The Dalai Lama, Taiwan and China

By S.P.SETH

The Dalai Lama’s recent Taiwan visit was comforting for its typhoon ravaged people. But it infuriated China. An official spokesman commented that, “Under the pretext of religion, he has all along been engaged in separatist activities.”

Elaborating, he said, “Obviously, this is not for the sake of disaster relief. It’s an attempt to sabotage the hard-earned good situation in cross-strait relations.”

Considering that President Ma Ying–jeou has been bending over backward to please China, he obviously made some hard political calculations when allowing the Dalai Lama’s visit.

He was losing political ground to the opposition Democratic Progressive Party from the torrent of criticism in the country over his administration’s slow and tardy response to the devastating tragedy of Typhoon Morakot.

And knowing how close the Ma administration is to China, they must have explained to Beijing their need to contain political damage that might worsen if the Dalai Lama was refused to visit Taiwan in his role of imparting spiritual solace.

Beijing might not have found it satisfactory but the thought of another possible DPP comeback at some point must be sobering.

The Typhoon Morakot has killed up to 800 people, destroyed property and dislocated communities.

In the midst of all this destruction, the government seemed still unsure how best to respond as if the gravity of the situation had not sunk in.

On such occasions when Nature’s wrath strikes, and the government is woefully incompetent and inadequate, people’s minds turn to spiritual nourishment.

The local leaders (mayors and local government chiefs) were more responsive to their people’s need for some sort of spiritual comfort at a time of tremendous grief.

Which led them to invite the Dalai Lama to serve that need.

Whether or not they were politically motivated is not the issue here. The issue is that they spotted the dire need for spiritual solace and decided that the Dalai Lama was the one to fit that role.

And he played that role with great aplomb and sincerity, judging from the people’s enthusiasm at his meetings.

Indeed China too, in its present state of obsessive greed and consequent moral/spiritual void, can use the Dalai Lama for the good of its people to perform such a role.

China’s ruling oligarchy has so demonized him that they refuse to see any role for him. For them he is a separatist, a political monk and a traitor, at worst.

And what has he done to deserve these epithets? Simply because he seeks autonomy for Tibet as part of China.

Which translates into an autonomous Tibet being able to deal with its regional affairs, while the central government in Beijing controls its defense, foreign dealings and currency.

With such sovereign control over Tibet, is it possible to imagine that it would pose a threat to China’s territorial integrity?

In a country of 1.3 billion people, an autonomous Tibet’s population of about 6 million will be a tiny minority.

And if Beijing can be paranoid on this score, then there is something seriously wrong about the polity and psychology of such a state.

Indeed, judging by the Dalai Lama’s public pronouncements he comes out as a very pragmatic and practical man. For instance, he is always hosing down the hotheads in the Tibetan Youth Congress who advocate independence for Tibet.

The Dalai Lama has reportedly said, “But I always ask them: How are you going to attain independence? Where are you going to get the weapons? How are you going to pay for them? How are you going to send them into Tibet? They have no answer.”

This is certainly not a guy who has some delusion of grandeur about Tibet’s capacity to become independent through an armed struggle with the hugely powerful China.

He acknowledges China’s great power role. They already have the “manpower, military power [and] monetary power.” But, he says, “Moral power, moral authority is lacking.”

In other words, China would need some moral and spiritual foundation to underpin its heedless and relentless pursuit of greed.

Because, in its absence, it will lose its social and cultural cohesion and bring on itself the social chaos that its leadership professes to fear so much.

And for this, China can certainly use the Dalai’s Lama’s moral authority.

According to Pico Iyer, who has studied the Dalai Lama over the decades, “…the Dalai Lama has always been adept at pointing out, logically, how Tibet’s interests and China’s converge—bringing geopolitics and Buddhist principles together…”

China, therefore, should tap his spiritual and moral authority and make him a partner in its moral regeneration.

Which would require them to stop demonizing him as some sort of an evil phenomena.

An autonomous Tibet might give some substance to China’s otherwise phony claim of ethnic and cultural diversity.

They should stop waiting for the Dalai Lama to die and replace him with their own compliant nominee.

Indeed, in his death, he might become a more potent symbol of retrieving Tibet’s identity, with not inconsiderable public support internationally.

At 73, the Dalai Lama is still going strong, and is likely to be around for many years.

If Beijing can get over its pathological hatred of him, he might be able to play a useful role in broadening and humanizing China’s image.

And with his considerable spiritual following in Taiwan, he might even be able to play a useful bridging role with the mainland.

The point is that China’s paranoid leadership needs to relax and let Taiwan breathe freely.

Even with a broadly shared culture, people can still decide to live as separate nations. Take the case of Australia and New Zealand. They have the best of relations as separate countries with a shared cultural heritage.

Why can’t China feel more confident with an independent Taiwan, with both countries deepening their shared cultural, trade and other activities?

Granting autonomy to Tibet might be the first step to make China feel more at ease.