A Voice for Tibet
If there is anything that unites Chinese people of all persuasions, it is the Chinese view on Tibet. Communist or nationalist, mainland or overseas, cadre or dissident, virtually all Chinese agree on that Tibet is an inalienable part of the Chinese motherland. To promulgate this view the Chinese resort to legends, such as the tale of the Tang princess, Wencheng, who married the Tibetan king, Songtsen Gambo, in the 8th century, thus allegedly sealing the union of the two nations for all time to come.
By JUHA JANHUNEN
Lee Feigon, a history professor from Maine, sets out to counter such myths and tries to convince his readers of the opposite that Tibet is not a part of China but a separate country that was de facto independent until the Communist invasion in 1950, or even until the 'democratic' reforms and the exile of the Dalai Lama in 1959. Even though it is true, large parts of Tibet had earlier already been absorbed into the Chinese provinces of Gansu, Qinghai, and Sichuan.Considering the fact that Feigon claims to be 'demystifying' Tibet, his approach may be regarded as somewhat idealistic. The concept of Greater China, comprising Tibet, Mongolia, and Eastern Turkestan, is not an invention of the communist government it has far more ancient roots in history. Formally Tibet has even been a part of China since it was annexed by the Manchus around 1720. In the first place the territorial identity of modern China reflects that of the Manchu state.
For those who aspire to an independent Tibet, Feigon's book is a painful reminder of the vicissitudes of history. So little would have been required to make the dream come true, if only the right decisions had been made at the right time. But one opportunity after another was lost, and in the end everyone can be blamed for indecision and inconsistency: Britain, India, the US and Tibet itself, whose 20th century rulers found the task of creating a modern nation beyond them. The only nation of which Tibet policy has been both consistent and successful is China.
Even more painfully, however, Feigon is right in that the destructive developments in Tibet are accelerating at an alarming pace. While Tibet has had its share of Chinese cultural influence over the centuries, it was virtually free of Chinese physical presence until the Cultural Revolution. It has only been during the last two decades that ethnic Chinese have infiltrated Tibet on a massive scale. Ironically, much of this is due to the economic opening up and increasing prosperity of China.
Since China's prosperity is in everybody's interest, there is no hope of getting help from the international community. Tibet would also be wise to refrain from looking for sympathy from Taiwan -- a government which has not even recognized Mongolia. Indeed, Tibet activists had better forget about independence altogether -- the crucial thing today is survival. The only viable option for Tibet would seem to be the Hong Kong model. But the real problem is that China has few reasons to make any concessions on the Tibet issue. *
Feigon, Lee
Demystifying Tibet: History, culture, people from its seventh-century origins to the present day
London: Profile Books, 1996,
ISBN 1-566-63089-4
Professor Juha Janhunen chairs the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Helsinki, JP 59, Fl 00014, Helsinki, Finland.