An Anachronist’s Life

The whole disucussion thread is introduced to me by netizen Willy, originally from a closed PBS discussion forum with title In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet issue). That’s a very long thread and below is excerpt of Jones’ summary on his position. Although there is only statements below, you can easily find more “empirically verifiable research data of both a quantitative and qualitative nature” in the thread.

I agree the overall frame of his position but disagree on several points. In general, I think that’s a good starter for Tibetan issue.

 BTW, I can’t contact M.A.Jones at the moment. So the post is here w/o his permission.

===============================================================

Let me summarise my overall position on the Tibetan issue, so as to help those of you who are interested in producing a rebuttal. My arguments are as follows:

1. Human rights abuses have and continue to occur in Tibet, but the extent of these abuses has been and continues to be greatly exaggerated by the Tibetan Government in Exile and by its Western supporters in the so-called “pro-Tibet lobby”.

2. The human rights conditions and overall living standards of the majority of Tibetans has been and continues to improve under Chinese rule, and this has been the case since the Deng reforms were first introduced.

3. Most ill-feelings towards the Han Chinese and towards Chinese rule reflect the collective memory of the Cultural Revolution experience. The strength of these feelings is now beginning to fade as more and more Tibetans are drawn into the middle class, and their lives made more comfortable. Tibetans are thus becoming increasingly divided on their attitudes towards Chinese rule, and their feelings more complex and open to flux.

4. Tibetan culture is not, contrary to the propaganda of the pro-Tibet lobby, in any danger of disappearing. Quite the opposite in fact – Tibet, over the past few decades, has been and continues to experience a cultural renaissance, spurred on partly by financial grants and encouragement from Beijing, and partly through the initiative of ethnic Tibetans themselves, as they seize on the opportunities that increasing tourism brings to share their cultural life in newly commodified forms.

5. Rather than being “Sinocised” urban Tibet is being Westernised. Tibet’s transition from feudalism to modernity has been a painful one, but one that many Tibetans are now embracing as they see the benefits filtering through. Young Tibetans are thus becoming increasingly less interested in religious and independence issues as they discover and embrace more de-sublimated forms of pleasure through shopping, the internet, discos, kareoke bars, and, for the smaller but growing number of wealthier bougeois individuals among them (most of whom are drawn, not surprisingly, from the families of religious tulkas) the joys of both domestic and international travel and study.

6. The traditional political activities of organised Tibetan religious intitutions throughout the TAR have been restrained, and continue to be restrained (often brutally) under Chinese governance, but generally speaking lamaism is thriving – not only throughout the TAR, but also throughout greater China (even in Beijing) and internationally too for that matter. Considerable religious freedom then, despite claims to the contrary, exists in Tibet.

7. The Tibetan Government in Exile mislead the world about the true nature of the majority of those Tibetans who journey to Dharmasala each year – most are not refugees, but religious pilgrims. The Tibetan Government in Exile has both financial and political incentives to do so.

8. The Tibetan Government in Exile and its Western supporters in the pro-Tibet lobby are funded mostly by those whose economic and political interests view China’s rise as a threat. The U.S. State Department is the major contributor of funds to both the Government in Exile and to the Tibet lobby. Considerable funds are also raised through commercial activities, like international Dalai Lama lecture tours, and through the sale of Buddhist kitsch to Western New Age consumers.

9. Pro-Tibetan lobby groups essentially parade as “non-profit” human rights organisations, registering themselves as charities to encourage businesses and individuals to make tax-deductible donations – which essentially means that they are a drain on the public purse. They also have a vested interest in grossly exaggerating their claims in order to excite the sympathies of the public so that they can attract public donations and political support.

10. That by failing to present a fair and more realistic picture of what is happening in Tibet, both the self-proclaimed Tibetan Government in Exile and their supporters actually cause far more harm than good to the plight of the Tibetan people, especially for those living within the TAR. Their propaganda and support encourages hardliners within the ethnic Tibetan community living within the TAR to promote resistance and separatism, which in turn adds to the anxieties and security concerns of those hardliners within the Chinese ruling elite, who then in turn respond by introducing and enforcing more strictly those public security laws that restrict politico-religious activities – which as I said earlier, often do in fact result in brutal punishments by over-zealous enforcers. Such instances, not surprisingly then, tend to occur in waves, rather than on a regular day to day basis.

11. The main long-term political goal of the former ruling theocratic elite, now based in Dharmasala, is to regain their political control of Tibet. Their international campaign against China therefore, rather ironically, does more harm to their own cause than good, and only decreases their likelihood of ever being able to cut a deal with Beijing. The watered down goal of the Dalai Lama now, is the establishment of self-government for the TAR whilst remaining a part of China – in the same way that Hong Kong operates. Ironically, this is EXACTLY what China originally offered the Tibetan ruling elite, but by rejecting the offer in favour of supporting a separatist movement for full independence, they have now lost out completely. Easily the single biggest political mistake of the Dalai Lama’s career – as A. Tom Grunfeld has convincingly pointed out.

感谢各位网友对我的博客的厚爱，最近谈论西藏的留言不少。我的工作比较忙，也不是专职的博客，所以不能一一参与讨论回答。最近看到一些文章，有些有趣的点滴，和大家分享。

我想感谢Sol在我这儿推荐的，FEER的这篇文章Tsering Shakya写的The gulf between Tibet and its exiles。关于这篇文章，我想有不同的角度来讨论，而我只想指出文章中一些我觉得有意思的地方。

阅读更多 »

刚才看到Reuters的报道，长平（真名张平）去职《南都周刊》副总编。Reuters的消息来自近来声望大起的Reporters Without Borders ：

Zhang Ping, who writes under the pen name Chang Ping, was sacked as deputy chief editor of the Southern Metropolis Weekly magazine, the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders said.

The group said in an e-mail Zhang’s departure was “because of his editorials about Tibet”, including the controversial piece “How to find the truth about Lhasa?”

这则新闻得到了《联合早报》的确认，

张平将卸下副总编辑的职务，只剩下总主笔的位置。

管理层所给予的“官方解释”是，较早前就已作出此决定，因为张平不适合行政工作，较适合文笔工作。

我听说过长平那篇著名的《拉萨真相从哪里来？》，不过还真没好好读。不用读，我对文中的内容已经了然如心；在这个国家的一个诡异之处是：对于有点独立思考的能力的人来说，有些东西就象秃子头上的虱子一样明显，但是能够说出来的人少之又少。我在下面列出论战的两篇文章：

拉萨真相从哪里来？

造谣自由的南都长平

我看了北京晚报的这篇标题就没法看下去了。因为长平的这篇文章，不是一篇讲述事实的新闻报道，而是一篇类似社论的议论文章。对于这样一篇议论文，你可以说他是“巧言惑众”，但是不可以说他是在“造谣”，他没有撒谎。长平回了一篇《我不是你们的敌人》；然而，他已经被当成敌人了。

这个政府有一个很厉害的本事，就是把体制内的异议者变成体制外的反对者。这样的例子还少吗？

============

Updates: 中国时报

   　南方集團主要包含「南都」、「二十一世紀」、「南周」三大報系，長平任職的《南都周刊》，是由《南方都市報》主辦，屬於「南都」報系。消息指出，四日撤去長平《南都周刊》副總編輯職務的決定，主要出於三個人的決策，包含集團副總編輯、《南方都市報》總編輯江藝平，《南方都市報》執行總編輯莊慎之，以及《南方都市報》副總編輯、《南都周刊》總編輯陳朝華。

    　對於北京壓力的說法，南方集團消息來源指出，至今北京高層並沒有傳出處理長平的要求，再且，惹出事端的文章，也並非長平為南方集團下屬報紙所寫，所以處理長平是出於上層壓力的說法，許多南方集團下屬的編輯記者都不以為然。

    　據指出，南方集團因言論賈禍已經不只一次，以前即使北京高層要求做出「處理」，南方集團經常只是走形式，並沒有真正做出處理，但這次，長平被撤除《南都周刊》副總編輯職務，則是一次「真處理」。

    　消息指出，長平的下台，背後可能原因之一，是《南都周刊》即將引資進行股份制改造，涉及許多利益分配問題。此外，也可能涉及南方集團內部新聞人與非新聞人的衝突。