Destroying Tibetan identity

The Tibet rights factor was prominent in the Insight forum on SBS "Going to China", with interesting and lively participation and views on the direction of negotiations with China.

The Dalai Lama is actively pursuing a peaceful solution for the rights and future of the Tibetan People and Tibetan culture in talks with China via his "Middle way". This is a peaceful coexistence concept with full autonomy for the Tibetans and their inalienable right to retain their culture and practice their religion.

There is however growing militancy, mostly among the young within and outside Tibet due to the failure of progress in the "Middle Way" caused by China's delaying and intransigent tactics and lack of respect for the religious leader.

Despite the Dalai Lama's best intentions, the "Middle Way" will never happen and the reasons are clearly enshrined in the principles of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). This demands unconditional obedience and loyalty to the Party before all else. The PLA (People's Liberation Army) is at the CCP's exclusive disposal to enforce this command if and when the need arises.

In democratic countries it is the government that is responsible to the people and the military is there to protect the people and the country.

This is not the case in China where the Government is the Chinese Communist Party and the difference can be found enshrined within the guiding principles of the PLA. “Obeying the Party comes before defending the country”.

Freedom of religion is in direct conflict with official policy and the CCP will not tolerate belief or loyalty to any individual, body or icon before the CCP. The CCP sees religion as undermining the stability of the state and creating civil unrest. There is also an ongoing policy of denigrating the Dalai Lama and his honest intentions that only increases dissent.

The CCP ridicules the concept that Tibetans have the capacity to rule and develop a nation such as Tibet in modern times with a government based on religion, made up of monks and lead by the Dalai Lama.

Despite Beijing's best efforts, the current Panchen Lama, selected and educated by the CCP, will never be recognised or accepted by the Tibetan population as their true spiritual leader. The selection process did not comply with the ancient and accepted selection process of the monasteries.

China on the other hand is intent on delay, waiting for the death of the Dalai Lama so that they can replace him with their own chosen and Chinese educated Panchen Lama.

The CCP considers that a “bunch of monks” are incapable of governing or developing Tibet in modern times from a religious base. Is that merely an over simplistic concept based on ignorance that fails to recognise existing and increasing latent abilities of Tibetans and fuelled by fear?

One does not have to look far to find one state that belies this concept and successfully runs an extensive global “empire” with ambassadors and "citizens" living in harmony, and respected around the globe. It successfully manages an amassed wealth exceeding that of many countries including Tibet. That state is the Holy See and its government comprises a collective mind of scholars and experts in every field beyond religion that includes modern technology, the sciences, finance, development, politics, environment, history and the humanities to name but a few.

It is this devotion to religion and resulting ability to amass great wealth from voluntary contributions and command respect on a global scale that frightens the CCP most of all and is the reason behind the ongoing and more recent harsh crackdown on Catholic churches and priests throughout China.

China conveniently overlooks growing global support for the various Tibet freedom movements, Tibet's Government in Exile and especially His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

There are also the growing numbers of "refugees" and monks studying outside Tibet, developing the collective skills, personal political relationships and commercial and industrial contacts and support. Such support and confidence will become crucial for the successful and sustainable development of an environmentally fragile country such as Tibet.

Unlike China's unsustainable and environmentally destructive, materialistic approach, their religion, love and knowledge of their country will implement a more gradual and sympathetic development more in harmony with Tibet’s fragile environment and its neighbours.

The Insight on SBS "Going to China" forum focused on China's human rights abuse in occupied Tibet but failed to address the question as to how the enmity arose. This problem extends beyond the Tibetan historical regions and into other regions occupied by Han Chinese in recent times, including Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and north east Burma.

To make way for the new Han Chinese frontiersmen, the indigenous populations are relocated away from their traditional lands onto lesser productive land and in smaller groups, isolated from one another to limit the possibility of an organised mass protest. There is no compensation, since the Chinese State now owns the land.

The nomadic herders are resettled into urbanised type settlements without land to farm or raise animals. They are now reliant on employment to provide money to buy food. The only employment for Tibetans who do not speak Chinese is menial, low paid and mostly casual.

Unlike the new migrants, there are no incentives for the Tibetans to develop their own land or businesses. As for the new housing, they are forced to buy these dwellings as well as providing their labour free for construction. It is known as the "Namdrang Rangdrik" ("Do-It-Yourself Program"). The cost is well above what the normal herder can earn at US$5,000 to US$6,000. The government lends US$1,200. The balance must be made up from family cash and Chinese bank loans. No money to repay the loan means no house and relocation to remote small subsistence communities.

Understanding the causes requires knowledge of the role of the Central Propaganda Department and the state media. When China occupies new territory and has established tight military control, the next stage is a well managed mass migration program motivated by government financial incentives, promises of land, additional support and military protection.

The objective is to rapidly dilute the indigenous population with Han Chinese. In the case of Tibet, these new frontiersmen and their families are told that the indigenous population are "A repressed, feudal, uneducated race, incapable of releasing the full potential of the land. We will improve their lifestyle and provide them with employment and education."

The ongoing theme is that the Tibetans cannot develop the rich resources of their land, have no concept of the value of money, donating much of their income to their religion and it is up to China to do this for them so that they can have a future as part of modern China. They will however provide a labour pool to help the Han Chinese in developing their new land and operations.

A review of State media over the years reveals an ongoing program of denigrating the Tibetans, their customs, history, culture and more recently the intense personal attack on H.H. the Dalai Lama. To the Catholic, Buddhist and Muslim, it is the equal to desecrating the name of the Pope, Buddha and Mohammed.

One Tibetan summed it up very simply:

We're not sure if it's true that the Panchen was appointed by the government, but if it is true, we cannot support him. We wouldn't support a Dalai Lama appointed by the government either. These people should be chosen by monasteries.

There's been this hatred for a long time. Sometimes you would even wonder how we had avoided open confrontation for so many years. This is a hatred that cannot be solved by arresting a few people.

If we did not believe in Buddhism, we would have rioted a long time ago. We endured and endured, but now it has become impossible to endure any more.

While the Han Chinese are supported by the government and receive what was once traditional Tibetan land and protection by the police and military, the Tibetans are shunted off to the equivalent of urban ghettos or small remote isolated villages.

Beijing's attitude to the media was highlighted by foreign media coverage of the Sichuan quake that favoured Beijing. That support however, was rapidly reversed when the media began to explore the corruption behind the causes of collapsed public buildings, especially schools and hospitals as well as the later diversion of funds and resources. There will be continued heavily conditioned and controlled coverage for foreign media on Tibet, as will be the case for the 2008 Olympics supporting the increasing claim that the CCP cannot be trusted to meet its promises in respect to media and human rights.

In respect to Beijing's strategy against the Dalai Lama, it will be interesting to see just how long India will put up with the same delays and procrastination from China on the border issues and China's more ambitious Himalayan Strategy.

History shows that media attention rapidly moves on once an Olympics is over. The 2008 Olympics however not only has the potential to prolong media interest, it has the potential to increase that interest with intensifying coverage ranging from the world's number one polluter and Kyoto rejector, its headlong and unsustainable rush for economic growth at any cost, sacrificing human rights and the health and welfare of its own citizens.

The story of China's water, pollution, environment and abuse of the rights of its rural poor as well as the people of Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang is too good to let go. It will never go away. The more Beijing represses the freedom of the media, the more it isolates itself from positive media coverage. The proposed diversion of the Brahmaputra into China is another story gaining momentum. The horrifying human impact on downstream populations on this sacred river is already the focus of increasing numbers of journalists and activist groups.

Was the IOC right?

Given the foregoing, it would appear that the IOC has failed miserably in its responsibilities in measuring up China for the 2008 Olympics.

Could that really be the case, given the calibre and international standing of those on the IOC?

Or is it possible that the foregoing comments unfairly treat the IOC itself and its members who, from their backgrounds, should have been only too well aware of the internal workings of China and the CCP and what would happen once China committed to the Games?

Surely, such an experienced and committed group must have been only too well aware of the consequences. Once committed China would be subjected to intense ongoing scrutiny and criticism that would eventually justify the granting and with it the aims of the Olympics and much mianji (face making) for the IOC and its members.