04-22-2008

HOW EUROPE CAN VICTIMIZE THE TIBETANS

Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, is author of "The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East."

By Kishore Mahbubani

SINGAPORE -- Every European who picks up his newspaper to read the latest episode on Western protests against the Chinese Olympics torch relay will happily assume that the West is only pursuing a moral cause in helping the Tibetan people. What could be more moral than helping a weak people gain independence from an oppressive Chinese government? The real tragedy here is that the biggest victims of this European posturing will be the people of Tibet. They will suffer the most if a virulent new Chinese nationalism is created in response.

The Western tale on Tibet is a simple black-and-white moralistic tale. The West is only trying to protect the human rights of the innocent Tibetans who have recently lost their independence to the oppressive Communist government of China. Hence, the cry “Free Tibet” has a lot of resonance in the West. The European leaders are only responding to a deep moral urge when they decide to boycott the Olympics opening ceremony. Solidarity with the oppressed has been a hallmark of the West, although no Western country challenges China’s sovereignty over Tibet. 

Try stepping into the Chinese minds to understand how different the same events look. Chinese history has records that show that China’s dominion over Tibet goes as far back as the 13th century. Chinese control has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but this is equally true of many other parts of China. Central control by the capital has never been consistent. The inconsistency of the Chinese rule over Tibet mirrors the inconsistency of a strong centralized government in China. However, China has been in control of most of its territories longer than the West has.

More importantly, the Chinese recall vividly that the latest efforts to separate Tibet from China came as recently as the 1940s and 1950s when British and CIA agents were seen to be encouraging Tibetan independence when China was still weak. The Chinese have powerful memories of British perfidy, having once been forced by the British to accept opium as payment for Chinese tea. The Opium War, when Hong Kong was also seized by Britain, is a distant or forgotten memory in Western minds. This humiliating chapter in Chinese history remains a fresh wound in the Chinese psyche. When the West is seen to be trying to detach Chinese territory again, it is perceived to be rubbing salt into this fresh wound. Virtually no Chinese believe that the Western governments are only pursuing a moral course in helping Tibetans. They are convinced that these are only the latest efforts to dismember or derail China.

Is Chinese cynicism of Western human rights campaigns justified? To understand it, look at recent history through Chinese eyes. The West, led by Nixon and Kissinger, first fell in love with China when China was barely recovering from the Cultural Revolution, one of the most painful chapters of human rights violations in recent Chinese history. Human rights were barely mentioned by the West then. By contrast, in the 1990s, when the Chinese were experiencing the best quality of life they had experienced in centuries, the West focused on China’s human rights deficiencies. Western interests, not Chinese human rights conditions, drive Western policies toward China.

But this is not the only reason for Chinese cynicism. They know exactly what happens when European leaders visit Beijing. Virtually all of them spend most of their time trying to sell European products to China. Then, in passing, they will whisper that they have to mention human rights issues because when they return home, they have to say that these issues were raised. The Chinese leaders were sent a clear message: This is a Western ritual; please do not pay too much attention to it. The lions of human rights in European capitals behave like poodles in Beijing. Given this record, it is not surprising that Chinese leaders have little respect for European leaders when they make grand gestures on human rights in front of their domestic audiences.

The tragedy here is that the real victims of this European posturing will be the Tibetans. So far, even though the Chinese record of rule over Tibet is less than perfect, the Chinese leaders have tried to preserve autonomy for Tibet. Indeed, in theory there is no fundamental disagreement between the position of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. The Dalai Lama is advocating autonomy, not independence. The Chinese government also believes in autonomy. The official Chinese government policy paper on Tibet says that it “regards exercise of regional ethnic autonomy in areas where ethnic minorities live in compact communities as a basic policy for solving the ethnic issue.”

Given this common approach, the West should try to narrow, not widen, the gulf between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. Only quiet diplomacy can achieve this. Grandstanding by Western leaders against China will only lead to the emergence of a more virulent Chinese nationalism. If and when it does, the Tibetans will be among the first to suffer. They will experience less, not more, autonomy in such a China. This is the price the Tibetans could pay for European political posturing.

© GLOBAL VIEWPOINT
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC. (4/22/08)