Dumb idea: An Arranged Tour of Tibet

In an attempt to appease international pressure to allow foreign journalists into Tibet and Lhasa in particular, Beijing decided to organise an arranged tour for foreign journalists. The arranged tour was to highlight Beijing's claims of the destruction of Han Chinese properties in Tibet by the local ethnic rioters. Apparently, Beijing's organised tours of Tibet backfired once foreign media reported Beijing's strictly guided tour in their piece. This leads me to ask, what are they thinking?

First, Beijing publicly accuses the exiled Dalai Lama of inciting violence in an attempt to promote Tibetan independence. As the political pundits for the truth-o-meter at Politifact.com would say, it is nothing short of a pants-on-fire lie. If Beijing understood anything about Buddhism or most religions around the world, it seeks to promote greater harmony and peace among humanity and not to incite violence. Furthermore, the Dalai Lama has spent his life promoting peaceful dissent and non-violent resistance like Mohandas Gandhi of India. Like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, the international community at large has recognised the Dalai Lama as an vivid advocate for peace. In fact, unlike Beijing's depictions, his message has been for many years about peace. Therefore it is utterly illogical and utterly hypocritical for the man to secretly incite violence in his homeland.

There had been protests around the world outside Chinese diplomatic and consular facilities by the local citizens condemning Beijing for their heavy handed handling of Tibetan monks' street protest. There are already world leaders preparing to boycott the Beijing Olympic opening ceremony. Athletes are under pressure individually to boycott the Games. The international outcry may very well lead to greater political consequences than what Beijing may want. Instead of an Olympic Games like the 1988 Seoul or the 1992 Barcelona Summer Games, Beijing may find itself hosting a very divisive event like the 1980 Moscow games, which Western nations boycotted in retaliation for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Furthermore, Beijing should keep in mind that international community would not tolerate law enforcement actions that border ethnic discrimination and indiscriminate round ups of the Tibetan minority like those in the former Yugoslavia, principally Bosnia Herzegovina. China and Russia supported the defense of internal affairs during the Bosnian Civil War. The West and later the world recognition of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia Herzegovina as independent nations is proof that the world is free to judge the behaviour of national government in times of internal strife. Beijing may not wish to recognise the independence of Kosovo from Serbia, but the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state by the West should be a strong proof that Beijing's right to claim sovereignty over Tibet is purely at the discretion of the international community and cannot be enforced by military might.

What I am trying to figure out is has Beijing learned anything from the breakup of Yugoslavia? The policies of Slobodan Milosevic in Bosnia and Croatia were to disenfranchise the local ethnic groups by quietly shipping more Serbs into those republics. Beijing is sending Han Chinese into Tibet to effectively merge the local Tibetan population with the Han Chinese; thereby reducing the local ethnic Tibetan population. Right now, the information and news the international community knows of the situation in Tibet is principally from Chinese Party officials sent to govern Tibet. Many of those officials are Han Chinese, not Tibetans. Does Beijing actually believe that no one would notice what is going on? Or does Beijing believe that information control is tool to prevent such information from ever becoming public? Did Beijing learn anything from the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre? In a world of near instant communication, Beijing is a fool to believe that the world would never learn of what is going on within its borders.

Also, have Beijing forgotten the Western political philosophy of self-determination. In the 19th Century, statesmen in Europe believe that a nation state for each ethnic group would ensure peace across the continent. China is one of the few empire states that have survived into the 21st Century. I believe the break up of the Soviet Union into its constituent republics in 1989 and the dissolution of Yugoslavia were a good thing for world peace. I have more than once said that Iraq is an artificial state that cannot survive without a military strongman like Saddam Hussein. This viewpoint is reinforced by former US Secretary of State James Baker when he believed that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power might precipitate a civil war within Iraq. Given what has happened in Iraq today, George Bush the elder was correct in not going to Baghdad and arresting Saddam Hussein for his Kuwaiti atrocities.

Frankly, Western nations should consider strengthening its ability to find out what is going on in different parts of a country like China by establishing consular missions in more remote regions of a country like Tibet for China. A strong consular presence in potential hotspots like Tibet would ensure that national or regional governments would not undertake unreasonable law enforcement measures in the absence of foreign media. I believe that a stronger consular presence in Tibet in the future would ensure that foreign governments would have an independent local source of information than relying on the official diplomatic or media for news and assessments.