What to do about Tibet?

There is debate in the West that the requirement of any permit is a de facto form of state control. The same argument applies to China, no doubt. I have seen quite large “demonstrations” myself with the police standing around looking extremely bored. China has come a long way since Mao, when criticism, even within the home, could be dangerous.

Within China, the exception is a demonstration that openly challenges the power of the government, in effect, the Communist Party. That will not be tolerated: which leads to the current state of affairs in Tibet.

The information that I have received, which no doubt will be challenged, is that the Chinese Police in Tibet were ordered to monitor the demonstrations but not intervene. It was when the demonstrations turned to violence that intervention became necessary. I would ask that readers give time and wait until more, verifiable, news filters out of Tibet from eye witness accounts (not journalists who have flown in after the event) before coming to any conclusion on that point. I believe there are three Australians, non-journalists, who elected to stay in Lhasa. Their accounts will be interesting.

If a demonstration in the West turns to violence, then the police intervene and the politicians refuse to negotiate with the demonstrators. Once again, I fail to see the difference with China. Ponder that in relation to Tibet.

The point I am trying to make is that respectful and reasoned argument will be listened to. Violence and threats will not. How is that so different to the West?

Think about how you would respond to someone who threatened and verbally or physically abused you. Consider the difference if that person approached you reasonably to discuss the issue. Which do you think would be the most effective approach?

We in the West seem to want everything to happen now. We want instant agreement. Instant action. I would suggest that there seems to be arrogance in that attitude. It is the West that wants to engage with China. It is the West that wants China to consider the issues. Issues the West thinks are important. Surely we should consider how China approaches negotiation and change.

China is a huge country with many and diverse provinces. It has about 1.4 billion people. Change does not happen quickly. However, the first step is getting the government to consider change. I would submit that the West, in general, is going about this in a fundamentally wrong way.

It is seldom that a government of any country agrees to everything that is proposed. It is important to find a first step. With trust and mutual respect that can be built on over time.

I believe Prime Minister Kevin Rudd understands this. In all probability so does President George Bush and the other Western leaders. However, they have to bring their constituencies along with them.

Tibet has been a part of China for several hundred years. There have undoubtedly been good times and bad times. Now is a bad time. The point that the West has to accept is that Tibet is a part of China. That is non-negotiable from the Chinese perspective and they have historical record to back that up.

Xiaosui recounts that the Chinese King who engaged with the newly united Tibet sent his daughter to marry the new King, Song zan gan bu. She also points out that China regarded the people of that region very much the same way that Britain regarded the native inhabitants of the lands they forcibly dragooned into the British Empire, including the Australian Aboriginal. The Chinese King sent his daughter as a mark of respect. He was aware that a positive relationship could only be developed out of respect. I would like to see anyone suggest that the King of England would have sent his daughter to marry an Aboriginal Leader in the late 1700s.

In conclusion, I would suggest the following would be a starting point to engage China in meaningful discussion on this issue:

1. give the Chinese Government the respect owed to a Nation with 5,000 years of history and to President Hu Jintao, the respect owed to the leader of that nation;
2. do not ask for the impossible: accept that Tibet is a part of China;
3. be sure of your ground when supporting the Dalai Llama. On what basis does he speak for all of Tibet?
4. find a simple basis on which to agree and then build on that; and
5. give it time.

The Beijing Olympics are an opportunity for the West to positively engage with China. Boycotts and ill-informed, empty rhetoric will destroy that opportunity.