Join our Mailing List

"We Tibetans are looking for a legitimate and meaningful autonomy, an arrangement that would enable Tibetans to live within the framework of the People’s Republic of China."

It's Not The Economy, Stupid!

June 25, 2008

By Jamyang Norbu
June 23, 2008

There is considerable disagreement about what exactly happened in
Lhasa on March 14th -- and why, but I think everyone is agreed on
this one fact that the only accredited foreign journalist in Lhasa
when the uprising began was James Miles, of the Economist. In an
interview with CNN, Miles described the very deliberate manner in
which the protesters went about doing what they did. "They marked
those businesses that they knew to be Tibetan owned with white
traditional scarves. Those businesses were left intact. Almost every
single other across a wide swathe of the city, not only in the old
Tibetan quarter, but also beyond it in areas dominated by the ethnic
Han Chinese. Almost every other business was either burned, looted,
destroyed, smashed into, the property therein hauled out into the
streets, piled up, burned." Note the last line "the property therein
hauled out into the streets, piled up, burned."

What is really interesting is the fact that there was, on the whole,
no looting or pilfering. The protesters did not steal from the
Chinese stores. They just piled the stuff in the streets and burned
them. There were a few exceptions, of course. Someone told me that
after a toy store was smashed up, children could be seen running away
with toys in their arms.

In an earlier piece, "Was It Violence" on this blog-site, I
mentioned, in passing, this intriguing feature of the insurrection --
"the piling up on the street and burning" of Chinese products. I
received a comment from Dan on April 21st. "I wonder if you see close
correspondences between the happenings in March '08 and the earlier
events of 1987 & '89. It seems to me that the idea to destroy Chinese
commercial goods (and "not" loot them), burning them in big piles in
the streets happened then, too. As I remember, it was said that if
people saw other people carrying something away from a shop they
would make them throw it on the bonfire… otherwise, they said,
'Chinese would say it was just about stealing.'"

Dan's remarks jogged my memory of those past events. I telephoned a
couple of Lhasa friends (now in exile) who had participated in the
earlier demonstrations. They confirmed the "piling up and burning" of
Chinese products.

In such cases of major public insurrection in the US, as in the Watts
riots of 1965 or more recently the LA Riots of 1992 (The Rodney King
Riots) there was large-scale looting of shops and commercial fronts
by rioters. Warren Christopher who headed the commission that
investigated the cause of the LA riot reported that there were
definite social and economic causes for the uprising, in addition to
the immediate trigger cause of the beating of Rodney King by the LA
police and the acquittal of the four police officers by a LA court.
The report specifically cited such causes as poverty, extremely high
unemployment among residents of South Central Los Angeles, which had
been hit very hard by the nation-wide recession, a long-standing
perception that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) engaged in
racial profiling and used excessive force.

If the Tibetan protesters were only venting economic grievances or
their resentment of the conduct of Chinese security personnel, I am
sure they would not have hesitated to loot the Chinese owned stores.
There is a fairly rowdy underclass, what Marxists might call a lumpen
element, in Lhasa city whose members have no qualms about such
things. Though monks and nuns have usually been the initiators of
anti-Chinese demonstrations, Lhasa street people have always managed
to run a close second, and furthermore never hesitated about throwing
stones or livening up the proceedings in other ways.

I had a friend from Lhasa, a rough diamond, who had seen the inside
of most Lhasa jails long before the '87 demonstrations. Though he was
near illiterate, he was much more astute politically than better
educated or privileged Tibetans. His savvy and strength came from the
fact that he had no illusions about the Chinese. He was one of the
main street protesters in '87 and later in jail provided inspiration
and amusement to many. He managed to visit India after his release
and gave me a thorough education on the nuances of street protests. I
introduced him to Orville Schell and David Breashears for the
Frontline documentary Red Flag Over Tibet, where, with his face
partially wrapped in a towel, my friend spoke about his experiences.

There can be no doubt that the Lhasa protesters were sending a
political message through their actions. By not looting but instead
burning Chinese products they were simply saying, "we don't want
Chinese products and we don't want the Chinese in Tibet." One could
perhaps view their action as a variation (albeit an angrier and less
Gandhian one) of the burning of English clothes and products by
Indian nationalists during the Swadeshi movement.

In spite of the unmistakable political message from Lhasa there were
attempts in the western media to interpret the protests largely in
economic terms -- Tibetan dissatisfaction growing from the absence of
economic opportunities because of the large-scale migration of
Chinese to Tibet, exacerbated by the new railway. Abraham Lustgarten
in his flippantly titled "It's the Tibetan Economy, Stupid" in the
Washington Post (March 20) went so far as to assert that "more than
violations of human rights and religious freedom, lack of economic
opportunity fueled the riots in Tibet last week". Of course no
consideration of Tibetan nationalism was remotely entertained as a
motive for the uprising.

Were there economic motives? I have no doubt there were. And I have
no doubt that the motives were broadly as Lustgarten and the others
have spelled out. There were in addition motives of human rights
violations, denial of religious freedom, suppression of the language,
destruction of the culture and on and on. But if, as Lustgarten and
some others claim, economic motives were paramount, then why didn't
the protesters just come out and say so? Why didn't they just shout,
"We want better economic opportunities" or just loot the Chinese
shops and demonstrate what they wanted in clear materialistic terms.

India's struggle for independence and many of Gandhi's programs as
the Swadeshi movement, Khadi, the spinning wheel, and even such mass
action as the Salt March were expressions of Indian opposition to
British economic exploitation of the Indian masses. But none of
those, in any way, detracted from the larger message of Indian independence.

Was the American Revolution solely or largely a matter of the
resentment of American colonists at what they perceived to be unjust
taxes imposed by the British crown? It may have started out so, but
by the time of the second Continental Congress and the Declaration of
Independence, Americans had come to realize that without political
independence there was no way to ensure economic justice for America.

Tibetans inside Tibet appear to have come around to that realization
since 1987, and indeed aspiring Tibetan Jeffersons and Paines had
expressed their ideas in a number of documents (See Elliot Sperling's
"The Rhetoric of Dissent: Tibetan Pamphleteers" 1994). The most
important political document of that period, sometimes referred to as
The Drepung Manifesto, was authored by a group of Drepung monks and
printed in the traditional manner with wooden blocks, as a
eleven-page pamphlet. It is as clear a declaration of independence as
you can get.

It has always appeared to me condescending, even somewhat racist, in
the way western journalists and experts have insisted on interpreting
events in Tibet in the most simplistic and one-dimensional of terms,
ignoring the way Tibetans have been discussing, developing and
defining their own distinct political and national identity through
all these years.

We must bear in mind that these ideas were being discussed and
expressed in Tibet when the economic situation in Tibet had improved
considerably from the period before, in the seventies and early
eighties, when people barely had enough to eat. Yet there is a clear
understanding that such economic improvements in the lives of the
Tibetan people were meaningless without political independence. An
excerpt from one pamphlet of that period is unmistakable in its contention:

"[If, under China] Tibet were built up, the livelihood of the Tibetan
people improved [so that] their lives surpassed those of human beings
as lives of happiness that made the deities of the Divine Realm of
the Thirty-Three embarrassed; if we truly had this given to us, even
then we Tibetans wouldn't want it. We absolutely wouldn't want it."

(Bod-ljongs 'dzugs-bskrun dang Bod-mi'i tsho-ba yar-rgyas btang-nas
'gro-ba mi'i rigs-kyi tsho-ba-las 'gal-ba'i lha-gnas
sum-cu-rtsa-gsum-gyi lha-rnams-kyang kha-bskyeng dgos-pa'i
bde-skyid-kyi tsho-ba zhig kha-yod-lag-yod-kyi nga-tshor sprad-kyang
nga-tsho Bod-mir mi-dgos rtsa-ba-nas mi-dgos.)

The views expressed in this piece are that of the author and the
publication of the piece on this website does not necessarily reflect
their endorsement by the website.
CTC National Office 1425 René-Lévesque Blvd West, 3rd Floor, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3G 1T7
T: (514) 487-0665
Developed by plank