Manchu emperor.

But although Tibet did submit to the Mongol and Manchu Empires, neither attached Tibet to China. The same documentary record that shows Tibetan subjugation to the Mongols and Manchus also shows that China's intervening Ming Dynasty (which ruled from 1368 to 1644) had no control over Tibet. This is problematic, given China's insistence that Chinese sovereignty was exercised in an unbroken line from the 13th century onward.

The idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction. In the early part of the 20th century, Chinese writers generally dated the annexation of Tibet to the 18th century. They described Tibet's status under the Qing with a term that designates a "feudal dependency," not an integral part of a country. And that's because Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus. When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1911, Tibet became independent once more.

From 1912 until the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, no Chinese government exercised control over what is today China's Tibet Autonomous Region. The Dalai Lama's government alone ruled the land until 1951.

Marxist China adopted the linguistic sleight of hand that asserts it has always been a unitary multinational country, not the hub of empires. There is now firm insistence that "Han," actually one of several ethnonyms for "Chinese," refers to only one of the Chinese nationalities. This was a conscious decision of those who constructed 20th-century Chinese identity. (It stands in contrast to the Russian decision to use a political term, "Soviet," for the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.)

There is something less to the arguments of both sides, but the argument on the Chinese side is weaker. Tibet was not "Chinese" until Mao Zedong's armies marched in and made it so.

Elliot Sperling is the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University's department of Central Eurasia Studies.