Kevin Z. Jiang is a Senior Editor of the Global Notebook section of the Harvard International Review.
Free Tibet … from isolation
The story of Tibet took yet another turn yesterday with the official opening of the Qinghai-Tibet railway line in China, the first such connection between Tibet and the rest of China. The railway line is now the highest in the world; at one point, it reaches an elevation of 16,640 feet above sea level, over 3 miles high. To deal with the extreme conditions on the so-called “roof of the world,” special technological adjustments were made, including elevating train tracks above the ground to deal with unstable permafrost and laying cooling pipes to further solidify the ground.
But like the other large Chinese construction/development project – the Three Gorges Dam – the railway is highly controversial. On one hand, the supporters claim that the it will further open Tibet to the rest of China and help the region develop economically. Develop it must, for the standard of living in Tibet is far lower than that of the rest of the country, especially the booming cities on the east coast. Detractors, however, are deeply concerned about the potential impact on Tibetan culture as Han Chinese pour into the region. They also argue that whatever the benefits the railway might bring, they will only accrue to the new Han Chinese, not the Tibetans, whose poverty and lack of education will continue to inhibit their abilities to exploit any opportunities.
The controversy over the Qinghai-Tibet railway line is really just a continuation over the debate over Tibet itself. A quote from a BBC News article neatly sums up the dilemma: “Tibet’s extraordinary isolation has kept it poor. Education levels and life expectancy fall well behind the rest of China. But that isolation has also helped to preserve Tibet’s unique culture and way of life.”
So is the new railway line and opening of Tibet good for Tibetans? I strongly argue yes. First, while critics are correct in pointing out that Han Chinese will reap most of the development, it does not address the fact that Tibetans are benefiting to a certain extent as well. Unfair, yes it is, that immigrant Han Chinese are the big winners (in the beginning at least). But economists and common sense would tell us that any gain is better than no gain, even if the other guys “unfairly” get a bigger share of the windfall. Indeed, the longer Tibet remains isolated, the more it will fall behind the rest of the world. The railway comes not a moment too soon.
But economics is dry, and the more interesting debate is about culture. I do not pretend that the railway will not affect the Tibetan culture in no way whatsoever. Already, parts of the capital Lhasa, with similar looking forgettable buildings and wide paved streets, look more like the generic modernized cities on the east coast than any other traditional Tibetan locale. This is an all-too-familiar story throughout the developing world. But before we become overly romantic and lament the loss of a beautiful past (a past that is poorer, nastier, more brutish, and shorter than we like to believe), we must think critically.
Assuming that Tibetan culture, like all other cultures, is the not the perfect essence of Good, then it would not be completely rational to fear a changing Tibetan culture. What critics of the railway are defending is the status quo Tibetan culture. What they forget is the possibility that Tibetan culture can also change for the better. And if it is impossible to judge one culture better than another (as I believe), then it would be impossible to say that exposing Tibetan culture to incoming Han Chinese culture would be bad, for there is no good and bad here, only new and old.
True, the Han Chinese culture has proven to be powerfully assimilative in the past. Mongols and Manchus successfully conquered China, but in the process became Chinese themselves. (Does anyone know a friend who speaks and writes Manchu?). But it is insulting to imply that Tibetan culture is so worthless that its existence cannot stand outside ideas and beliefs.
Those who are keen are protecting status quo Tibetan culture and who oppose the railway seem to have a contradiction in their own argument. On one hand, they claim that Tibetan culture is incredibly wonderful. It is so wonderful, they say, that poverty and isolation are acceptable costs in the defense of this culture. Yet, on the other hand, they argue vociferously that the increasing contact with the rest of China will threaten the very existence of this wonderful culture. If this culture is so fragile that it cannot survive contact with other civilizations, then is it really that wonderful? If the Tibetan people will flock so quickly to new Han Chinese way of life, then is it really so wonderful? And if it is so wonderful, will the Tibetans so readily abandon it?
Of course, many would argue and say that many wonderful cultures, from those of American Indians to native Africans to Australian aborigine, have suffered great losses. But in all those circumstances, the invading culture used force of arms to attack the native culture. The Communist party may be tough and biased masters in Tibet, but it is doubtful they will use force of arms to exterminate Tibetan culture.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember about the Qinghai-Tibet railway is that it runs both ways. At the same time that it will bring many Han Chinese to Tibet, it will also export greater knowledge of the region. We fear, loathe, and reject what we do not understand, and the railway will bring greater understanding of Tibetan culture to the rest of China. If Tibetan culture is as wonderful as its defenders, and I, believe it is to be, then we should all be confident that a greater opening up of Tibet will not only protect its way of life from ignorant bigotry, but also will make the rest of China a better place as well. It will teach the rest of China that there are more important things to worship than Mammon and that simple goodness is still important, no matter how rich one is.
The story of Tibet took another turn yesterday with the opening of the Qinghai-Tibet railway line. Tibet took a turn for a better future.
A Risky Flirtation
In War and Peace, Tolstoy informs us that a gentleman would court a young woman by going often to her house and spending entire days there. Flirtation has not changed much since Tolstoy’s time, and judging by recent actions, China seems to be in the middle of an intensive and apparently successful courtship of Africa. This week, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao will be taking a tour of seven African nations. This follows a week-long visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao in April (his second in three years) and a tour by Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing in January. Most African nations are all too welcome to receive this flattering attention from a rising power.
China’s interest in Africa is not recent. In the 1960s, it gave large amounts of aid to fellow revolutionary and socialist regimes and movements in the region. This support was not only an expression of ideological fraternity but also a careful diplomatic strategy, one that paid off nicely. Africa’s support allowed the mainland to be finally recognized in the United Nations in 1972 (thereby displacing Taiwan); China’s engagement with Africa isolated Taiwan diplomatically – a condition that the People’s Republic is determined to maintain.
Nowadays, China’s interest in Africa is more economic. With rapid industrialization, China’s thirst for oil has led it to sign numerous treaties with and make massive investments in African nations. Trade and investment have increased substantially. CNOOC, the same CNOOC whose attempt to buy the US oil company Unocal was rebuffed by an excessively alarmed Congress, completed a deal with Nigerian oil companies last year worth US$2 billion. Chinese companies are scattered throughout Africa, searching for minerals and oil. Infrastructure has been funded by China from Angola to Zimbabwe.
Like a Russian count determined to marry a prestigious and wealthy heiress, China sees nothing but economic and geopolitical gain in its increased cooperation with Africa. But has Africa benefited equally? Or has it become the wealthy heiress who, falling for a dashing but knavish count, is foolishly giving away her fortune?
In the short run, China’s trade and investment with Africa is beneficial, because, if nothing else, few other countries are paying much attention to it. Africa’s infrastructure is often found to be decrepit; China’s investment in this area is sorely needed. China’s hunger for natural resources has raised the prices and as a result increased the nations’ income.
Yet, like an heiress who finds only short-term joy in an unwise marriage, Africa’s actions may lead to long-term distress. Unlike other nations such as the United States, China turns a blind eye to Africa’s many human rights violations and undemocratic practices, one of the reasons why China has been successful in making deals with Africa in the first place. This in turn weakens the ability of the United States and its allies to use their economic power as leverage to force political reforms on African regimes. China’s presence also weakens the ability of IMF and other institutions to introduce much needed reforms in transparency and policy. Indeed, the harmful effect that China has on reform can seen best in its support for Zimbabwe and its dictator, Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwe has managed to survive despite international isolation and economic sanctions, primarily because China, its major ally, has staunchly defended it in the name of national sovereignty and economic gain (for China).
China’s courtship of Africa may bring short-term relief to the poor continent, but could prove to be Africa’s disadvantage in the long run. Love hurts, especially when the suitor is out only for his (or her) own gain. But Tolstoy could have told you that.
A New Member in the Family
Self-determination was one of buzzwords that swept Europe after World War I. The great irony is that in the midst of this, many Balkan nations lost their independence to join together in a new kingdom. One of these nations was Montenegro. Yet, on June 3, almost 90 years after being absorbed into Yugoslavia, Montenegro declared its independence and resumed its place as a sovereign state of Europe.
After the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of Yugoslavia beginning in 1992, Serbia and Montenegro were the last two countries to remain together in a loose union. The fate of Serbia and Montenegro was sealed last week when 55.5 percent of Montenegro voted for independence in a national referendum. An earlier agreement, negotiated by an EU envoy, had set 55 percent as the threshold.
Montenegro’s new independence is a great cause for celebration in a troubled region, for it was born not in bloodshed and battles, but at the ballot box. Yet, what Montenegrins need right now is not just more fireworks and jubilation, but also calm leadership in the period ahead. Negotiations with Serbia, which plans to declare its own independence soon, still need to be conducted over property rights, work permits, and other issues. Many expect Montenegro to use its access to the sea, and independent Serbia’s lack thereof, as a bargaining tool. With Serbia inheriting the former union’s representation in the United Nations and other international bodies, Montenegro must also apply to those as well.
The question of course is whether Montenegro’s independence is good for Montenegro, for the Balkans, and for Europe as a whole. Many pro-unionists have argued that independence and resulting shrinkage of the state would make it more difficult for Montenegro to compete. Those in favor of independence believe that separating from Serbia, which is still haunted by military crimes of its past, will allow the nation to have a better chance of joining the European Union and enjoy the benefits it provides. But independent or not, the truth is that Montenegro, with average wages of only 200 euros and 18 percent unemployment, is in dire need of development and growth.
Montenegro’s independence certainly brings many uncertainties to the fore, such as the possibility of prosperity for such a small nation of less than 700,000 people. That such a large percentage (44.5) of the population voted against independence is an indication that such concerns must be taken seriously by the government. Many of the pro-unionists were Montenegrins who live in the inland regions, closer to Serbia. Even with independence, it is important that Montenegro continue to work closely with Serbia.
Montenegro’s future success as an independent nation is an important goal not just for Montenegrins but also for all Europeans and people around the world. Its success will mean that independence for small nations can also bring economic success. Let Montenegro be the new poster child for self-determination.
Democracy at Its Finest
Fear. That was one of the first emotional responses many people and governments had when they learned that Hamas had won a majority (70 of 132) in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. Surely now the peace process was doomed. Freedom itself was doomed, for an Islamic party/terrorist organization had taken control. The Muslim Brotherhood has made massive gains in the Egyptian parliament, Hezbollah is taking seats in the Lebanon parliament, and Islamic parties are faring the best in many of the legislatures in the Arab world. This is surely a sign that democratization has caused the Middle East only to take a turn for the worse, right?
Let’s step back a minute before we jump to conclusions. On one hand, it’s no use pretending that the dominance of Islamic parties in many nations of the Middle East is a victory for Western-style secular liberty. The Muslim Brotherhood, if they one day do gain power, will most likely avoid separation of mosque and state, equal rights between men and women, and other progressive measures.
But this is not a complete loss. While the Islamic state may not be liberal, it will be democratic, and that is important. It’s easy sometimes to mix liberty and democracy and lump it all together under President George W. Bush’s favorite word, “freedom.”
A liberal but not democratic society, like the English one during the 18th and early 19th centuries, will probably evolve eventually into a liberal democratic one. A democratic but illiberal society is also a cause for hope, for democracy provides the potential for change. Indeed, the fact that Islamic parties are so popular in the Middle East does not mean that the democratic system is failing. It means that it’s working. Islamic parties are often the most uncorrupt and efficient organizations in the Arab world, so it’s little surprise that a region ruled by greedy, arthritic regimes wants something different.
One may argue that while democracy is better than nothing at all, liberal democracy is even better and therefore we should not be satisfied until such a system emerges. Perhaps, but it is unrealistic to expect that a liberal democracy will emerge in the region without a process of growth and evolution. Indeed, developing a liberal democratic system can be compared to writing a paper – the hardest part is just getting started. Once the basic framework is set up and the first step is taken, the process will develop and improve. US democratic society did not become what it is today overnight.
Furthermore, cliché though it may seem, no two countries are alike, so it is not only unrealistic but also wrong to expect that all democratic societies will develop in the same way. Perhaps we should think of developing a democracy as raising a child. While most of us set the same general guidelines – be nice, don’t lie – we nonetheless expect and even hope that our children will be unique. Is not the government of a democratic society the product of the people’s wishes? In that case, it should be expected and even hoped that each society has its own variations. There is no correct, all-encompassing template. To borrow the ideas of John Locke, every person has a right to choose their own life as long they do not interfere with those of others. Similarly, all democratic nations have the right to the type of society they want as long as they respect other nations.
Let us then accept democracy for what is, and embrace their results in all nations. That is democracy at its finest.