I never understood the people who want so badly to restore the Tibetan state. It was a horrendous state, which had a cruel theocratic opressive government, and was no less worse for the Tibetan people than the Chinese government. I would be hypocritical to condemn the stae, but for the most part the people who support the "liberation" of Tibet are liberals who do not know any better. They are swayed by the asshole "holier-than-thou" Dalai Lama, no better than the Popes of Medieval age.

To believe that Tibet was "peaceful" because of the the Buddhist philosophy makes about as much sense as to believe that Medieval Europe was peaceful because of Christian philosophy.

Damnded gullible idiots.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

I'm not exactly sure, but I'm under impression that the goal of Free Tibet Campaign is to let the Tibetan people to decide their own government, which sounds reasonable. I don't know exactly what makes you think that the Tibetans would automatically resurrect the old kingdom/theocracy if they were given this possibility.

In any case I havy little respect for the movement and I generally think that the primary goal of the movement is not to help the Tibetians, it is to hurt the Chinese and the whole movement is simply a bunch of Chinese-haters.

Yes, but it was Tibetans fucking up other Tibetans. That's much better than the Chinese fucking up Tibetans.

Anyway, not really anyone's business other than the Tibetans and the Chinese.

A good conclusion if many of the people did not use the old Tibetan flag to represent them or use the Dalai Lama as a leader in the movement. My guess, they have no clue about the theocracy.



How so?

I've seen some of these 'Free Tibet' people, even here in Finland. They seem to be mostly liberal hippie types, whose attitude on Tibet appears more exoticist than democratic.

Not just that. They spread the myth of the good old Tibet as a peacefull hippie paradise. Seen the Brad Pitt movie? Stuff like that, and worse.

I'm not against the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination, if they wish. What I am against is the former landlords, lamas etc. to have any influence in the political life of Tibet ever again. Also, for some reason this 'Free Tibet' solidarity thing seems to be strongest in the so-called West (ie. the centre areas of imperialism), and lead by people who show little or no solidarity to the vast majority of world's national liberation movements and struggles.

That's because the 'Free Tibet' movement is not a component of the world revolutionary and national liberation movement, which also applies to its Western sympathisers. It's not a genuine people's struggle, the 'Free Tibet' solidarity campaign is not supporting a people fighting for its liberation. Actually the 'Free Tibet' movement and its Western supporters are pretty much one and the same. The solidarity of the 'Free Tibet' solidarity movement is directed towards the exiled past of Tibet.

Symbology or the leading figure isn't relevant in my opinion - having Dalai Lama as a figurehead could as well mean that Tibet would be a constitutional monarchy (or whatever is the equivalent). We are also once again facing the dilemma of democracy - if Tibetan people wanted their country to be a theocracy under Dalai Lama, do they have a right to select such a system?

Using Dalai Lama as a leader of the movement is only rational, really - he is the most famous, the most popular figurehead of Tibet, gathers public support with his apparent charisma and quite probably is an important symbol for the Tibetans themselves. In a fact I think it would be almost odd if they didn't use him as a figurehead.

While I cannot of course predict what kind of government free Tibet would have, none of the examples you mentioned seem heavy enough to point that Tibet would be established as authoritarian theocracy, continuing the old tradition of the Tibetan "nation" of the 1950s.

On the other hand, I do somewhat agree with you that many supporters of free Tibet seem rather naive idealists who haven't thought about what this free Tibet would be in practice and are far too much affected by the "exotic" nature of Buddhism in general. Though accurate visions about the future nature of Tibet are inherently over-optimistic as there is no signs of status quo changing between Tibetan separatist movement and China.

First of all, is it really in the mold of democracy to depend on an ignorant population to choose a government? Democracy is not a creation of the people, it's foundations are always found in the educated elite and spread outward. If the American people decided in 1783, a parlimentary monarchy probably would've been chosen.

Also, if the Dalai Lama were to go back on the throne, why would he ever want to fritter away his power creating a parliment? Parliments are never created by the King unless under duress from the noblemen, and there is obviously not at the start no readily defined noblemen. We're not talking about George III taking the throne again, we're talking about Louis XIV.



Maybe in 1950, but I bet if you were to ask about him now, you wouldn't get a very good response from the Tibetans. The only thing that the Dalai Lama has succeeded in is making the West forget that there ever was a Tibetan history before the Chinese invasion and whoring Buddhist philosophy for his own gain.

"Holier Than Thou" my ass.



There is no reason why it wouldn't.

So we should just ignore the situation and let the Chinese crush the Tibetans?

Yes, why not?

where? when? how? For all I know the actual Tibetian resistance to Chinese government is minimal. It is primarily United States which tries to instigate the unrest over there.

Resistance is not the way of the Tibetians, at least armed resistance. Passasive resistance yes.

As for it being Crushed - the military crushed any real resistance years ago (or have you forgotten that). Since then China instigated a plan to encourage Han Chinese to move into the area. From the last demographic study I saw the tibetians were now outnumbered by the Han Chinese.

Also state control of the buddist sancturies has resulted in an enviroment where abbots are installed who toe the party line, rather than because of religious merrit.


So the next time someone somewhere in the world is opressed - we should ignore it....eventualy they will....go away?

Well, I do agree that democracy is formed not by some ambiguous concept "people" as no such homogenous group exist. But requirement of educated elite and ignorant population forms an intellectual death trap for democracy - under that argument you could continuously attack every suggestion of government as "ignorant" and "wrong" until the type of government you wanted got selected. Ignorant, as a concept, is after all highly tied to a political bias. Liberal capitalist state is an ignorant, backward form of government to a communist for example.



That is an anachronism. Monarchy wasn't ideologically bankcrupt in 1783, like it for example is now. Though probably not as much in Asia as in the West. And while we might debate the pros and cons of republicanism and parliamentary monarchy in the US, these points do not necessarily apply in Tibet.



Because he would be taking his position as a head of state in front of the international audience heavily pro-democracy.

Actually I did some browsing in the internet and according to the website of Tibetan Government in Exile (for example here.) Dalai Lama has already ceded his power to the National Assembly (and for example National Assembly elects council of Ministers and can revoke the executive powers of Dalai Lama with 2/3 majority etc.). The plans for the future rule of Tibet look rather democratic to me.

So the parliament (or more accurately, the blueprint of it) has already been formed. It is of course another question whether these democratic systems would be put to practice in case of Tibet separating from China. If the creation of this framework in exile isn't enough for you, I doubt there is much I can say to argue my point further, considering that noone can see to the future and know what will happen in practice.

The problem I already pointed out is that the 'Free Tibet Campaign' is essentially one with the exile government of Tibet. This exile government consists not of democratic but of anti-popular social strata, including representatives and descendants of the upper castes of the old feudal system. The exile government can't be considered a representative of the Tibetan people. They represent themselves and to some extent certain 'higher interests' which manipulate them, but never the Tibetan people - which they're not a part of.

I agree that the exile government isn't a representative organ as it was never elected. The democratic structures are planned, but there is no way to know whether they would be put to practice if Tibet was freed or that the land reforms promised would be carried out.

The problem is that the opinion of the Tibetan people cannot be asked (in a referundum for example), because the highest authority in Tibet is China and quite honestly I see no reason why they should be trusted any more than the government in exile.

Don't know about you, but if I had to be in a position of being controlled, I'd rather my own people did it, rather than foreigners.

It's a representative organ. It represents the overthrown upper castes and their clergy, who now want to return to Tibet.

The people's revolution in China annihilated feudalism also in Tibet. China is not revolutionary anymore, but there's no chance of feudalism ever coming back to Tibet, atleast not in its pure form. I'd assume this to be obvious to even the dimmest reactionaries of the exile followers of Dalai Lama. Whatever we assume the social base in Tibet 'awaiting' the return of the exiles to be, it has nevertheless gone through a great transformation. Whatever reversal there might have been during the recent decades, it can't have amounted to feudal restoration. There's a New reality in the new Tibet, to which the exiled representatives of the Past must adapt to, both in their fantasies of a comeback and in their public declarations.

Nevertheless for Tibet they are a force of the Past, not the Future. To fight for future means to fight for progress and democracy. If the people of Tibet want progress and democracy (with or without self-determination) they must keep the exiled Past out of Tibet.

The exile government can bring the people neither national self-determination nor progress. If the Tibetans advance on the road of progress and democracy, it'll be despite of these exiles. It'll be through their own efforts, possibly with the outside support of democratic forces (whose eternal enemies the remnants and descendants of feudal upper castes are).



Then why support the 'Free Tibet' Campaign? If all we have is the exile campaign by defeated separatist rebels without evidence of the Tibetan people continuing their supposed quest for independence/autonomy without their feudal masters, why support the 'Free Tibet' movement?

The thesis that we don't see any signs because the 'Tibetans are peaceful' is based on a myth. The Tibetans may be peaceful, but not to the extent some would like us to think. The Tibetans who waged the most fierce armed struggle against the Chinese were from the clergy, those most close to the supposedly 'pacifist' teachings of Buddhism and Dalai Lama. The rhetorics of peaceful or passive resistance are a creation of the exiles, after the defeat of their armed struggle and terrorism in Tibet.

From my point of view the people of Tibet don't appear to hate the people of China, but rather the opressive government of China - and the actions that are carried out in the name of China.

But I am not that widely read on the situation.

How, from your point of view, does the people of Tibet "appear to hate the government of China"?

Anyway, my instinct says there's hatred towards the government from all nationalities of China. However, hatred towards the government doesn't necessarily indicate national separatism.

I should've been more specific, I meant representative in the ideal democratic sense, representing the people. Naturally it represents the upper castes, but due ideological differences I do not accept the fact that they should be denied of their representation because they represent the bourgeois. Though I realise the problems in this when we consider the relationship of power in the current world order and capital.

In a way I agree with you, Jaakko, that the Tibetans in Tibet should be very wary of their "government in exile", because such exiled governments might have far different interests than people in general have. On the other hand to me it seems very difficult to see the exiled government as totally malignant force (probably because I don't accept the same Weltantauschung as you do) as I believe that military subjugation the Chinese are capable of exacting on Tibet is not to be underestimated. At least the hippy exotic Free Tibet movement is poking some life to that debate that the Chinese so aptly dominate right now.

I also know that we do not share the same concept of human rights, but the fact that the Chinese officials have to persecute Tibetan separatists in the way it is currently doing suggests that the Chinese occupation at least in some parts of Tibetan Autonomous Region is unwanted and should be disassembled, no matter what will be the debate about the future of it.