Tibet’s independence

2008-03-24 00:00

The monks who marched through Lhasa on March 10 to mark the anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule in 1959 did not want to wreck China’s Olympic year, but they knew that Chinese troops would be less likely to shoot them this year than most.

And so it proved: the monks were arrested, but the crowds of Tibetans who gathered on the following days to demand their release were not harmed.

The dilemma facing the Chinese troops was that if they didn’t shoot, the crowds would inevitably grow bigger, for most Tibetans dream of independence and fear that the mass immigration of Han Chinese to Tibet is a form of cultural genocide.

By Friday, March 14 the crowds had become so bold that it was they who turned to violence, attacking Chinese civilians in Lhasa and looting and burning Chinese-owned shops, banks and hotels.

The Chinese news agency Xinhua says that 10 people were killed in Lhasa on Friday. The Tibetan government-in-exile says that 80 were killed and accounts by foreign tourists in Lhasa support the higher figure. But so far, by most accounts, the victims have mostly been Han Chinese settlers killed by angry Tibetans.

This doesn’t fit the simple foreign narrative of peaceful protesters and wicked Chinese, but nationalism, whether Tibetan or Fijian, is not an inherently tolerant and peaceful phenomenon.

Foreign troops who hold their fire are still foreign occupiers, and innocent Chinese civilians who were encouraged by their own government to come and set up businesses in Lhasa are still unwelcome foreign agents of cultural genocide.

Foreign governments urge China to “exercise restraint”, but they carefully avoid questioning

Beijing’s right to rule Tibet.

And with the unrest spreading to ethnically Tibetan regions of neighbouring Chinese provinces — hundreds of monks from Labrang monastery marched through the town of Xiahe in Gansu province on March 14 — the time may soon come when Beijing decides it has to crush all dissent by force regardless of the impact on the Olympics.

Force will succeed, as it has before. The 1959 uprising was crushed, the 1989 demonstrations in Tibet were crushed and the current unrest there will be crushed as well. Tibet’s only chance to recover its independence will come if and when there is a change of regime in China.

China did not traditionally seek to expand beyond the boundaries of the Middle Kingdom, an agrarian society that lived in the north Chinese plain and the river valleys of southern China.

The non-Chinese territories that now make up the western third of the country — the deserts and oases of Muslim Xinjiang and the high plateau of Tibet — were not conquered by Chinese, but were swept into the same Mongol empire that conquered China itself in the 13th century.

Since the Mongol (Yuan) dynasty ruled from Beijing, Tibet came to be seen as a Chinese possession, but the subsequent (ethnically Chinese) Ming dynasty took little interest in it.

When another foreign nation of mounted nomads, the Manchus, conquered China in 1644, they too brought Tibet under Beijing’s rule — and when the Manchu dynasty was finally overthrown in 1911, Tibet again slipped from China’s control. For the next 40 years, Tibet was effectively independent.

The Chinese Communists seized power in 1949 and invaded Tibet the following year on the argument that “what was once ours is ours forever”.

So long as they hold power in Beijing, they will also hold Tibet — but an interesting analogy comes to mind. For the history of the Baltic states — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — is not very different.

They fell under the rule of the expanding Russian empire in the 18th century, but regained their independence after revolution overthrew the Tsarist regime in 1917. They lost it again when the Soviet Union invaded them in 1940 — but got it back when the Communist regime in Moscow collapsed in 1991.

And the main motive for their drive for independence was the fear that their

languages and cultures were being submerged by a wave of Russian immigrants.

As with the Baltic states, so too with Tibet. If there is ever a change of regime in Beijing, then a window of opportunity will open — and Tibet will have a couple of years to establish its independence before a new government emerges in Beijing that feels compelled to hold on to it in deference to Chinese nationalist sentiment.

But that window is not open now.

• Gwynne Dyer’s new book, After Iraq, has just been published in London by Yale University Press.

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.