Lessons in history for the Dalai Lama

Frank Williamson argues in Morning Star that Tibet should remain 
part of China.

The view of Tibet normally presented by our 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.

Needless to say, this accepted version of events is far from being the 
truth.

Let us look at the facts. First, let us ask the question: "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, I see that all of them show Tibet 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 empire 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.

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 so that 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.

Within the limits of those essential preconditions, the Chinese Communists 
have shown themselves 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 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 self-government.

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.

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 real devotion to democracy and 
independence.

A recent report in the British Guardian Weekly about his base in 
India suggested that some of his followers are becoming critical of his 
posturing to the West while enjoying CIA subsidies and ignoring the long-
term problems of his followers both inside and outside Tibet.

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.

One only needs to consider the question of the Kurds, Ireland, almost any 
African country and, of course, the Balkans, to see how complex an issue it 
is.

Indeed the parallel with Kosovo is compelling. Like Tibet, it is an 
isolated and backward mountainous country with a few million poverty-
stricken inhabitants whose only chance of progress is in association with 
larger neighbours.

And we now have the clearest demonstration that the outpouring of liberal 
and democratic sentiment on behalf of Kosovo has done nothing to help its 
people and is, in fact, the unsavoury mask of a US-led power struggle to 
dominate the Balkans, echoing the West's operations in the Gulf War.

Those who wish to apply the same "humanitarian" principles to Tibet should 
consider very carefully what the real outcome is likely to be.

In the meantime, the Tibetans have everything to gain from remaining part 
of the most rapidly expanding economy in the world.