Re: [Marxism] In Solidarity with the People of Tibet (or why I oppose an international solidarity movement)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am afraid that I have to explain why I am opposed, in today's conditions,
to an international movement in solidarity with Tibet.

I believe this can only become war-mongering against China
 -- including pacifist, progressive, and liberal war-mongering. And on this
road nothing but ruin is possible for Tibet. The real target  of the
campaign is not the oppression of the Tibetan people, which the
international  campaign cannot end and at its core is not capable of ending,
but the great Chinese revolution. This national democratic revolution with a
deep impulsion toward socialism (which cannot be built in a day or secured
in a single struggle) remains alive and an important non-imperialist, and in
many ways anti-imperialist power in world politics despite the deep social
conflicts that can only become more explosive along the road of capitalist
development, which the Chinese regime is pursuing at this time.

When Pierre Rousset calls for international efforts to gain "recognition"
for the Tibetan struggle from "states" and the "United Nations," he is
calling in fact for imperialist intervention against China, with the Tibet
issue as a pretext (which is all it can be, since the imperialists have no
reason to care a nickel's worth about Tibet. For them, Tibet is all about
China.

Much of the left went down this same slippery slope around Yugoslavia, and
the end result was the US war against Serbia.  A US war against China is
probably further away, and it would be even more catastrophic for the world.
But that is what imperialist "moral" intervention is about.  That is the
direction in which Pelosi is pointing, as she supports the occupation of
Iraq and Kosova, the imprisonment of Puerto Rico, threats against Iran etc.
etc. etc


That said, I think we need to make the cold-blooded decision to oppose am
international mobilization in solidarity with Tibet (i.e., in the real world
context, against China without deluding ourselves that the Tibetan people's
fight is unjust.  And it is the fight of the people, not just exiles or a
small layer. (Tibetan "monks" are in all classes of Tibetan society). That
is, I don't think we should delude ourselves that just because we in the
West are not in a position to campaign for them without stumbling
politically into the camp of imperialist war preparations (and just tacking
"Iraq" on to Tibet as though Washington and China were our equal enemies
will not do the trick), the Tibetans are not being oppressed nationally by
the Chinese state or their cause is not substantially out.  That is simply
the easy way out of our problem.

Saul Thomas argues, for instance, that the immigration into Tibet has not
been a policy of the Chinese government but has happened through voluntary
immigration. Actually, noone suggested that Chinese were being forcibly
transferred into Tibet. The issue is whether the Tibetans are being forcibly
required to accept the transformation of their native territory into a
demographically Han-Hui province. And his argument gives no indication that
this is not the case. 

I am sure a sizable number of Chinese are eager to go to Tibet to find
economic security or make their fortunes.  But Thomas should inform me since
I may behind the curve on Chinese law. Is China now a country where people
move freely from province to province in search of jobs or other
opportunities? Are there no longer laws that restrict this? Does the
government claim no power to control this as it used to?

Of course, illegal immigration occurs.  But if the government has such laws
and permits the movement into Tibet then it approves it.  And if a massive
Chinese illegal immigration into Tibet has taken place, why hasn't the
Chinese government cracked down on this? Unless they are for making Tibet a
non-Tibetan province of China?

The argument that the Sinification of Tibet is just what comes naturally is
right out of Heritage Foundation arguments against affirmative action.  And,
as Thomas himself points out, aggressive affirmative action to provide jobs,
income, and a Tibetan Tibet is exactly what is needed.

This brings us to the question of the Dalai Lama, and negotiations with
same. Thomas accuses me of proposing to turn Tibet over to the Dalai Lama.
I am getting used to this charge. Ben Courtice, I recall, accused me of
calling for turning Kosova over to Serbia because I had called for
unconditional withdrawal of US forces, without regard to what would happen
as a result. Still my position.

My view of the Dalai Lama has developed over the years. I am not convinced
he is a stupid politician -- as an op ed in yesterday's Times claims. I
think he is rather adroit.

He, of course, has always accepted support from the imperialist West. This
has helped, especially financially, to keep him afloat as a credible leader
of the Tibetans, many of whom still look to them. As a subtle politician, he
has had to adjust his pitch to the fact that Tibetan feudalism is not a live
factor in the situation, as it was for so long, but dead as a doornail --
gone with the wind, as the saying goes.

Unlike the hard-core Cuban exiles, who would be glad to see their country
turned into a nuclear wasteland if it meant that it would belong to them as
it did to their parents and forebears (under US auspices, of course), I
think that the Dalai Lama does not long to return to a bombed out Tibet,
after years as a free fire zone for the various contenders in an
imperi8alist war against China.

I think he wants to avoid this.  Part of this is his use (which does not
imply insincerity) of his pacifist ideology to avoid a firm Cold War
commitment to the West, and to keep lines of communication, which I am sure
he has, open to China.

Pacifism allowed him to rise above such issues as Vietnam and Iraq, where he
disagreed with his imperialist allies on a pacifist basis. Pacifism allows
him to recognize that there are advantages to the Chinese connection --
providing that the Chinese government can accept that a much more
substantial body of these advantages must go to Tibetans (affirmative
action). At the same time, the connection with China allows Tibet to avoid
the status of contested territory in some future imperialist war on China
which could only be the ultimate and final ruin of Tibet.  

So I believe that his position is different than those among the Tibetan
exiles who bank everything on the expectation that China will collapse, in a
different way than the Soviet Union but collapse nonetheless.  I think the 
Dalai Lama fears that a Chinese collapse, and the conflicts that might
result, would be the ruin in Tibet.  Unlike the right-wing maniacs in the
Miami Mafia, he does not long for his country to become a war zone.

At any rate, I oppose the effort  to build an international solidarity
movement with Tibet in the imperialist west, which can only mean concessions
to the imperialist camp and propaganda aid to their project,  but I continue
to advocate that the Chinese government open negotiations with the Dalai
Lama and other significant forces in Tibet towards a settlement based on the
right of self-determination and affirmative action in defense Tibetan
interests in Tibet.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism