Heightened security in the province of Tibet has hindered, but not stopped, the continued protests of Tibetan monks in defiance of the Chinese government. The support of Tibetan independence has been a fashionable pet project for US politicians…but as tensions in Western China continue to escalate, and the federal government publicly begs China to continue the purchase of treasury bills, we should take pause to consider the context of this issue.
Is Tibet its own country? Do the overtones of struggle for religious freedom in Tibet influence our opinion of the conflict, and if so-why? Does Chinese sovereignty include Tibet and if not, what legitimate right does the United States and/ or the International Community have to intervene in the situation? And if the United States should support Tibetan independence than what means are acceptable/ efficable and to what extent should US-Chinese relations be affected/ defined by the situation in Tibet?
These are not easy questions to answer. China is a rising power and US cooperation with that country is paramount not only to US national interest, but to the success and stability of the international system. The total integration of China into the world system is absolutely necessary to effectively combat climate change, terrorism, and global economic/social inequalities. If the United States chooses not to embrace China as an equal partner it must come to terms not only with the prospect of a very unstable mid to long-term future but also the possible effects of a negative trading relationship with a country that owns a significant portion of the US national debt.
Conversely, the Tibetan struggle for freedom represents everything that traditional American Internationalists have come to embrace: self-determination, the freedom of religion and expression, the freedom from fear. The Dali Llama is one of the pre-eminent social and political figures in the world and he inspires millions, serving as living testimony to the power of non-violent political activism.
But to what end do the geo-political, strategic, and economic realties of the United States give way to considerations of noble obligation, human rights, and global justice?
Or to what end should those considerations be the defining factors of US national interest?
LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.
March 28, 2009 at 12:10 am |
Having traveled to Tibet in 2007, a month or so before the violence first broke out there, I am very interested in this post.
During the Cold War, the US armed Tibetans against China. At that point, we certainly defended Tibet’s autonomy: proxy war.
Now of course, our interests are elsewhere.
When the Rwandan genocide started, the US failed to intervene not because it was unaware of what was happening (reports were coming in gruesome detail daily), but because it did not serve US “interests” to do so. Isn’t Rwanda one of the most shameful chapters in international history?
I know its hard to forget, but sometimes our “interests” are not financial or economic.
Sometimes rescuing irreplaceable indigenous knowledge and culture is an interest.
Sometimes rescuing one of the last frontiers of ecological balance is an interest.
What I mean to say is that if we reject complete tunnel vision for a second, we might begin to re-assess our interests.
It would cost the US a lot to intervene. It is simply a matter our interests: how much are the Tibetan people to us.
I am a human being with a soul, not a state. So for me the answer is pretty simple. It is not our right as a government to intervene– it is our responsibility as human beings to do so.
I just returned a pair of pants to REI because they were made in China. And I told REI why. Its a start.
March 28, 2009 at 7:32 pm |
Kali,
Thank you so much for your post. That’s the kind of answer I am looking for…I apreciate your candor.