Tibet

[/ dave /]

Doug Henwood wrote:

> 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  /