The New York Times Letters to the Editor section today has some great ones on Tibet.

To the Editor:

As a Tibetan, I take exception to “He May Be a God, but He’s No Politician,” by Patrick French (Op-Ed, March 22).

Mr. French suggests that if the Dalai Lama renounced parts of Tibet, progress could be achieved. Like the Chinese leadership, Mr. French does not appreciate that the Dalai Lama has already made the greatest compromise by agreeing to give up independence. Why should we now be expected to divide up our historical territory?

Mr. French also implies that the Dalai Lama is harming Tibetans by seeking international support. Yet decades of “back-channel diplomacy” have not yielded results.

The issue is not that the Dalai Lama is a poor politician, but that politicians are unwilling to effectively oppose China’s colonization of Tibet. Not only do these politicians conduct business as usual with China, but they have also rewarded China with the Olympic Games, much as the international community rewarded Hitler’s Nazi Germany with the 1936 Games.

It is irresponsible for politicians to give China the Olympic spotlight without insisting on justice for Tibet.

Dechen Tsering
Berkeley, Calif., March 23, 2008

•

To the Editor:

This month we have witnessed an outbreak of protest and violence in Tibet and a terrifying crackdown. At this critical time, Patrick French chooses to follow Beijing’s lead in scapegoating the Dalai Lama and the Tibet movement.

The Dalai Lama has been successful in keeping the plight of Tibetans high on the political and international radar. This focus has protected Tibetans from some of the worst excesses endured by Uighurs in the Xinjiang region, garnered vital support among Chinese in China, provided hope to Tibetans in Tibet living under oppression and created a critical political space for debate within China.

Mr. French’s approach misses the key point that we are currently witnessing an escalating crisis that calls into question Beijing’s policies over half a century in Tibet.

Kate Saunders
London, March 25, 2008

The writer is communications director, International Campaign for Tibet.

•

To the Editor:

There is something we could do to help the Tibetans regain their freedom from the colonialist Chinese: organize a worldwide boycott of trade with China.

That is how great democracies should deal with renegade dictatorships like China.

Timothy Bal
Belle Mead, N.J., March 23, 2008

•

To the Editor:

The headline “Speak Out on Tibet” (editorial, March 24) captures exactly what Tibetans have been asking governments and the United Nations to do for close to five decades: speak out for Tibet. Sadly, nobody has — at least not with any real conviction.

The coming Olympic Games present an opportunity for the international community to finally take a stand on Tibet. Beijing is so desperate to have the respect of its peers that shunning the Games in a full boycott would send a message that would be impossible for Beijing to ignore.

Beijing’s belief that brutal repression can quell the spirit of the Tibetan people must be opposed. And the 2008 Olympics present a perfect opportunity for the world to voice this opposition.

Pema Tulotsang
Toronto, March 24, 2008

•

To the Editor:

Re “Sarkozy Hints at Boycott of Olympics’ Opening” (news article, March 26):

Unlike many of his outlandish propositions, the latest suggestion by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is poignant and should be considered by the United States and the rest of the world.

The International Olympic Committee has urged countries and athletes not to boycott the Games, but it has failed to condemn the Chinese government for its use of force to quell the recent unrest in Tibet.

If the I.O.C. isn’t willing to punish the Chinese government in some way for its human rights violations, then participating Olympic nations must take it upon themselves to effect this punishment.

If that means withdrawing from the Olympic Games, so be it.

Becquer Medak-Seguin
Walla Walla, Wash., March 26, 2008

Wang Lixiong, a Chinese writer who recently helped author the twelve suggestions open letter to Beijing signed by 30 Chinese intellectuals and dissidents, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today.

I am a supporter of the Dalai Lama’s “middle way,” meaning autonomy for Tibet in all matters except foreign affairs and national defense. This arrangement eventually would have to mean that Tibetan people select their own leaders — and that would be a major change from the way things are now. Tibet is called an “autonomous region,” but in fact its officials are all named by Beijing, and are all tightly focused on their own personal interests and the interests of the Communist Party. Tibetans can clearly see the difference between this kind of government and self-rule, and there is no way that they will support bogus autonomy.

It follows — even if this is a tall order — that the ultimate solution to the Tibet problem must be democratization of the Chinese political system itself. True autonomy cannot come any other way.

It is time for the Chinese government to take stock of why its long-term strategy in Tibet has not worked, and to try something else. The old problems remain, and they are sure to continue, perhaps in places like the “Uighur Autonomous Region” of Xinjiang, if a more sensible approach is not attempted.

I think Wang is fundamentally right in the assessment that the most likely resolution to the Tibet question for China will likely have to be proceeded by the democratization of the Chinese government.

Earlier in the piece Wang also had this sensible assessment of the recent weeks’ events in Tibet:

It should be no surprise that beatings of monks and closings of monasteries naturally stimulate civil unrest, or that civil unrest, spawned in this way, can turn violent.

I would only add something that I know Wang is familiar with: that the beatings of monks and closings of monasteries that took place in response to the peaceful protests of March 10-14 were proceeded by 50 years of beatings of monks, raping of nuns, destruction of monasteries, and oppression of lay people. The response surrounding the March 10th protests may merely have been the final straw that lead to civil unrest.

China continues its practice of using dog and pony shows guided tours to substitute for real access to Tibet. This time, instead of journalists, the Chinese are bringing a group of foreign diplomats to Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. The US, UK, and France will have representatives in the tour, though the US doesn’t think this is enough:

US state department spokesman Sean McCormack said the trip was a “step in the right direction”.

“But it’s not a substitute for the ability of our diplomats, as well as others, to travel not only to Lhasa, but into the surrounding area specifically,” he said.

The biggest difference between diplomats and journalists, as I see it, is that diplomats don’t carry video cameras and microphones. On some level, the risks for China of another interruption of their guided tour by Tibetans who want to tell the world what has been done to them are diminished.

The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian government has levied the harshest criticism of China’s human rights abuses and violent crackdown in Tibet thus far:

The Canadian government yesterday called China’s recent repression of the protest movement in Tibet a “military crackdown” and took the Dalai Lama’s side in some of the strongest criticism any Western government has levelled at China so far.

Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader and Minister of Democratic Reform, expressed concern yesterday that human rights are still being violated in Tibet.

“We’ve shown our support for the Dalai Lama, for the people of Tibet. We want to see human rights respected there. And we will continue to do that,” Mr. Van Loan said.

“Right now the priority has to be to see a return to peace in Tibet and an end to the military crackdown that has taken place there and a genuine respect for human rights.”

When asked whether his government believes the Chinese authorities have made the necessary efforts to “genuinely respect human rights” in Tibet, Mr. Van Loan’s response was categorical.

“Obviously we are concerned that it is not happening right now and we want to see a return to that,” the minister said.

While senior figures in Western governments have urged restraint and warned China to respect human rights, they have generally avoided terms like “military crackdown” to describe China’s response to protests that turned into violent confrontation on March 14.

Good on Canada. I’d like to see more of this candor and principle from the world’s governments. And then I’d like to see these statements of clear principle backed up by action: withdraw from the opening ceremonies at the Olympics, withdraw from the Olympic Games in Beijing, demand that China allow foreign journalists unfettered access to Tibet, author resolutions at the United Nations condemning China’s military crackdown in Tibet. All you have to do is meet principle with action and the world will change for the better.