What Beijing calls the Tibet Autonomous Region of China is once again smoldering, with monks in the small town of Aba in Sichuan Province and elsewhere self-immolating to protest against repression that aims to snuff out Tibetan religion, language, culture and an age-old way of life. The number of monks who have set themselves on fire is said to be more than 20 and rising. There are reports of some lay people taking to self-immolation as an act of solidarity with the monks and just out of plain frustration.
According to reports in the Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald, the town of Aba, the scene of the largest number of acts of self-immolation, is ringed by a blanket presence of police and security people.
“Heavily armed police are set up at every intersection … beside army trucks full of soldiers in riot gear,” Philip Wen reported from Aba in the Sydney Morning Herald.
“Despite flooding Aba with security personnel, the protests continue,” Jonathan Watts reported from Aba in the Guardian.
Watts quotes Kate Saunders of the International Campaign for Tibet, who said: “In Tibet, the monasteries serve the function of universities. What is happening now is like a military blockade of Oxford and Cambridge. It’s as if the UK tried to prevent students from studying anything except what the government wanted them to study.”
The unrest has also spread to the Tibetan areas of Qinghai Province.
Of course, with such a massive show of force, the Chinese authorities will succeed in crushing the unrest this time, as they have done before. However, should it not make Beijing pause and reflect on why the Tibetan issue is not going away, since Tibet was forcibly annexed in the 1950s?
That is not the way the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership operates. To reflect on policies that are not working and might require a new approach is considered a sign of weakness. In dealing with Tibet’s seemingly intractable problem it is easy to simply deny that there is a problem.
The CCP leadership blames it all on Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama and his “plot” to split Tibet from China. He is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” talking of peace and reconciliation while doing just the opposite. Therefore, it is none of Beijing’s fault.
Consider the Dalai Lama’s role. He is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. He recently relinquished his political mantle to his elected prime minister. It would appear that the institution of the Dalai Lama might cease to exist after the present incumbent departs this world. This will effectively deprive the Chinese government of the ability to foist their own Dalai Lama on Tibetans. Beijing will still do it, but its candidate will lack legitimacy and popular acceptance among Tibetans.
Beijing, therefore, might be well advised to enter into talks with the Dalai Lama, while he is still around, for a peaceful resolution of the issue. He has publicly said a number of times that he is not for a separate Tibet. He only seeks meaningful autonomy for Tibet, with Beijing retaining control of defense, currency and foreign affairs.
The on-off talks between the two sides have been off again for some time now.
Why is China not interested? Because it does not trust the Dalai Lama. Beijing thinks it is his way of working toward a separate Tibet. It defies logic, though. For example, how will an autonomous Tibet, with real control vested in the central government, be able to defy China?
What China obviously fears is that an autonomous Tibet will seek to preserve its religion, culture and traditional way of life. And this doesn’t suit China. With its policies of Han settlement of Tibet, where the Tibetans might soon become a minority with no say in how their affairs are run, Beijing is in no mood to grant real autonomy. The Tibetans will soon, if they have not already, become strangers in their own land.
Indeed, by slicing off parts of the Tibetan region and attaching them to neighboring Han provinces, Beijing has already parceled out their land. The herdsmen, removed from their traditional mountainous grazing lands, have been set up in ghettos to work as casual labor, doing whatever they can find to earn a living.
There is even a suggestion at higher party levels that the government should adopt a more overt assimilationist policy and do away with ethnic “privileges” altogether, as they are an obstacle to national cohesion. In other words, Tibetans might cease to be a distinct ethnic group.
No wonder such repressive policies are driving Tibetans to the wall.
It is now more than 60 years since China incorporated Tibet, but it is still seething. Isn’t it time for Beijing to reflect on the failure of its policies and create an accommodative policy framework based on real autonomy for Tibet?
According to Pico Iyer, an expert on Tibet and the Dalai Lama: “Over the decades I’ve known him, the Dalai Lama has always been adept at pointing out logically how Tibet’s interests and China’s converge — bringing geopolitics and Buddhist principles together.”
The Dalai Lama is saddened that China is single-mindedly pursuing greed and at some point — as Pico Iyer recalls in his conversations with the Tibetan leader — he says Beijing is going to have to find some other form of support, at a level deeper than just growth rates.
In the meantime, there is not much hope for Tibet’s agony.
Sushil Seth is a commentator in Australia.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US