A recent article in the Economist rallied against the West for trying to support Tibet's ideas of freedom, while simultaneously trying to foster positive relationships with China, the villain of democracy. The writer of the Banyan article was not far off the mark, but for markedly different reasons than he supposed.
Nestled in the Himalayas, this autonomous region is the highest habitable plateau in the world. Since the 7th century, power in the country was transferred from kings and fiefs, to local lords, creating a vassal state synonymous with Medieval Europe. Representing much of Buddhist culture, this area was often ignored by the bigger powers and for centuries lived in relative isolation from the outside world. Incidentally, China was not the first country to take interest in the area, but why aren't we more surprised when we hear it was Great Britain? Her Royal Highness Victoria Hanover had her sights set high after conquering India, and the intentions of bordering Afghanistan, China, and the Russian Empire were unclear. She preempted them by sending a military expedition into the region, which resulted in Tibetan deaths and the discovery of a country with few resources of importance to Europe. Displeased with the result, Britain backed out and made a treaty with China, basically allowing China unfettered access to the region without interference from British India.
The rest of Chinese-Tibetan history is well known and bears little in repeating. Between the 1959 Tibetan uprising and the brutal Cultural Revolution imposed on not only Tibet but all of China, the region has suffered greatly, with the Western world being the loudest protesters. We spout rhetoric about intolerance and destroying a sacred culture, but are we missing the larger picture?
The crushing of a culture in the attempts for expansion is not a novel idea in history. If manifest destiny means anything to anyone, the first to raise their hands should be America. The Americans tramped their way across their country, killing Native Americans, taking their land, indoctrinating their children, and essentially extinguishing a culture present for over a millennium. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Yet now days, while monetary compensation has been offered and amends have been made, few are loathe to think that America or the Native Americans would have been better off without the advancements of modern medicine, technology, and education that expansionism brought with it. Similarly, China's enforcement of its political will on Tibet is unfortunate, but with it brought the modern world to Tibet, a place still stuck in the middle ages until the 1900's. Comparatively, China has allowed Tibetans to remain in their native region, keep much of the daily culture, language, and way of life. The Native Americans got small pox blankets and forceful removal from their land. No one agrees that subjugation is right, but in terms of quality of life, the Native Americans got the raw deal.
Furthermore, by focusing on Tibet, the Western world forgets that there are others put through the same repression: the Chinese people. Such a narrow focus on Tibet, on the part of celebrities like Richard Gere and Goldie Hawn, as well as many governments, shapes much of foreign policy and international relations. By using Tibet as an excuse to foster bad relations, nothing changes and China continues to have an iron fist. In reality the real human rights crisis is present in every part of the country, not just Tibet, with freedoms being squelched at every turn. The international community needs to broaden their scope or they will miss the opportunity to improve the Chinese political system and create a Free Tibet.
What has happened to Tibet is now a century old, and sitting in the dredges of the past won't establish a happier future. The sole way for the West to create a fairy tale story for Tibet is to create a democratic China, not an impossibility with the increasing financial freedom seen in the economic sector. Only with a Communist-free China will a Communist-free Tibet exist as well.
"Banyan: Going Gaga over Tibet | The Economist." The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Sept. 2010.
