Two articles on Tibet from the Australian point of view.
(I) A Personal Reflection On Hypocrisy Over Tibet
By JOHN V. WHITBECK
I have been watching with growing amazement and
concern the assaults on the bizarrely
quasi-religious Olympic Torch as it has staggered
through London, Paris and San Francisco, as well
as the self-righteous pronouncements by certain
European "leaders" (and even by the European
Parliament, the UN Secretary-General and John
McCain) that they will not be attending the
opening ceremony of the Olympics or are seriously
considering not attending or urging others not to
attend unless China bows to their "human rights" demands.
Have they even been invited? Who needs them? Why,
aside from the obvious intention to give offense, should the Chinese care?
I should make clear from the start that I am
profoundly sympathetic to Tibet and Tibetans. I
have had the privilege of meeting His Holiness
the Dalai Lama on two occasions, most recently
when we both spoke at the same human rights
conference in Sweden, and the white kata which he
hung around my neck on the first occasion is
proudly displayed in my study. In person, he
exudes a quiet, modest charisma and aura of human
saintliness that is captivating even to an
atheist -- unlike any other person whom I have
ever met. I wish that he could return to the
Potala Palace and his Norbulingka summer
residence and that his people could enjoy the
broad cultural and administrative autonomy which he seeks for them.
Furthermore, when I traveled in Tibet in 1981 (at
a time when I had already visited all but one of
the world's then existing countries), I found it,
far and away, the most fascinating place which I
had ever visited. It took my breath away in every sense.
Having said that, the current anti-Chinese frenzy
in the West, pursued in the guise of pro-Tibetan
(and, to a lesser extent, pro-Darfuri) human
rights activism, and the Western media's coverage of it reek of hypocrisy.
As best I can tell, the recent violence occurred
when some ethnic Tibetans, understandably fed up
with the ever-increasing presence and domination
of Han Chinese in traditional Tibetan areas,
exploded in frustration, burned some Han Chinese
shops and killed some Han Chinese civilians.
What, in such circumstances, would one expect the
Chinese authorities to do? When, by way of
example, some African-Americans in Watts and
other poor areas of Los Angeles exploded in
frustration, burned some white- and Korean-owned
stores and attacked some non-blacks, did the
American police run away? As I recall, they
sought to restore order. So have the Chinese
authorities. (As a practical matter, the most
brutal images of repressive police action against
ethnic Tibetan protestors have not come from
China but from other countries, most notably Nepal.)
Can anyone seriously argue that Chinese treatment
of Tibetans, who have not been subject to either
genocide or ethnic cleansing and of whom the vast
majority continue to live on their ancestral
lands, compares unfavorably with the treatment
accorded to the Native Americans by the European
settlers of North America or the treatment
accorded (and continuing to be accorded) to the
indigenous Palestinians by the Zionist settlers
of Palestine? Can anyone seriously argue that it
is even in the same league of evil and injustice?
With more than 50 recognized ethnic minorities
comprising roughly six percent of China's immense
population, Chinese government policy has always
aimed at cultural integration of all Chinese
citizens rather than at multiculturalism.
Inevitably, some peoples are deeply attached to
their own distinct cultures and do not wish to be
integrated into another one. If Chinese treatment
of certain ethnic minorities justly merits
criticism, most serious observers would argue
that repressive measures against the Uighurs of
Xinjiang have been more severe than repressive measures against Tibetans.
However, although there are many more Uighurs
than Tibetans, one hears very little about
Uighurs in the West. They are Muslims. Uighur
nationalist movements are on America's list of
"terrorst" groups, and four Uighurs swept up in
Afghanistan were incarcerated at Guantanamo for
years, even long after being exonerated as
potential threats to America, before finally
being dumped in Albania, because no other country would provide them asylum.
Furthermore, how reasonable is it to hold China
responsible for the human suffering resulting
from multiple separatist insurgencies and
governmental counterinsurgency measures in the
Darfur region of Sudan (because China invests in
Sudan's oil industry?) while not holding America
and its Western collaborators responsible for the
far worse human suffering resulting from
America's invasions and occupations of
Afghanistan and Iraq and America's unconditional
financial and diplomatic support for Israel's occupation of Palestine?
If the Chinese feel that the current anti-Chinese
frenzy in the West has its roots in jealousy at
China's 12% annual economic growth rate and its
increasing success in all aspects of world
affairs, seasoned with ample doses of racism and
hypocrisy, this would not be an irrational appreciation of the situation.
At least with respect to its role in world
affairs, China has proven a rather gentle and
benign dragon in recent decades, focused on
improving the economic conditions and quality of
life of its people rather than on military
aggression or full-spectrum domination of mankind
and the planet, even while its strength and
potential power have been growing exponentially.
Seeking personal emotional satisfaction or
domestic political advantage by gratuitously
sticking pins in the Chinese dragon is unlikely
to prove a wise course of action.
The world has enough problems already.
John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer,
is author of "The World According to Whitbeck".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(II)The Hypocrisy and Danger of Anti-China Demonstrations
By Floyd Rudmin
The Chinese Context
The Chinese government is responsible for the
well-being and security of one-fourth of
humanity. Race riots and rebellion cannot be
tolerated, not even when done by Buddhist monks.
Chinese Civilization was already old when the
Egyptians began building pyramids. But the last
200 years have not gone well, what with two Opium
Wars forcing China to import drugs, and Europeans
seizing coastal ports as a step to complete
colonial control, then the Boxer Rebellion, the
collapse of the Manchu Dynasty, civil war, a
brutal invasion and occupation by Japan, more
civil war, then Communist consolidation and
transformation of society, then Mao's Cultural
Revolution. Such events caused tens of millions
of people to die. Thus, China's recent history
has good reasons why social order is a higher
priority than individual rights. Race riots and rebellion cannot be tolerated.
Considering this context, China's treatment of
its minorities has been exemplary compared to
what the Western world has done to its minorities.
After thousands of years of Chinese dominance,
there still are more than 50 minorities in China.
After a few hundred years of European dominance
in North and South America, the original minority
cultures have been exterminated, damaged, or diminished.
Chinese currency carries five languages: Chinese,
Mongolian, Tibetan, Uigur, and Zhuang. In
comparison, Canadian currency carries English and
French, but no Cree or Inuktitut. If the USA were
as considerate of ethnic minorities as is China,
then the greenback would be written in English, Spanish, Cherokee and Hawaiian.
In China, ethnic minorities begin their primary
schooling in their own language, in a school
administered by one of their own community.
Chinese language instruction is not introduced
until age 10 or later. This is in sharp contrast
to a history of coerced linguistic assimilation
in most Western nations. The Australian
government recently apologized to the Aboriginal
minority for taking children from their families,
forcing them to speak English, beating them if
they spoke their mother tongue. China has no need
to make such apology to Tibetans or to other minorities.
China's one-child-policy seems oppressive to
Westerners, but it has not applied to minorities,
only to the Han Chinese. Tibetans can have as
many children as they choose. If Han people have
more than one child, they are punished.
There is a similar preference given to minorities
when it comes to admission to universities. For
example, Tibetan students enter China's elite
Peking University with lower exam scores than Han Chinese students.
China is not a perfect nation, but on matters of
minority rights, it has been better than most
Western nations. And China achieved this in the
historical context of restoring itself and
recovering from 200 years of continual crisis and foreign invasion.
Historical Claims
National boundaries are not natural. They all
arise from history, and all history is
disputable. Arguments and evidence can always be
found to challenge a boundary. China has long
claimed Tibet as part of its territory, though
that has been hard to enforce during the past 200
years. The Dalai Lama does not dispute China's
claim to Tibet. The recent race riots in
Tibet and the anti-Olympics demonstrations will
not cause China to shrink itself and abandon part
of its territory. Rioters and demonstrators know that.
Foreign governments promoting Tibet separatism
and demonstrators demanding Tibet independence
should look closer to home. Canadians can
campaign for Québec libre. Americans can support
separatists in Puerto Rico, Vermont, Texas,
California, Hawaii, Guam, and Alaska. Brits can
work for a free Wales, and Scotland for the
Scots. French can help free Tahitians, New
Caledonians, Corsicans, and the Basques.
Spaniards can also back the Basques, or the
Catalonians. Italians can help Sicilian
separatists or the Northern League. Danes can
free the Faeroe Islands. Poles can back
Cashubians. Japanese can help Okinawan
separatists, and Filipinos can help the Moros.
Thai can promote Patanni independence;
Indonesians can promote Acehnese independence.
New Zealanders can leave the islands to the
Maori; Australians can vacate Papua. Sri Lankans
can help Tamil separatists; Indians can help Sikh separatists.
Nearly every nation has a separatist movement of
some kind. There is no need to go to Tibet, to
the top of the world, to promote ethnic
separatism. China is not promoting separatism in
other nations and does not appreciate other
nations promoting separatism in China. The people
most oppressed, most needing a nation of their
own, are the Palestinians. There is a worthy
project to promote and to demonstrate about.
