Events of the past two weeks in Tibet have highlighted an unsuccessful Western approach to effecting change in China. In the aftermath of recent protests in Lhasa, both the Chinese government and the West have responded in typical fashion: an ill-advised media blackout from China and knee-jerk condemnation from the West.
Protests followed by military crackdowns are rapidly, and unfortunately, becoming par for the Chinese course, although they usually remain under the radar of Western media. However, Tibetan independence is an issue that attracts a much broader and more vocal global audience than migrant workers striking for broader labor rights or farmers protesting for broader land rights.
In the almost two decades since the June 4 Tiananmen massacre, China has learned to handle public protest in a more internationally-acceptable fashion, and on-the-ground reports indicate that, from a security standpoint at least, the Chinese government handled this situation as well as could be expected. In China, there has been wide support for the government response. This was not the case after Tiananmen, and therefore should not be seen as a simple propaganda-inspired reaction.
Even recent concern among intellectuals regarding China's Tibet policy of the last 49 years has not focused on the recent crackdown. In fact, among these intellectuals, the major complaints revolve around press control. China's developing media environment is a topic that deserves significant attention, and it is one that I will hold off on until a subsequent another post. Still, it is clear that China's media blackout has eliminated its credibility, leading to deserved condemnation.
(This condemnation exists even in China's domestic blogosphere, although the majority of commentators simply condemn Tibetan behavior and wonder why everyone can't just get along. From one cynical post: "When I heard about what was going on in Tibet, I immediately went to Sina.com and saw several related links--when did speech become free?! A while later, some of the links led to blank pages, and then all of the links started to disappear. My shock subsided...")
The blackout from the Chinese side clearly limited Western reporting, but it does not fully pardon Western media's poor coverage, including the attribution of violent photos of Nepal to Tibet (I realize that this links to an article from China's government-controlled China Daily, which of course raises questions of legitimacy, but I challenge readers to find factual fault with any of the claims presented).
It is worth analyzing briefly the background for Western media's quick jump to conclusions and potential bias.
Tibetans, particularly the Dalai Lama and his exiled government in Dharamshala, have proved themselves skilled PR players, vastly superior to the Chinese government. Especially since the mid 1980s, they have successfully courted international media and NGOs with access to governments and policy-makers.
The efficacy of Tibet's media and entertainment campaign is readily apparent, as Tibet has developed a unique place in Western thought. China, in the past half century, has shifted from an ideological communist paragon for left-wing Americans to an immoral pariah universally condemned by Western populaces (albeit loved by Western businesses). China can wax eloquent all it wants about a desire to have a "win-win" situation result from its "peaceful rise," but the West perceives a zero sum game in which praise of utopian Tibet rises inversely against positive perceptions of mainland China.
As a result, public opinion has quickly soured on China as attention has zeroed in on Tibet. Two polls in France earlier this week showed that more than half of respondents want France to boycott the Beijing Olympics. Sarkozy followed with a direct threat on Tuesday. The American blogosphere is now full of diatribes against the Chinese government and people, many of which come across as unsubstantiated vitriol, if not downright racism.
The disproportionate attention lavished upon the Tibetan government in exile leads those remaining inside Tibet to feel a false sense of hope that the West will support their efforts. Therefore, the West's fascination with Tibet that has been so evident in the past two weeks should not be seen as a result of the protests, but rather as a major impetus behind them.
So far, these hopes have been for naught. Tibetans have gained no rights in the past three decades of Western enthrallment. Patrick French, previously head of the Free Tibet Campaign in London, summed it up in a recent NYT op-ed: "It has been clear since the mid-1990s that the popular internationalization of the Tibet issue has had no positive effect on the Beijing government." Even artists (and I use the term lightly) behind such gems as "So What'Cha Want" (Beastie Boys) and "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory" (the eternally relevant Steven Seagal) simply have not convinced the Chinese government to change its approach.
And this is really the crux of the matter. From Taiwan to Sudan and IPR enforcement to currency revaluation, the West has consistently demonstrated an inability to confront China on terms that either the Communist Party or the general Chinese public find persuasive. While the West generally holds the moral high-ground in these arguments, treating China as a despotic regime that responds only to threats has proved an entirely ineffective strategy, and one that will have to change if the U.S. hopes to successfully create a "responsible stakeholder" out of the world's second greatest power.
China has no intention of giving up its territorial claims to Tibet. The Chinese public would never support Tibet independence; even the Dalai Lama acknowledges that this is the case. What should be strived for instead is a form of autonomy that allows for full cultural and religious freedom.
(The romanticization of Tibet may go back at least a century in the West, but as China has removed 300 million people from poverty in less than 30 years, it has become difficult for average citizens to view a culture that condemns material advancement in a positive light. The U.S. invasion of Iraq has added grist to the mill, leading Chinese to question American motives. One Chinese friend wrote in an email from Beijing last week: "If Tibet really splits off from China, do you really think it would become an 'independent' nation? It wouldn't just be taken and 'protected' by one of the world's major powers?")
There is absolutely no indication that recent events will help ameliorate the situation in Tibet. China has no choice now but to maintain a larger presence; talks with the Dalai Lama are indefinitely put on hold; there is greater trepidation about allowing Western media access; and a successful Olympics "coming-out party" has been placed in a much more precarious position.
This recent resurgence of the Tibet independence movement is not over. The torch will still pass through Tibet on its way to Mt. Everest in May. Tibetans and Western activists will use this international press coverage to their advantage, and China will have to tread a thin line between allowing protests to disrupt the torch relay and publicly deploying an overwhelming security presence; either route will lead to international embarrassment.
This is not be a pleasant prospect. China is too big and diplomatically powerful in the developing world to simply cave to Western pressure, and a failed Olympics will lead to increased isolation from the West; in other words, if the Olympics fail, this will be a disaster not just for China, but for the future of global diplomatic and economic relations.
Clearly, China has to work on creating a free press and improving its approach to Tibet. But the West, too, has to rethink its approach to China. If the West truly wants to help Tibetans, then activists, media, and governments must start to rethink their rhetoric and try to work within China's framework: respectful dialogue behind closed doors. This sounds like a cop out, but it is truly the best, and only, effective strategy. False hope should not be given to Tibetans on the ground, and activists should consider the harm they are causing as they comfortably ride their moral high horses in the West.
Loading comments…
Posted March 28, 2008 | 12:21 PM (EST)