Tibet

A recent article in Foreign Affairs by Jerry Z. Muller states that, "whether politically correct or not, ethnonationalism will continue to shape the world in the twenty-first century".

The Tibet question is a prime example of ethnonationalism in the twenty-first century. While orthodox Chinese historical narrative says Tibet has been ruled by, or within influence of China since the 13rd century, and pro-independence Tibetans asserts the contrary, the fact remains that Tibetans is a different ethnic / national group than Han Chinese, and that means Tibetans are currently a minority in a nation not of their own.

It is quite rightly pointed out that the authoritarian nature of PRC makes Tibetans feel oppressed, and that if China is democratize, Tibetans and (Han) Chinese, as well as other ethnic groups, can formed a multi-ethnic nation, just like the U.S.

Jerry Z. Muller points out in his article that, the U.S. is a rather exceptional example in history. Being an immigrants' country, people arrive in the U.S. with the hope to start a new life, and with less attachment to the land, they are more ready to accept a new identity. In the rest of the world, where generations of people has been living on the same land for hundred of years,
the feelings cannot be more different. The separatist movement in Basque and Scotland highlights that, even if the country is a full-fledge democracy, the desires to form one's own nation won't die down so easily. The optimistic scenario of China being a federal democracy with the Buddhist Tibet and Muslim Xinjiang agree to form an union with other Chinese provinces seems to me as very unlikely.

The current Beijing strategy on Tibet is to encourage modernization of Tibetan society in the hope of reduce religious influence, and to accelerate assimilation of Han Chinese and Tibetans, in an attempt to create a heterogeneous Tibet which would make independence complicate. In the meantime, Beijing would simply sit and wait for Dalai Lama to die. Beijing understand well that Dalai Lama is an extremely charismatic leader who can draw international support. Regarded as a 'wise old man', most of us is able to forget that he is also a leader whose legitimacy come from divine source and faith of the followers. A religious leader with political ambition and a large followers - if the religion in question is Islam, perhpas Dalai Lama would be perceived as a threat. Beijing bet that the next Dalai Lama would be less successful, hoping that it will give them enough time to modify Tibetan society.

Beijing's hope that modernization and secularism would bring a less rebellious Tibet is somewhat misplaced. If history is a reliable guide, modernization, urbanization and economic growth lead to greater demand of nation-state, not less. It is because, as Ernest Gellner explains, when an agrarian society transform into a modern one, some ethnic group (in this case, the Tibetans) would find themselves lacking the ability to advance in society since all the key positions are occupied by another ethnic group (in this case, Han Chinese). The less endowed ethnic group would come to think that, if they have their own nation, they can be the boss.

The Chinese's control over Tibet is therefore not sustainable in the long run. This is why Beijing must prepare a plan B, a plan which will grant independence to Tibet whilst keeping Beijing's interest. Such plan should be based on a constitution agreed between Beijing and the Tibetan exile government. The constitution should include clauses that forbid stationing of foreign forces in Tibet and the separation of state and religion which places Dalai Lama as the head of state in a fashion like the constitutional monarchy in Japan, Thailand or the U.K.

The second point would be extremely difficult to push forward, given all the vested interests in the religious elites. However if Chinese is to left a positive legacy in Tibet, it would be to prevent it from returning to a theocracy state. Even when the unique character of Tibetan Buddhism is taken into account, I do think it is rather certain that a leader with divine right, unchecked by any sorts of parliamentary system, would not make a free society.

An independent Tibet would probably face the challenge of cultural transformation not dissimilar to what Tibet is currently underwent. The cause would of course be different. Instead of a "cultural genocide" by Beijing government, as some has described, the change would be brought by a new generation of returning Tibetan diaspora, who were exposed to western ideas while in-exile. The changes might be lamented by western observers as a destruction of a once utopian society, but that would be up to the Tibetans to decide.

*************************************************

I should address a few points that come up in most of the reports on recent violence in Lhasa.

1. Tibetans exiles and Beijing offer diverge number of fatalities. While the track record of Beijing government is rather poor on this regard, I think NYT's cautious approach of noting that neither of them can be independently confirmed is better than citing Tibetans exile's figure as fact, as some agency did.

2. Some reports cite the destruction of cultural artifacts during Cultural Revolution as evidence of cultural invasion. This is somewhat misleading as the cultural revolution attacked Chinese and Tibetan (and many more) traditions alike. A more proper evidence, in my opinion, should be the recent opening of Golmud-Lhasa railway.