Free Tibet?
Dane Shelly Friday, 16 February 2007
The issue of Tibetan independence has been a popular cause not just for religious freedom activists (officially Tibetans enjoy full religious freedom, but the Chinese government reserves the right to remove any monk it doesn't like) but also for human rights activists in general. And many Western celebrities have joined the ranks of the Free Tibet movement. For instance, the Tibetan Freedom Concerts, started in 1996 in San Francisco, have raised millions of dollars for the Free Tibet movement. These Live Aid-style events draw many musicians cum activists such as Rage Against the Machine, the Beastie Boys, and Michael Stipe. Other organizations, such as the Tibetan Youth Congress, have taken a "no compromise" stance on the issue of Tibetan independence from China.
No doubt the Free Tibet movement's stance is moralistically compelling. But, when seen in the clear geopolitical light of day, it is counter-productive. While total independence may be preferable in an ideal world, the Dalai Lama's proposed Middle Way solution, which would relinquish claims of independence in return for genuine autonomy and religious freedom, is the triumph of experience over naive hope. The Dalai Lama has come under criticism from some Tibetan activist groups who believe he is being too accommodating to the Chinese. For example, the Tibetan Youth Congress has staged protests. But this has only resulted in the Chinese government responding the way it usually responds to public criticism: denial and greater repression. In order to chart a more realistic way forward, therefore, we must begin by understanding the way the Chinese government sees the issue, not just the way Rage Against the Machine sees it.
China's Interests in Tibet
Notwithstanding China's insistence that life in Tibet has improved dramatically since it reasserted its sovereignty over Tibet in 1950, many Tibetans have voted with their feet by making the harrowing trek across the Himalayan mountains into India. There they wait; they are a people who wait. The Tibetan Diaspora is concentrated in the Dalai Lama's temporary home: Dharamsala, India. Amid the squalor of refugee camps and the bright lights of tourist hotels, Tibetans have built lives of simple dignity, but there is always an air of anticipation — the patient optimism of the alien.
Many visitors to Dharamsala — including more than a few celebrities — have fallen in love with the Tibetan people. The quiet beauty that animates Dharamsala is seductive, and for good reason. They are a people who only want to live in peace. The Westerner sees this and recognizes this as a struggle for freedom — a moral imperative. Why should the world settle for less than full independence for Tibet? But reality intrudes. In 1951, the Tibetan army could not expel the invading Chinese, and nothing in the intervening years suggests Tibet would fare better today.
While life in Dharamsala has settled into a manageable status quo, life in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) is still contentious. There are reports of widespread human rights abuses — false imprisonments, summary executions, forced labor, etc. Moreover, there is grave and growing concern that China is pursuing a policy of slowly extinguishing Tibetan culture by resettling ethnic Han in traditional Tibetan areas. Many Tibetans argue that ethnic Tibetans are now minorities in Tibet. This is why the new train, which links Beijing to Lhasa, is such a contentious issue. Already, Tibetans claim they can't find jobs because of the influx of ethnic Han who are willing to work for lower wages.
Most of the international media coverage of China focuses on its economic modernization and growth, but the flip side of that story is one of increasing inequality — and the political unrest that accompanies it. Last year, for example, the UNDP said that China's income gap between urban and rural populations might be the worst in the world. Violent social unrest has increased dramatically in the last decade. For example, in January 2006, 20,000 farmers battled police over land designated for a highway and an industrial zone. In recent years, farmers and police have clashed over farmland seizures, dam construction, and taxes, and the violence is clearly increasing.
Unfortunately for Tibetans, this social unrest affects their hopes for greater autonomy. The Chinese government sees itself as a "peacefully rising" superpower. The deep economic inequality and social unrest that affects its rural populations, however, belie its claims of greatness. It is unlikely — now or in the near future — that China will be confident enough to give one of its ethnic minorities significant autonomy. Such a move, they believe, would set a dangerous precedent and encourage other minority separatist movements. Instead, Beijing seems intent on forcing greater integration between the Western and Eastern provinces and is keeping a close eye on anyone agitating for greater freedom.
Tibet is not only a victim of China's internal security policy, but is also trapped in the middle of a simmering geo-political struggle between India and China. While headlines in the 21st century have been dominated by terrorism and the savage conflicts that plague failed states, some observers of Asia predict a return to Great Power politics in the near future. China and India have already fought a war in 1961 over disputed territory — a situation that has not been resolved. Thus there is likely to be a return of the Great Game mentality, as these rising superpowers jostle for access to the 21st century's crucial resources: oil, natural gas, and water.
A recent three-part series in the New York Times described India's urgent water shortage and its negative effects on India's rapid, if uneven, modernization. Although India's average rainfall rate is comparable to that of Ireland, with a population of 1.1 billion and rising India's actual water per capita is comparable to Sudan. Indeed, this water shortage is representative of the situation in much of Asia. A recent report by the International Water Management Institute warned that 20 percent of Asians don't have access to clean water. Combine China and India's increasing economic and population growth with the fact that it takes one liter of water to produce one calorie of food, and it becomes clear that, in the near future, water is a resource that will be worth fighting over.
Tibet could become ground zero of the coming "water wars" because its glaciers form the headwaters of 10 major rivers, including the Yangtzee, Yellow, and Mekong in China, and the Indus and Brahmaputra in India. In all, Tibet's glaciers are a source of water for 47 percent of the world's population. Recently, China announced it was studying a plan that would divert 17 billion cubic feet of water from three of Tibet's rivers to the Yellow River to help irrigate the dry Northwest. Already, some Indians are asking: What's to stop China from diverting water from the Indus or the Brahmaputra?
There is other evidence that China views India as a near-peer competitor. One of the more interesting news stories of the past year involved China, India, and Google. The new Google Earth program, which permits users access to satellite images around the world, has spawned an army of amateur observers. Last summer, one observer noted a strange looking structure while looking at a Google Map of China. Apparently, he had discovered a Chinese army training camp, in which was constructed a model of the disputed border area between China and India. Chinese officials quickly denied the allegations and explained that the area was a training ground for tanks, an idea that GlobalSecurity.org's Tim Brown laughed off. "Tanks aren't going to be driving through that," he explained on ABC News, because the model area is 1:500 scale. Says Brown, "It's obviously of the disputed area. It's oriented exactly."
Despite the discovery, most security experts don't foresee a military confrontation between China and India in the near term. Both countries, the thinking goes, are more interested in economic growth than war — a notion that is routinely reinforced by Beijing and New Delhi. But have India and China really put the border dispute behind them? Recently, China's Ambassador to India made waves by claiming that the Indian state Arunchal Pradesh (which Beijing used to call "South Tibet") is Chinese territory. This was rather awkward because the statement came just days before Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to New Delhi. The Chinese Ambassador's comment was either a faux pas by an out-of-the-loop diplomat or a not-so-subtle reminder of China's true intentions in the region. Perhaps it is premature to assume that China's economic interests dictate a "peaceful rising." After all, the train to Lhasa can carry soldiers and guns as easily as it can tourists and electronics. So the question remains: why the training ground?
Conclusion
Tibet is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and no amount of moral persuasion or shaming is likely to change China's position on Tibet. If one understands China's view of the strategic interests involved in Tibet, it's clear that China will not grant independence to Tibet anytime soon.
In the meantime, it continues to view the Dalai Lama suspiciously. Those who advocate complete independence for Tibet put the Dalai Lama in a difficult position. Since many Chinese officials don't believe the Dalai Lama's Middle Way proposal is genuine, they see any fellowship with Free Tibet advocates as proof of his true separatist intentions. The international Free Tibet campaign, then, only increases Chinese suspicions, and perhaps makes an agreement on autonomy less likely, because China has exhibited a willingness to grant some religious freedom, but only when it doesn't feel threatened.
This excerpt from a Der Spiegel interview of Zhang Qingli, the head of the Communist Party in Tibet, demonstrates a common view within the Chinese government of the Dalai Lama's global advocacy and its true aims:
SPIEGEL: Why isn't China generous and self-confident enough to allow the Dalai Lama back into the country, as he would like? Does he still pose a threat to you?
Zhang: We have a clear policy. The door to negotiations will always be open to him, but only when he truly and comprehensively abandons his intentions to divide the motherland....and only when he openly declares to the world that he has given up claims to independence for Tibet.
SPIEGEL: Didn't he do this long ago?
Zhang: The problem is that his behavior and his statements contradict one another. He says: "I want to take a middle path and I accept that there is only one China." But in reality he has not spent a single day not trying to split the motherland.
There is no predicting the Chinese government's actions, but perhaps the prudent course for Westerners is to fully support the Dalai Lama's Middle Way proposal, and abandon (for now, at least) public calls for a Free Tibet. Public moralizing about a Free Tibet seems to only increase suspicion about the Dalai Lama's true intentions and has the unintended effect of tightening Chinese scrutiny still further.