Discussions: for more comments please see comments
"It's interesting and lays out the view well. It is a very complicated issue, with a very long history that few in the West understand.
A few comments from someone who has been raised under a different set of views. Many in the West will focus on China's military decision to bring a more
autonomous Tibet closer in 1950, and to suppress the 1959 uprising with military force. At least that's broadly how we understand what happened. You don't
mention these decisions, which are part of the background of why more informed people wonder about the relationship.
I say this as someone who tries to be consistent and balanced: I am equally critical of the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century US history of moving with military
force into areas we regarded as critical for our national security or economic interests, such as Guatemala, Cuba, parts of Mexico and French Canada, Iraq,
all the territories held by Indian chiefs, etc. I also realize that we can't simply give most of the country back to the Indian tribes ... but I see how much they lost.
Also, I was not sure what the purpose is of the last sentence, which sounds vague threatening. ???
Your efforts to promote better understanding are very welcome and I hope they help."
-------------- Deborah Brautigam, Associate Professor, School of International Service, American University
Editor's Response: Thanks! I downplayed the old military actions, because I think that it's not the major reason for the riot, the tensions were created rather by
the modernization process which threats the Tibetans' economic status and rude administrative measures which hurt the feeling of many Tibetans who even
supported the communist party before. To my impression, the real issue is not national autonomy, but rather economic programs to help the Tibetans, who
have disadvantages in language and education level, and more respect from the administration to religious practice in spite of the political antagonism with
Dalai Lama. Anyway, it's just my opinion and thank you so much for giving us a different perspective.
Sorry for the negative impression caused by the last sentence, but I feel compelled to mention that not all critics are good-willed.
Tibet: dream and reality ---- By Slavoj Zizek (Le Monde Diplomatique):
The West is projecting not only its own spiritual fantasies upon Tibet, but its own economic fears upon China, imagining a power struggle quite different from
that which has actually happened in Tibet. We have to learn to look at Tibet as it is – and China too.
All the media reports impose an image which goes like this: the People’s Republic of China, which illegally occupied Tibet in 1950, engaged for decades in
brutal and systematic destruction not only of the Tibetan religion, but of the identity of Tibetans as a free people. Recently the protests of the Tibetan people
against Chinese occupation were again crushed with brutal police and military force. Since China is organising the 2008 Olympic games, it is the duty of all
of us who love democracy and freedom to put pressure on China to return to the Tibetans what it stole from them. A country with such a dismal human rights
record cannot be allowed to whitewash its image with the noble Olympic spectacle.
What are our governments going to do? Will they, as usual, cede to economic pragmatism, or will they gather the strength to put our highest ethical and
political values above short-term economic interests? While the Chinese authorities did no doubt commit many acts of murderous terror and destruction in
Tibet, some things disturb this simple “good guys versus bad guys” image. Here are nine points which anyone passing judgment on recent events in Tibet
should bear in mind:
1. Tibet, an independent country until 1950, was not suddenly occupied by China. The history of its relations with China is long and complex, with China often
acting as a protective overlord – the anti-Communist Kuomintang also insisted on Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. (The term “Dalai Lama” bears witness to
this interaction: it combines the Mongolian dalai – ocean – and the Tibetan bla-ma.)
2. Before 1950 Tibet was no Shangri-la, but a country of harsh feudalism, poverty (life expectancy was barely 30), corruption and civil wars (the last, between
two monastic factions, was in 1948 when the Red Army was already knocking at the door). Fearing social unrest and disintegration, the ruling elite prohibited
any development of industry, so all metal had to be imported from India. This did not prevent the elite from sending their children to British schools in India and
transferring financial assets to British banks there.
3. The Cultural Revolution which ravaged the Tibetan monasteries in the 1960s was not imported by the Chinese. Fewer than a hundred of the Red Guards
came to Tibet with the revolution, and the young mobs burning the monasteries were almost exclusively Tibetan.
4. Since the early 1950s there has been systematic and substantial CIA involvement in stirring up anti-Chinese troubles in Tibet, so Chinese fears of external
attempts to destabilise Tibet are not irrational (1).
5. As television images show, what is going on now in Tibetan regions is no longer a peaceful “spiritual” protest of monks as in Burma over the last year, but
also gangs burning and killing ordinary Chinese immigrants and their stores. We should measure the Tibetan protests by the same standards as we measure
other violent protests: if Tibetans can attack Chinese immigrants, why can’t the Palestinians do the same to the Israeli settlers on the West Bank?
6. The Chinese invested heavily in Tibetan economic development, as well as infrastructure, education and health services. Despite undeniable oppression,
the average Tibetan has never enjoyed such a standard of living as today. Poverty is now worse in China’s own undeveloped western rural provinces than in
Tibet.
7. In recent years the Chinese changed their strategy in Tibet: depoliticised religion is now tolerated, often even supported. The Chinese rely more on ethnic
and economic colonisation, rapidly transforming Lhasa into a Chinese capitalist Wild West with karaoke bars and Disney-like “Buddhist theme parks” for
western tourists. What the media image of brutal Chinese soldiers and policemen terrorising the Buddhist monks conceals is a far more effective American-
style socioeconomic transformation. In a decade or two Tibetans will be reduced to the status of Native Americans in the United States.
It seems the Chinese Communists finally learned the lesson: what is the oppressive power of secret police, camps and Red Guards destroying ancient
monuments, compared to the power of unbridled capitalism to undermine all traditional social relations? The Chinese are doing what the West has always
done, as Brazil did in the Amazon or Russia in Siberia, and the US on its own western frontiers.
8. A main reason why so many in the West have taken part in the protests against China is ideological: Tibetan Buddhism, deftly spun by the Dalai Lama, is a
major point of reference of the New Age hedonist spirituality which is becoming the predominant form of ideology today. Our fascination with Tibet makes it
into a mythic place upon which we project our dreams. When people mourn the loss of the authentic Tibetan way of life, they don’t care about real Tibetans:
they want Tibetans to be authentically spiritual on behalf of us so we can continue with our crazy consumerism.
The philosopher Gilles Deleuze wrote: “If you are snagged in another’s dream, you are lost.” The protesters against China are right to counter the Beijing
Olympics motto of “one world, one dream” with “one world, many dreams”. But they should be aware that they are imprisoning Tibetans in their own dream. It
is not the only dream.
9. If there is an ominous dimension to what is going on now in China, it is elsewhere. Faced with today’s explosion of capitalism in China, analysts often ask
when political democracy, as the “natural” political accompaniment of capitalism, will come.
"It's interesting and lays out the view well. It is a very complicated issue, with a very long history that few in the West understand.
A few comments from someone who has been raised under a different set of views. Many in the West will focus on China's military decision to bring a more
autonomous Tibet closer in 1950, and to suppress the 1959 uprising with military force. At least that's broadly how we understand what happened. You don't
mention these decisions, which are part of the background of why more informed people wonder about the relationship.
I say this as someone who tries to be consistent and balanced: I am equally critical of the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century US history of moving with military
force into areas we regarded as critical for our national security or economic interests, such as Guatemala, Cuba, parts of Mexico and French Canada, Iraq,
all the territories held by Indian chiefs, etc. I also realize that we can't simply give most of the country back to the Indian tribes ... but I see how much they lost.
Also, I was not sure what the purpose is of the last sentence, which sounds vague threatening. ???
Your efforts to promote better understanding are very welcome and I hope they help."
-------------- Deborah Brautigam, Associate Professor, School of International Service, American University
Editor's Response: Thanks! I downplayed the old military actions, because I think that it's not the major reason for the riot, the tensions were created rather by
the modernization process which threats the Tibetans' economic status and rude administrative measures which hurt the feeling of many Tibetans who even
supported the communist party before. To my impression, the real issue is not national autonomy, but rather economic programs to help the Tibetans, who
have disadvantages in language and education level, and more respect from the administration to religious practice in spite of the political antagonism with
Dalai Lama. Anyway, it's just my opinion and thank you so much for giving us a different perspective.
Sorry for the negative impression caused by the last sentence, but I feel compelled to mention that not all critics are good-willed.
Tibet: dream and reality ---- By Slavoj Zizek (Le Monde Diplomatique):
The West is projecting not only its own spiritual fantasies upon Tibet, but its own economic fears upon China, imagining a power struggle quite different from
that which has actually happened in Tibet. We have to learn to look at Tibet as it is – and China too.
All the media reports impose an image which goes like this: the People’s Republic of China, which illegally occupied Tibet in 1950, engaged for decades in
brutal and systematic destruction not only of the Tibetan religion, but of the identity of Tibetans as a free people. Recently the protests of the Tibetan people
against Chinese occupation were again crushed with brutal police and military force. Since China is organising the 2008 Olympic games, it is the duty of all
of us who love democracy and freedom to put pressure on China to return to the Tibetans what it stole from them. A country with such a dismal human rights
record cannot be allowed to whitewash its image with the noble Olympic spectacle.
What are our governments going to do? Will they, as usual, cede to economic pragmatism, or will they gather the strength to put our highest ethical and
political values above short-term economic interests? While the Chinese authorities did no doubt commit many acts of murderous terror and destruction in
Tibet, some things disturb this simple “good guys versus bad guys” image. Here are nine points which anyone passing judgment on recent events in Tibet
should bear in mind:
1. Tibet, an independent country until 1950, was not suddenly occupied by China. The history of its relations with China is long and complex, with China often
acting as a protective overlord – the anti-Communist Kuomintang also insisted on Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. (The term “Dalai Lama” bears witness to
this interaction: it combines the Mongolian dalai – ocean – and the Tibetan bla-ma.)
2. Before 1950 Tibet was no Shangri-la, but a country of harsh feudalism, poverty (life expectancy was barely 30), corruption and civil wars (the last, between
two monastic factions, was in 1948 when the Red Army was already knocking at the door). Fearing social unrest and disintegration, the ruling elite prohibited
any development of industry, so all metal had to be imported from India. This did not prevent the elite from sending their children to British schools in India and
transferring financial assets to British banks there.
3. The Cultural Revolution which ravaged the Tibetan monasteries in the 1960s was not imported by the Chinese. Fewer than a hundred of the Red Guards
came to Tibet with the revolution, and the young mobs burning the monasteries were almost exclusively Tibetan.
4. Since the early 1950s there has been systematic and substantial CIA involvement in stirring up anti-Chinese troubles in Tibet, so Chinese fears of external
attempts to destabilise Tibet are not irrational (1).
5. As television images show, what is going on now in Tibetan regions is no longer a peaceful “spiritual” protest of monks as in Burma over the last year, but
also gangs burning and killing ordinary Chinese immigrants and their stores. We should measure the Tibetan protests by the same standards as we measure
other violent protests: if Tibetans can attack Chinese immigrants, why can’t the Palestinians do the same to the Israeli settlers on the West Bank?
6. The Chinese invested heavily in Tibetan economic development, as well as infrastructure, education and health services. Despite undeniable oppression,
the average Tibetan has never enjoyed such a standard of living as today. Poverty is now worse in China’s own undeveloped western rural provinces than in
Tibet.
7. In recent years the Chinese changed their strategy in Tibet: depoliticised religion is now tolerated, often even supported. The Chinese rely more on ethnic
and economic colonisation, rapidly transforming Lhasa into a Chinese capitalist Wild West with karaoke bars and Disney-like “Buddhist theme parks” for
western tourists. What the media image of brutal Chinese soldiers and policemen terrorising the Buddhist monks conceals is a far more effective American-
style socioeconomic transformation. In a decade or two Tibetans will be reduced to the status of Native Americans in the United States.
It seems the Chinese Communists finally learned the lesson: what is the oppressive power of secret police, camps and Red Guards destroying ancient
monuments, compared to the power of unbridled capitalism to undermine all traditional social relations? The Chinese are doing what the West has always
done, as Brazil did in the Amazon or Russia in Siberia, and the US on its own western frontiers.
8. A main reason why so many in the West have taken part in the protests against China is ideological: Tibetan Buddhism, deftly spun by the Dalai Lama, is a
major point of reference of the New Age hedonist spirituality which is becoming the predominant form of ideology today. Our fascination with Tibet makes it
into a mythic place upon which we project our dreams. When people mourn the loss of the authentic Tibetan way of life, they don’t care about real Tibetans:
they want Tibetans to be authentically spiritual on behalf of us so we can continue with our crazy consumerism.
The philosopher Gilles Deleuze wrote: “If you are snagged in another’s dream, you are lost.” The protesters against China are right to counter the Beijing
Olympics motto of “one world, one dream” with “one world, many dreams”. But they should be aware that they are imprisoning Tibetans in their own dream. It
is not the only dream.
9. If there is an ominous dimension to what is going on now in China, it is elsewhere. Faced with today’s explosion of capitalism in China, analysts often ask
when political democracy, as the “natural” political accompaniment of capitalism, will come.
contact: peaceintibet@gmail.com
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Build a Bridge of Intellectual Communication
Are Olympic Games political? Yes and No
2008, We are all losers?
Are Olympic Games political? Yes and No
2008, We are all losers?
A travel guide about China opens with: “China isn't a country - it's a different world”. (Lonely Planet)
Though China is more and more interconnected in an increasingly globalized planet, this claim still rings true. China is not
only a geographic term, but also a very different culture and tradition, especially regarding socio-political structures.
Even in relatively uncontentious and calm years, the different political logics between China and the West have produced
numerous quarrels regarding human rights, media freedom, international responsibility etc. This year, people have seen a
much more dramatic display of the China-West gap on the Olympic stage.
China was surprised by the Western protests against its Tibet policy despite the substantial developments there. The
West has also been shaken by the fierce patriotic backlash which emerged in China against Western criticism, since
such reactions to protests are unexpected in the West, where protests are as common as eating and sleeping.
Moreover, the interpretations of the reactions become divided as well. For many Chinese, the Western media
exaggerates the demand of a small number of people and distorts the whole picture. For Westerners, all Chinese sound
so unanimous that they can only be explained as indoctrinated and brainwashed.
Why do Chinese resist the Western criticisms so vehemently? People may say it’s the instilling of authoritarian traditions,
but that is not plausible. Over 350,000 Chinese students, not counting visiting scholars and professionals, are studying in
the West, many of them in the fields of management, administration and politics. In contrast, only about 15,000 students
from the West are currently enrolled in Chinese universities, and even less are interested in studying Chinese social and
political thoughts. Many westerners rather think there is nothing to learn from the “goons and thugs” (Jack Cafferty,
CNN). Not intending to discuss the disproportion here, I just want to ask why these learning-minded Chinese reject the
criticism this time so resolutely and univocally.
The first suggestion is that the attitude of the criticisms is problematic. Minorities’ appeals are always controversial and
sensitive issues in modern states. As brothers live under the same roof, the close contacts between Han-Chinese and
Tibetans are accompanied by numerous conflicts as well. Facing such subtle love-hate relationship, any benevolent third-
party criticism ought to be extremely cautious to understand the complexity. Simply blaming one side without
comprehensive analysis, such critics can be considered as unserious at best. Incredulous people easily become
suspicious whether the critics hope to benefit from fueling others’ internal conflicts.
Second, the criticisms need to consider different approaches. The critics and protests in the West just represent one kind
of voice, while the issues are usually discussed in the public from various angles and in various manners. Yet, the lack of
comprehensive knowledge about China leaves the public greatly depend on the individual reports from media. The
criticisms are no longer merely viewpoints, but become the whole truth for a large part of the public. Since the
commercial media tends to report negative stories, some defects are exaggerated and become the main image of China.
Therefore, criticisms often look like biased “China bashing” if no complete background is provided. This phenomenon is
not only limited to China, but can be seen from lots of resentments in the developing world against the Western
criticisms. Voices from other cultures cannot reach the global audience as well as the Western media giants. Partly out
of this reason, many developing countries are very cautious in opening up media control. Of course, the appropriateness
of such a measure is dubious.
Finally, the target of the criticism, namely blaming the communist political system, misses the real point too. Communism
as ideology actually has lost its significance in China for long time. The communist party keeps its name mainly in order
to avoid unnecessary political turbulence. In fact, China has been learning from other countries and been improving its
political system constantly for decades. There are still millions of problems, ranging from ethnic minority, culture
preservation to religion, environment and inequality. Yet, it is unfair to attribute all of them to the political system and
unwise to demand radical reform. On the contrary, only under a stable government can the problems which occur in the
modernization process be solved pragmatically.
However, since such clichés have been heard too much, they are not the main reason for Chinese’s anger this time. But
the misunderstanding creates a stereotype image of China, nurtures simplistic attitudes and makes China bashing
popular.
After 30 years of rapid development, Chinese are not only proud of their country’s achievement, but also fully aware of
the importance of true learning in a stable and united nation. Therefore any threat to the unification and stability, such as
the Tibet or Taiwan issues, triggers the strongest reaction of the Chinese people.
Correspondingly, three suggestions may help the criticisms become more effective and avoid unnecessary hostility. First,
address the complexity of the criticized problems. On the one hand critics should demonstrate their comprehensive
knowledge of the issues; on the other hand the consideration from various perspectives makes the criticisms more
practical and targeted. The Tibet question is not simply the antagonism between Dalai Lama and Beijing, but involves
problems such as unavoidable social changes during modernization, the role of religion in today’s world, cultural
preservation in the trend of globalization, market economy’s impact on the less developed community etc. Only after
laying out the complex, the criticisms can identify the key points to be improved.
Second, understand China’s concern over the Western media’s dominance and use fewer dramatizations. Original voices
actually have more persuasive power, whereas exaggeration only misleads outsiders and creates tension. Chinese
government is not interested in partial viewpoints, but very attentive to the overall public opinion. Therefore it is unlikely
that the amplifying of some voices most heard in the West, e.g the dissidents or Tibet government in exile, can really
impact China. Instead, comprehensive surveys with concrete data become more and more a basis for China’s policy
decision. Chinese government is even hiring consulting companies to investigate the citizens’ satisfaction rates for local
administration’s performance.
Third, respect China’s wisdom of reforming while maintaining stability. It may still take a while for people, including
Chinese, to figure out how a modern China should exactly look like. Yet the economic, cultural and social developments
achieved so far have proved the viability of the gradualism approach and the government’s capability of self-correction. In
this context, China does not need new great political ideas, but eagerly seeks down-to-earth suggestions for continuing
the chosen path. Therefore, instead of attacking the political system in general, constructive criticisms should rather
cooperate with the government and focus on specific shortcomings. A friendly external environment and objective
evaluations of the risk and benefit are more likely to convince the government to remove unnecessary restrictions.
Of course, these suggestions are only made for those who truly want to increase mutual understanding and construct a
peaceful world. Hopefully the good intention can bring positive result when it’s combined with insight. As to those who
have other purposes, China has a unique program for them as well, but that’s a different thing.
Though China is more and more interconnected in an increasingly globalized planet, this claim still rings true. China is not
only a geographic term, but also a very different culture and tradition, especially regarding socio-political structures.
Even in relatively uncontentious and calm years, the different political logics between China and the West have produced
numerous quarrels regarding human rights, media freedom, international responsibility etc. This year, people have seen a
much more dramatic display of the China-West gap on the Olympic stage.
China was surprised by the Western protests against its Tibet policy despite the substantial developments there. The
West has also been shaken by the fierce patriotic backlash which emerged in China against Western criticism, since
such reactions to protests are unexpected in the West, where protests are as common as eating and sleeping.
Moreover, the interpretations of the reactions become divided as well. For many Chinese, the Western media
exaggerates the demand of a small number of people and distorts the whole picture. For Westerners, all Chinese sound
so unanimous that they can only be explained as indoctrinated and brainwashed.
Why do Chinese resist the Western criticisms so vehemently? People may say it’s the instilling of authoritarian traditions,
but that is not plausible. Over 350,000 Chinese students, not counting visiting scholars and professionals, are studying in
the West, many of them in the fields of management, administration and politics. In contrast, only about 15,000 students
from the West are currently enrolled in Chinese universities, and even less are interested in studying Chinese social and
political thoughts. Many westerners rather think there is nothing to learn from the “goons and thugs” (Jack Cafferty,
CNN). Not intending to discuss the disproportion here, I just want to ask why these learning-minded Chinese reject the
criticism this time so resolutely and univocally.
The first suggestion is that the attitude of the criticisms is problematic. Minorities’ appeals are always controversial and
sensitive issues in modern states. As brothers live under the same roof, the close contacts between Han-Chinese and
Tibetans are accompanied by numerous conflicts as well. Facing such subtle love-hate relationship, any benevolent third-
party criticism ought to be extremely cautious to understand the complexity. Simply blaming one side without
comprehensive analysis, such critics can be considered as unserious at best. Incredulous people easily become
suspicious whether the critics hope to benefit from fueling others’ internal conflicts.
Second, the criticisms need to consider different approaches. The critics and protests in the West just represent one kind
of voice, while the issues are usually discussed in the public from various angles and in various manners. Yet, the lack of
comprehensive knowledge about China leaves the public greatly depend on the individual reports from media. The
criticisms are no longer merely viewpoints, but become the whole truth for a large part of the public. Since the
commercial media tends to report negative stories, some defects are exaggerated and become the main image of China.
Therefore, criticisms often look like biased “China bashing” if no complete background is provided. This phenomenon is
not only limited to China, but can be seen from lots of resentments in the developing world against the Western
criticisms. Voices from other cultures cannot reach the global audience as well as the Western media giants. Partly out
of this reason, many developing countries are very cautious in opening up media control. Of course, the appropriateness
of such a measure is dubious.
Finally, the target of the criticism, namely blaming the communist political system, misses the real point too. Communism
as ideology actually has lost its significance in China for long time. The communist party keeps its name mainly in order
to avoid unnecessary political turbulence. In fact, China has been learning from other countries and been improving its
political system constantly for decades. There are still millions of problems, ranging from ethnic minority, culture
preservation to religion, environment and inequality. Yet, it is unfair to attribute all of them to the political system and
unwise to demand radical reform. On the contrary, only under a stable government can the problems which occur in the
modernization process be solved pragmatically.
However, since such clichés have been heard too much, they are not the main reason for Chinese’s anger this time. But
the misunderstanding creates a stereotype image of China, nurtures simplistic attitudes and makes China bashing
popular.
After 30 years of rapid development, Chinese are not only proud of their country’s achievement, but also fully aware of
the importance of true learning in a stable and united nation. Therefore any threat to the unification and stability, such as
the Tibet or Taiwan issues, triggers the strongest reaction of the Chinese people.
Correspondingly, three suggestions may help the criticisms become more effective and avoid unnecessary hostility. First,
address the complexity of the criticized problems. On the one hand critics should demonstrate their comprehensive
knowledge of the issues; on the other hand the consideration from various perspectives makes the criticisms more
practical and targeted. The Tibet question is not simply the antagonism between Dalai Lama and Beijing, but involves
problems such as unavoidable social changes during modernization, the role of religion in today’s world, cultural
preservation in the trend of globalization, market economy’s impact on the less developed community etc. Only after
laying out the complex, the criticisms can identify the key points to be improved.
Second, understand China’s concern over the Western media’s dominance and use fewer dramatizations. Original voices
actually have more persuasive power, whereas exaggeration only misleads outsiders and creates tension. Chinese
government is not interested in partial viewpoints, but very attentive to the overall public opinion. Therefore it is unlikely
that the amplifying of some voices most heard in the West, e.g the dissidents or Tibet government in exile, can really
impact China. Instead, comprehensive surveys with concrete data become more and more a basis for China’s policy
decision. Chinese government is even hiring consulting companies to investigate the citizens’ satisfaction rates for local
administration’s performance.
Third, respect China’s wisdom of reforming while maintaining stability. It may still take a while for people, including
Chinese, to figure out how a modern China should exactly look like. Yet the economic, cultural and social developments
achieved so far have proved the viability of the gradualism approach and the government’s capability of self-correction. In
this context, China does not need new great political ideas, but eagerly seeks down-to-earth suggestions for continuing
the chosen path. Therefore, instead of attacking the political system in general, constructive criticisms should rather
cooperate with the government and focus on specific shortcomings. A friendly external environment and objective
evaluations of the risk and benefit are more likely to convince the government to remove unnecessary restrictions.
Of course, these suggestions are only made for those who truly want to increase mutual understanding and construct a
peaceful world. Hopefully the good intention can bring positive result when it’s combined with insight. As to those who
have other purposes, China has a unique program for them as well, but that’s a different thing.
Understanding another world: How to criticize China
Editor, May 8. 2008
Related Articles: