Dear Zijing,

Reading your blog on Tibet I can’t help thinking of Pierre de Coubertin. This Frenchman founded the Olympic Games more than 100 years ago. Right now I think he’s turning around in his grave of pure embarrassment. He founded the Games as means of uniting people around the world by being ‘citius, altius, fortius’ (faster, higher, stronger). This refers to human beings continuous strive to improve themselves. But the Olympics are by far not considered with people anymore. It’s all about marketing and politics nowadays. Due to granting political status to the Olympic Games and the events that are taking place, Sudan and Tibet, the Games of Beijing 2008 can be seen to divide rather than unite people around the world.

What we see is diverse countries in the west condemning China on their foreign (supporting Sudan) and domestic (deal with uproar in Tibet) politics.
But who do we in the west think we are to judge China on their politics? Sure I also strongly feel for Human Rights, but I don’t think the same things happening now will happen prior to the Olympic Games taking place in London of 2012. Why London? Well, Great Britain – and off course many other countries – followed the United States right into Iraq for what has been proved not to be the right reasons (no prove of weapons of mass-destruction were found). And to put things in perspective, more than a 100.000 Iraqi’s got killed since the intervention of ‘the coalition of the willing’. Is that a good example of the respecting the Human Rights of Iraqi people? Should the London Olympics made an eaxmple and be punished for the events that have happened in Iraq as well? This is not likely to happen since London is part of the western world and it will be supported by the other countries in the West. Are Chinese, Russian or Iranian political representatives going to boycott the opening ceremony in London? Why should they? It’s not going to make a difference I think. Just as Sarkozy or Merkel not showing up at the opening ceremony in Beijing won’t enhance Human Rights in China.
Politicians make use of the Games just to show what they stand for, ‘marketing of politics’ I would call it, not to actually change anything. If those countries were truly opposed of the things that happen they should quit trade with China, that would hurt the country far more. But that would off course also hurt the economies of France and Germany – probably even the world economy – and therefore they will never choose desperate measures like that. It’s just the western powers showing off this power without actually accomplishing anything.

To me it’s embarrassing that the Olympic Games, with the rings as a unifying symbol, are misused for selfish reasons of politicians (winning voters) showing off. It’s embarrassing to us human beings that our political representatives forgot the core of the Olympic thought. In the end the Olympics are about people – competing each other and competing with yourself inside the arena, but being respectful to each other outside of it – not about politics.
We have founded this other great institution to deal with political issues, the United Nations. Debate on Tibet and Human rights, just as debate on Iraq or the misuse of power by western countries, should be taking place here. And although debate is taking place in the UN, the Olympics draw by far more attention and therefore it’s a more interesting stage to show where you stand for. But it shouldn’t be that way.

Let sports be sports, and let politics be politics.

http://www.ourvoice.de/Our%20Voice/Position.html

Would be happy to talk more about it, after the paper..

Regarding to your question about the picture: no matter whether the Nepali police were doing this out of their own initiative, while citing the picture, it’s not accurate to put the caption as “Beijing cracks down riots in Lhasa”. It’s simply a mistake which could be easily avoided. We all know that the use of pictures as illustration can be very powerful in the message delivery. I would assume that this editor first believed the military violence did happen in Lhasa – which he actually had no evidence to prove – and then put up the picture without careful check.

About the podcasting (sorry I couldn’t understand but from your description), one thing is accurate, about the immense complexity of Sino-Tibet relationship. It’s not true, however, that Tibetan spiritual leader was also the spiritual leader for China. Buddhism has many different branches and Tibetan Buddhism is very different from the ones we have in most areas of China, regarding its history, belief system and many other things. The oppression of Tibetan culture after Cultural Revolution does exist – which I am strongly against – but mainly due to China’s political concerns. The monks and ordinary Tibetans are free to practice whatever they want as long as they don’t give support to Dalai Lama’s “separatist movements”. The term cultural genocide is, at least in my opinion, of too much exaggeration.

What I also want to point out is, now the Tibetan community in exile is not a coherent one as people have usually conceived. Dalai Lama as their spiritual and secular leader is now loosing his power because what he wants (or he claims to want), is only spiritual anonym. The growing control of another group, much younger usually brought up and educated in the west, is much more radical and what they want is full recognization of Tibet as a country. (This is what I have learned from my Tibetan language tutor during my stay in US. He used to work for Tibetan government in exile.)

Personally, I had been living and teaching as a volunteer in Tibet for three months and had the chance to become close friend with quite a lot of them. They shared with me their nostalgia of being isolated from the world when life was so simple and pure. They hated the places flood with Chinese and western tourists. But all of them, yes all of them, said that if they had the chance to choose whether to go back or not, they won’t do it. Above all their living standards have been greatly improved due to China’s financial support in the past few decades, same as education and health care.

Though not agree, I fully understand your perception since your main source of information is western media, which has a tradition to take clear stand in this issue. Certainly you can also blame me for being manipulated by Chinese media. Actually Chinese today no longer buy what their media tell them, because they know it is for the most part propaganda. They try to get around and use various ways to get the information they want. The problem with western media is that people always perceive it to be “the objective” while it indeed carries tons of stereotypes which could have the same influence as propaganda.

I share the same feeling with you that something is really wrong here. People who have never been to Tibet, never talked to any Tibetan, have no knowledge of Tibetan history at all are now shouting out “Free Tibet” in the streets even here in Amsterdam. Do they really know what they are talking about? It’s dangerous to mix religion with politics – the Shangri-la politics that the Tibetans in exile are obviously doing to promote themselves.

==================
For you interest, here are a few articles about Tibet and its religion, something from the other side that you might have not read before:

The Lama’s Dark History of Feudalism, by Michael Parenti, Professor from Yale University
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

This comprehensive article is quite long, written by another American professor and Tibet expert Melvyn Goldstein whose wife is Tibetan.
http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/article/art4.html

How China Got Religion, by Slavoj Zizek, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/opinion/11zizek.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

And, for a quick digest, please check out the Tibet Diary on Youtube. It’s a US produced documentary talking about how two Americans changed their mind about Tibet after they’ve seen it themselves. Here is the link to its 1st episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNeGcLoPFow

I’m also very curious about what you think after reading all these.

It discussed how the relation between Tibet and China has been complicated for ages. Tibet has almost always been a ‘part’ of the Chinese empire, but had a very high level of autonomy and spiritual freedom. China protected Tibet with the sword, and Tibet’s spiritual leader was, apparently, also China’s spiritual leader. However, things fell apart after the cultural revolution; the Chinese have since then consequently tried to oppress Tibetan culture; some speak of a cultural genocide. Yet, this previously existing high level of (religious) autonomy is also what the Dalai Lama is nowadays asking for.

Zijing, in class I have noticed how you, Dali and Fuchung reacted quit strongly on the topic of Tibet. Can you tell me why this is? Is the above story correct? That the relation between China and Tibet goes back long in history? That the Chinese feel they have the right to be there?

Maybe as an outsider I do not have a good overview about what is happening in Tibet. I also agree with you that the Tibetan munks which have been banished from Tibet are great ambassaders for the Tibetan cause, maybe exactly because they have always kept away from politics. They are spiritual leaders, also in the west.

Yet, it seems very clear to me that something is wrong here. The Tibetan claim on autonomy does not seem unfair. However, human rights are constantly desacrated by the Chinese and Tibetan culture is systematically wiped out. I do see China as the oppressor and the Tibetans as the oppressed. Therefore, my opinion is that the Chinese should withdraw from Tibet.

I am really curious what you think of this. Is this only my Western, biased opinion?