Jiang’s Art of War and Tibet Issue
New York, 30 July: The People’s Republic of China is many things to many people: a vast market of a billion consumers to the corporate leaders in the west, a mystery wrapped in enigma to the diplomats trying to run the embassy of mutually beneficial relations, a land of contradiction to the political pundits, the last bastion of totalitarianism to the activists of human rights and democracy, and scores of other avatars.
But one thing we all agree on is that the Chinese leaders are nothing if not pragmatic.
This “pragmatism” derives its inspiration from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”, the bible of all Chinese leaders and the oldest military treatise in the world.
“All warfare is based on deception,” Sun Tzu taught.
“Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
“Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.”
Diligent students of this teaching, as the Chinese leaders are, they have demonstrated an uncanny knack for changing colours, one that would put even the chameleon to shame.
Brandishing the carrot of a “billion consumers”, they have not allowed any trading partner to achieve a favorable balance of trade.
Professing absolute disgust for western political culture, they have depended for their survival on a political theory developed by a German and perfected in Russia.
Preaching the gospel of atheism, they have arrogated the mystical power to identify and appoint Tibetan “Living Buddhas”, that ultimate incarnation of Marxist anathema.
Their political system may be underpinned by the ideology of equal distribution of wealth, but the economic system they have pursued with single-minded determination has served to put the “means of production” in the hands of a few… Fine as long as “the few” happen to be the guardians of “Marxist equal distribution”.
Such an edifice of power, floating as it is on the uncertain water of contradictory forces, cannot be secure. Fear and suspicion are its constant companions. What naturally follows is a mindset that never tires of engaging in the art of deception, and sees the ghost of deception all around.
This mindset is at its most apparent self in China’s handling of the Tibetan issue. A recent article in the Chinese official online news outlet recognises the importance of the Dalai Lama in the issue of Tibet, but tells the Tibetan leader to be “sincere” from his side.
As far as His Holiness the Dalai Lama is concerned, he is willing to help resolve the issue of Tibet in such a way that it addresses the Chinese leadership’s concern for territorial integrity and stability of China, while satisfying the Tibetan people’s aspiration for substantive autonomy in their homeland. For the umpteenth time, he has put this proposal to the Chinese leadership.
And, no one outside China has challenged the sincerity of this thought.
But not so Beijing. It hears “independence” whenever His Holiness uses the term “genuine autonomy”. For them, “sincerity” means complete capitulation, nothing less. And knowing that such a “sincerity” will not be forthcoming from a leader, whose moral strength has won him the Nobel Peace Prize, the Chinese government has already begun to talk about what “humiliations” it has prepared for the Tibetan leader when he passes away.
A group of 16 Indian journalists who are currently visiting Lhasa were told by Tuden Tsewang, Executive Vice-Chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region, that “if the Dalai Lama breathed his last in Dharamsala or any other place outside Tibet, his body won’t be buried in the Potala Palace – a privilege extended to his predecessors – because in place of acting as a religious leader, he had been conducting himself as a political leader and harming the Tibetan cause”.
While such a “privilege” is inconsequential to His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself, the statement should be viewed with seriousness as it indicates that the new leadership in Beijing is yet to emerge from the looming shadow of Jiang Zemin.
And, Jiang Zemin’s policy toward His Holiness the Dalai Lama was spelled out during a secret meeting held in Chengdu in the mid 1990s.
Setting the tone of that meeting, Jiang said in his keynote address, “We have no need to engage in dialogues with the Dalai Lama. The issue of Tibet is about the ownership of Tibet, something that can’t be discussed. The Dalai Lama’s return to China will bring a great risk of instability. We will then not be able to control Tibet. The Dalai Lama is now fairly old. At the most, it will be ten years before he dies. When he dies, the issue of Tibet is resolved forever. Then, there will be no one to create problems for us. We, therefore, have to use skilful means to prevent his return.”
In other words, “The door to dialogue is always open” is still nothing more than rhetoric to deceive the international public opinion.
This does not naturally bring us to the issue of Indian journalists’ visit to Beijing. But let us discuss this all the same as it is an interesting reminder of proverbial Chinese contradiction.
From the reports of the journalists, one gets the impression that the Chinese authorities have very subtly restricted their access to the sights and sounds of Tibet.
True to the reputation of a country that boasts one of the world’s finest journalistic traditions, the Indian reporters had asked critical and probing questions. And, it was easy to read their desire to see more than they were allowed.
But all they got for their efforts were comments from the officials and marshaled visits to touristic spots; they did not get to talk freely to ordinary Tibetans.
In contrast, the group of largely western reporters, who were invited to Tibet in September 2003, got to visit many unscheduled places and talk to ordinary Tibetans. As a result, they were able to bring us multi-faceted pictures of lives in Tibet. Their casual conversations with Tibetans gave them an insight into the wide socio-economic gap between the Tibetans and the Chinese immigrants.
One wonders why this privilege is denied to the Indian journalist.
If China claims to be the champion of the “Third Worlders” against the “exploitation of the First Worlders”, there is no reason why it should feel less comfortable with the journalists from India.
But who can claim to know China?
Report courtesy : OoT, New York