RSS

During the recent discussions about massive Pro-Free-Tibet demonstrations and calls for the boycott of the Olympics, “moral support” was usually given to the Pro-Tibetan side and the only critical question about the demonstrations was the questions of their financial cost. However, there are several other important queries which were left behind.

Will the protests change the Chinese tactic?

While welcoming the cooling in Sino-European relations as a “decisive step” in the fight for human rights, few people have realized that the recent communication between the West and China resembled rather a monologue than a real discussion about the human rights issue.

European politicians are free to boycott the Olympics, but it is unrealistic to expect that this would force China to change its principles. In Chinese eyes, European human rights policy lacks credibility. On the one hand, almost every European country has its own unique human rights policy, not only towards China, but also towards other “human rights abusing states” such as Russia or Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, it is a “policy of double standards”. The same human rights violations count differently depending on where they happen. Considering this fact, the Chinese belief that the real reason for the Western interest in Tibet is just an attempt to weaken China does not seem that odd. More important, however, is the fact, that Europe also lacks leverage. Because of the Chinese economic power and the deep interdependence, Europe cannot affect China without affecting itself.

The only way to bring China to consider human rights is to persuade the Chinese government that it is in its own interest. That was already done particularly within the framework of the German-Chinese institutionalized dialogue on constitutional state issues as well as within the framework of other legal initiatives. All of these projects bringing real results is, however, now threatened by the occasionally too aggressive reaction to China's hosting of the Olympics.

Free Tibet equals Happy Tibet?

There is no doubt that there are human rights violations in China. However, with regard to Tibet the popular simple division between “bad human rights abusing” Chinese and “good peaceful” Tibetans and the Dalai Lama may not work. Probably the two main reasons for the sympathy towards Tibet in the West are the traditional association of Tibet and the Dalai Lama with the Buddhist spiritual power and the common perception of China as a general threat. However, the reality of life in Tibet differs a lot from both of these pictures.

Contrary to the romantic beliefs in the West, before 1959, the invaded Tibet was not a harmonic and spiritual Shangri-La, but a severe feudal theocracy with 95% of its population being serfs or slaves and with torture being the most common form of punishment. Despite all criticism of the past and present Chinese Tibet-Policy, it was after all the Tibetan monks under the Dalai Lama who tortured their people, and the Chinese who liberated these 95% of Tibetans from slavery and built schools, hospitals and roads for them.

Talking about the present and future of Tibet, one should mention that without Chinese help Tibet is not even able to feed its population. Due to the special climate conditions and the very low level of education, tourism can be the only source of income. But without tremendous Chinese investment in Tibet’s infrastructure, even this would not be possible.

Even though the Dalai Lama receives official financial support from the CIA, neither the United States nor Europe is ready to invest in Tibet as much as the Chinese do. Tibet without China would mean for its population a relapse into medieval times.

Are there other costs to the protests?

Economists and representatives of the business community seem to be the only people who are worried about the worsening of relations with China. However, not only European economic growth, but also the solution of the biggest global challenges, from the fight against terrorism to climate change, is dependent on China’s participation. After all, China is not only a large economic power and the future superpower but also a nuclear state with a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and more than one sixth of the world’s population.

Those who demand to limit the usual cooperation with China because of the Tibet issue, demand to slow down work on the most important global issues. For instance, what is the message of the recent decision by Germany’s chancellor to suspend talks with China on climate change and renewable energy because of events in Tibet? Is climate change not as important as human rights? Or are human rights in Tibet more important than the problem of nuclear non-proliferation in Iran and North Korea? Progress on these issues is not only hard but even impossible without China’s participation.

One of the already visible negative effects of the Olympic Torch Relay disruptions is the rise of anti-Western sentiments among young and well-educated Chinese. They are irritated not by the fact that the West talks about human rights in China, but by the way the West does it. Numerous instances of misreporting, such as doctoring photos or using photos from other countries (mostly Nepal), have caused what the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom calls “a collective rethinking about the West”. Even those Chinese, who were quite moderate several weeks ago, now feel the need to “protect” their “motherland”. The most furious of them are not those living in China and influenced by the homeland ideology, but those who are living abroad and enjoying “the freedom of information”. And they are, by the way, also those who will be running the future superpower China.

Do we really care about Tibet? Or about China?

Ask any NGO’s employee about his work and he will tell you how hard it is to mobilise people for the fight against diseases in Africa, or to collect their support for the protection of labour rights. However, contrary to that, the political rights of Tibetans have found unprecedented support among the European public. And the main question is why?

Why are Westerners especially interested in the political rights of Tibetans and not in the situation of women in Saudi-Arabia, children's rights in Latin America, or the Kurdish problem? Even though Turkey is the direct neighbor of the EU, aspiring to its membership? Is it not because China has already been perceived as a threat to the West, because of its economic growth (i.e. Chinese growth meaning Western decline)? And are we not simply looking for some proof for an already formed opinion?

Natalia Ruban is an intern at the Atlantic Community and a graduate student of Political Science at the Free University of Berlin.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger: Swallowing Our Pride
• Florian Kuhne: China's Olympic Trap
• Erich Follath: Olympic Games Force China To Listen