The recent incident that occurred in Tibet on March 10 and the subsequent response from the international community shouldn't be any surprise to the Chinese communist regime.
When Wang Lequan, Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party's committee in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, accepted an interview with the Phoenix TV in January, he indicated clearly that, "Forces seeking national secession, violence/ terrorism and religious extremes shall be strictly controlled."
Judging by the consistency of the Chinese regime's political logic, a "contingency reaction plan" against the "Returning to Tibet" movement organized by the exiled Tibetans in India would have been in place for some time.
After the revolt occurred, the Chinese communist regime dispatched its military forces to control the situation and strictly blockaded information from the outside world. Even when confronted with civil protests in many countries and the condemnation of some political figures around the world, the Beijing regime remained steadfast to its policy.
The reason for the regime's cool reaction can be attributed to the "precious" experience that it picked up from the Tiananmen Square Massacre of June 4, 1989: No matter what other measures the regime may devise, the most effective course is still "forcible suppression."
Ever since the U.S. established a diplomatic relationship with the Chinese regime in 1972, China had never encountered difficulties in nternational society as dreadful as those that occurred immediately after the 1989 massacre.
At that time, various countries in succession announced economic sanctions against China. However, the regime survived—starting with the Japanese Prime Minister's visit to China, all of the countries quietly lifted their economic sanctions. Nowadays, China's economic ties with the world have become so close that sanctions are almost impossible. Even if sanctions were truly imposed, who would be hurt more, China or those western countries?
Western Governments also recognize that "public opinion" does not come only from the people who support Tibet. Many important opinions also come from "the silent majority," including international business groups who have far more power in influencing politics than those groups and individuals who protest against the Chinese regime's tyranny. China's strategy of economic seduction of international business circles in the past is paying off in this critical moment.
In fact, the Chinese communist regime also implements "benefit seduction" in dealing with Tibet. The article "Dalai Lama Is the Key to the Tibet Issue" authored by Wang Lixiong, points out that, "The last two decades have been a period where China provided unprecedented economic benefits to Tibetans. The financial allocation that Beijing offered to Tibet in 1997 was 324 and 7.3 times as high as that in 1952 and 1978 respectively. Today, Beijing is the primary source of funding for all Tibet's major expenditure. Without Beijing's support, Tibet's social system (at least in the cities) would collapse within days."
The author makes a side-by-side comparison of Tibetan people with farmers of Han nationality (Han nationality constitutes the greatest portion of China's population.) in the neighboring provinces. "Tibetans may sit still without doing anything but enjoy higher income than the tens of millions of Han-nationality farmers who have to work throughout the year," Wang remarks.
In China's history, the Qing dynasty maintained the most harmonious relationship with Tibet. If the economic aid that the Qing dynasty provided to Tibet throughout the dynasty's 268-year lifespan are adjusted to current pricing levels, the monetary value is about the same as the Chinese communist regime has offered to Tibet during the last 5 years. How could the Qing Dynasty live in peace with Tibet, while crises keep happening in the relationship between China and Tibet today? Why does China's gigantic material aid still incur the Tibetans' resentment as the relationship evolves into "deadly struggles," as Beijing puts it?
The key rests in the difference between the strategies that the Qing Dynasty and the Chinese communist regime have adopted in dealing with Tibet.
All that the Qing Dynasty asked for was the identity as a suzerain. Therefore, the Qing Dynasty granted full autonomy to Tibet and never interfered the latter's internal affairs.
In contrast, the Chinese communist regime's policy over Tibet is virtually a replica of Mao Zedong's "Turning upside down" ruling of China. It destroyed Tibet's social structure, tried to eliminate all of the "reactionary classes" (i.e., the "proprietary classes") and attempted to promote some members of the bottom-level society to be rulers.
Beijing offers some "tolerance" to Tibetans: the regime still allows the existence of temples and religions in Tibet as long as they are under the regime's control and management. In contrast, the regime ordered monks, nuns and Taoists in other parts of China to resume secular life. The regime also labeled many religions as "reactionary secret societies" and imposed suppression. As a result, the class struggle in other provinces of China transformed into the national and cultural conflicts that attempt to ruin Tibetan Buddhist civilization.
However, Tibet is, after all, quite different from other provinces of China. Tibet is a society of politico-religious unification. Its spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, was forced to flee Tibet and has suffered many of tribulations. His ideas have been well aligned with modern civilizations. Through his inspiration, the world has been sympathetic to the tribulations suffered by the people in this plateau country. "Free Tibet" has become a popular slogan widely seen in western countries.
The Chinese regime has never carried out fundamental changes to its Tibet policy. What the regime did was to "pacify" Tibetans with more material gains and encouraged people of Han nationality to immigrate into Tibet for business. As a result, political, cultural, economic and religious contradictions mingled altogether. As the contradictions kept escalating, the tension between the Chinese communist regime and Tibet broadened and evolved into a contradiction between Tibetans and Hans. Every Han was drawn into the swirl, voluntarily or involuntarily.
Forcible suppression and benefit seduction can be effective in the short term. However, only ethical inspiration can compel the genuine unification of a nation. The Chinese regime has been ruling Tibet ruthlessly; the latest suppression against protests in Tibet will further intensify the hatred and make it tougher to resolve.
Perhaps the Chinese regime could learn a lesson to the U.S. government's management of Puerto Rico: Each year the U.S. government provides tens of billions of U.S. dollars to subsidize Puerto Rico but never interferes in its internal affairs. While the people Tibet long to be free of the yoke of the Chinese regime's misrule, the people of Puerto Rico seek exactly the opposite; they long to be recognized as a formal member of the United States.
The contrast should be educational to any regime that seeks to govern an ethnically and geographically foreign region.
Feeds