American Involvement in Tibetan Conflict: Was "Tibet Fever" Reduced by the Rise of China?

                                         Source: "Tibet - Cultural Murder." Tibet - Cultural Murder. Web. 03 Dec. 2012  
                                                        <http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4397-tibet---cultural-murder.aspx>.

A twenty-year old woman stepped out from a public toilet and stood in a marketplace in Gansu Province in Tibet, her thin body wrapped in gasoline-soaked blankets bound by wire. She raised her fist in rebellion for a fleeting moment before a bright flame encompassed her, forcing her body to tumble to the ground. Stories like this one of Tibetan protest have been told dozens of times throughout the past few months alone. The motivation for these protests is China’s repressive policies against Tibetan religious liberties.[i]

In an attempt to put Chinese nationalism above Tibetan culture, the Chinese government is enforcing restrictive laws, specifically on Buddhism, that have inspired insurgence amongst Tibetan people. Buddhism is at the center of Tibetan culture; one in six Tibetan men is a Buddhist monk. The replacement of Tibetan with Chinese as the language of instruction in schools, distribution and mandated public display of national flags and portraits of Mao Zedong and other prominent leaders, and public denouncements of the Dalai Lama by monks and nuns are a few of the Chinese enforcements that infringe upon Tibetan rights. While monks and common civilians keep banned pictures of the Dalai Lama posted in their homes and saved on their cell phones, a movement has spread across the globe for the protection of Tibetan human rights.[ii]

The current anguish of Tibetans reminds us of the sentiments of America’s founders. Patrick Henry said it best with his famous line, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” America’s foundational principles encircle a belief in the essential human right to attain democratic freedoms. The US’s role as the prominent global power since World War II has often been focused into foreign policies that support the spread and protection of democratic principles in struggling nations like Tibet. The intent to protect basic human liberties is not the single motivation for the US to support Tibet.

America is a large consumer of Tibetan culture and religious beliefs. The migration of Buddhist principles and pro-Tibetan sentiments into the US occurred largely in the 1990’s; a period of time that Barry Sautman of Pacific Affairs called “Tibet Fever.” During this decade, Buddhism was the fastest growing religion in the US, with 500,000 converted Americans and 1.5 million Asian-Buddhist immigrants. Films like “Seven Years in Tibet” starring Brad Pitt and “Kundun,” a biography of the young Dalai Lama directed by Martin Scorcese brought attention to the Tibetan Question and expressed animosity towards the PRC. Events like “Concerts for a Free Tibet” and fashion shows by designers who donated funds to causes supporting Tibetan exiles inspired public involvement in Tibetan charities. The International Campaign for Tibet rose in membership from 2,000 in early-1997 to 25,000 in mid-1998 as a response to Brad Pitt’s film, and Students for a Free Tibet went from having a dozen chapters nationally in 1993 to holding 400 chapters in 1997. In the news and media, pro-Tibetan speakers author the majority of key US publications on the Tibet Question, and Tibetan protests against China are given much coverage.  On a two-level game, this rapid upsurge of American support of Tibet transcended into US political ties with Tibet. The Dalai Lama was not allowed to step on US soil from 1959 to 1979; since then he's kept yearly meetings with the US president. Members of both parties in Congress participate in the Tibetan caucus, which has produced multiple anti-PRC legislations. After the Cold War, Sino-American relations weakened and China was viewed by global Tibetan supporters as the next Communist nation to fall. “Tibet Fever” was an international movement. As the Dalai Lama built lobby groups and met with Chinese leaders to discuss policies on reasonable terms, he gained greater coverage on global news. Western supporters and Tibetan exiles partnered to gain global backing for the pro-Tibetan cause through demonstrations of civil disobedience. These protests resulted in increased repressive policies by the PRC, which actually fostered the pro-Tibetan cause and internationalization of support.[iii]

Since the 1990’s, the global balance of economics and political strengths has shifted significantly. China rose tremendously in economic prowess while the Western world encountered crippling debts and crises. The US is more indebted to China than to any other nation in the world. As our nation rebuilds itself domestically it should lean away from foreign conflicts and entanglements; the last thing the US wants is to go to war with China.[iv] Therefore, the situation of American support of Tibet in the context of changing Sino-American relationship is complex.

The US has been involved with mediation as a third-party in foreign conflicts in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and Palestine, yet they haven’t sent any negotiators to Tibet. To explain this circumstance, Sautman stated that as of 1999, “in the case of Tibet, there are no strategic US interests involved” (Sautman, p.15).[v] Today, the circumstances of American involvement in Tibet have altered, and the motivation for sending mediators or military support to Tibet may have developed as well. Take, for example, US involvement in the territorial disputes between Japan and China. China and Japan have been in conflict over a cluster of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea for years, and the US recently sent officials to Beijing to express their support of Japan on the matter. Early last month, about 44,000 American and Japanese military personnel were deployed to take action on the territorial issue. While the new leaders in China and the US have openly declared their dedication to maintaining peace between the two states, we may still question what is to come from US involvement with nations pitted against China. Obama’s “pivot to Asia” may be a strategy to ally with China’s neighbors in a way that parallels an effort for containment as it was used in the Cold War. [vi] Robert Kagan predicted that if the world system became bilateral with America and China as the two global hegemons, its nations could become divided along the line that separates democratic and authoritarian regimes. Kagan states that China would have to go to war with Japan and India in order to gain this position and that the situation is unlikely. However, his prediction is drawn in an area of uncertainty regarding China’s influence on inspiring autocratic regimes in other parts of the world.[vii] If we consider the prospect of Obama’s “pivot to Asia” being influenced in part by this fear of the spread of autocracies across the globe, we may support the likelihood that America will become more heavily invested in Tibetan affairs.

Throughout this discussion we see religion and culture in many of their forms. As an agent, Buddhist religion in Tibet threatens Chinese authority over the region. Religious strength as an agent in Tibet motivates the PRC’s repressive laws against Buddhist practices. Buddhism acts as an instigator of policy changes in this context. The Dalai Lama is a representative and leader of the Tibetan Buddhist faith, thus we can call the religion an actor through the work of the Dalai Lama in negotiating policy with the Chinese government and inspiring international support of the Tibetan movement.  The Tibetan culture includes the Buddhist faith, Tibetan language and flag. While the Tibetan culture is suppressed by the policies of the PRC, “Tibet Fever” spread globally in support of Tibetan human rights and demonstrations of protest against China’s regulations in Tibet have become commonplace throughout the world. These are all actions of the Tibetan culture as an agent of protest and the basis of a movement.  The Free Tibet movement, as it is characterized by the common beliefs in basic human rights and the spread of democracy to China, as well as the protection of Tibetan culture, may be viewed as an institution. As the Free Tibet movement progresses, the motivations behind the global protests and “Tibet Fever,” which can be understood as the massive migration of Tibetan culture and Buddhist faith to the Western world during the 1990’s, can be studied as phenomena. We understand the shift in the 1990’s to be a result of China’s stance as “the last communist nation” at the time, and the American popular position against this regime.[viii] It would be interesting to learn more about why the American people joined the Free Tibet movement and specifically why they latched onto the principles of Buddhism from a sociological perspective.

Let’s review the situation from the critical lenses of international relations theories. When we look at the spread of the movement in support of the protection of basic human rights in Tibet, we can understand this movement as an institution that would have been encouraged by liberalists at the time. This Free Tibet institution brought multiple political and civil entities together from various nations and across party lines in an effort to achieve a common goal for democracy and peace in Tibet; from a liberalist perspective, the formation and spread of this institution is the best way to inspire resolution. However, a liberalist would recognize that the institution would need to include formal mediation between the political leaders of the nations involved in the conflict in order to have any real impact. A realist perspective would understand the US’s choice not to involve itself fully in the politics of disputes between the PRC and Tibet as a decision out of self-interest. As Sautman concluded in his article “The Tibet Issue in Post-Summit Sino-American Relations," from 1999, the US had no political or economic incentive to get involved with mediation between Tibet and China at the time. Perhaps with the rise of China and the economic crisis of the Western world, specifically in the US, America will act along realist lines and focus entirely on domestic improvement while maintaining a neutral position on the conflict in Tibet. Our knowledge of US military involvement in the territorial disputes between Japan and China cause us to question this conclusion. From a constructivist perspective, our nation will act in ways that uphold our sense of American identity. Constructivist would predict that the spread of democratic rights and values to Tibet would be supported by the US since these are the principles that we associate most closely with our identity, and this would not be the first time that America involved itself with foreign conflicts with the emphasis on spreading democracy.  The “Tibet Fever” of the 1990’s provides that Tibetan culture has migrated extensively to different areas of the world, including America. With a Tibetan Buddhist subculture alive in America, we may question whether the will for the US to act according to the principles that make-up our national identity may be colored by the Tibetan beliefs that contribute to our identity. This Tibetan subculture is still too small to have a huge influence on American foreign policy and national sense of identity, in my opinion.

The Tibetan question is an unanswered one, just as it has been for decades. With the ever-changing global climate, we have to consider that there may be a shift in the American position on the issue and possibly the Chinese position as well. There are countless factors that shape America’s foreign policy decisions, many of which are difficult to analyze comprehensively as a common civilian. I hope that we can have a better understanding of America’s role in the Tibetan conflict from this discussion.

---

[i] Research., Andrew Jacobs; Shi Da Contributed. "Tibetan Self-Immolations as China Tightens Grip." Financial Times. 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9105094-2d00-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html>.

[ii] Research., Andrew Jacobs; Shi Da Contributed. "Tibetan Self-Immolations as China Tightens Grip." Financial Times. 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9105094-2d00-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html>.

[iii] Sautman, Barry. "The Tibet Issue in Post-Summit Sino-American Relations." Pacific Affairs Spring (1999). Web.

[iv] Zakaria, Fareed. The Post-American World: Release 2.0. New York: W. W. Norton, 2011. Print.

[v] Sautman, Barry. "The Tibet Issue in Post-Summit Sino-American Relations." Pacific Affairs Spring (1999). Web.

[vi] Rachman, Gideon. "China and US Navigate in Risky Waters." Financial Times. 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9105094-2d00-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html>.

[vii] Kagan, Robert. The World America Made. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012. Print.

[viii] Sautman, Barry. "The Tibet Issue in Post-Summit Sino-American Relations." Pacific Affairs Spring (1999). Web.

Works Cited

Kagan, Robert. The World America Made. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012. Print.

Rachman, Gideon. "China and US Navigate in Risky Waters." Financial Times. 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9105094-2d00-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html>.

Research., Andrew Jacobs; Shi Da Contributed. "Tibetan Self-Immolations as China Tightens Grip." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2012. Web. 02 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/world/asia/in-self-immolations-signs-of-new-turmoil-in-tibet.html>.

Sautman, Barry. "The Tibet Issue in Post-Summit Sino-American Relations." Pacific Affairs Spring (1999). Web.

Zakaria, Fareed. The Post-American World: Release 2.0. New York: W. W. Norton, 2011. Print.