Tibetan solidarity

From the comments on my Tibet post, this seems absolutely brilliant:

A far better approach would be if the athletes themselves engaged in all manner of subversive tactics. I've heard it suggested that the athletes shave their heads in solidarity with Tibetan monks. Can you imagine the apoplectic fits the Chinese would go into if wave after wave of athlete representing various nations entered the arean with shaved heads? What if there was some symbol for Tibet the athletes wore on the medal podium? What if during press conferences, the athletes consciously mentioned the plight of Tibet? The possibilities for mischief are endless.

Comments

This is a great idea, except many of the best athletes are now completely professional...and this is their big pay day. You might be able to get some of the more "in it for the joy of the sport" types to show some sort of support to Tibet; I doubt you will get the Michael Phelps' and the NBA players on Dream Team XI to forgo their first and last big pay day in four years for it. Especially when doing so would tick off the largest potential market in the world. I'm guessing a lot of sponsors have language written into their contracts with these athletes making it essentially illegal for them to do something like this...

Posted by Lucas | March 21, 2008 4:08 PM

Lucas,
it would be lovely to see free-tibet freaks put their money where their mouth is, but I am afraid they'll be able to engage this particular political exhibitionism without risking any harm to their careers.

Posted by Jolly Inquisition | March 21, 2008 4:26 PM

I wonder if we get lost sometimes in the round benign face of the Dali Lama, a

I mean, what we are saying is that China, with its authoritarian ways, needs to get out of Tibet so that the Tibetans can be happy under a theocratic leadership?

And as much as we like to assume otherwise, are not humans essentially human, where we can assume that those monks are as politically competitive and power hungry as anyone else?

What plans are the monks putting forward that show them as even remotely democratic? What leadership are they taking to transform or modernize THEIR society? I mean, the robes, just awesome, but, what else?

The athletes should just be athletic and not be compelled (via peer pressure) to display any opinion about China and Tibet at all.

Posted by Finn | March 21, 2008 4:35 PM

Just realized that the NBA players on dream team XXIV probably don't have to worry about the money they would lose from sponsors just for these Olympics. I blame the hangover while at work.

I do remember Lebron James not signing some petition against the leadership of China over Tibet several years ago, and I think Nike actually had something to do with him not signing it.

Posted by Lucas | March 21, 2008 4:42 PM

Finn,
sounds like you didn't wholeheartedly support brave Mujahedins fighting evil empire either.
Didn't you, now? Didn't you?

Posted by Jolly Inquisition | March 21, 2008 4:43 PM

It'd be nice to get some cultural context for what Tibetan monks actually are. Are they peace-loving Hare Krishna-types or are they actually politically involved and non-pacifist? Are they monks like we in the West think of monks?

I challenge anyone in my hatred for the PRC leadership, but I suspect there's more to the story.

Posted by Klug | March 21, 2008 4:49 PM

Precedent: two athletes were expelled from the Olympic Village after giving the black power salute during a medal ceremony in the 1968 Olympics. Here's the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute

Also, inducing apoplexy among Chinese leaders is a roll of the dice: it might just as well cause a backlash against openness as a lash against oppression. And how sympathetic are ordinary Chinese to Tibetans -- as sympathetic as American citizens were to Injuns, back when? I don't know: is there reporting on the subject? A nationalist backlash wouldn't be out of the question. People generally don't like foreigners telling them their sh*!.

Progress is very long.

Posted by Parasite | March 21, 2008 5:38 PM

The Olympic charter (Rule 51 (3)) says: "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas." Not sure if that would cover shaved heads without an accompanying overt comment from the athlete.

Anyhow, shaved heads are simply so much cooler in summer, after all (nudge nudge, wink wink).

Posted by Kathryn | March 21, 2008 5:38 PM

The Dalai Lama is well respected and a 'peace-loving' type. And how could anyone argue that it's more appropriate for Chinese Communist Party officials to choose the Panchen Lama? They've kept both of those poor boys - the Panchen Lama chosen by the Tibetan Bhuddists themselves and the one chosen by the Communist Party - held prisoner for all these years, so who knows what either is like? If you were raised under house arrest and taught your religion by atheist communist party officials, what would you be like?

We have no proof that Tibetans would do a great job if they were allowed self-rule or at least given the rights already 'guaranteed' in China's constituion (including freedom of religion), but we do know the track record of the CCP, and it's pretty darn bad, even with its own people (as opposed to the non-Han Chinese living in occupied territories).

I'd love to see the athletes shave their heads.

Posted by Ann | March 21, 2008 6:39 PM

Ann:

The CCP has a growing reputation for efficiency in ruling the country in the Western media. Do you think that's just an illusion or are they actually getting better? (low floor?)

Posted by Klug | March 21, 2008 8:43 PM

Klug - I get what you're saying. Tibetan Buddhism, as well as I understand it, isn't consonant with the Mahayana Buddhism that the West is familiar with much less "monks" as the west knows them.

While I think a lot of what China does is horrific, we don't get an even view in the US. Falun Gong, for instance, seems for all the world like a dangerous cult, which is never mentioned in the US media. When I lived in China my Chinese friends talked about how one Falun Gong member was ordered to kill a beggar as part of their initiation (it had been a widely read news story, apparently.) Perhaps it was just government propaganda though. It's hard to tell.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dalai-lama-to-resign-if-violence-worsens/20080316105109990001

Posted by Ryan W. | March 21, 2008 10:18 PM

Ryan:

I agree with you on Falun Gong. They seem like one of those weird groups that'd be ignored here; the CCP doesn't understand 'leaving well enough alone', much like Asian parents.

Nevertheless (and no offense), I tend to discount stories that I hear from Chinese nationals. The Chinese discovered urban legends long before they were cool. The Falun Gong story I heard was about people who jumped from buildings because they could fly.

Posted by Klug | March 21, 2008 11:26 PM

Klug -

First, I think that the Western media is hopelessly naive on China. I was living in Hong Kong in the 1990s and was surprised at how easy it was for China to put at rest any human rights concerns, at least temporarily. When the Olympic committee was visiting Beijing, for example, China would take a few political prisoners who had served, say, 17 years of their 18 year sentence, and let them out early. The Western media would be thrilled at how China had changed. Later we'd hear how those people had vanished or were under house arrest or had been quietly arrested again, but it never made it to the Western media, who had moved on to the next story.

In terms of business, there were practically no Western companies making money on their China operations throughout the 1990s (that is, trying to operate there as opposed to manufacturing things to export), yet the business people were wildly optimistic. They followed Gordon Wu into China but never looked at his carefully constructed contracts, his connections/bribes, etc. They just thought about a billion people and forgot everything else - it was pathetic.

In the last couple of decades China hasn't been inventing the wheel, they've just been noticing how useful it can be. I'm glad they're finally catching on, but it's not rocket science. And what isn't getting a lot of attention is that, after more than a decade of moving in the direction of freer markets and less government meddling, they're now stepping up their 'guidance' again. China was never as free of government meddling as some people seemed to think, and they're moving back in the other direction (i.e. picking one company in an industry and giving it more and more power, supposedly to help it 'compete' internationally by killing off all domestic competitors).

China may not crash and burn, and I hope it doesn't. The entire world (especially Taiwan and Tibet) are better off if China remains relatively stable. But their attitude for years has been to sweep problems under the rug to get ready for the Beijing Olympics. Stresses have built up. I wouldn't visit China this summer or next fall, even with my US passport that would hopefully get me out quickly.

Posted by Ann | March 21, 2008 11:58 PM

Thanks for the interesting insights, Ann.

Posted by Klug | March 22, 2008 10:44 AM

The level of support for Tibetans here in China is hovering around absolute zero. The Han have an extremely proprietary attitude towards Tibet which they are taught is an utterly integral part of the country.

It doesn't help that the media here is framing the unrest as riots by a foul 'separatist clique'. Internet chat rooms here are resounding with calls to "slaughter the ungrateful pigs." The media is also spinning protests around the world against the occupation as "violent attacks against Chinese embassies and diplomats."

Ultimately, with the exception of a handful of tiny ethnic minorities, the Tibetans are utterly without support. Attempts by the West to influence the Han are very likely to backfire. Chinese culture has always maintained a strong element of xenophobia, particularly with respect to the territorial integrity of China. Any pressure from the West to stop turning the Tibetans into lampshades will be met with fiery indignation by the Chinese. The culture here has a built in "foreign agents trying to sabotage the greatness of China" narrative that allows the Party to get away with almost anything so long as they can pitch as standing strong against foreign aggressors.

Just last week I was accosted by a coworker who, not knowing my politics, praised me as "one of the good foreigners, who doesn't want to make trouble for China." This guy would be one of the more liberal, moderate voices in China.

Protest and pressure aren't going to accomplish anything, and they may make the problem worse. Still, it is wrong (wrong, wrong WRONG) to indulge autocracies in their inhumane behavior. Refusing to make nice with Hu and his gang isn't going to free Tibet, but you don't shake hands with monsters regardless.

One thing that foreign pressure HAS accomplished is bringing down the wrath of the State on the heads of all of us laowai working in China. Getting and renewing our visas to work here has become a nightmare. Over the past six months, we've come under increasingly heavy scrutiny and suffered more frequent and bruising trips through the gauntlet of the Chinese Security Bureau every time we want to do anything.

Oh, and if you were thinking of staging your own little protest for the cameras in Beijing, take note: the Beijing Olympics committee just announced that banners, flags, and posters will NOT be allowed in the stadium. So hide your pithy signs well, and be prepared for a hellacious beating when you get caught. Also note, your rights as an American citizen don't actually travel with you- get nabbed here and the cops can treat you almost as poorly as they treat the Chinese.

Posted by K. Larson | March 22, 2008 12:00 PM

I think Tibet is a possible counter-example for the PRC trope that "China has never invaded another country." Well, when you count everything near your country as your own (like Tibet, 'Tibet has always been part of China!'), then no, you've never invaded another country.

Posted by Klug | March 22, 2008 12:49 PM

>Still, it is wrong (wrong, wrong WRONG) to indulge autocracies in their inhumane behavior.

So, are you willing to sacrifice anything significant to avoid breaking this moral rule?

Posted by Jolly Inquisition | March 22, 2008 1:59 PM

How come no one thought of a solution where Tibetans desert their dream of independence?
Shouldn't self-proclaimed internationalists demand from Dalai Lama and his nationalistic clique to accept China as their homeland?
Further pursuit of Tibetan separatism is extremely dangerous. As things stand now, we are risking major bloodshed. As far as I can see, the only one standing between genocidal war between numerous ethnic groups in China is the resolve of Chinese people, and their communist leaders, not to allow it.

Maybe no one on this board thought of supporting integrity of China, because self-proclaimed internationalists are hopelessly wedded to the idea of American Empire pushing other nations around on behalf of latte-lapping freaks.

Posted by Jolly Inquisition | March 22, 2008 2:23 PM

And how sympathetic are ordinary Chinese to Tibetans -- as sympathetic as American citizens were to Injuns, back when?

This is an important concern. My (Chinese) wife was taught in school that China liberated Tibet from a feudal, slave-owning culture. I'd wager that most expat Chinese here in the US still believe this, much less those in China. (Most expats also believe the 1999 NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was intentional.)

Posted by Derek Scruggs | March 22, 2008 3:25 PM

I think Tibet is a possible counter-example for the PRC trope that "China has never invaded another country." Well, when you count everything near your country as your own (like Tibet, 'Tibet has always been part of China!'), then no, you've never invaded another country.

Not to mention Turkestan and Taiwan in addition to Tibet, all recent additions to the empire as far as these things go, and before that, Vietnam. Inner Mongolia and Manchuria too, although you can argue that they took their chances and lost fair and square.

Posted by AT | March 22, 2008 8:09 PM

J.I.:

I'm going to ignore your last line. You actually have interesting points, which is 1) Chinese rule may be an improvement over Tibetan rule, 2) Han dominance in the PRC may stop internal ethnic tension and 3) Westerners underestimate the amount of control that the CCP has over the inner provinces and the overall territorial integrity of China.

I'll respond by saying that if the PRC wishes international legitimacy, it will have to oppress in more subtle ways than it is currently doing. Latte-sippers around the world don't really have territorial designs on the PRC, but they may not wish to trade with countries whose domestic policies are not palatable and cannot be ignored.

Derek, Ann, K.L.:

It'd be worth listing all the rumors that you hear from Chinese nationals and expats. My personal favorite is the too-good-to-check Deng-to-Carter line about "How many Chinese people would you like? One million? Two million?"

Posted by Klug | March 22, 2008 9:20 PM

"I mean, what we are saying is that China, with its authoritarian ways, needs to get out of Tibet so that the Tibetans can be happy under a theocratic leadership?" Finn

TR: There were abuses under the Tibetan regime. There was rampant sexism and serfdom.

However I think their regime had/has more modification potential than China's. The Dalai Lama has been well-exposed to the West. Also their relative poverty, in a weird way, might make them more malleable to Western pressures. My guess is a free Tibet would be something like Bhutan. It'd be poor and there'd be violations of the rights of religious or ethnic minorities, but there'd be greater capacity for reform and a softer touch on some issues.

From the Chinese perspective seeing that as positive would likely sound idiotic. A bit of wealth is worth an extra dash of oppression and many other Asian nations would agree.

Lastly a totally free Tibet is not necessarily even what the Dalai Lama thinks is plausible. I believe he's indicated that Tibet as an autonomous region, something like what was occasionally done in dynastic China, would be acceptable to him. China as a whole doesn't really do that these days, Hong Kong might be the closest example of such an arrangement. However to grant it to an ethnic group could be seen as giving in to devolution, which it won't do.

My sympathies are with the Tibetans, but realistically I think China would probably have to collapse for them to get what they want.

Posted by Thomas R | March 23, 2008 3:18 AM

Teach me to post in a hurry. My 3rd point was: Westerners OVERestimate CCP control over the regions, etc.

Posted by Klug | March 23, 2008 12:04 PM

I've always thought an interesting thought experiement was whether if the British had stayed in Tibet after the Younghusband expedition (by then the British Empire had got out of the habit of annexing territory it had invaded but 20 or 30 years ago it might well have) would the Tibetans have been better off? Anyone care to argue that they wouldn't?

Under this scenario they probably become part of independent India. The Indians of course are no fonder of secessionists than the Chinese so the Tibetans never get their independence back. But on the other hand the Indians are a genuine democracy, are somewhat more respectful of maintaining minority rights and much less heavy handed in suppressing revolts. It seems to me that life for Tibetans would be much much better (if fact we know this because moving to India is an option for anyone caring to brave the passes in winter and many do)

Posted by cac | March 23, 2008 8:34 PM

"Shouldn't self-proclaimed internationalists demand from Dalai Lama and his nationalistic clique to accept China as their homeland?"

The Dalai Lama isn't asking for independence. He's only asking for the rights already promised to all Chinese in their constitution. The CCP is waiting for him to die, so they can choose his successor the way they 'chose' the Panchen Lama.

"Maybe no one on this board thought of supporting integrity of China"

Integrity is exactly what we would like to see from China! I would support that whole-heartedly.

Posted by Ann | March 24, 2008 11:56 AM

I'm kind of surprised how many of you are giving any credence at all to the possibility that Chinese 'liberation' of Tibet might be justified if it resulted in the amelioration of the lives of Tibetans. If I thought that the Chinese would be better off if they were governed (benevolently, of course) by the United States, would that in any way be relevant to the question of whether it would be just for the US to forcefully govern them? No, of course not. Even if China leaving lead to an unhappy theocratic regime, it would be a more just outcome. Of course, the situation on the ground is going to be decided by realpolitik, not by considerations of justice.

Posted by David Stearns | March 27, 2008 4:45 AM

"Boycotting the Olympic Games scheduled for Beijing next August is a solution that has long been in search of a problem. A year ago, Mia Farrow, the actress, called for a boycott on the grounds that the government of Sudan, a close ally and major oil supplier of China, was committing “genocide” against rebels in the province of Darfur. Others have sought a boycott in solidarity with Burmese democracy activists, repressed by a junta that China supports. Only now has a consensus cause been found – the pro-independence demonstrations in the Chinese province of Tibet that have turned into violent riots and led to a crackdown..."

"The Dalai Lama’s complaint that China is committing “cultural genocide” against Tibetans has not helped. The genocide in question involves Beijing’s encouragement of immigration by ethnic Chinese people, who reportedly make up a third of the population of some Tibetan cities. Europeans who fear their cultures are being eroded by immigration and Americanisation seldom receive support from human-rights activists. Tibetans who fear Sinification are being held to a much lower standard. China, while hardly blameless, has been assigned the role of bogeyman. Like Israel during the second intifada, it gets blamed for policing too harshly, and it gets blamed when thugs go out and murder its citizens."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/987dc1ac-fcfa-11dc-961e-000077b07658.html

Posted by JBA | April 2, 2008 10:51 AM