The Tibet Question - The Dalai Lama Shaping Modern History in Tibet - Literature review Example

An Analysis of the Tibet Question The Dalai Lama and the Chinese occupation of Tibet is well-known among people with only a cursory knowledge of Asian history. However, the issue is much more complicated than most people understand: “The Tibet Question existed long before there was a Peoples Republic of China, and it also predates the recent Western interest in universal human rights. In fact, if there were no human rights violations in Tibet and if Tibetans could, for example, practice peaceful political dissent, the Tibet Question would be every bit as contentious as it now is” (Goldstein, 1997). The aim and purpose of this paper is to evaluate two issues dealing with the past and future of Tibet, China, the Dalai Lama, and the Tibetan people, both in their homeland and in exile. Two opposing views of the Tibet question will be examined in an attempt to give perspective to the situation. The first issue deals with the conflict between the political administration of Tibet and that of China since 1949. As mentioned, the history of the conflict between China and Tibet started well before this, but this most recent invasion of Tibet by China can be considered to be the beginning of the extreme human rights violations that have garnered such intense media coverage. The negotiations have been going on for decades, and there is little to no evidence suggest that anything other than a major political event will change the current situation. The second issue stems from the first issue; in specific, it concerns the effects of the Dalai Lama’s exile in 1959 and the subsequent rule of China over the Tibetan people. This is the issue that deals with the conditions of the Tibetan people in regard to the media coverage. Even more than just merely human rights violations, the Tibetan people are in danger of losing their culture through various events. Dr. Robert Palmer creates a sympathetic portrait of the Dalai Lama in his book Why the Dalai Lama Matters and discusses his peaceful techniques for Tibetan freedom. As a friend of the Dalai Lama, Palmer has had the unique opportunity to see the conflict of the Tibet question from the inside. Palmer illustrates what is referred to as the “Middle Way.” This is a third option in between two extreme viewpoints. The first viewpoint is of China, which would like to completely absorb Tibet, not acknowledge any sort of historical preference or right, and treat Tibet as merely another ethnicity amongst an entire nation filled with multiple ethnicities. The second viewpoint consists of the desire of the Tibetan people to have their own country, history, and culture. Considering that China invaded Tibet illegally in 1949 and have since committed well documented human rights violations, this does not seem like an unreasonable desire. Unfortunately, the sheer fact of the matter is that China is not likely in any way to grant this sort of solution, and only the dissolution of the communist state, much in the same way the USSR dissolved, could bring about such a change. The Dalai Lama’s “Middle Way” would grant Tibet an autonomous democratic state while acknowledging China’s overall authority: “he sincerely proposes a genuine autonomy within a Chinese Union, offering a legitimate, voluntary union with China to avoid violence from either side, since a century of nationalist as well as communist propaganda has convinced most Chinese people that Tibet somehow belongs to them” (Thurman, pg. 1). There are, however, still many difficulties for even this compromised proposal. The historian Dr. Melvyn Goldstein offers a contrasting view of the Dalai Lama’s actions over the past several decades and what he has accomplished for Tibetans in his book The Snow Lion and the Dragon. While recognizing Tibet as the victimized country, Goldstein takes a more realistic view and attempts to offer a comprehensible and objective history of the conflict, noting the difficulty in finding the truth due to both side’s attempt to portray themselves as being in the right: “Both sides (and their foreign supporters) regularly portray events in highly emotional and often disingenuous terms intended to shape international perceptions and win sympathy for their cause” (x). In the middle of all of this, the Dalai Lama attempts to gain support in the international forum for an autonomous Tibet. However, Goldstein sees the Dalai Lama’s appeal to the international forum as having an adverse effect on the culture of Tibet: “The exiled Dalai Lama finds himself standing on the sidelines unable to impede or reverse changes in his country that he deplores, and the frustration engendered by his impotence has seriously heightened the danger of violence” (1). Goldstein has other issues with the Dalai Lama’s approach, as he accuses the Dalai Lama of not “putting the interest of the four million Tibetans ahead of the interest of the 130,000 Tibetans in exile” (115). While both of these groups deserve to have their rightfully placed demands met, it becomes difficult in determining who’s needs should be met first. Goldstein takes a more utilitarian approach in that he considers the larger number of Tibetans in the country to be more important than those in exile. Whether or not there is really a correct way to approach the differing needs of both groups is an entirely different question. Both of the historians agree that the Tibetan people have been treated horribly under the Chinese government; only the Chinese government would ever attempt to argue otherwise. It is difficult not to find problems with the Chinese government’s actions in Tibet: “The result was a widespread uprising led by the local Khampa tribespeople. Beijing retaliated harshly when the rebels killed a number of Chinese. Several monasteries were shelled in the belief that they were rebel strongholds” (History Resource Center). It is difficult to imagine much else possible in the way of a solution that will satisfy both parties. The current government is dealing with a situation that they did not create; they have inherited the problem. Even when considering that they did not create the problem, the current government must feel completely at a loss of what to do. If they make concessions to Tibet and the Dalai Lama, other groups within China might feel as though they would have the same right to self-autonomy. In line with their socialist government, they really aren’t able to make exceptions for one specific ethnic group and stay true to what they are basing the governing of the entire country around. For this reason the Chinese will refuse to make concessions. On the other hand, the longer Tibet continues to be part of China, the more of its cultural identity it will continue to lose. Both historians have valid points to their arguments. The Nobel Peace Prize, which the Dalai Lama received, was rightfully handed out to him for decades of refusing to promote any sort of violence as a way of gaining back Tibet from China. He has championed the “Middle Way” as a way to initiate compromise. Also, without appealing to the international forum, Tibetans and exiles have few resources at their disposal that can be used to make any sort of direct change to their predicament. Unfortunately, China is in a position where the government feels that no compromise is acceptable; this is the entire reason why the situation has persisted for such a long time. Dr. Thurman is correct is extolling the virtues of the Dalai Lama, and it is difficult to imagine a more positive figure in the international forum. Be that as it may, there is no disputing that Dr. Goldstein is correct in his appraisal of the effects of the Dalai Lama’s efforts. With the Dalai Lama deploring the conditions of Tibetans under the rule of China, China has been forced to take steps to rectify the situation in their own way. In order to do this, China has attempted to modernize Tibet. This includes attempts to build an economic base, and this increased economic base has led to an increased immigration into Tibet of people looking for job opportunities. This influx of people can be directly attributed to a homogenization of Tibet; with all of these other ethnicities coming into Tibet, it will resemble Tibet less as it becomes more and more multicultural. Of course the Chinese government wasn’t going to merely give up Tibet because of the abuses that were being brought to life, but of course nobody really expected this airing of grievances to affect any large change to the effect that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people would have appreciated. Instead of being negative towards the Dalai Lama and chastising him for making things even more difficult for his country, Goldstein could have recognized the inevitability of this set of events happening. The most effective forum for addressing the sort of human rights abuses that the Tibetan people were dealing with is obviously the international forum; Goldstein does not offer a more appropriate solution to this situation. Perhaps because this was the only and best thing that could be done, and the modernization of Tibet and the homogenization of its culture might not be good outcomes, but they are better situations to be in when compared to the human rights abuses that were taking place. In the end, there doesn’t seem to be much to be done realistically about Tibet. Neither side is able to budge any further than they have already. Only a political event the size of the dissolution of the USSR will change the current situation in Tibet. Works Cited "China Initiates a Genocide Policy toward Tibetans, 1950." DISCovering World History. Online Edition. Gale, 2003. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/History/ Goldstein, Melvyn (1998) “The Dalai Lama’s Dilemma.” Foreign Affairs, available from http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1360/melvyn-c-goldstein/the-dalai-lama-s-dilemma.html Goldstein, Melvyn (1998) The Snow Lion and the Dragon. Westview Press, China Briefing. Reiss, Valerie (2008) “FAQs on Tibet, China, and the Dalai Lama.” available from http://www.beliefnet.com/story/231/story_23154_1.html "Tibet: Struggle for Independence." History Behind the Headlines: The Origins of Conflicts Worldwide, Volume 2. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/History/ Thurman, Robert (2008) Why the Dalai Lama Matters. New York, Atria Books/Beyond Words. Read More