Buddhism is so cool. But….

Yes, it is. A very cool religion.

But there is a problem that we Americans need to explore as a Democratic nation founded on the principles of Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion..

How does Tibet survive politically in a modern world?

Should the spiritual leader of Buddhism be a political leader?

Currently, The US regards Tibet as part of China and has officially  stated so as early as July 1942 in a memorandum to the British Government.  We needed China’s help against the Japanese and agreed with Chiang Kai-shek that Tibet was part of China. Link

China was the US’s most important Asian ally in the war against Japan. The United States, by necessity, saw its relationship with China as being more important than that with the local government of Tibet.

This changed during the Cold War following Mao’s victory in China and his establishment of a communist state. After the “liberation” of Tibet by the CCP, the Dalai Lama moved from Lhasa to a town near the Indian border in case he needed to escape. He appealed to America and the United Nations for assistance, but none was forthcoming and he sent a letter to Beijing to negotiate. In May 1951, the 2 groups agreed on what is known as “The Seventeen Point Agreement”. This agreement formalized  China’s sovereignty over Tibet.  The Dalai Lama never signed the agreement nor was he aware of its terms according to Tibetan expert Melvyn C. Goldstein.  The Dalai Lama was approximately 16 years old at the time. According to  Goldstein in his article “The United States, Tibet and The Cold War”, (PDF but worth reading) The United States unsuccessfully urged him to declare the document invalid and flee into exile, but the young boy returned to Lhasa to try to live under the 17 Point Agreement. Goldstein says that the Dalai Lama did not flee because he felt America would not support the independence of Tibet nor would the US supply military aid to assist Tibet.

In September 1951, Ameria again reached out to the Dalai Lama promising that if he ignored the 17 Point Agreement, renounced Communism and fled to India the US would officially adopt the position that the DL was the “head of autonomous Tibet” and would support his ” return to Tibet at the earliest practical moment  as the head of an autonomous and non-communist country.”  Message from the State Dept to the Dalai Lama, 7, Sept, 1951.

Again he refused and stayed in Lhasa until 1959. The events that led to his fleeing to India began in 1956 following a series of revolts in Kham, an area in Western China inhabited by Tibetans.  The CIA supplied weapons and training to the Tibetan resistance in Khan in 1957. Goldstein says in footnotes that “a case can be made” that this US involvement led to the destabilization of Tibet, but  says this ” will have to be the topic of another article.”  

An uprising in Lhasa in 1959 finally sent the Dalai Lama into exile.

The CIA continued to support the rebels and set up a training camp in neighboring Nepal to infiltrate into Tibet as well as funds and non-military support for the Dalai Lama.  A training site in Colorado was also funded in 1964.

Rejecting autonomy, the DL asked America in return to support his desire for total independence and was rebuked repeatedly by the Eisenhower Administration. (links on page 4 of PDF)

An then along comes Tricky Dicky and renewed relations with China. The Cold War Strategy changed abruptly. The Unites States halted all support for the Tibetans and ceased to use the term “Autonomous Country”. Tibet faded into the shadows according to Goldstein.

Deng Xiaoping opened China and invited the DL to secret  face-to-face meetings in Beijing in 1982 and 1984. Deng reversed the policies of the Cultural revolution and allowed the TAR (Tibet Autonomous Region) to restore Tibetan culture to a degree.

The 1982 talks broke down because H. H. Dalai Lama would not accept autonomy and Deng would not allow independence.  The Tibetans offered a compromise of sorts in 1984. The Dalai Lama demanded in 1984 that China should grant Tibetans in “all parts of China” political autonomy. It was similar to the “One Country, Two Systems” system that we see on the island of Taiwan.  He wanted self-rule for all Tibetans everywhere in China.  The talks collapsed again.

The Chinese began to develop Tibet hoping to win over the local Tibetans.  The Dalai Lama began a world crusade to draw attention to human rights issues,  In September 1987 the Dalai Lama was invited to speak to The Congressional Human Rights Caucus in Washington.

There, he called upon China to resolve the Tibet Problem  with a 5 point plan.

The first point was that the whole of Tibet be turned into a “zone of peace”. This would also include ethnographic Tibet, including the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu Sichuan and Yunnan.. This would require the removal of all Chinese military bases and troops from these provinces.

The other 4 points were irrelevant , this was the deal breaker.

Here is a map of the area the Dalai Lama wanted to control. The above mentioned provinces are yellow.

And here’s where we get into the ‘Modern Age of Politics in Tibet”.

The ethnographic DMZ will never be recognized by China.  I don’t think any other country in a similar situation would do it either.  

Here are 2 reasons and neither are religious.

Look at the map again and notice the neighboring countries that are near or share borders with the yellow ethnographic Tibet area.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Burma, Vietnam, Laos and India.  All are either historical enemies with invasion routes into China, current trade partners or routes for oil pipelines.

Now look at this map…



The blue lines are rivers.

The map  shows six of the worlds largest rivers draining from the Plateau: the Indus (Gar) drains the southwest, the Bramaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo) drains the southern and southeastern area, the Salween (Nu), Mekong (Lancang) and Yangtze (Jinsha) drain the central and eastern areas, and Yellow (Huang) drains the northeastern area. The northern and northwestern areas have no external drainage and are characterized by many large lakes. The plateau is occupied by about four million Tibetans who raise yaks and sheep on tundra above the timberline, but over half of the worlds population lives in the drainage basins of these six rivers.

OK, back to religion and a look back to the future.

Our country was founded on the principle of Separation of Church and State as well as Freedom of Religion. How do Americans accept both in the case of Tibet?

The Dalai Lama is the spiritual and political leader of Buddhist worldwide.

He wants religious freedom for his people in Tibet (a good thing), but with it comes a lot of global political power (a bad thing according to our beliefs).

The DL is a great guy but he is getting a little long in the tooth. I find it amazing that he has been a leader during the administrations of FDR, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,Bush, Clinton, Bush II and will more than likely (Buddha willing), be around for the next administration. On the China side he has dealt with Chiang Kai-shek, Mao, Deng Xiaoping and others up to the current regime of Hu Jintao. Amazing!

But recent events show us that a certain element of his followers are not following his wishes (nor the teachings of Buddha).  When asked to tell the rioters to stop the killing of Chinese citizens, he said he had no control of the situation.

When I saw him say this on BBC, I freaked. He doesn’t have the power to stop “Buddhists” from looting and killing people? I think he was telling us something in his way. There appears to be a schism between Tibetan activists and H.H. The Dalai Lama.

Such sentiments are being heard increasingly within the Tibetan refugee community, many of whom are questioning the Dalai Lama’s approach in increasingly public ways. In its meeting in August 1998, the TYC (Tibetan Youth Congress) pointed out the total lack of results of the non-violent path.

snip….

In recent years the TYC has adopted an increasingly aggressive stance and has engaged in more confrontational activism, even though this puts it at odds with the exile government.

snip…

A growing number of Tibetan exiles have publicly called for a change of tactics, pointing out that violent resistance movements have often succeeded in gaining independence.

snip…

The Dalai Lama must be aware of the irony of the situation. He enjoys widespread reverence all over the world for his non-violent campaign, he has an international forum for his cause, but he is unable to soften the PRC’s intransigence, and so at a time when his cause is gathering adherents around the world he is steadily losing the support of his own people. In spite of these factors, he still remains committed to dialogue. He points out that it would be suicidal for five million Tibetans to adopt violent methods in confronting China, a nation of 1.2 billion people with an army of five million.

The Free Tibet Movement: A Selective Narrative By John Powers

He has now said he is in favor of autonomy but some in the exile community are still insisting on independence. He has threatened to step down yet they still demand separation from China against his wishes.  The rogue element seems to have a different agenda than their King. We should worry about this.  

The world is already bent over the barrel by fundamentalist religious extremists with political power that fortuitously sit on most of the planet’s oil. Some were our friends in the past. Now they are not. The only positive is that they don’t also have control of 1/2 of the world’s water as well.

China has survived as a civilization for 5,000 years. This was not an accident nor a stroke of good luck.  This is not a matter of religious freedom to them as much as concern for their  National Security and Natural Resources.  The good news is that Hu Jintao has opened the door for talks with the DL. If we are lucky and both are willing to compromise, there could be a “peaceful” solution.

My hopes are that the Dalai Lama will be allowed to return to Tibet and the Tibetans will have the religious freedom they deserve, but to accomplish this the DL and his true followers will probably have to accept autonomy and relinquish the political functions of his position.

What would Buddha do?