Michael J. Totten has a post about a Harvard student being punished for disrupting a speech given by China’s Premier while visiting Harvard. Michael’s curious about whether or not Jay Nordlinger of the National Review thinks Free Tibet is a conservative cause. Human rights causes aren’t left or right, but they tend to use the language of the left or the right. Cuba and Iran tend to be championed by conservatives. Tibet and a variety of “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights” movements use the language of the left, the side of the spectrum that tends to be the force behind them. That doesn’t mean that any human rights issue is “left” or “right,” all of these causes are humanist.
However, there’s always been something about the Free Tibet movement that bothered me.
Tibet’s always been a cause that kind of pissed me off because of how insincere its followers come off. The Dalai Lama is a smart and charismatic man who is not at all ashamed to cultivate whatever image will help him achieve his goals. And hey, more power to him. Tibet is 25% of why I dislike China.
I gotta say though that the treatment of the Uighurs in East Turkestan (I don’t use the “X” word that means “frontier province” or some such nonsense in Chinese) is 50% of why I don’t like China. I know I’m biased; I love Turks. Their suffering is perhaps worse than that of the Tibetans, but the patterns of abuse are very similar. Go check out The Uygur Letter to learn more.
Islam isn’t trendy with Hollywood types, doesn’t have concerts to “free” it, and Uyghurs don’t have a charismatic spiritual leader to press their case. And here’s why the Free Tibet movement pisses me off so much, they’re ignorant about other (much worse) human rights issues and seemingly only in it because of the celebrities. I don’t doubt that Free Tibet people care about what happens in Tibet, but c’mon.
Go read “Merchants of Morality” from Foreign Policy a couple years ago. Clifford Bob wonders
while Tibet’s light shines brightly abroad, few outsiders know that China’s borders hold other restive minorities: Mongols, Zhuang, Yi, and Hui, to name only a few. Notable are the Uighurs, a group of more than 7 million located northwest of Tibet. Like the Tibetans, the Uighurs have fought Chinese domination for centuries. Like the Tibetans, the
Uighurs face threats from Han Chinese in-migration, communist development policies, and newly strengthened antiterror measures. And like the Tibetans, the Uighurs resist Chinese domination with domestic and international protest that, in Beijing’s eyes, makes them dangerous separatists. Yet the Uighurs have failed to inspire the broad-based foreign networks that generously support and bankroll the Tibetans. International celebrities including actors Richard Gere and Goldie Hawn, as well as British rock star Annie Lennox speak out on Tibet’s behalf. But no one is planning an Uighur Freedom Concert in Washington, D.C. Why?
Good question. Why? Marketing triumphs over justice.
In a context where marketing trumps justice, local challengers-whether environmental groups, labor rights activists, or independence-minded separatists-face long odds. Not only do they jostle for attention among dozens of equally worthy competitors, but they also confront the pervasive indifference of international audiences. In addition, they contend against well-heeled opponents (including repressive
governments, multinational corporations, and international financial institutions) backed by the
world’s top public relations machines. Under pressure to sell their causes to the rest of the world, local
leaders may end up undermining their original goals or alienating the domestic constituencies they ostensibly represent. Moreover, the most democratic and participatory local movements may garner the least assistance, since Western NGOs are less likely to support groups showing internal strife and more
inclined to help a group led by a strong, charismatic leader. Perhaps most ! troubling of all, the
perpetuation of the myth of an equitable and beneficent global civil society breeds apathy and
self-satisfaction among the industrialized nations, resulting in the neglect of worthy causes around the
globe.
Read the whole thing. Bob discusses the different marketing strategies.
Tibet gets attention because of marketing, not because Tibetans suffer more than anyone else. And Bob says that the reality of marketing has potentially deadly consequences:
But for all the progress in this direction, an open and democratic global civil society remains a myth, and a potentially deadly one. Lost in a self-congratulatory haze, international audiences in the developed world all too readily believe in this myth and in the power and infallibility of their own good intentions. Meanwhile, the grim realities of the
global morality market leave many local aspirants helpless and neglected, painfully aware of international opportunities but lacking the resources, connections, or know-how needed to tap them.
If “self-congratulatory haze” didn’t jump out at you, go back and read that sentence again. Bob hits on something important their. Free Tibet-ers are involved because they get something from their involvement. They think that by going to a Beastie Boys concert, attending a rally, and disrupting an opponents’ speech, they are changing the world. And, damn, doesn’t that make them great people? I do applaud them for advocating for the Tibetans, but they’d serve Tibetans better by being humble and realizing the limited use of their actions.
From this response to a letter criticizing his article, Bob seems to agree with my view:
Juliana Pilon disputes that the global society myth could have deadly consequences. But combine that myth with certain causes’ domination of international sympathy and it is easy to understand how one southern Sudanese refugee could recently demand, “Why do so many Americans care about saving seals and whales but not us?” I, too, believe NGOs should learn from their mistakes. Thinking realistically about global civil society’s limitations, as well as its promise, is a good place to start.
I couldn’t agree more. Bob’s view of the NGO industry (and don’t kid yourself, it’s an industry interested in its bottom line) as one in which causes live or die based on marketing skills is extremely useful for understanding why Tibet is on so many minds while Uighurs (and many others) languish forgotten.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 9 comments }
Just stumbled over here via my referral logs and Totten…as someone concerned about Tibet and other repressed minority groups in China, I’d like to know more about the latter groups. What’s a good starting point?
As to your points about Iran and Cuba, the fact is that our Cuba policy has been an abject failure. Castro is still in power, the Cuban people are stilled repressed, and so it goes. As for Iran, we’ll see.
Morgages are fun!
lh, I don’t disagree with anything you say. In fact, I agree with it all. In focusing on Tibet, I am sure that it is lost that any human rights cause can have the same charges/explanations leveled against it.
I don’t remember if I mentioned at all, let alone loudly enough that I don’t begrudge Tibet any of the attention they get. It’s not a zero-sum game at all. It’s about marketing, organizational skills, and luck.
In fact, I think it’s admirable for people to pick their causes and devote their energy to those. Trying to do everything is a quick path to achieving nothing. It’s just that the Free Tibet movement has a lot of hangers-on who, out of ignorance, become convinced that theirs is the most important cause there is. Tibet’s not my fight. But because it’s part of the package of safe liberal ideologies, I’m an asshole for placing my care elsewhere.
Ah, I see — if you’ve been put down for supporting a non-Tibet-related cause, I totally understand where you’re coming from. Too bad “progressives” are so often so parochial.
For good or ill separatist and guerilla movements in a quasi-imperial polity tend to be interdependent. We saw that with the Soviets in the Baltic states and Transcaucasia, in Nicaragua with the Contras and the Miskitos and with Communist guerillas in Colombia and Peru. The actions of one dissident/rebel group impact not only the central authorities but the manuvering room of other dissident groups.
A strong Uighur movement would complement Tibetan demands for autonomy and might inspire other Chinese minorities. On the downside, Beijing would probably see the two as linked despite the obvious differences between the two peoples.
By the time I finished your post, I had a response in mind. Then I saw that languagehat had put it far better than I could have.
Even if it bothers you that the Tibetans receive a disproportionate amount of attention, you have to admit that they are the ideal candidate for such Western affection. Their pacifism, their exotic mysticism, and their home on the roof of the world are a publicity package that nobody else can compete with.
And what does everyone think about how the bumper stickers now say “Save Tibet” instead of “Free Tibet?” It strikes me as a depressing lowering of goals- now the Tibetans are a historical curiosity to be preserved in a museum case.
Of course, it could also be truth in advertising- do many of those Western sympathizers really want the Tibetans to be free to watch reality TV? Heck no.
It’s not the attention they receive, it’s the self-righteousness of the Free Tibeters. More power to the Dalai Lama, he’s working his thing to get what he wants. It’s just that all those kids who go to the concerts or slap on the stickers seem to honestly think there is a concert and a stack of stickers because Tibet is the greatest of human tragedies. That’s fine, that’s how people are.
I’m not particularly interested though. That doesn’t make me the bad person they accuse me of being. Honest, but not bad. I know that Turkestani rights issues are more important to me, and that I will make more of a difference focusing on those.
I’m in a bad place in the market. I don’t bemoan that no one cares or knows much about the Central Asian Turks, it is simply so.
Here’s my proposed silver lining:
Tibet may be the “gateway cause” that turns those vapid, sticker-slapping hangers-on into genuine internationalists someday. Like how Green Day gets kids listening to the Clash, the Buzzcocks, etc.
So I understand the urge to scoff at the poseurs and hangers-on- I used to scoff at Green Day. But keep in mind that part of growing up is growing out of your own default cultural niche, and once the Tibet groupies do this, they may become the kind of internationalists that we need more of.
Perhaps those Free Tibet groupies will be early adopters of the Turkestani cause, what with a common oppressor and all. Even the bothersome self-righteousness could evolve into genuine concern and involvement in international causes, and Lord knows we need more of that.
I’m just glad that you’re out there spreading the news about your particular cause. The more such knowledge is out there, the fewer kids will have to rely on Chomsky and Rage Against the Machine for their global perspective.
While I sympathize with your annoyance, I don’t think you’re being entirely honest with yourself, and this makes your entry both more indignant than it should be and less coherent than I assume you’d like it to be.
The basic fallacy here is that there’s only so much human sympathy to go around and therefore every quantum given to Tibet is subtracted from the Uyghurs. But this is false. If the Free Tibet movement ran out of gas today, people wouldn’t somehow magically turn their faces towards Turkestan and start agitating about that. They’d just start embracing China even more fervently than most people do already. Conversely, if you managed to get a Free Turkestan movement off the ground, got movie stars interested, got the ear of influential members of Congress, would that mean people would forget about Tibet? It would not. The two have nothing to do with each other. It’s a matter of luck and organization who becomes popular and who languishes ignored.
And what were you thinking when I mentioned the idea of your getting a Free Turkestan movement off the ground? An appealing vision, wasn’t it? You’d like to have Bono mentioning the Uyghurs at the Grammys, wouldn’t you? Of course you would. But that means your disdain of the Free Tibet movement is a bit hypocritical. It’s not the means you object to, it’s the fact that they’re used for the too-popular Tibetans rather than your favorite wallflowers, the Uyghurs. If you were running a wildly successful Free Turkestan movement and Tibet were the wallflower, how would you react to a fan of Tibetans telling you that a lot of your followers didn’t know anything about the situation and were just writing checks because Bono told them to and all the cool kids were doing it? You’d say “Don’t be silly — any mass movement will have a lot of hangers-on, and the important thing is that the Uyghurs get helped. It’s not a zero-sum game; go out and stir up some support for the Tibetans!” And you’d be right.
Free Tibet-ers are involved because they get something from their involvement
And so do you from your involvement with the Uyghurs. We all “get something” from everything we do; it’s just that if it’s not money we’re expecting we can hide it from ourselves. There’s nothing wrong with self-interest, and I hope you don’t think I’m putting you or your commitment down with any of this. I happen to be concerned with the Uyghurs’ plight myself, and I have had my own moments of annoyance with the ignorance of the Tibet groupies. But I remind myself that that’s just human nature, that the more popular any cause becomes the more hangers-on it’s going to attract, and that all human-rights activity is good. I hope you’ll forgive the excessively long comment, but I wanted to give you something to think about that might help you not be so resentful of the other guys.
Comments on this entry are closed.