By Foster Kedzie III
What is behind the Chinese government’s ideology that it needs to repress religion and cultural diversity? This question came up in the context of the supression of Tibet and the objections raised by the Chinese government when world leaders meet with the Dalai Lama.
With regard to the “religion” issue, it primarily has to do with organizing and the threat to the State. Disgruntled individuals pose little to no threat to the government. Organized groups, of whatever nature they may be, can pose a threat to the government–if not now, maybe in the future. From their perspective, better to nip it in the bud now. And there’s the old quote attributed to Stalin along the lines of “how many divisions does the Pope have?” As his successors found out, primarily in Poland, the answer was–a lot. That’s also part of the reason there is a split between the Roman Catholic church and the legal Roman Catholic church in China. The Bishops in the legal Roman Catholic church in China are not appointed by the Pope. Consequently, the legal Bishops are not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church in China, and those that are appointed (surreptiously) by the Pope must stay hidden in China or face arrest.
But with regard to the Dalai Lama in particular–he isn’t just a religious leader, but is also the political leader of the Tibetan people. And (according to the Chinese government), Tibet has always been a part of China, and to support or even acknowledge the Tibetan leader is to support “splittest” elements. And if you have spent any time in China (I lived there for six months), you come to realize that because of their history, being accused of being a splittest is a real insult. I once implied that Taiwan was separate from China (I was explaining why they were a different color on the back of my lonely planet guidebook). My otherwise very cosmopolitan students went about off the deep end. Its a visceral reaction there. On top of that, the Tibetan land is an important strategic military asset, providing an important buffer and “high-ground” territory between the main portion of China and its historical rivals (I’m looking at you, India) to the west.
The US tends to be unusual in our view of the intrinsic value of cultural and religious diversity. My experience has been that the Chinese view is more the norm in the world–that religious or cultural diversity is seen as a threat. Unfortunately, that attitude often ends up being self-fulfilling.
I also wouldn’t call China “culturally diverse” in the same way we use the term. Like most of the world, it would probably be more accurate to call China a country with one major ethnic group and lots of minorities concentrated in a few specific geographic areas (with some of the major cities having small enclaves–if you get to Beijing, be sure to try out the Muslim restaurants–one of the best meals I had was there). The Han Chinese make up (according to the CIA World Factbook)–I’ve seen similar numbers elsewhere) about 91% of the population. The other 9% tend to be congregated in specific areas, like Tibet, or NW China with the Uyghurs.
As is the case in much of the world, those minorities with long histories tied to specific geographic areas aren’t too fond of being dominated by the majority, and therefore want their own territory–often expressing that desire violently. This is nothing new–one of Woodrow Wilson’s primary Foreign Policy Visions was self-determination for nations (including large geographic minorities).
And China has always been on the verge of flying apart or, if not flying apart, being subjected to brutal civil wars. Their history is rife with violence where unbelievable numbers of people have been killed due to warlords, splittest movements, etc… Keeping the Chinese nation (in the “State” sense) together has been a driving policy for the country for centuries, if not millennia. Understand, I’m not condoning what the Chinese are doing regarding Tibet–I’m just explaining the perspective. It’s horrific what they are doing (more on that later).
We shouldn’t romanticize the rest of the world and its diversity. We’re pretty lucky in some regards about how we can actually celebrate diversity without completely marginalizing those who are “diverse”. The world is a very tribal place, and expresses that tribalism in very violent ways all too often. I remember talking to a (Han Chinese) friend in Hong Kong, and talking about the upcoming elections. I asked if she thought an Indian would ever do well in an election (there are a fair number of Indian merchants, reflecting the shared British Empire heritage). She said “only if they did something special to help the Chinese people.” In other words, the Indians, some of whom had lived their for generations, didn’t really have a legitimate role in the body politic. You can imagine how ethnic minorities who have been tied to specific territories in China for centuries or millenia must feel to be treated as not even second class citizens, but potential rebels who must be repressed now.
Don’t get me wrong. Chinese leaders are looking to destroy Tibet and Tibetan culture by moving as many Han Chinese into the area as they can. It’s a form of reverse ethnic cleansing. They aren’t necessarily moving all the Tibetans out of Tibet so much as overwhelming them. As with ethnic cleansing in much of the world–again, I’m afraid it may work at least short term. I think it’ll have huge negative repercussions over the long haul, and perpetuate tribal violence. But again–regardless of whether it works, doesn’t work, either short term or long term–that’s irrelevant. It’s simply wrong.
Over the long haul, it also has the added problem of continuing to base their governmental legitimacy on fear, nationalism, etc… What I mean by that is, no person is “superman”, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. To be able to enforce your will as a leader, there must be a reason for the government bureaucrats and the broader citizenry to follow your orders. Reasons can range from “follow my orders or I’ll kill you,” to “if you follow my orders, our nation–which includes you–will attain glory”, to “I got the most votes, so I get to lead for now.” Each of those “works,” but only as long as the citizenry believes that the reasoning still holds. If the legitimacy is based on fear or nationalism, or the need to keep the nation together, then the legitimacy can disappear if that “fear” or sense of nationalism disappears. As an aside, my sense is that is what causes some of our biggest stumbles in foreign policy . We sometimes assume that everyone is coming at a problem from the same perspective. We forget that sometimes “solving” a problem could undermine the basis for legitimacy of the government we’re negotiating with.
Since the failure of the communist project in China, the Chinese government has based its legitimacy by arguing that only they can keep the chaos at bay (i.e. the warlordism of the first half of the 20th century), that China has been kept down by Western powers for too long (if I had to hear one more harangue about the “unequal treaties…”–which, to be fair, were unequal, but there is a time to move on….), and that only by keeping it a one-party State will you get richer than your parents.
Making them less nationalistic/tribalistic would cut to the very legitimacy of the government–the “why the heck should I listen to you” factor. And solving all the ethnic problems would make the fear of warlordism less immediate. In other words, it’s a combustible framework on which they have built their legitimacy, and it doesn’t bode well for the long term.
