> There's a pretty good book by A Tom Grunfeld called The Making of
> Modern Tibet published a few years ago by Sharpe. Not that I know
> enough about Tibet to judge, but it did tell me some things I wanted
> to hear (that traditional Tibet was a pretty horrifying place, and
> that the Dalai Lama crowd buddied up with the CIA).
Are we giving context due consideration here? I'll be the first one to stand up and declare that the CIA should be annihilated, but I remember reading that long piece you forwarded on the CIA/Tibet involvement and it seems to me that "buddying up" with the CIA was a wholly pragmatic and fairly straightforward move on the part of the Dalai Lama and Co., given their alternatives, which seemed to be nil. Note that I'm not necessarily defending the supposedly theocratic Tibetan regime, but I wonder if the situation of Tibetans vis-a-vis the preservation of their "autonomy" as a cultural entity vs. the perception of almost certain demise and/or co-optation by the Chinese can be contrasted with, say, Gloria Steinem's collaboration with the CIA, which I've been given to understand was of an entirely more slimy and treacherous nature in relation to the movements with which she was directly or indirectly associated.
What I'm trying to say is, were any one of us to have been, hypothetically, in some privileged position way back when and given an opportunity to take private tea on the veranda with Pinochet to somehow save 175 innocent lives, it would have been irresponsible, selfish and downright cruel to pass up the chance, no? (And then we might consider the possibility of guiding him over the edge of said veranda after the second course...) Of course many people, given their close proximity to the horrors of the Pinochet regime, would have been understandably unable to complete such a task - but, barring that, I don't buy or even understand the line that there's a symbolic, almost mystical wall of association vs. non-association that can't be breached if the circumstances are right. Whatever works, works. A heretofore-"enemy" is always capable of becoming a "friend" for a short time, when there's so much at stake. The cause is too important, and it's counter-intuitive and downright foolish and stupid to reject a perfectly-placed strategic opportunity to make an important advance owing to squeamishness or ideological purity ("purity" which wouldn't, in any case, be altered). Of course public perceptions and those of our peers would then be an issue, in that one wouldn't want to engender the false impression that one is lending support/credence to an organization as bankrupt, misguided and malevolent as the CIA, but it seems to me there were no televised images of Tibetans shaking hands with CIA field agents - the exact opposite, of course.
As an aside, provoked by the above... In any standard debate or mid-level conflict, the considerate and fair-minded thing to do is identify your opponent, define the terms of engagement, and proceed. I happen to think the cause of overcoming capitalism and the repressive forces with which it is allied easily trumps these considerations. We should feel free to debate issues and take various positions all we want in public and in private, but we needn't give our opponents (whoever may stubbornly embody that fluid, ephemeral position of "enemy" at a given moment) the satisfaction of understanding their situation until we look in their eyes and plunge the dagger. It's already an unbalanced fight, and the forces arrayed against us are formidable. There's too much at stake for all of us. So we focus on real, substantive issues and dialogue, and avoid personalizing "enemies" (we want to give people room to get with the program or get out of the way - we don't want them on the defensive) except in cases where a single individual or entity stands so firmly entrenched against progress that we have no alternative but to find a way to forcefully move them (or remove them) from the picture.
Back to the issue, the question becomes, as I said, whether the Tibetan people were better off living under the supposedly repressive regime of the monks, or whether the loss of their autonomy to China was somehow preferable vis-a-vis the interests of the average Tibetan - but either way, it would appear the CIA connection needs to be understood in context. Is it the case that the Tibetans stood to lose nothing by their involvement with same, but possibly everything they held to be important if they declined the opportunity? Has anyone ever been able to get substantive input from "average" Tibetans about their feelings and inclinations? If I remember correctly, that's always been the rub...
--
/ dave /