The Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, is almost universally revered as an advocate for peace, compassion and unity and he is turning 74 this July.
Why does this matter? Becaues he has long been considered one of the only people capable of keeping Tibet from turning away from the spiritual, non-violent ‘middle path’ approach to dealing with Chinese oppression, and turning to violence as their situation not only improves, but gets worse. But time is running out for the Dalai Lama.
At the Dalai Lama’s eventual passing, more than a few scholars, human rights advocates and even world leaders are worrying that China will take advantage of the resulting power vacuum (the Dalai Lama is usually selected at a very early age- 4 or 5 years old, and then usually at least 10 years of intense training takes place before he (it could also be a ’she’) is really able to assume the mantle of leadership) and there are whispers that they may actually even attempt to select the next Dalai Lama themselves, instead of letting the Buddhists monks do so- a move which would be such a slap in the face to Tibetans, not to mention anyone who advocates freedom to practice religion, independence and liberty. The Dalai Lama himself, as usual, is surprisingly open-minded and democratic when it comes to what should take place upon his death.
One of the reasons I was so upset with Secretary Clinton’s comments about human rights while she was in China, was due to this particular issue and the fact that with each passing year, hope for an autonomous Tibet and the end of the Dalai Lama’s exile, is fading. China knows all too well that time is not on the Dalai Lama’s side and unless there were international pressure to have talks between the Tibetan Government in Exile sooner rather than later, the Chinese Communist Party leaders have absolutely no reason to end their oppression of the people of Tibet. Put simply, China is waiting for the much revered, respected and loved Dalai Lama to die.
Stumble It!
5 responses so far ↓
1 tehehehe // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:47 am
While I agree with you in all respects on this issue, I think that the US has very little power to influence China on this issue. China has proven to be immune , in most situations, to such pressure on these types of issues. There are thing diplomacy between the US and China can accomplish, but this is very likely not one of them.
While it would be nice if Obama (through Hillary) were to push for the Dalia Lama, and Tibet, it is unlikely in the extreme that there would be any progress. It might irritate the Chinese, and might “score points” with Human rights Watch, but it would not gain much. Maybe a “behind the scenes” approach would work better.
Let’s hope that the Obama Administration is “instituting change” and trying a “new type of diplomacy”, different from a Bush “confrontational approach” and working behind the scenes to improvie life in Tibet. As much as I dislike Dems policy proposals in general, and Hillary and Obama in particular, maybe in this case we DO NEED a new appraoch. The old one really didn’t get us too far except as a “reputation for civil rights protectors”. Maybe Hillary can actually get China to “ease off” if they are not publically humiliated. They don’t like to “lose face”, as you well know.
2 stacyb // Mar 2, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I watched a documentary from Netflix last night called ‘Tibet: The Cry of the Snow Lion’- it took them 10 years to make because of how difficult it is to get any film footage and pictures of what is going on in Tibet but it was absolutely devestating what the Chinese have done and are doing- mass executions of monks and nuns, torture, rape, forced population removal, imprisonment without trial, etc. etc. etc. Jeanne Kirkpatrich – former Pres. Reagan’s Amb. to the UN, came out on the documentary and called it what it was- ethnic cleansing of the Tibetan people by the Chinese.
After watching that documentary, it made Hillary Clinton’s remarks in China seem all the more callous. I totally understand that the U.S. can’t force China to do anything, but China is terribly afraid of bad public relations as they try to whitewash their history and make communist China sound more democratic and westernized than it actually is. We saw how upset the Chinese got with international protesters during the Olympics- I really do think they might respond a bit to pressure from not just the US, but other powerful nations and even religious leaders like the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, etc.
3 tehehehe // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Different cultures respond differently. I wish China, Russia, and many other nations would respond more readily to “international pressure”. But they don’t. They do get upset. And, sometimes, on a singular issue, you can get some movement. But, on issues where they believe their soveriently to be under challenge, they respond in a very negative fashion. It tends to make them “over react”.
Tibet is a “soverienty” issue with China. They “own” Tibet, and will brooke no challenge to that, regardless of any external pressure. They will face up to denunciation and proceed with their policy regardless of external condemnation.
They US had tried pressure before with little success. Maybe a new approach, as was done with the N. Korea issue will work better. We worked behind the scenes and didn’t try to “pressure” China into forcing a N. Korea capitulation. Maybe that type of appraoch will work with Tibet. The previous policy has certainly NOT led to reduced oppression.
Hillary and Obama will learn the limits of their approach, but may actually find a path to s0me improved treatment of Tibet and its residents.
The issue of Iran is similar in many ways. What is the best way to get movement from Iran (or the Taliban) on addressing human rights or other issues? Should we use “pressure”, or is a more “behind the scenes” approach better?
As I look at the two situations (with some background in both areas), I see China more open to quiet diplomacy (ala Nixon) than I see Iran open to “overtures”. I think Iranian theology much more entrenched than the atheism of the Chinese. I think Iran will only respond to “pressure”, but will not respond to a “soft” line. I think the evidence of this is in the news today about a visiting “arts” group (Iran is demanding an apology for the movie “300″).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-iran-us-hollywood,0,6997897.story
But that’s just my opinion. You may think differently. I am willing to let Obama and Hillary try their hand at it, even if I am not convinced it will be productive. We’ll know soon enough, and we really have few options.
4 sande waybill // Mar 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I do not think the world governments will act in time – it is up to individual people to DO something NOW. I blogged about this this morning – about what I am going to DO…
http://digg.com/political_opinion/MySpace_com_Blogs_TIBET_WE_must_act_because_the_governm
5 China. Again. // Mar 10, 2009 at 8:43 am
[...] blogged ad nauseum about China’s whimsical disregard for human rights, here and the recently-stated US response from our Secretary of State, [...]
Leave a Comment