“’67 Soweto massacre”. I assume you mean ‘76, but you’re still wrong. The ANC launched MK in the early sixties and while MK didn’t do much initially the peaceful struggle was long gone as an ideal by 76.

You are in fact correct. I had in my head convinced myself that it was the Soweto riots which triggered it all, instead of the Sharpeville massacre. Thanks for pointing it out, I have edited the piece accordingly.

I chalk up my horrid errors to occupational illiteracy (writing in a Japanese classroom).

The one thing that has always concerned me about the “plight of the tibetan” people is that in the place of the Chinese occupation they would have an out an out theocracy. While the Dalai is no crazed Mullah it still isn’t the roadmap for a modern state. Perhaps the world may listen more if the call was for secular constitution.

What’s fucking meaning you are talking about.
You know what, so, some Tibetan monk go to the street, set some barricade, burn the car and also burn all of the store in the street, threw the man and woman out of the window form the high place, choped passing civilian by sword.
You call it struggle for ‘freedom’?
If the wanna to be independent, so point to the fucking goverment, not point to the civilian.
Do you know how many inculpable people dying?
I can believe some terrorist riot that you can so much touch.

Bullshit, wish one day, Osama bin bomb your house.

Ouch – sorry to be the bringer of more questioning.

Armed struggles are, in my understanding, far from being always effective at achieving the stated outcome. There are many examples of this:

• the Fenians in Britain in 1800s
• the Nihilists and Anarchists of the 1800s/1900s
• the Red Brigades
• the Red Faction Army
• Black September and the PLO
• and on and on

And I wouldn’t hesitate to include the armed campaign of the ANC as part of the failures list. The downfall of apartheid had much more to do with international pressure than the generally incompetent and ineffectual bombing campaigns launched by the ANC/MK.

And finally, on a purely logical sense – what would a bunch of monks seriously be able to do to the Chinese state? Surely with odds like that, it would be completely irrational to launch a campaign which would probably bring not more than an effective genocide of the Tibetans?

I agree with Shaun to the letter. You should look more into what non-violence is than what you’ve assumed it is. Its adherents are no pansies, John, and they would do more than you’d be willing to try. Gandhi and King, and Tutu, and the Dalaï Lama, are no pansies. They are strong freedom fighters. Picking up a gun is being a chicken, in a lot of ways.

A good point Shaun, and I’ve been thinking along a similar tack this week. I think I’m just more curious as to what happens to Tibet if they don’t take up armed resistance? They are most assuredly not going to gain the recognition they so desperately (and perhaps deservedly?) want, and if they do, they would be annihilated.

So I guess the question is, do you remain a subjucated people, the so-called ‘brave’ option according to Rethabile, or do you use the extensive ties the Tibetan people share with the global community to start thinking about a guerilla war. The Taliban brought the Soviets to their knees in Afghanistan with some American grease, and I wonder if the Tibetans, with a little help, could achieve similar results? Large Communist militaries have generally excelled at BEING insurgents, yet struggle somewhat to combat them. Perhaps Tibet could at least bring something more to the table than constant humanism. It’s admirable, yes, but utterly ineffective as a negotiating tool.

Those examples you posted are sound, but in my mind, they merely pose as the exceptions which prove the rule. Armed struggle, generally speaking, DOES work. It’s just bloody, chaotic, and lots of people die.

If the Tibetans want recognition so badly, simply burning cars won’t budge a giant like China.

Rethabile, please don’t presume to speak for what I would do in the same circumstances. I certainly don’t presume to call you a coward, so why be so petty? I realise you don’t like, or even want to like, what I write here, but at least be a little more… insightful.

It is high time that people move past attaching significance to ‘who’ rules them, when, ultimately, governments should be judged on their effectiveness of carrying out the tasks ideally assigned to them. The most important being: the maintenance of law and order, the securement of property rights, the development and sustenance of a free market system, and the provision of basic infrastucture. There is a tendancy among developing nations for citizens, and more importantly, voters, to desire a government that reflects a certain appearance, or ideology notwithstanding success or failure in the aforementioned categories. Furthermore, they disregard other, secondary, issues of real importance, opting instead to focus solely on a leader’s personality as the only criterion for suitability to occupy office.

China may not be the paragon of good governance in the terms I have loosely defined, but the Dalai Lama is little, if at all, better. As one of the posters mentioned above, the Lama, God-King that he is, would merely re-introduce the theocracy that denounced electricity and other modern advancements as ‘sinful’. Chinese rule, stripped of such archaic ideas, has seen not only electricity, but has also one of the greatest railways in the world come to Tibet, linking the mountain kingdom to the rest of the world, giving more Tibetans the opportunity to travel and learn. I would scoff at the idea that continuous rule by the Lama would have brought such advancements – in fact there would be no cars to burn in protest, were it not for Chinese rule.

Finally, in this instance, Tibetans must just accept that ‘might makes right’ and that China would crush any ‘armed struggle’ with ease. It’s not a question of self-determination, it is a fact of complete and utter weakness, and inability to attract serious international assistance, to the Tibetan cause. I do not considder a few protestors baying for a boycott of the Olympics, or obstructing the relay ceremony as ‘serious’ support. The only countries that could make this a serious issue are too tied in to the Chinese economy to risk angering Beijing over what is, in reality, a relatively insignificant country.

Therefore, Tibetans should abandon their desires for independence and the restitution of a mostly symbolic leader that has brought them no material benefit whatsoever, and instead focus on living their lives as best they can in their current situation. To embark on any other path only ensures their liquidation.

Dear John, I cannot imagine an end-game scenario over peaceful co-existence. I guess this is the argument of Tibet’s and the Dalai Lama’s non-violent approach – that one live as best as possible in harmony. I guess both Shaun and Rethabile and Mark has some essence of the truth – considering the religious practice of the Monks.

“Rethabile, please don’t presume to speak for what I would do in the same circumstances.”

John, I don’t. You told me: “I find it quite hard to simply sit there and get shot at, have my home and national identity stripped away and be expected to smile about it at the same time.” But that’s OK.

My point with this comment is that I’m not petty, and if I sounded petty, then it’s my bad.

I don’t like what you write, yes. But it’s a free country, and you can “write what you like.” I like to read it, however, for the same reasons, but also because I think it’s important to have other people’s points of view. Everybody’s point of view.

If I think I’m right and you’re wrong, then I best know what it is I think you got wrong. I won’t label you wrong because you have a certain title (liberal, non-liberal, conservative, pro-this or anti-that). And I expect as much from you, if you don’t mind.

You used the word “insightful” in your comment. It’s uncanny how it sounds like you’re using the word to mean “agree with me, be of my opinion.”

Even in a rare moment of selectively-quoted coherence, you seem to completely miss the point ><

John, I see your point.

You are wondering what will happen to Tibet without armed resistance.

You are wondering if Tibet can gain independance from China without armed resistance.

You are referencing the Taliban and the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets paradoxical to the situation in Tibet.

You are proposing an armed response from Tibetans rather than their current peacful and humanistic approach to Chinese aggression.

None of this makes any sense as both civil disobedience and an armed struggle will inevitably manifest the same result – obliteration of the Tibetan lifestyle. For me, personally, considering the upcoming Olympics and the global attention this event attracts, the ill-fated UN have to play a role here. If not, it just further emphasises that organisation’s ineffectiveness in the modern era. China has to bear global political and economical pressure to relinquish their oppressive control over Tibet. A Hong Kong scenario is not bad option.

Despite of all this, Tibet will be challenged to survive without Chinese influence in all arena’s, No, John, I much prefer a mutual settlement where both parties relinquish a certain amount of control, where, true to Tibetan traditions, an harmonious co-existence is possible. There is a stunning article in last week’s Time Magazine also emphasising this point.

Ok, let me try and elaborate for you the point of the original entry entry:

First and foremost, I don’t ‘wonder’ if Tibet can ever gain independence from China for two reasons. The first of which is that the Dalai Lama himself doesn’t want independence from China. He’s made that very obvious in a series of statements. He wants effective self-governance within Chinese borders. Like, as you rightly brought up, Hong Kong.

Secondly, I don’t ‘wonder’ whether they will achieve the above-mentioned aim because I had made it quite clear in my original entry that I believe they will never attain this through peaceful protest. Likewise I cited Afghanistan not as ‘paradoxical’ to the current Chinese situation, but as a precedent and example of how armed resistance can work quite effectively.

Armed resistance may well annihilate the Tibetan people once and for all. But do you honestly believe the Chinese will give them what they want through talking? Come now, that’s just being outright naive. The CCP can wait for the Dalai Lama to die of old age, all the while continuosly spreading Chinese presence in Tibet, all the way the Lhasa, like their famous railroad. Time, for the Tibetans, is not on their side. To think otherwise is to be unrealistic.

Rethabile thinks taking up an armed struggle is the ‘coward’s’ way out. And perhaps he is right. But I do know that peaceful protest hasn’t worked for the Tibetans so far, and the comparatively mild violence of these riots have robbed them of whatever little bargaining power they might have had. All that peaceful protest has done is create sympathy for their cause, but no really tangible support. Everyone makes whimpering sounds when we think of these poor peaceful monks in their delightfully colourful robes being brutally oppressed by the horrid Communists. And to an extent, it’s pretty terrible. Then again, so is being shot in the face in Darfur, but we don’t see nearly as big an outrage over there. If the Tibetans take up armed struggle, and this is my main suspicion of why they don’t, they will lose their benevolent impression painfully garnered by the Dalai Lama, and thus become just another separatist group.

How on earth do you expect the Tibetans to get what they want without fighting for it? If gaining satellite autonomy is SO important to the Tibetans, yet not important enough to DO anything about it, why on earth do you expect the UN to step up to the plate? At what point did you ever think the UN would take on China? And I’m the one not making sense?
—-

This is all before one even takes the international political consequences of a perceived Tibetan independence. What would that mean for Taiwan, for example?

Allowing the Tibetans their little fiefdom would create far more strategic headaches than simply being embarrassed.

John, thanks for elaborating.

Using Afghanistan as an example – for me, anyway – does not make sense as the circumstances are entirely different. I do acknowledge it as an example of armed resistance; however, you are loosing sight of the fabric of Tibetan society, and thus you should not make an unqualified comparison.

Tibetan culture is build upon principles of harmony and peace, and has been part of China since many moons ago. Inner peace is the key, how strange a concept this might be to us. The Dalia Lama himself said in “The Noble Lecture”, and I qoute copiously:

“Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free. True peace with oneself and with the world around us can only be achieved through the development of mental peace. The other phenomena mentioned above are similarly interrelated. Thus, for example, we see that a clean environment, wealth or democracy mean little in the face of war, especially nuclear war, and that material development is not sufficient to ensure human happiness. Material progress is of course important for human advancement. In Tibet, we paid much to little attention to technological and economic development, and today we realize that this was a mistake. At the same time, material development without spiritual development can also cause serious problems. In some countries too much attention is paid to external things and very little importance is given to inner development. I believe both are important and must be developed side by side so as to achieve a good balance between them. Tibetans are always described by foreign visitors as being a happy, jovial people. This is part of our national character, formed by cultural and religious values that stress the importance of mental peace through the generation of love and kindness to all other living sentient beings, both human and animal. Inner peace is the key: if you have inner peace, the external problems do not affect your deep sense of peace and tranquillity. In that state of mind you can deal with situations with calmness and reason, while keeping your inner happiness. This is very important. Without this inner peace, no matter how comfortable your life is materially, you may still be worried, disturbed or unhappy because of circumstances.”

The Soviets outright invaded an already autonomous country, with the obvious armed resistance as a following result. Protests in Tibet started when around 400 monks began a march from Drepung Monastery heading into central Lhasa, demanding the easing of a government-imposed campaign which forces monks to write denunciations of the Dalai Lama and subjects them to government political propaganda. This is very different to being invaded.

Yes, I admit being naive, but then I have always been more a philosopher than a historical commentator, and as such does not yet fully comprehend the historical factors of this debate. However, considering the Tibetan lifestyle, I find it very difficult to acknowledge that an armed struggle will reap more benefits for them. I believe they will loose whatever sympathy already exists. Perhaps they gain your respect, but in the big picture they will loose the very foundation of their faith – and as such, their true freedom and liberty.

What I will give you, is that war or armed resistance – always an evil, in my humble opinion – is sometimes the lesser of two evil. Even then it needs additional justification, from the degree of evil it opposes. Few will argue that the resistance against Nazism was not justified, or that against the apartheid’s regime. This consideration prompts the inescapable question about the conduct of war: what should be its limits. I guess (please forgive me if I am presumptuous) this is what you are addressing, John? Should ethics tie one’s hands when faced with an implacable enemy, whose victory might be a disaster for Tibet, or the world? “There is no middle course in wartime,” said Churchill. This hard truth forces me to recognize another: that every war, however justified, reduces the stock of human good, and diminishes civilization – sometimes destroying in seconds what centuries built.

In these instances, as opposed to resisting foreign invasion, the issue in Tibet is about belief and to a degree, religion. I strongly argue that any form of resistance or war prompted by religion, even indirectly, is never justified. Whatever the proximate excuse for such armed conflicts, the basis of each one is exactly the same, namely, suspicion and hostility engendered by differences of belief and associated culture. For example, Christian armies mounted crusades against the infidels to capture the holy places of the Middle East, and against heretics such as the Cathars to rebut their falsehoods by exterminating those who believed them. These are entirely matters of ideology. People should be left to believe what they like, so long as they harm no-one else. The war of ideas today is what makes a difference to the occurrence or otherwise of shooting wars of tomorrow. But the murderous grip of humanity’s various immemorial belief systems is unavoidably here now, sprouting its bitter fruit. It is as hard for the innocents of one side to defend against the frenzy of fanatics as for those of the other to protect themselves against technical might. But the survivors, if there are any, can try to defend the future by winning the longer and greater war against the intolerance, bigotry, zealotry and hatred which so brutally divide humankind against itself. I cannot agree that Tibetans will be better of taking up arms, but do respect your opinion in this regard.

As for the UN, the Chinese authorities should allow an independent UN investigation into the events in Tibet, particularly in the light of the sealing off of the region in recent days and the long-term restrictions on human rights monitoring there. The Chinese authorities also need to address the underlying grievances of the Tibetan people and the long-term policies that have generated such resentment, which the UN could certainly facilitate. Long-term grievances surfacing during the protests include perceived exclusion from the benefits of economic development, restrictions on religious practice and the weakening of Tibetan culture and ethnic identity through government policies.

Again, I fear, as in the case with Rwanda or Darfur or anywhere in the world where western society can’t gain any benefits, sadly, this is not likely to happen.

You are right – I do not see the UN taking on China. But I do believe with the Olympics pending, and international attention on the issue – even if only symphatecially so – there is some leverage to broker an amicable and mutually excepted conclusion.

PERSONAL NOTE: Keep it going, guys. A great site and I do hope you do well tomorrow and gain more exposure. You have my vote, in spite of not always agreeing with one another. Thank you for creating a space for meaningful dialogue and for discovering aspects of life through a difference of opinion. I commend Socrates’ celebrated view: “A person who does not think about life is like a stranger maples in a foreign land for one such, lost and without directions, any turning in the road is as good as any other, and if it takes him somewhere worthwhile it will have done so by the merest chance.? Chance can sometimes be a happy giver, and no one should shut the door against serendipity, but Matthew Arnold implies better counsel when he says “They believe me, who wait / No gifts from chance, have conquered fate?!

Emil, thanks for that. It’s quite possibly the best comment I’ve received on anything I’ve written.

You’re completely right in your assertations. War does diminish us as a people, and the Tibetans would certainly lose their good standing in the world.

But at the same time, I have this unnerving feeling that, if they don’t raise their fists and fight for their autonomy, they will be ultimately overtaken by Chinese expansion into Tibet. That being said, I have subsequently realised that the Tibetans, in taking up the fight, contradict their very teachings, thus diminishing them regardless.

I think I should have titled this entry “Why Tibet Will Not Exist in 50 Years”. I think the only thing they can decide is whether they wish to fight for a shred of their former selves, or simply become absorbed into the Chinese machine. Either way it’s a tragedy, but I would personally rather see them fight for their beliefs than simply roll over. But again, it’s their very beliefs that prevent them from fighting, so I honestly don’t presume to have the answers :p

The world SHOULD take more notice, and the UN should do a lot more. But I’ve never really dared to believe that the world is capable of simple selfish motives. It’s probably why I’m not overly critical of the USA. Sure, they’re terrible, but so is the rest of the world, but at least what the US is selling (at gunpoint or nay) is less poisonous than what another, less-benevolent world hegemon might offer.

I think it does boil down to ethics with regards to Tibet. The difficulty is in deciding just where that line between the moral highground and annihilation exists, if indeed it exists at all.

I remember a talk I received at Wits by the Tibetan ministry in SA, in which I posed that very question of why they don’t take up arms. The speaker replied in an absolutely convinced nature that this was not the Tibetan way, and that it would lessen the Tibetan lifestyle and spiritual status if they did.

He didn’t, of course, mention that the consequences of this policy at the hands of the Chinese will almost certainly lead to their ultimate end.

It’s a damned tragedy and a prime example of just how brutal the world is in which we live. But I would simply be betraying my own beliefs in how to live if I were overly sympathetic to their pacifism.

Yes John, you touch on a profound subject – “But at the same time, I have this unnerving feeling that, if they don’t raise their fists and fight for their autonomy, they will be ultimately overtaken by Chinese expansion into Tibet.”

Despite my own pacifistic believes and adherence to the principles of the Dalai Lama, there is this part of me that is also filled with prodigious anger about this tragedy. But I am reminded of Sophocles: “There is no old age for a man’s anger; only death.” Anger is indeed the chief emotion driving the deadly reciprocity of reprisal and revenge which has engulfed the recent history of world conflict, particularly in Iraq and Palestine. The other dominating emotions of that tragedy – grief and terror – would bring violence to an end without it. But anger, bitter and implacable when the only response it gets is anger returned, feeds on its reflection until it becomes insanity. “Anger men as blind and foolish,” wrote Aretino “for reason at such times takes flight, and in her absence anger plunders all the riches of the intellect.”

I just don’t know! In hateful conflict there is neither appropriateness nor proportion, so the arguments of history and justice become lost in vengeance. Rabidly angry men want only to fight. They want to inflict anguish on their enemies, and then obliterate them. It is hard to imagine, even if great souled people stood up on both sides and agreed peace and a “modus vivendi”, how such hurt could be soothed. Each side in an angry conflict of course wishes to win. But what would winning involve, here or in Iraq, or anywhere else were the malice of man resides? Hard men think, like those currently in the White House (probably a Texan heritage?)- and of course, to him somewhere in the mountains in either Pakistan or Afghanistan – it involves breaking and trampling the enemy, killing him or driving him away geographically or into a psychological diaspora (Palestinians!) of submission. But it takes scarely one thought to see victory is never achieved until anger subsides and both sides gain at least some of their aims. This is the essence of the Dalai Lama’s message to his people. Dare I qoute further statements from him?

– “We have a saying in Tibet: “If you lose your temper and get angry, bite your knuckles.” This means that if you lose your temper, do not show it to others. Rather, say to yourself, “Leave it.”
– “Anger is the real destroyer of our good human qualities; an enemy with a weapon cannot destroy these qualities, but anger can. Anger is our real enemy.”
– “Through kindness, whether at our own level or at the national and international level, through mutual understanding and through mutual respect, we will get peace, we will get happiness, and we will get genuine satisfaction.”

In conclusion, I am (yet again!!) reminded of the first great poem in world literature. Homer’s “Iliad” begins (loosly translated) “The wrath of Achilles is my theme, the fatal wrath which brought the Achaens so much suffering.” For Homer’s Greeks as for those after them everywhere who are urgent for revenge, the words of Proverbs are apt: “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.”

Again, John, I must thank you for this post. It assisted me on crystalising ideas about a few future post I am drafting for my blog.

I have written something about he 50th anniversary of the Peace Symbol (http://emiljung.co.za/?p=175) in which I express a similar opinion as this track, but not so elaborately.

May I have your permission to use this post and comments as a refrence for a future post under my category “Fallacies” (http://emiljung.co.za/?cat=11) to write about Anger, War, Conflict and Guns? Fallacy, for as I stated earlier, war reduces the stock of human good, and diminishes civilization – and does no one any good.

By all means, go ahead! The more folks who read up on everything to do with Tibet the better ;)