http://www.electricpolitics.com/2008/04/an_exchange_of_letters_regardi.html
-----------------------
An Exchange of Letters Regarding Tibet
Last week, Sean-Paul Kelley, a friend of EP and long-time EP Podcast
listener, who's an editor at The Agonist, asked me if I would be
interested in having a public exchange of letters debating the wisdom
of Western encouragement of Tibetan separatists. "There's a lot more
to it than just sticking a thumb in China's eyes," he wrote. Our
debate was scheduled to start this Wednesday =97 due to a delay I jumped
the gun (sorry). And since I had gone to the trouble of dredging up a
bunch of material about Tibet I wanted to share some of that, and also
a few other thoughts I'd not originally intended to include. As
composed here my thoughts are not, perhaps, expressed in the limpid
prose warranted by a more formal exercise in logical argument, but
that's OK. Now we're on, I'm going first and Sean-Paul's reply will be
added below with whatever exchange ensues. This graph has been updated
but the following content is as originally posted. (Photo credit Phil
Borger, for fair use.)
The first problem I have is with the god-king in exile, His Holiness
the Dalai Lama. Some people =97 Richard Gere, for example =97 tell us that
to be in the Dalai Lama's presence is to be healed because he radiates
the bliss of enlightenment, or something like that. The God part. Then
there's the King part, which doesn't get talked about too much but
which matters a lot because the religion, one of the most archaic
still around, provides for his ultimate authority over worldly things.
These can't quite be separated sensibly in a clear analysis, but for
the sake of argument let's consider them one at a time.
As a matter of religious tenet the God part falls into what I call the
"perfect jewel" theory of enlightenment. That is, through intense
meditations involving complex, difficult mental gymnastics, the
practitioner finds within himself (or herself) a perfect light.
That experience, then, is ascribed to one's own being and the
subsequent reasoning, overly simplified, amounts to this: I have found
perfection within myself, therefore I am perfect, and since the only
thing(s) that is/are perfect is God, therefore I am God.
One should note that, separately from the "perfect jewel" theory, this
inner search is not by any means limited to Tibetan monks. Jewish
mystics practice it in groups (as related to me in some detail by a
rather wise, elderly Jewish professor at the University of Chicago,
Arnaldo Momigliano, when I was describing some of my own experiences
to him while helping him after he had a heart attack, a few months
before he passed away); Muslim mystics are well known for it; and even
Christian saints have talked about the divine light, though the
practice of searching it out seems somewhat frowned upon by the
Church, redolent as it may be of classical Gnosticism. I'm sure any
competent expert in religious mysticism could easily produce dozens
more examples. It's probably true to say that the meaning of what one
finds will not always be the same, either to individuals within the
same religion, or between different religious traditions.
In any case, I find it highly doubtful that the mind itself produces a
perfect light. More likely, making a multi-dimensional pretzel out of
your thoughts acts like a prism, channeling and opening up a field of
energy that's already there, all around us, and within us. The
proverbial "inner eye." But there is no such thing as a perfect
meditator. Just my two cents. And I would stress: this is an empirical
physical process with no necessary or discernable religious content.
What one gets is light, not a being, or heaven, or anything like that.
So ascribing perfection to the Dalai Lama rubs me very much the wrong
way.
Tibetan Buddhists might argue that it's not about mystical light at
all, but if you strip away the frou-frou trappings, to me it seems
very much that the role of Dalai Lama is to be the top guy on that
ladder.
If we look, then, more closely at the fellow's actual personality
things get worse. There's a long history here which I won't parse but
to take just one example, what the Dalai Lama had to say about the
U.S. invasion of Iraq at the time it started, one gets a good sense of
the man. He said "it's too early to judge" whether attacking Iraq will
have a good outcome. "To early to judge." Hell, at the time my barber
knew it was a bad thing to do. Lots of people, including probably you,
knew it was a bad thing to do. At the time I knew it was a bad thing
to do. Does having known that make us all saints? I don't think so.
And thus I have, let's say, a very low level of confidence in the
Dalai Lama's judgment about political and ethical matters.
Others have noted, and this is a very valid point, that given the
Dalai Lama's immense personal influence worldwide and stipulating that
he actually believes his platitudes about peace and nonviolence, then
it's very difficult to explain why, in fact, he hasn't actually used
his influence in difficult cir***stances to try to make things right.
Not anywhere, if you think about it. Like, for example, Mahatma
Gandhi, who really put his life on the line.
Which gets us to the King part. Up to now Tibetan Buddhism requires
adherents to accept the absolute tem****al authority of the Dalai Lama.
This isn't immutable, as the Dalai Lama himself hinted recently,
saying that he would "resign" his tem****al duties if violence in Tibet
got out of control. And I'll believe that when I see it! But consider
this from a Chinese government point of view: how can they reasonably
be expected to turn a blind eye to a religion that proposes the
overthrow of Communist rule? The Chinese government doesn't have to
ruthlessly suppress the Tibetans, either, but one would be astonished
if they didn't severely constrain Lama-related activities. For an
American analogue one need look no further than Texas, with our
ongoing uproar over child abuse at the compound of the Fundamentalist
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These days the rule of
thumb seems to be, when churches contest fundamental political
authority, churches lose. As they should.
But even in exercising what minimal tem****al authority he possesses
the Dalai Lama is wanting. The most interesting comments I've found
along these lines come from Patrick French, formerly the director of
the Free Tibet campaign in London, who has had the unusual experience
=97 I empathize with him, from my own Bosnian experience =97 of being
ostracized by a group to which he formerly belonged due to his honest
criticism of it. French realized, while writing a book about Tibet,
that if the Dalai Lama were to genuinely help the people of Tibet he
would "negotiate realistically with the Chinese state." Simple, to the
point, entirely correct. Unacceptable to Tibetan separatists.
And why? This is the nub of the problem. In the bigger picture we have
a whole long list of places deemed ready for outside intervention.
Humanitarians bleat most conveniently, but military muscle moves to
its own rhythm, for very different reasons. Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, etc.
Tibet, also, though not so much recently. The CIA folk who pioneered
Tibetan intervention in the 1950s have written about it, as has Joe
Bageant (in his earlier incarnation as a contract writer of military
history), and many others; indeed, it may be one of the best
do***ented of all CIA interventions.
Many behind-the-scenes reasons from yesterday carry over to today with
new ones thrown in. While we don't know for a fact that the CIA is
involved in organizing Tibetans anymore, I would be shocked if the
Dalai Lama weren't still on the CIA payroll and that some clandestine
organizing of separatists takes place inside Tibet. After all, Tibet
is a resource rich, imperfectly controlled area =97 perhaps an anchor
upon which to chain the Chinese dragon. And if by chance encouraging
separatists causes lives to be lost, what does it matter?
I won't go into proposed Olympic boycotts here except to say it's a
silly idea that could have seriously harmful consequences for all
concerned. And that talking about an Olympic boycott creates an all
too convenient distraction from Iraq.
It is not wrong, however, for caring people to worry what happens to
Tibetans. And to Muslims in India-controlled Kashmir (another paradise
lost). And to people in the Congo. But, please, before going through
the world's woes, put things into their rightful context and try to
develop a reasonable (e.g., based on logically strong abstract
arguments) set of priorities. Only then might taking the next step of
proposing intervention make sense.
Posted by George Kenney on April 17, 2008 1:32 AM
----------------------------
Geirge Kenney is a former State Department employee during Bush
senior's presidency.
|
