RSS
Home
Moksha Matters
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Insert photo caption or credit here
How can the problem of Tibet’s desire for independence from Chinese rule come to a satisfactory resolution? Is it important that both sides feel sated? Is it important the rest of the world approve the outcome? Or is it only important for the Tibetans to not feel oppressed by and dependent upon the Chinese system imposed upon them some 50 years ago? In negotiations or even efforts to get something desired it is usually good strategy to understand the present positions and historical attitudes of the opposing party, especially when someone else holds what you want. To understand the opinions of a different culture we have to try to understand the origins of those feelings. How can we better understand the roots of Chinese perspectives on and attitudes toward Tibet?
An important factor in these considerations comes from the complex Chinese concept of pride versus shame. To the Chinese to lose is the same as making a mistake and causes shame, referred to in China is losing face. To lose Tibet would be just that: a loss, and the shame of losing that accompanies not winning. If China believed they had won something, they would likely be more inclined to give Tibet away. China views this as a win or lose situation, period. Maybe give China recognition for improving human rights, instituting policies that feed a population of 1.3 billion?
China feels insulted by America in this situation at present and in the past. The average American’s opinion of this mess is obvious, though our government takes no public steps to support feelings of outrage over civil repression, and China’s economic influence over the U.S. guides the undercurrent of America’s official stance on the situation ultimately resulting in an air of non-involved disapproval from U.S. leaders.
That’s not to say the U.S. has never tried to exert influence, directly or indirectly over China’s Tibet/Dalai Lama policy for myriad reasons including China’s shaky alliance with Russia and western fear of communism during the Cold War. The CIA wanted so much to penetrate the region they trained the Dalai Lama’s brothers in guerrilla warfare and kept the Dalai Lama’s entire exiled administration on the CIA payroll to the tune of $1.7 million a year during most of the 1960s and 1970s, a fact which has been acknowledged for years by Tibetan officials the Dalai Lama himself. One can certainly understand Chinese indignation at our meddling, though the CIA’s insertion into Tibetan interests surely had to do with intelligence gathering and western attempts to undermine communist governments through espionage.
Similarly some believe Canada recognized Tibet as an independent nation in 1950, which is entirely false. After Tibet’s proclamation of independence in 1913 no country legally recognized Tibet as an autonomous nation, and though in 1950 Canada’s Department of External Affairs held a council that acknowledged the legality of Tibet’s claim to independence Canada did not create a Tibetan Embassy nor did the Prime Minister hold a press conference to confirm the council’s findings. Instead, the information became classified and only became available to the public this year.
There exist literally hundreds of justifications the Chinese use in continuing to hold Tibet, ranging from tourism revenues, a larger geographic spread and more people (according to http://en.showchina.org about one-eight of China’s entire landmass and 3 million additional people), to the desire for physical possession of some of the most beautiful and famous land in the world, which not insubstantially includes Mt. Everest, the tallest non-oceanic mountain on the planet. More Chinese justifications claim Tibet has been a part of China for 5000 years, though largely unsettled and economically and politically unincorporated, unattended, and generally ignored and accepted as a part of China until 1913 when Tibet proclaimed its own independence after the fall of the Qing Empire.
Why should the Dalai Lama stay in exile? Beijing has made steps toward repairing the bridges, and even extended a tentative invitation to Gyatso to attend the 2008 Olympic Games. Kundun could return, though the implications and repercussions of such an act remain unclear. Some believe his uninvited return would result in his immediate arrested, others think his presence would stir such unrest that Tibet would in fact become more unstable, and Kundun certainly does not want to feel responsible for causing violence, be it defensive or offensive by his people. In the struggle of negotiations, particularly those with such deep roots, trying to understand and acknowledge the validity of each party's concerns remains the only path with the highest probability for success and gives the most balance to the situation. Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha, called balance and peace moksha or nirvana, which signify harmony and oneness with the universe, and in these matters a balanced and understanding approach makes a big difference in unfreezing the tension and resentment from each side.
