I wanted to write something today about Tibet and its fight for independence. But most of my readers are Americans who know a good deal about Tibet, human rights, China, and democracy, and some of them have even seen the Dalai Lama, and so the more I thought about it, the more I felt I didn’t have a lot to say about Tibet that they didn’t already know.
But I did want to make a few points about being an American who supports Tibet—whatever in the world that might mean.
1. Why Tibet? It’s a fair question. Why not, for example, Papua New Guinea? There are many reasons, of course, why Americans are drawn to the Tibetan cause, but foremost among them is a person: His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Papua New Guinea doesn’t have a Dalai Lama. Even the Queen of England doesn't cut it. No one, aside from Tibet, has a such a figure now, and he has become a person of such authority that his opinions are rarely questioned—unless you're a member of the Chinese government. Besides, until Papua New Guinea comes up with a remedy for what ails us Americans—I mean, rampant materialism and the accompanying misery—then many of us will take our medicine from the maroon robes.
2. But therein lies the problem. Because most of us became acquainted with Tibet through the admirable work of its monks and nuns, we’ve become acquainted with Tibet through one of the smallest minorities of Tibet’s population. So now, as His Holiness and the Central Tibetan Administration publicly advocate autonomy—and not independence—for the six million Tibetans living in Chinese-occupied Tibet (a position, by the way, that many of the monks and nuns support), Americans tend to agree with His Holiness because they have agreed with everything else he has said about how Americans might become healthier, happier individuals. So why wouldn’t we agree with him on politics?
3. Of course you can agree with him. You can think whatever you like. But let me point to an inconsistency in my own thinking that I’ve recently clarified: Democracy doesn’t recognize the infallibility of a single person’s opinion, so to agree with the Dalai Lama because he is the Dalai Lama, and because he has ramped up your spiritual life, should not make a lot of sense to an American. The fact that His Holiness has taught me a great deal about compassion, nonviolence, and altruism should have little impact on my opinion of his opinion about Tibetan freedom. And this is an opinion that His Holiness has embraced, of course. Democracies privilege disagreement.
4. Furthermore—How can we, as Americans, and given our history, our rhetoric, our founding documents, not wish to support the establishment of similar freedoms wherever and whenever a given group of people announce them as their goal? And make substantial sacrifices toward realizing them?
5. I know what you’re thinking. But to say that independence and freedom from China’s oppressive rule are impractical goals is to make a judgment that violates another of our cherished principles: self-determination. Tibetans, like Americans, get to decide what sort of future they envision for themselves, and that should be the main focus of American support. Whether the Tibetans want an oligarchy, or a democracy, or a plutocracy, it is their decision. So I support Tibetan self-determination. In all of its aspects, doctrines, and applications. [Aside: Carole McGranahan has written an important book on the largely forgotten war waged by the Tibetan freedom fighters. It's called Arrested Histories, and the interviews alone are essential reading becasue they underscore the sacrifices made by these warriors for self-determination. I recommend the book enthusiastically. It's also available on Kindle.]
6. Finally, an observation and an anecdote. Observation: I don’t think the Tibetans who have recently self-immolated were doing so to draw the world’s attention toward their fight for a “meaningful autonomy” in Tibet; they were delivering focused strikes for Tibetan freedom and independence, in my opinion, and if anybody asks me, I choose to honor their heroic actions by supporting their call for Tibetan independence and the return of the Dalai Lama to this homeland. Anecdote: A Tibetan whom I admire deeply, who lives in New Delhi, and who is as respectful of His Holiness as any Tibetan that I know, said to me three years ago: “Sidney, there is not a single Tibetan alive today, either in Tibet or in exile, including the Dalai Lama, who does not dream every night of a free Tibet.”
Obviously, I have never forgotten that statement, and it made a deep and native sense to this American. But it’s not just an American phenomenon: freedom and liberty are part of the human birthright, and I’m certain that my Tibetan friend spoke the truth. So Tibetans deserve the opportunity to live in the free state that was theirs for centuries, and it is an opportunity that they are requesting now with every ounce of energy they can muster.
How can an American say no to that?
