The Imbroglio that is Tibet

At first glance, the story of Tibet seems quite familiar – especially to those who are well versed with international relations and politics. It is a classic case of a smaller and relatively powerless country being overpowered by a stronger one a few decades ago. And now, there is a strong separatist movement within that small piece of land. This movement, whose majority comprises of a strong and motivated force of young people, wants complete independence and is willing to resort to violence if necessary.

However, is this really as simple as it seems? The sequence of events which has taken place ever since the Communist regime of China assumed control of Tibet has been anything but simplistic. In fact, these events prove, without doubt, that without a complete understanding of the underlying history and politics of the country concerned, it is quite easy to be deceived by whatever filters through to the mainstream media.

First and foremost, how did China get control of Tibet? History shows that the People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet in 1950. Being a smaller country with an ill-equipped army, Tibet was unable to defend itself effectively. By signing the Seventeen Point Agreement in 1951, Tibet was officially incorporated into the People's Republic of China.

Of course this version of events is disputed by those who historically prove that it was Great Britain which had given the suzerainty of Tibet to the Nationalist China Party. In 1949, this nationalist party was defeated by the Communist Party, and so, it naturally assumed the suzerainty of Tibet. Suzerainty is a case of a smaller country being a subsidiary of sorts to a larger and more powerful country. The smaller country has some degree of autonomy or self-rule, which distinguishes it from sovereignty.

Irrespective of whichever version of events is more authentic, the fact remains that Tibet has been under China for quite a few decades now. What spurred the current crisis was a rally organized in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, on 10th March 2008 to commemorate the revolt that took place against the incorporation of the country into China. The rally per se might not have created so much trouble – however, with emotions running high, the rally became a bit violent. As a result, Chinese soldiers opened fire at unarmed demonstrators and to date, the total casualties are unknown. But one can only imagine that the figure must run very high, considering that protestors were directly fired at.

The events following this violence were quite predictable. Tibetans reacted very strongly against the Chinese authorities. In spite of repeated attempts by their exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, to remain peaceful and solve issues through dialogue, violence has increased to the extent that Tibet now wants its independence from China, and has called on the world to boycott the Beijing Olympics 2008.

Interestingly, the European Parliament has called for a boycott of the opening ceremony of the summer Olympics if China does not start a dialogue with the exiled Dalai Lama.

The stance of Pakistan is diametrically opposed to that of India. President Pervez Musharraf has categorically spelled out that Pakistan considers Tibet as an "inalienable" part of China and has offered help to crush the separatist movement in Tibet. President Musharraf has also condemned what he terms "attempts to politicize the Beijing Olympic Games." India, which happens to be the place where the Dalai Lama is residing, is giving off pro-Tibet vibes. Many exiled Tibetans are using India as their base to launch their activities without any serious retaliation or reproach from the Indian government.

More interesting is the American stance on this issue. At the time of the 10th March Lhasa incident, President, US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi was visiting India. In the aftermath of that incident, she went to visit the Dalai Lama and reassured him that US was fully supportive of the Tibetan separatist movement. American stance seems interesting, but not quite surprising. Should Tibet gain independence, it would surely need the backing of a larger and stronger country like USA to defend itself - this would ensure American presence in a very strategic country in Asia. The unity and stability of China being threatened is an added bonus to the USA as well.

The question which now arises is – does China really fit into the "bad guy" image which the mainstream media is portraying it as? An alternative viewpoint emphasizes that China has carried out immense developmental work in Tibet – this includes the rebuilding of several Buddhist temples, establishing educational institutes as well as hospitals, constructing a highway system and granting freedom of worship to Tibet's Buddhists. What happened at Lhasa was indeed condemnable, but one cannot ignore all that China really has done for Tibet. Similarly, to boycott the Olympics would seem tantamount to supporting the Tibet separatist movement, and with it, backing the American stance on it. The best course of action would be to regard this as China's internal issue, and let them deal with it.