The Guardian 9 April, 2008
Lessons in history for the Dalai Lama
The view of Tibet normally presented by the capitalist media is of a country brutally occupied by Chinese invaders, which had its religion suppressed by the Communist authorities and its leader, the Dalai Lama — a "saintly" figure — compelled to live in exile in India.
This version of events is far from the truth.
Is Tibet part of China? Glancing at half a dozen world atlases, starting with a schoolboy atlas dating from the 1920s and finishing with the National Geographic Atlas of 1995, Tibet is shown as part of China. Since these atlases are all British in origin, the evidence must surely be beyond challenge.
In fact, any serious history of either country will demonstrate that Tibet had been part of the recognised Chinese state for about 700 years.
Certainly, there have been periods during those seven centuries when imperial control was fairly nominal and when Tibet was left largely under the direction of the local religious leaders, but even the present Dalai Lama was confirmed in his position by Beijing when he was selected as a young boy for training.
Colonialism
At the beginning of this century, most of the leading European powers had extracted from China what were euphemistically called "concessions". These were nominated towns, mainly ports, in which the colonial power operated its own legal system.
In other words, the powers of Peking were suspended and islands of colonialism were created all over China. The Chinese economy was, therefore, completely dominated by foreigners through their control of the ports and the new industries which were attracted there by the cheap Chinese labour.
Mao Tse-tung’s first words on achieving power were "China has at last stood on its own feet". This comment reflected the overriding importance of throwing off the yoke of colonial status. Until that was done, there could be no future for the country — socialist or otherwise.
Ever since that statement in 1949, every policy declaration has emphasised that Chinese borders are inviolable, that Chinese sovereignty is sacrosanct and that the first condition of trade and friendship with any other country is founded on the principle of non-interference.
Flexible and patient
Within the limits of those essential preconditions, the Chinese government has shown itself remarkably flexible and patient. The question of Hong Kong is the classic example.
The Chinese have also been prepared to wait over Macau and Taiwan, while remaining adamant on the point of Chinese sovereignty.
When the Chinese revolution triumphed in 1949, the new Communist-led government quickly signed an agreement with the Dalai Lama under which he recognised that Tibet was part of China. In turn, Tibet was guaranteed a wide measure of autonomy.
Unfortunately, at that time, Tibet still had a very backward and feudal regime. Out of a population of about two million, around half a million were lamas and most others were slaves or serfs working for the lamaseries.
The old regime was brutal in the extreme. Hands were chopped off for minor offences, slaves and serfs had few rights and women none at all.
Slavery and Serfdom
When the Chinese authorities abolished slavery and serfdom, the lamas lost their economic power base and resorted to armed revolt, which, in turn, led Beijing to send in the Chinese army.
The self-imposed exile of the Dalai Lama which followed owes more to his attachment to the old feudal system than any genuine devotion to democracy and independence.
From his base in northern India the Dalai Lama and some of his followers spend their time crawling to the west and attacking the Chinese government at every opportunity.
The principle of national independence is a precious one which we all support, but there are real problems in deciding when and how it should be applied. Many countries contain national minorities within their borders (China has no less than 55 such national minorities and five autonomous regions) and if all were to demand independence literally thousands of mini and micro-states would be created. Such a course makes absolutely no sense.
One only needs to consider the question of the Kurds, Ireland, almost any African or Latin American country, India and Pakistan and, of course, the Balkans, to see how complex an issue it is. (Should the demand made from time to time by some of Australia’s Indigenous people for independence be supported and if not, why not?).
Dangerous precedent
This is why the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo is such a dangerous precedent. The only chance of security and economic development is in association with larger neighbours with self-government or autonomy status.
The outpouring of "liberal" and "democratic" sentiments and the ultra "left" on behalf of Kosovo and now Tibet does nothing to help their people. In fact, they merely echo the unsavoury divide and rule policies of imperialism and the reactionary, even fascist, (Kosovo) outlook of would-be governing circles still existing in these countries who mislead the people with catch-cries about "independence".
The Tibetans have everything to gain from remaining part of the most rapidly expanding economy in the world, while the people of Kosovo will find themselves as a conduit for narcotics, people smuggling, prostitution and the harvesting of body parts for which the region is already notorious since it has fallen under western control.
Acknowledgement to Frank Williamson in the Morning Star for part of this article.
In 2002 a book titled The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet was published by the University Press of Kansas. The two authors — one a CIA trainer — proudly detail how the CIA set up and ran Tibet’s so-called resistance movement. The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA payroll and approved the CIA’s plans for the armed uprising in 1959.
The CIA put the Dalai Lama’s brother, Gyalo Thodup, in charge of the bloody armed attack. A contra army was trained by the CIA in Colorado and then dropped by US Air Force planes into Tibet.
The 1959 attack was a CIA planned and organised coup attempt. The purpose was to overthrow the existing autonomous Tibetan government and weaken the Chinese Revolution while tying the people of Tibet to US imperialist interests. What does that say about today’s March uprising?