In Response: Western Activism Helps Tibet

This post is a response to new Huffington Post blogger Harold Parmington III's Western Activism Won't Help Tibet. I have spent eight years working in the Tibetan independence movement and have blogged extensively about what has been happening in Tibet since March 10th. That said, I would like to share a response from a friend who has been involved in the Tibetan independence movement far longer than I have and whose analysis of the situation I have always respected deeply.

I am not sure exactly what makes Harold Parmington an expert on the effects that Western activism will or won't have on the Chinese government, but as producer of the Tibetan Freedom Concerts, former Chair of the Board of Students for a Free Tibet, and a Tibet activist for over 20 years, I have a few thoughts on the subject.

First, his assertion that activists have not effected China is dead wrong. The Tibet movement's actions over the last 20 years have directly resulted in political prisoner releases, they have stayed executions, and they have caused world governments to support an issue that they would not have paid attention to otherwise. This week, protests have exposed the Beijing government for exactly what it is and, in the Speaker of the House's words: 'challenged the conscience of the world.'

What Parmington doesn't fully grasp is that Tibetans inside Tibet have always and will always resist Chinese rule. Those who resist have always and will always appeal for our help. And those of us who support them have always and will always do whatever we can to help. The Tibet movement is a reality, the Tibetan people's desire for independence is not going away, and the burden -- as it is in all nations who hold occupied territory -- is on China to deal with it. There is absolutely no need or political advantage to "working within China's framework."

Parmington has joined a very small chorus of voices whose primary point (and I use the term lightly) seems to be: 'Don't bother, you're wasting your time.' History is full of these detractors and their collective ennui -- they're the same ones who told Gandhi there was no way a single man could overthrow the worlds biggest empire. They're the ones who urged 'diplomacy' with Apartheid and told Dr. King to quiet down. Well, Mr. Parmington, I'd urge you to read up on your history. Protests do work, despotic empires -- yes, even really big ones -- are toppled, and those who say 'don't bother' generally get left behind as activists shape the course of history.

Josh Schrei

Producer, Tibetan Freedom Concerts

Former Chair, Students for a Free Tibet

I would simply add that we are facing a moment where what is needed is more activism, not less; a greater sense of how to promote human rights, not a diminished drive to improve the world; and a louder call from people like Mr. Parmington III who enjoy the freedoms of thought, press, assembly, and petition that Tibetans lack, for those same rights to be realized inside Tibet and China. Only in this way can we change the world. As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Surely Mr. Parmington III would recognize that those words are just as true today as they were in 1857.

Comments

[HaroldParmingtonIII]

This shift was much greater, in fact, than the one which supposedly followed Mia and Ronan Farrow's March 2006 WSJ op-ed, which I believe only resulted in the cosmetic appointment of Liu Guijin as "special" ambassador to Darfur.

As you say, we all need "a greater sense of how to promote human rights, not a diminished drive to improve the world…" My drive to improve the world has never diminished, and when human rights are at stake, I think activists and politicians should use "greater sense" and more nuanced approaches than anti-China diatribes and the unfurling of Free Tibet banners on the Great Wall.

[HaroldParmingtonIII]

I'm glad you bring up Ms. Pelosi, as I think the recent Congressional response was indicative of the problem at hand. The U.S. could have sent to Beijing a senior Senator with no public record of anti-China rhetoric to pressure the Chinese into not giving up on talks with Tibet's exiled government­—behind-do­ors coercion is well within a Chinese framework. Instead, Congress' most vehement China critic flew immediately to Dharamshala for a photo shoot. You can applaud her conviction all you want, but her actions did not help; rather, they served only to push the Chinese further away from dialogue.

On a related note, and to serve as a parallel example, much credit has been given to Darfur activists and their success in pressuring the Chinese government (although this success is looking less impressive after repeated stalling tactics from el-Bashir). As this was an area in which I previously worked as a consultant, I could speak in much more depth on the subject than I will right now. Suffice to say that in December 2006 a senior activist and a famous celebrity came together to Beijing for a meeting at Zhongnanhai. Wisely, these two did not inform the media of the visit or its results. Despite this off-record approach, and actually because of it, their visit resulted in a high-level Chinese delegation to Sudan that initiated a major shift in China's approach, eventually leading to Sudan's acceptance of Annan's proposed hybrid force. (continued...)

[HaroldParmingtonIII]

Mr. Hanlin and Mr. Schrei,

Now that I've somehow been branded an anti-Ghandi, anti-Mandela, anti-King bigot, let me begin by thanking you for your response and a thoughtful post.

Moving quickly on, to say that the point of my post was "don't bother, you're wasting your time" either reflects extremely selective reading or intentional misrepresentation. In fact, I could not agree more with your Frederick Douglass quote; power will not concede an inch without a demand. China's position on Tibet is flawed, and clearly change must be demanded; what we disagree on is the required action that is needed to effect that change.

Activism as a whole is not a flawed approach, but it has not always proved itself superior to behind-doors dialogue—the end is what is important, not the means. China has at times shown itself to be responsive to governments that present it with real decisions—it has never been responsive to those who can simply be shrugged off within China as "China bashers." Therefore, the goal of activists working for Tibet should be to get governments involved in a useful way, not just to create PR-promoting sound bytes and photo ops.

[jdm58]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I fail to understand why anyone would want to ignore the tragedy of Tibet, unless it is to gloss over their own culpability. John Donne said it best:

"No man is an Island.
Every man is part of the continent, a piece of the main...
Any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind,
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.

BOYCOTT CHINA OLYMPICS!

[Cautious]

Excuse me, wingnut, but this is BY NO MEANS AN INTERNAL PROBLEM FOR THE CHINESE. TIBET WAS INDEPENDENT AND FREE UNTIL THE CHINESE INVADED.

And the Dalai Lama is only asking for Tibet to be an "autonomous region", not independent.

THE CHINESE INVADED TIBET TO TAKE ITS NATURAL RESOURCES, FOR ITS STRATEGIC LOCATION, AND TO PLACE ETHNIC CHINESE BECAUSE OF OVERPOPULATION.

During the invasion and early occupation, the Chinese destroyed monasteries and other extremely important cultural sites. They made monks rape nuns and kill older monks. Many were enslaved.

Modernization could have happened in Tibet without these atrocities. The Dalai Lama is still willing to coexist with the Chinese as long as the religion and culture of Tibet are respected.

This Dalai Lama won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1989, but would be imprisoned or executed in his own country.

Long live Tenzin Gyatso, and when he passes, we hope he returns soon.

[SamThornton]

Read the Parmington piece. Did seem a little daft. But here's the thing. Exactly who is "Harold Parmington III?"

Apparently, the only thing he's ever written is the one post here at HuffPo, a post which he seems to have published in a great many other places, according to Google.

The only other mention an internet search pops up is a reference to a "Harold Parmington" in a Cornell fraternity drinking song.

I think HuffPo -- and the rest of us -- have been had. I don't believe there is a "Harold Parmington III," unless it's on a list of monikers in the State Department's or CIA's Disinformation Division.

[TakeSake]

Something that might be of interest:

http://ninecommentaries.com/

[Noisemaker]

I cannot figure out why you gus are concerned about the interference of other countries' internal affairs. The Vietnam war, Iraq war, Un-sink Taiwan issue, Free Tibet Movement... all of them are bullshit. Say California, NY or WDC is seeking for independence as a new country, will the States nod?
I'm not sure what the hell for you work in the Tibetan independence movement. Have you been to Tibet to witness the dramatic and positive changes happen there? Ppl lives a good and stable life there, and the education system and medical insurance mechanism are well-developed. I will not name more on this.
Take a look at the recent riot, or the "peaceful demonstration or rally" you guys called, you may happen to spot the horrible scene caused by the robbery, arson and killing in the daylight by the Tibet independence advocator. Is this the peace you want to show to me? Even if you don't shed a tear to those victoms, you may think twice before you say sth or do sth.

[radlib1]

Surely you jest, Noisemaker. Do you really think the Tibetan people are "happy subjects" of the totalitarian Chinese government? Any more than our forefathers wanted to be abject subjects of King George III of England?

People everywhere have the right to demonstrate and, yes, "fight" for independence. Otherwise, you surrender your body and soul to "Big Brother."