Something146;s changed in Lhasa

The Tibetan monks have been driven to the brink by the uncompromising attitude of the Chinese authorities, who have refused to meet even the most basic demands of the Tibetans. The negotiations that have been going on for the last five years have failed to yield any substantive results even though the Dalai Lama, the leader of the Tibetan government-in-exile, has openly acknowledged that independence is no longer an option for the Tibetans. Though he has attracted some criticism for taking this position from grassroots Tibetan activities, it is merely a recognition of the stark political realities on the ground. He has been asking for autonomy for his people within the framework of the Chinese constitution. Apparently even this is too much to ask for, as not only has his demands been rejected but he has been viscerally attacked by the Chinese governmental machinery. Indeed, for the Chinese government the Dalai Lama is merely an irritant, as the Tibet issue no longer exists, and the protesters have been referred to as 8220;minor criminal elements8221;.

The protests by the Buddhist monks in Burma last year seems to have energised the Tibetan rank and file across the globe. Although brutally suppressed by the military junta, the protests forced the international community to recognise the political repression in Burma, and there are some signs that global pressure is having some impact. For the Tibetans, the summer Olympics presented a window of opportunity that could be used to put their own plight before the world.

The Chinese authorities want the Olympics to be their coming-of-age party, an economic and political global power confident to engage with the rest of the world. Instead, the attention now seems to be on China8217;s human rights record. First, it was the Chinese foreign policy in Sudan that came under attack and now it is the turn of Tibet. But unless the Western governments speak out, nothing else would matter. And no one is ready to annoy the Chinese. The Bush administration8217;s gung-ho democracy agenda somehow seems to falter as it reaches the shores of China. The European Union8217;s liberal post-modern world view apparently can co-exist side by side with the Chinese model so long as the Chinese market is available.

The West, however, faces a dilemma. First, as societies that uphold liberal humanist values, shouldn8217;t they speak out for the Tibetans, whose cultural identity is under threat? Second, Tibet8217;s struggle for independence autonomy now is perhaps one of its kind in the contemporary world, a non-violent movement. At a time when it is in vogue to take up arms and use violent means to attain political objectives, wouldn8217;t supporting Tibetan struggle sends a strong signal on means and ends? Third, tensions in Tibet are not good for regional stability in the Asian region, as Tibet is at the core of Sino-Indian relations. Though clearly Sino-Indian ties today are multi-faceted, problems in Tibet can easily spill over and lead to broader tensions between the two. Is it in the world8217;s interest to have tense ties between two of the leading global economic powers? Finally, the entire Western approach towards China, for the last several years, has been premised on the notion of engagement. When does the West re-evaluate its position and see how far its policy has actually worked?

Given China8217;s strict control on the information flow, it is difficult to verify if the death toll in Lhasa. It is difficult to see the West reacting to the Tibetan protests the way it reacted to Burma8217;s crisis last year. But will power politics still trump all other considerations in international relations?

The writer teaches at King8217;s College London

harsh.pantkcl.ac.uk