I know this is not going to an immediately well-received diary. But after thinking about the issue for a week, I decided to talk about the need for nuance on Tibet, and how this relates to the speech by Obama. I lived in China for five years. I have never been to Lhasa , but I have been to Tibetan regions of Yunnan and Gansu. I studied minority issues in China both in the US and in China. My own observations about the Tibetan crisis are different from both that in the Chinese state media and in the Western media. Analysis below the fold.
The speech by Obama was aimed at America, but a major ethnic clash is occurring between Tibetans and Han Chinese today. And while much of the narrative at DKos has been about Tibetans vs. the Chinese government, I believe the real issue is about the relationship between Tibetans and Han Chinese (the ethnic group representing 90% of China). Accordingly, the goal of progressives should not be simply about justice for Tibetans, but also about consciousness among Han Chinese. The acts of the Chinese government are not removed from the people of China. If we don’t consider how our views and our acts influence the wider Han Chinese population, then while the means of fighting for Tibetan rights are good, the ends may be worse. The real goal for progressives should be towards greater understandings between Han and Tibetans.
A New York Times Op-Ed piece finally has added some nuance to the debate. And I am glad they did.
A lot of the discussion on Tibet has been clouded by romance, as the great Journalism scholar Orville Schell has written about in "Virtual Tibet" . The reality in Tibet is that China has occupied it since the 1950s, and its impact is as clear as the occupation of North America by Europeans. Conservative estimates are that Lhassa is 1/5 Han Chinese. Meanwhile sizable minorities of Tibetans live in Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan and Sichuan. A train now directly links most of Mainland China from Tibet. Many of the protests among Tibetans were in these Tibetan-minority areas. They were not seeking independence. They were seeking better treatment in China.
The Chinese media has been trying to portray this as a protest for independence. They want this, as they will never allow such an event to occur. Much of the Communist Party’s legitimacy is based on nationalism, as few Chinese share a Communist ideology or a perception that the Communist Party is communist. The government-controlled news media has been pushing a narrative for many years that the government has been helping the Tibetans, even disproportionately. They point to an affirmative action in education, major funds directed to Tibetan development, and more recently, a major train route. Many Han Chinese I have talked to are mystified about Tibetans complaining. In fact, in older generations of Han Chinese, they often privately say that the government is overly positive in its treatment towards Tibetans and at the cost of Han Chinese. I speculate that these positions are even stronger in regions near Tibetans where the economies have lagged beyond the booming East Coast areas of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, etc. In this case, frustrations about economic conditions can be aimed at minorities in China, just as they are in the US.
Younger generations of Han Chinese are more likely to get information from outside of China through the Internet (much easier than the government thinks). They are more likely to want to travel to Tibet. They are less likely to believe government-controlled media. And they have a growing fascination with understanding the cultures of minorities. But they are also quick to turn nationalistic when they feel that a national identity is threatened. A good example of this is a growing Facebook group called "Tibet WAS,IS,and ALWAYS WILL BE a part of China" . This group includes Han Chinese located in China and overseas, where there is no restriction on access to media. Private conversations with Han Chinese in the US show that much of their beliefs are in reaction to the Western media.
This is unfortunate. And this suggests that a nuanced position from the US directed at Han Chinese consciousness about the Tibetan cause would have better effects. Instead, the Chinese government is in a position where the popular will is to go hard on the protestors. Moreover, any capitulation on Sudan is a position of weakness. What we need instead is for the popular will in China to be better treatment of Tibetans and a higher moral authority on Sudan. This is possible. And even though China isn’t a democracy, nothing can be done in China if the wider populace is strongly opposed, because authority in China is fragile.
The protests in Tibet and in other Tibetan areas are based on legitimate concerns and are not radical attempts for separatism. In fact, the Dalai Lama himself has not asked for independence since the early 1980s. The reality is that despite the government’s official policy of "helping Tibetans", the reality is that Tibetans are second-class citizens in their own homeland. They have low positions in government, even in Tibet. They are economically much more impoverished than Han Chinese. They want better conditions. They are a deeply religious society and want full religious autonomy and freedom of religious expression. They don’t want to be separated from the Dalai Lama.
A growing consciousness among Han Chinese can help put pressure on the government to act in a way that helps Tibetans. A feeling of threatened national sovereignty will put pressure on the government to do the opposite. Obama’s speech talked about moving beyond divisions. And I hope this can happen there, too.