China: Keeping the word safe from Buddhist Monks

One thing that amazes me about this whole disaster is that China was actually improving its image abroad, especially in the United States before their use of force. A few days ago, the US State Department issued their annual list of the worst human rights offenders for 2007 and China was not on their list.

China should have quickly defused the protests by listening to the demands of monks (who asked for the release of other Tibetan monks under detention), particularly since attention on China is heightened by the upcoming Olympics.

To be fair to Dr_Balls, the article you cited in the Atlantic Monthly actually stressed Hong Kong in addition to Japanese controlled Manchuria, and Tibet as focal points off Chinese nationalism.

Fair enough.

By the way, I wasn't suggesting that Dr_Balls was being sloppy (and nationalism was the driving force behind the desire to regain Hong Kong - as the article rightly notes), just that China's assertion of their right on Hong Kong is much more valid than their claim on Tibet.

Fair enough. As you said earlier, I don't want to change the direction of this thread, but I'm not sure the article created that much of a division between Chinese right to authority over Hong Kong vs Tibet. imho, the "right" was pretty much equal as far as historical analysis was concerned in regards to Chinese perspective.

It's been mighty unpopular to mention that the monasteries in pre-1951 Tibet held both large amounts of land and serfs/slaves to work the land. It resembled a medieval Europe where the theocratic authorities had driven the temporal authorities out.
I have no love for the Chinese method of 'liberation', but things pretty much sucked in Tibet when the monks were in charge.

The article doesn't make much of a distinction because it only passingly refers to Hong Kong, and only in the context of the humiliations China suffered at the hands of Western powers. The actual territorial status of Hong Kong before 1997 is easily confirmable as "on lease" to Britain. You're right that China considered them pretty much equal in terms of historical claim or "right."

From our perspective, though, in historical analysis, Britain was legally obligated by contract to return Hong Kong to China, which is quite different from Tibet. In moral perspective, the citizens should have been consulted before the UK handed over the province, but the UK wasn't really in any position (legally or militarily) to suggest this option. Also, I do think that the population of Hong Kong was more receptive to the idea of Chinese rule (given the terms of the "two-system" policy) than Tibet was or likely ever will be.

Well, it's dangerous ground because China uses that as a justification for their heavy-handedness in dealing with Tibet's population. I think that a lot of us are reluctant to echo the Chinese justifications, even if much of the social problems existed (albeit in a form often less pronounced than Chinese sources claim). Tibet had tons of problems before China was there: the serfdom system, illiteracy, banditry, lack of local democracy due to power of priests, etc.

However, the situation might in a limited scope compare to Ba'thist Iraq: the bad things then don't justify a foreign nation doing bad things now. Given the global situation right now, many people are likely uncomfortable relativizing Chinese actions by comparison to Tibet's problems prior to 1950-1951. In other words, I think the unpopularity of highlighting those problems stems from current world problems (like the occupation of Iraq) and the desire to avoid parroting Beijing's attempts to justify the harshness of their "liberation."

But yeah, I also have little patience for claims that Tibet was a wonderfully pacifistic, enlightened, harmonious, and egalitarian Candyland paradise before the Chinese showed up. I'm not sure if people actually believe that Tibet was like this (minus my mocking tone), or if think that presenting Tibet as such will help Tibet gain independence. Not quite sure...

By the way, I am posting so much for two reasons:

(1) I am interested in China.

(2) I am procrastinating on a paper I should be writing.

The second more than the first...

Absolutely true, and worth noting. I was just basing my comment based on the article you cited in regards to Chinese perspective. While it was enlightening, the article did not resolve many Western humanitarian issues (even though, in fairness, it did address them).

Updates:

Dalai Lama offers to step down as head of Tibetan Gov't in Exile

and

China cracks down on web coverage

and

Possible boycotts

Well, of course. He's such a terrorist.

People keep catching me mid-edit. Makes me think I'll have to start planning these things out more

Sorry about that. Would it console you if I edited my comment?

Nah. I'll survive the shame.

Well, you can always start with the traditional activities people do when they are trying to change things:

boycott of all Chinese goods (nearly impossible if you shop at any sort of chain store)

Start a petition for the U.S. to boycott the Olympics and send it to the U.S. Olympic committee

Send money to Buddhist charities

But if you want something big you can do that will actually work and change things. . . I have no idea. Neither does anybody else.

... and tell them you're doing it, and why.

Speak out about it, make certain that decision makers know about your position. To steal a slogan from another time "Silence = Death".

My last three blog entries have links to "Wikileaks' release of over 120 censored videos and photos of the Tibet uprising", a Washington Post story on "Cyber Attacks Target Pro-Tibet Groups", and several recent editorial cartoons on this subject.