New Left Review had two articles on Tibet in the last few yrs. Here is one, http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2002/6/23-2_1.html REFLECTIONS ON TIBET (New Left Review) New Left Review 14, March-April 2002 http://www.newleftreview.net/index.shtml
Breaking taboos on both sides of the conflict over Tibet, a Chinese writer within the PRC considers some of the bitter paradoxes of its history under Communist rule, and their roots in the confrontation of an alien bureaucracy and fear-stricken religion.
WANG LIXIONG
REFLECTIONS ON TIBET
In the current debate on Tibet the two opposing sides see almost everything in black and white-differing only as to which is which. But there is one issue that both Chinese authorities and Tibetan nationalists consistently strive to blur or, better still, avoid altogether. At the height of the Cultural Revolution hundreds of thousands of Tibetans turned upon the temples they had treasured for centuries and tore them to pieces, rejected their religion and became zealous followers of the Great Han occupier, Mao Zedong. To the Chinese Communist Party, the episode is part of a social catastrophe-one that it initiated but has long since disowned and which, it hopes, the rest of the world will soon forget. For the Tibetan participants, the memory of that onslaught is a bitter humiliation, one they would rather not talk about, or which they try to exorcise with the excuse that they only did it 'under pressure from the Han'. Foreign critics simply refuse to accept that the episode ever took place, unable to imagine that the Tibetans could willingly and consciously have done such a thing. But careful analysis and a deeper reflection on what was involved in that trauma may shed light on some of the cultural questions at stake on the troubled High Plateau.
First, however, a survey of the broader historical background is required. For many centuries Tibet was an integral political entity, governed by the local religious leaders and feudal lords. Under the Qing dynasty, China exercised its jurisdiction over the region through the submission of this elite and did not interfere directly in local affairs. Between 1727 and 1911, the principal symbol of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet was the office of the Residential Commissioner, known as the amban. The imperial presence in Lhasa, however, consisted 'solely of the commissioner himself and a few logistical and military personnel.' [1] These, together with a handful of civilian staff members, were responsible for carrying out all the daily administrative routines. Speaking no Tibetan they had to rely on interpreters and spent most of their time in Lhasa, making only a few inspection tours a year outside the city. [2] It is inconceivable that such a tiny apparatus would be able to exercise effective control over Tibet, an area of more than a million square kilometres. By and large, the Residential Commissioner could only serve as what I shall call a 'connector', mediating between the Qing authorities and the local rulers, the Dalai Lama and the Kashag. [3] Under this system, Tibetan peasants submitted solely to Tibetan masters-they 'only knew the Dalai, not the Court'. On certain occasions-when the Qing army had helped repel aggressors, for instance-the Tibetan elite would be full of praise for the Commissioner's advice. For the rest of the time, it would be unrealistic to expect that a few alien officials-linguistically handicapped, militarily weak, socially and politically isolated-would be obeyed by the local rulers, who held all the region's power and resources in their hands. <SNIP>
And, from Michael Parenti, what Foreign Languages Press in Peking/Beijing could have published, http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html , "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth."