Ling Jie Wang,

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

We have published this piece by Wenran Jiang that puts very clearly, I think, the Chinese perspective.

I am no defender of feudalism or sacerdocy. I agree that literacy and greater life expectancy and many other aspects of modernity are great enhancers of human flourishing.

But I think that the history of nations and peoples, especially of the last 200 years, shows that these measures of the good life, rooted in the individual, do not add up to a coherent society. The modern view of man---the only one that stands up today---is one based on self-creation. Society must make rules it ends up considering to be its own. Without this, all the material enhancers of human realisation are useless. 75 years of de-colonisation has taught Britain and Europe this lesson, and it was painful for the colonisers and colonised.

If China does not have the legitimacy amongst Tibetans to share with them the path to the modern self-creation of Tibet, then I would hope that China would discover the wisdom to go about earning that legitimacy. It is wrong to think that legitimacy can be bought with literacy and life-expectancy.

Tony

Lingjie,

I did not mean legitimacy in a legal sense - I meant the beliefs, habits and dispositions which make the particular rule of a government generally acceptable to a group. So, to take another example from the United Kingdom, it seems to me that Westminster lost all legitimacy to rule Scotland during the 1980s, and gradual move of Scotland away from Westminster, possibly to full independence, now seems inevitable. London had "ruled" Scotland for centuries, and there was no sense of any UN claim to Scottish independence ... but the pre-legal quality of legitimacy has been lost. Neither duration nor transfers of material goods need have much to do with this.

Does China possess this kind of legitimacy in Tibet? Of course, my sources are largely secondary. Since you mention the anecdotal experience that a visitor might have, the very enjoyable months I spent in Szechuan in the early 1990's did reveal what I took to be the generally dismissive attitude of my Chinese hosts to the "primitive" rural Tibetans who would come to sell their folkloric wares on the streets of Chongqing ... But this is just anecdote. The secondary sources, referenced here and here and here and especially here (Robert Barnett, the author, is approvingly quoted by your own link's author, above)are just that. Forming a judgment as a responsible global citizen is an important and difficult matter. I wonder what further research you would point to apart from the PBS forum? I know that probably wouldn't settle anything between us, but I am just as interested in where your beliefs on this matter come from as you are in the origin of mine.

You ask me not to judge one system by the experiences of another. Actually, although it is no simple thing to do, I think this is exactly what we must do. We seem to both agree on the universality of rights and, at some level, a common humanity that can flourish and realise itself. If, beyond all cultural difference, there is a bedrock of commonality, then there is a basis for comparison. I think we agree on this - so you can argue that my judgment is incorrect, but you should not ask, as you have in the title of your post, that I not judge comparatively. Common humanity allows a basis of comparison, both in facts and values.

Given the problem of judgment in these sorts of circumstances, it would silence many critics if the Chinese political system---and its administration of autonomous areas---were a little more open. Wouldn't it be good to be able to point to an elected Tibetan assembly that supported the "Beijing-way" with economic modernisation and cultural policy? Or if not that, then at least to some deliberative polling and focus-group exercises conducted in a transparent and rigorous way. Any of these would certainly provide a credible alternative to the Dalai Lama's speaking for the interests of Tibet. Maybe we can agree on the desirability of any of these alternatives to the current status quo?

Tony

I am not sure what you mean by 'legitimacy' here. If you are questioning the legitimacy of China's sovereignty over Tibet, maybe you should write to the UN instead.

I totally agree with you on the higher levels of human rights i.e. stand up as a fully realized individual and society. In fact there are ample evidence of that in Tibet among common people, if you do some research. Tibet is a autonomous region in China, with Tibetan people (note, not the elites of monks anymore) taking part in every aspects of daily management and decision making of their society, culture and lifestyle. Tibetan culture are among one of the most celebrated and popular culture among all Chinese people. Tibetan religion, jewellery, constumes, music, food are all very well respected throughout the country. If you ever visited China, you would be surprised not to see Tibetan style jewellery are high fashion on street, and popular songs on Tibet and Tibetan culture everywhere.

China not only has legitimacy among Tibetan people (note, not some of the Monks!), but also respected and celebrated their culture and identity and will always do so in future. China is a big country with 56 ethnic minorities and has always been so. I am sure we know what makes all these beautiful cultures work together to make a very culturally rich country.

In addition, Tibet has been one ethnic minority group and therefore autonomous region in China for over 800 years. I have no idea what you mean by Colony here...

By the way, I am a Chinese living and working in the UK for over 8 years being paid by a British company.

Lingjie

I am glad that your analogy of Tibet now shifted from British colonies to Scotland. :)

The key to the Tibet and Olympics situation is to make a difference between Chinese government and Chinese people, between previous Tibetan rulling Monks and Tibetan people. No one is denying the fact that Chinese govenrment has a lot to do to improve, and China as a country has a lot of problems. But this is the case everywhere for every country. And I would agree with you on your argument that the Olympics iteself is now over commercialized.

But the fact that western media compare China with Nazi Germany, use Tibet situation to challenge Chinese govenrment by boycotting the Olympics is WRONG! The fact that western media fabricating the 3.14 riot in Tibet, and slandering Chinese torch guards as 'thugs' are totaly unacceptable and unprofessional!

Good faithed discussions are always welcome, but vicious slanding of China as a country or Chinese people as individuals through fabricated reporting should not be disguised under 'freedom of speech'!

I like the fact that the British people are not all nerrow-minded and ignorant. And I am glad to see that during and after this media farce, a lot of people do care about what really went on in Tibet. At least we all now know a bit more about Tibet.

Lingjie,

Before we wrap this up in a warm glow of good intentions to all of us wish (even work) for a better world, I would like to pick up on the specifics. Robert Barnett writes in his article here that:

"Major
grievances include:
* elaborate restrictions on religion
* an undisguised encouragement of Chinese migration to Tibetan towns
* the ban on criticism of most Communist Party policies
* the imposition of ethnic Chinese leaders to run the region
* the forced settlement of 100,000 nomads without prospect of future livelihood
* the obligatory moving of 250,000 farmers in 2006 from their villages to new houses along major roads, often largely at their own expense."

The Wall Street Journal article referenced seems to me to be an interesting piece of reporting - it makes a point about the situation that is much more based on class divisions in Tibet than ethnic divisions (though both play a part and are reinforcing, it claims). For example, it claims: "The rioting also reveals a deep split between everyday Tibetans and the Tibetan elite who cooperate with the Chinese state to rule the region." It describes the support that a whole group of Tibetans do give to Beijing.

I would be fascinated to hear from you what you think of that WSJ article and of Robert Barnett's points above.

This is not about finger-pointing (Britain's recent history has much that is inglorious, including its involvement in Ireland and its more recent military support of a regime that flouts human rights law), and certainly not about a general slander on the Chinese people. This about holding a State to account.

Is the Chinese State behaving in China's interest in Tibet? I imagine not. What I found very interesting in
George Fitzherbert's piece is the way it describes the emergence, today, of a pan-Tibetan sense of identity. It is as if the Chinese State is creating the identity that it may very well be tempted to later put down with violence - quite possibly because of the violence of protesters, as happened on 14.3.

That road cannot be in China's own considered, long term interest. This is what I was trying to say when I suggested in my original post that the flame is a trial by fire that the Chinese State can pass. If the symbolic acts on the flame's travel around the world could pressure the Chinese State to accommodation---policies that recognise the resentments created by the list of grievances given by Robert Barnett---then the protests will have helped the national Chinese interest to emerge. So, if the support for the protests is phrased like this, do you still feel so opposed to them? All States, I would venture, need to be held to account if they are to exercise power well.

Tony

Hi,

I would like to reply to Robert's points. Most data I got is translated from some Chinese sources.

* elaborate restrictions on religion

Yes. There is at least explicit restrictions to the Tibetan officials regarding their religion. And I was also astonished to hear the comment from the governor of Tibet province regarding religion. I could tell how lacking of knowledge of religion within the Chinese Communist Party.

Let's put it in such perspective, the ruling ideology and party in China is still communism. Although they will let market economy go inside China, they would still regard atheism is the truth. Thus, their aim is pushing their ideology to eliminate religion. In Tibet, especially after 80s and 1989's riot, there were much restoration work for the temples and most people's religious activities were not restricted. But there is observation that "due to the polices in the temple, worship has been in a hurry and some of religious festivals have disappeared."

* an undisguised encouragement of Chinese migration to Tibetan towns

Yes. When tourism is being developed in Tibet, there have been a lot of Han (Chinese refers to a multi-racial country not Han alone)-people moving to Lhasa.
The context is the living condition in Tibet is still bad, which is a natural barrier preventing people from moving in. There is a accompanying decrease of Han in non-town areas. The towns in Tibet is few and occupy very less land in total. The encouragement of immigration is mostly economical driven. There is another an official programme of getting officials and professional (usually medical) for Tibet from rest of China, which is usually temporary and has faced sharp downward trend before 2000 when economics in China booms.
If you ask me to live in Tibet, I would more likely to reject as the average age is still 60 something.

* the ban on criticism of most Communist Party policies
Yes. But who can help in current Internet-age.

* the imposition of ethnic Chinese leaders to run the region
Yes. But most members of the TAR government is Tibetans, the reason is similar to 2).

* the forced settlement of 100,000 nomads without prospect of future livelihood
* the obligatory moving of 250,000 farmers in 2006 from their villages to new houses along major roads, often largely at their own expense.

I need more details of these two points.

In essence, Wan jiren's article may explain the intention. The central government still puts big budget for Tibet that average 5000 RMB is being spent on every Tibetan, half of their annual GDP per capital and the same of Guizhou, another province, where they don't get that much from central government. One shall not undermine the efforts of Chinese government's efforts in economic growth and lifting living conditions.

Thanks leafyoung for adding a third voice here. Tony, in response to your comments, I did not say people can not protest. In face, I am pro rights to protest. But I am against Terrorism (e.g 3.14 riot in Tibet), and terrorist style reporting on China (ample evidence on-line on what has been fabricated about Chinese police in Tibet).

The questions you raised about Tibet are problems that needs to be looked into. However, they should not be the reasons for boycottig the Olympics. China is still a DEVELOPING country, you can not expect China to solve all the existing problems in a short time. In fact, we have to acknowledge that China has improved a lot, and still improving.

In addition, I would like to share with you some of the research I did over the weekend. Let's all learn abit more about the Dalai Lama and Tibet.

Peace-seeking Dalai Lama? (Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5sOm-uQH9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aboblx-0zAs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1dILwsmwCQ&feature=related

Dalai "Da-Lie" Lama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8FMNtTw24o

What do the protestors know about Tibet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ17W0M9K7Q

Free Tibet: A utopian Shangri-La before 1959!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMftf_N62Go&NR=1