Pavela: No easy answers in Tibet

Two weeks ago, I knew I had hit upon a sensitive topic for many at the university when I received more than 10 e-mails regarding a column I wrote about the riots that had taken place in Tibet. A strong reaction was again on display after Max Greenberg published his cartoon lampooning the symbol for the Beijing Olympic Games last Wednesday. For the benefit of my readers, let me point out that views expressed in The Diamondback are in no way representative of the university (it is an independent newspaper), the state of Maryland and, in the case of the Opinion page, Diamondback editors. As an advocate of an open dialogue, I would rather err on the side of caution and see a potentially insulting piece published then stifle an important discussion. Why is candid discussion so important? It allows individuals and cultures to learn and adapt. In this regard, true friends are more than flatterers; they also respectfully question and challenge. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a scholarly response from the Chinese Student and Scholar Association, which instead chose to ask for an unwarranted apology from Mr. Greenberg and his editors.

My last column addressed the internal Chinese reaction to the events in Tibet and the potential diplomatic course the United States ought to navigate in response. Since that time, the recent protests surrounding the torch relay for the Olympic Games have highlighted a growing rift between Chinese and Western perceptions of the Tibet problem. In various ways, both camps have been distorting facts in order to present their case. A dangerous feedback loop has developed, with the Chinese media increasingly portraying Western countries as out to get China, and Westerners becoming bolder in protesting and criticizing Chinese rule of Tibet.

The Chinese perception is that the protests are an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of their country. Based on the reactions from the youths I've spoken with in Beijing, their nationalistic fervor has never been hotter. Shamefully, many news outlets and individuals were simply slinging mud. Naturally, the Chinese media seized upon such examples as a German television station confusing Nepalese policemen with Chinese policemen (they have different uniforms). One young man protesting in Paris, upon being interviewed by a Chinese journalist, could not place Tibet on a map. These individuals succeed only in demonstrating their own fatuity. Of course, China is partly to blame for such fiascoes, as Beijing does not allow proper journalistic access to Tibet - a sure way to ensure more misunderstandings and errors in the future.

However, the ignorance on the part of some Westerners does not give China license to ignore legitimate criticism. The most common response from the casual Chinese citizen I speak to is that, "Tibet has always been a part of China." While not only wrong, this sort of statement is glossing over a historically complex and nuanced relationship. Prior to the 13th century, Tibet was indisputably independent from China. It is true that for large parts of modern Tibetan history, Tibet was subject to Chinese rule. However, it was left to itself during the Ming dynasty and again during the brief reign of the Nationalists. Chinese rule was reestablished when the Communists sucessfully invaded in 1951.

There is a fundamentally flawed perception among Han Chinese that the Tibetan minority and the Uyghur population are both, by their nature, included in the Chinese identity. The idea of "zhong hua min zu," which forges a Chinese identity that includes ethnic minorities, was originally developed by Yuan Shikai around 1913. It is a 20th century nationalistic concept. As such, applying it to history that predates it is intellectually dishonest. No Tibetan or Uyghur was present when these thinkers were sowing the seeds of modern Chinese nationalism. It's not an unreasonable assertion that the majority of Tibetans circa 1951 did not consider themselves Chinese.

For pragmatic reasons, I don't think independence is the solution to Tibet's problems, a conclusion the Dalai Lama has also reached. Any reasoned appraisal of Tibet today shows independence is not an attainable goal. If Western countries continue to pursue it, given the reactions from mainstream Chinese, it can only result in more loss of life on the part of Tibetans. Western countries can and ought to fight for improvement of human rights in all of China, not just Tibet. If, through dialogue, Tibetan culture and religious practices can be protected and practiced freely, then protesters and leaders in Western countries will have achieved something meaningful.

Hunter Pavela is a senior Chinese and philosophy major currently studying abroad in Beijing. He can be reached at hpavela@umd.edu.