Jane Ayers’ feature article (RSN, 3/30/2012) appeared to come off as a basic black and white portrayal of China-Tibet relations (which have a long historical standing) where only pure evil vs pure good exists. First off, how many demonstrators immolated themselves in response to the latest Chinese crackdown? Ayers states, “the majority of protesting monks and nuns have been setting themselves on fire,” adding, “over the last two weeks since March 16 most of these immolations [thirty confirmed since 2009] have taken place.” While of course tragic, if thirty were confirmed, how many, or little, is the “majority” in these protests? Ayers asks, “Why, why, why?”

A Human Rights Report (Common Dreams.org, 3/16/2012), of which Ayers refers to, states that the Chinese government “has ended a key policy of allowing Tibetan monasteries to be run by monks who comply with government regulations and have introduced a system placing almost every monastery under direct rule of government officials.” Sophie Richardson, China Director for HRW, said, “This new decision is a major departure. It overturns the central guarantee of ‘autonomy’ that has guided policy on Tibet for decades.” The report states that a “Democratic Management Committee” had been the administrating body where it was “comprised by monks who were elected by their community,” although overseen by “government and party officials.”

A “Management Committee” would be added “with up to 30 lay officials in each monastery depending on the size of the institution.” “The [MCs] will run the monasteries with “officials selected and sent to manage the monastery together with monks while “the [DMCs] will be responsible for rituals and other matters.” The new system was initially researched “as an ‘emergency response project’ by experts in Beijing following widespread unrest of Tibetan areas in 2008.” Further, “government offices are required to provide practical services such as running water, electricity, roads and social security payments to monks and monasteries, ‘especially those that are helpful and supportive of patriotism.’”

Human Rights Watch concluded that “the state is becoming increasingly invasive in its management of religion in Tibet.” This is in contrast to China’s Premier Wen Jiabao’s statement that “we should respect Tibetan compatriot’s freedom of religious belief” and that “we must treat all of our Tibetan compatriots with equality and respect.” Ayers quoted Wen’s statement and responded, “...the monks and nuns would not be protesting so adamantly if this ‘respect’ was being given.”

While Tibetans of course have a right to their identity, culture and language, have the Chinese been totally the “evildoers” while Tibetans, particularly the lamaist theocracy, been as pure as the driven snow as Ayers implies? In “Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth,” Michael Parenti provides a revealing historical analysis not usually heard. Regarding Buddhism, Parenti states “not all forms of [it] have been free of doctrinal fanaticism, nor free of violent and exploitative pursuits,” adding that, "[d]uring the 20th century, Buddhists clashed violently with each other and nonBuddhists in Thailand, Burma, Korea, Japan, India and elsewhere.” Turning to Tibetan Buddhism, Parenti says that “many Buddhists” and “Western news media” and “Hollywood films” portrayed old, pre-1959 Tibet and its theocracy “as a veritable Shangri-La.”

But Parenti quotes a western Buddhist practioner saying old Tibet was, “much more like Europe during the religious wars of the Counterreformation.” Of the examples Parenti provides, the fifth Dalai Lama” in 1660 crushed a rebellion by “the Kagyu sect, directing the Mongol army to obliterate the male and female lines, even the offspring ‘like eggs smashed against rocks...in short, annihilate any traces of them, even their names.’” Until 1959, Tibetan society had a huge chasm of haves and havenots, where rich landlords and lamas controlled vast amounts of wealth and land, contrasting the common Tibetan population who were mainly serfs and slaves.

Parenti also gives a brief description of a part of monastic life where young Tibetan boys “were regularly taken from their peasant families” to the monasteries to be trained as monks and were “bonded for life.” “Tashi-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine.”

Serfs needed “permission to go anywhere.” And if they ran away they were severely punished. “One 24-year old welcomed the Chinese intervention as ‘liberation.’” “He testified” he endured intolerable conditions and wound up running away three times. Then, “he was mercilessly beaten by the landlord’s men” and “poured alchohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain.”

Parenti also brings up evidence of torture: “In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment used by Tibetan overlords.” Among the items were, “instruments to cut off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips and special implements for disemboweling." There were “photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and of a woman who was raped, then had her nose sliced away.”

The “justification” of conditions in old Tibet was based on the myth of karma: “The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives, thus having to accept their present existence as karmic atonement.”

And what about the Chinese invasion of 1959? Previous to 1949, the year of the Chinese Revolution, “Tibetan lords and lamas enjoyed good relations with Chiang Kaishek and his reactionary Kuomintang rule in China.” Tibet needed approval of the Chinese government to “validate the choice of Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama.” And Chinese troops were in Tibet when the current Dalai Lama was installed. But after 1949, the Tibetan theocracy became upset because the “latest Chinese were Communists.” “Armed Tibetan bands” began an uprising, supported by the CIA with arms and training; along with its front, the “American Society for a Free Asia” to publicize “the cause.” The Dalai Lama’s brothers were involved with CIA actions. Was the uprising popular? Parenti quotes writer Hugh Deane: “Many lamas and lay members of the elite, and much of the Tibetan army joined the uprising, but in the main, the populace did not, assuring its failure.”

But what about that Chinese oppression? Whatever degree it has existed, after 1959, “the Chinese abolished slavery and serfdom, eliminated many crushing taxes, started work projects, greatly reduced unemployment and beggary, established secular schools thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries and constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa. Further, the landed estates of the lords and lamas were eventually “expropriated,” being distributed to “tenant farmers and landless peasants, reorganizing them into hundreds of communes.”

Ayers writes of nun Ani Panchen, “Tibet’s Joan of Arc” who “endured 21 years in a Chinese prison” for being involved in resisting the Chinese. Panchen stated that as a result of the invasion, there was among other things, “1.2 million” deaths. But Parenti cites an “official 1953 census - six years before the Chinese crackdown” recording the entire Tibet population at “1,274,000.” He concludes: “If the Chinese killed 1.2 million to the early 1960s, then almost all of Tibet would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with mass graves and death camps - of which we have no evidence.”

In an apparent Chinese White Paper (About.com, Chinese Culture), there are historical details regarding Tibet-China relations. Although rhetorical at times, it makes some valid assertions. In one section, it looks at the “origins of Tibetan independence.” It starts off that, “[f]or more than 700 years, the central government of China has continuously exercised sovereignty over Tibet.” It quotes British Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne who in 1904 called Tibet “a province of China.” It also quotes Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who in 1954 said, “Over the past several 100 years, as far as I know, at no time has any country denied China’s sovereignty over Tibet.”

But the Paper also indicates that Britain made an attempt after the 1911 Revolution, taking “advantage of the political chaos in China after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the birth of the Republic of China.” The British empire was still on a colonial rule binge, wanting to carve up China. Even before 1911, in 1907, Britain and Russia signed a convention where China had “suzerainty” (political control over foreign relations) rather than sovereignty over Tibet. Britain played divide and rule, goading Tibetan authorities to break from China. “Stirred up by the British, the Tibetan representative [Lon-chen Shatra] raised the slogan of ‘Tibetan independence’ for the first time.” The White Paper goes on with the subsequent history.

Tibet-China relations of course span the centuries. Kallie Szczepanski, in her piece “Tibet and China: History of a Complex Relationship” (About.com), initially notes that “...as with China’s relations with the Mongols and Japanese, the balance of power between Tibet and China has shifted back and forth...” Szczepanski provides details of the earliest known interactions between the two in 640 A.D., “when Tibetan king Sangstan Gampo married the Tang emperor’s niece princess Wencheng” as well as “a Nepalese princess.” “Both wives were Buddhist, and this may have been the origin of Tibetan Buddhism. The faith grew when an influx of Central Asian Buddhists flooded Tibet in the eighth century,” fleeing Arab and Kazakh armies. Gampo conquered a vast region in China, but eventually China retook it. Gampo then aligned himself with China’s enemies, the Arabs and Eastern Turks. But “Chinese power waxed strong in the early eighth century,” where it conquered much of Central Asia. Then, defeated by the Arabs and Karluks, China’s power declined and “Tibet resumed control over much of Central Asia.”

In the 13th century when the Mongols conquered China, Tibetans, “canny politicians,” “befriended Ghengis Khan,” paying tribute. Szczepanski states that “over time, Tibet came to be considered one of the thirteen provinces of the Mongol-ruled nation of Yuan China.” Although this is ancient history, the past does connect to the present, and thus somewhat contradicting Ayers’ B/W portrayal in the face of a complex relationship.

But what about the Dalai Lama? Is his public image as B/W as his supporters make it out to be? In his book, “Beyond Religion,” (2011) the Dalai Lama provides an interesting and intelligent treatment on his positions, including his prioritization of secular ethics over religion, while not opposing the latter. He also acknowledges the importance of modern science. And he makes a persuasive argument that all people want happiness and want to avoid suffering, and thus with that commonality, it would make sense to prioritize nonviolence and peace. But I’ll add that human struggles have gone on a straight and crooked path. Although he promotes admirable goals, there’s more to the Dalai Lama’s history than meets his supporters’ eyes.

In a commentary entitled, “The Dalai Lama’s Hidden Past,” (Green Left Weekly, 9/25/1996) Norm Dixon points out several truths contradicting “His Holiness’s” public image. He brings up a 1995 document from the Dalai Lama’s Office of Tibet which asserted that China pretended to liberate Tibet from “medieval, feudal serfdom and slavery,” calling it a “myth.” Dixon asks, “Was this a myth?” Then goes on to echo Parenti’s description of lamaist theocratic rule. And Dixon asserts, “When the Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959, he was preceded by more than 60 tons of treasure.” Additionally, the Dalai Lama and the elite “agreed to give away Tibet’s de facto independence in 1950 once they were assured by Beijing their exploitative system would be maintained. Nine years later, only when they felt their privileges being threatened, did they revolt."

Suddenly, "‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ entered the vocabulary of the ‘government-in-exile.'" Dixon furthers questions that “government’s” motives regarding these principles.
Dixon asserts that the Dalai Lama and his “exiled government” have a “right-wing nature” “...further exposed by its relationship with the U.S. CIA. The Dalai Lama concealed the CIA’s role in the 1959 uprising until 1975.” Adding to this, the Dalai Lama’s “administration acknowledged [in 1998] it revieved $1.7 million a year through the CIA in the 1960s" (Wikipedia, 14th Dalai Lama) and Parenti states that the Dalai Lama himself received an “annual payment” of “$186,000.”

Dixon concludes, “The Tibetan people deserve the right to national self-determination. However, supporting their struggle should not mean we uncritically support the self-proclaimed rule of the Dalai Lama and his compromised “government-in-exile.”

The Chinese of course have found the Dalai Lama’s motives suspect. In Ayers’ feature, she refers to an AP press report stating that China blamed the Dalai Lama of “single-handedly” planning the self-immolation suicide of exiled youth Jampa Yeshi in India because the Chinese president was visiting. The Dalai Lama responded that the immolations were the result of “cultural genocide by Chinese.” (But I’ll add that unrest broke out in Tibet in 2008 exactly at the time of the Beijing Olympics.)

In Section III of that Chinese White Paper, it goes into the history of how the Dalai Lama, calling his theocracy the “Dali Clique,” “completely renounced the patriotic stand which he once expressed and engaged in numerous activities to split the motherland.” Among the accusations: "In June 1998 the Dalai Lama raised a so-called ‘Strasbourg proposal’ for the solution of the Tibet issue. On the premise that Tibet 'had always been' an independent state, the proposal interpreted the issue of a regional national autonomy within a country as a relationship between a suzerain and a vassal state, thus denying China’s sovereignty over Tibet” with disguised independence. “The central government naturally rejected the proposal, because it was a conspiracy the imperialists once hatched in order to carve up China [a la the British empire’s attempt].

The White Paper mentions there were attempts at reconciliation: “On December 28, 1978, Deng Xiaoping said to AP correspondents that ‘the Dalai Lama may return, but only as a Chinese citizen. We have but one demand-patriotism.” “On March 12, [1979], Deng Xiaoping met with the Dalai Lama’s representatives and said to them, ‘The Dalai Lama is welcome back. Now whether dialogue to discuss and settle problems will be between the central government and Tibet as a state or as a part of China? That is a practical question. Essentially, Tibet is a part of China. This is criterion for judging right and wrong.”

So, while it’s adamant in the Paper that negotiations have been attempted, it’s also adamant that “Tibetan Independence Brooks No Discussion.”

While the Tibetan cause has its justifications in preserving Tibetans’ indigenous rights regarding culture, language, identity as well as some degree of political and economic power - and for reputed to be a peaceful movement - the Dalai Lama’s choice of aligning himself with the CIA is bizarre given the latter’s historical track record of violence, torture, disinformation, coup-making and law-breaking especially in poor countries for the U.S.’s empire of monopoly capital. Also bizarre is his association with U.S. Republican Senator Jesse Helms. There is a photo on the Taylor-Report.com website taken in 1995 showing the two together. A caption reads: “Dalai Lama with his long-time militant supporter Jesse Helms, the champion of apartheid in S. Africa and enemy of racial equality in America.”

And in a further twist, the Dalai Lama’s history also reveals political stances on the Left. In his book “Beyond Religion,” he calls himself “at least half a Marxist” and is critical of capitalism. Further information is revealed in a description called “14th Dalai Lama” (Wikipedia): “On September 27, 1954 the Dalai Lama was selected as a deputy chairman of the Standing Committee of the National Peoples’ Congress, a post he held until 1964.

“The Dalai Lama has referred to himself as a Marxist and has articulated criticisms of capitalism. He went to Beijing to study Marxist theory. ‘I was so attracted to Marxism I even expressed my wish to become a Communist Party member.’” Also quoted: “Of all the modern economic theories, Marxism is founded on moral principles while capitalism is only concerned with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It’s concerned with the working classes and those who are underprivileged and in need. For these reasons, the system appeals to me, it seems fair.” And in 2009 he said, “I call myself a feminist.”

Regarding CIA support for the 1959 uprising, the Dalai Lama is said to have concluded, “the U.S. government had involved itself in his country’s affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese.” In Ayers’ feature, Ani Panchen also sounded bewildered or disillusioned with U.S. motives. “Ani Penchen continued to focus on the role of the United States in this crisis [the latest crackdown]: ‘From a personal perspective for Americans, it is not good America’s moral strength and your sense of being a moral nation and peacekeeper in the world.’” Penchen was referring to the U.S. Congress’s act of granting China Most Favored Trade Status.

Penchen then asked, “What does your nation really stand for morally and ethically in the world?” From this, I’ll make the conjecture that Penchen didn’t really know the United States’s ideological objective, as an empire, in the world; for over 100 years it has practiced continuous imperialism, even years before the Soviet Union existed, to establish and maintain a world capitalist economic order. And “capitalism is only concerned with gain and profitability,” to quote the Dalai Lama.

Profits before peoples. U.S. officials and their corporate allies, when they look at the Peoples’ Republic of China, see in the bottom line billions of workers to make billions of dollars off of; and thus would love to try and destroy what’s left of socialism in the PRC.

But after her moral question, Penchen added, “Yes, America usually fights for human rights around the world...” Usually? Tell that to various peoples in various countries who have experienced U.S. invasion/occupation/bombing, among other things. If Tibetans and their western supporters still think that the U.S. in its current “incarnation” is going to be neutral - thus denying its particular ideological interests - in contributing to resolving China-Tibet tensions, then I’m sorry to say that they are incredibly naïve.

But how socialist is China now? Parenti offers discouraging words: “...if Tibet’s future is to be positioned within China’s emerging free-market paradise, then this does not bode well for Tibetans. China is emerging as one of the greatest industrial powers. But with economic growth has come a deepening gulf between rich and poor. Workers in China who try to organize labor unions in the corporate-dominated ‘business zones’ risk losing their jobs or getting beaten or imprisoned. Millions of business zone workers toil twelve-hour days at subsistence wages. With the healthcare system now being privatized, free or affordable medical treatment is no longer available for millions.” With that, I have to ask the following: Will the Real Chinese Communists please stand up?

And likewise, of course, with the Dalai Lama and his “theocracy-in-exile.” He has shown many sides that bring his upheld “holiness” down into hard reality. And what about Tibet, or the real Tibet? Could it be an independent nation or is it legally a part of China? Would a potential nation be ruled by a theocracy of a right-wing nature? Is there is a religious/political chasm between the theocracy and common Tibetans? How much democracy is there under lamaist rule, and for that matter does its advanced form exist, Marxism, since the Dalai Lama has agreed with its principles? There is cause for concern, and China has learned its own history where western powers are concerned carving up what once was called “the sick man of Asia.” Colonialism/imperialism against China has had some roads, at the least, leading to Tibet.

Under different international circumstances, perhaps that would enhance the chance for China and Tibet to have some reconsiderations and in turn a different relationship. But to reiterate, human struggles have taken a straight and crooked path.