2013年02月18日
Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser fiddle while Tibet burns
Professor Sperling has got it wrong.
Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser fiddle while Tibet burns.
The couple have successfully deflected the blame from the Chinese government and effectively put the onus of solving the crisis back on the Tibetans within and without Tibet.
/Weimin Rose (台灣懸鉤子)
These days, it seems inevitable that if anyone cares to concern oneself with the Tibet question, he or she would have to be faced with what Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser say on many matters. It would be fair to say the couple has become celebrities and held sway among the exiles and supporters. Perhaps it is understandable Professor Elliot Sperling of Indiana University, in his two essays, On the Questions of Why and to What End, and Conversations and Debates: Chinese and Tibetan Engagement with the Broader Discussion of Self-Immolation shows that he, too, belongs to the adoring crowd who accept their words at face value. Sperling’s essays argue, in essence, that in a certain corner of Chinese cyperspace, when it comes to self-immolation committed by Tibetans, Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser distinguish themselves from other Chinese dissidents by showing studied respect to the Tibetan self-immolators. I beg to differ. They do no such thing. In fact, their essays and petitions have successfully deflected the blame from the Chinese government and effectively put the onus of solving the crisis back on the Tibetans within and without Tibet. And to date, Wang Lixiong in particular is still doing his best to propagate such a position among the Chinese people.
In his longer essay, Conversations and Debates, Sperling opines that Wang Lixiong’s article on 12 January, 2012, “Apart from Self-Immolation, What Else Can be Done?” (1) is a game changer. That it largely transforms the perceptions of many Chinese by describing the act of self-immolation as successful and courageous. And this, according to Sperling, disabuses many Chinese dissidents of their wrong assumptions that the Tibetan self-immolators are fairly lacking in sense and trying to soften the heart of those in authority. Wang has achieved no such thing. Sperling reaches this conclusion by dwelling on the first paragraph of Wang’s article while the rest of the content is omitted. That is a pity, because the first paragraph in Wang’s article serves as the equivalent of the usage of the phrase, “with all due respect.” We all know when someone utters those words pre-emptively, you are about to hear something unpleasant which shows no respect at all. So it is better to read on to get at the true meaning of what Wang really wants to say. In the second paragraph Wang mentions the machine of authoritarian regime only possesses cold logic and bureaucratic interests and thus does not have a conscience. And then he says that it is inevitable that Tibet is in deep predicament since the Chinese regime will make no concession.(2) In other words, the heart of the people in power will not be softened whatever the Tibetans do.
Unlike the professor, Chinese people who echoed Wang’s position have never got his meaning wrong. A case in point is Tiananman activist Pan Qing in Sydney, Australia. In an article named “Freedom is Boundless: Tibetans have to Cherish Life and Live Strong, then There Will be Hope!” (3) he cited Wang’s article and interpreted his meaning thus: “Tibetan self-immolators would gain no concession from the Chinese government, because the nature of the authoritarian regime predetermines its apathy to sufferings. This is the inevitability that non-violent resistance in Tibet’s past had gone nowhere.” (4) Thus he reasoned that Tibetans should stop committing self-immolation because the evil government in mainland China does not have a conscience and would not be moved.(5) In other words, the acts of self-immolation are still regarded as something futile that aimed at external actors, which is exactly the position that Sperling assumes Wang Lixiong has transformed.
The devil is in the detail and the detail continues. In the third paragraph of Wang’s article, to paraphrase his words, he goes on to say although it is unfair to say the Tibetan self-immolators were unwise, it is also true that the wisdom is of a great vision in solving Tibet’s problems, which should not be shouldered by common people. Brave Tibetans should be advised of what they should do and could do by politicians who possess the kind of wisdom he mentioned above. If this is done, he says, Tibetans would not choose these harrowing acts of self-immolation in exchange for brief appearances in the media.(6) From this, one can deduce, in Wang’s language, the ‘not-unwise’ Tibetans were still quite unwise and fairly lacking in sense. They had committed self-immolation because they did not know what to do (nobody tells them!) and because they craved the limelight of the media.(*) Thus, Wang’s position is not that different from Zen Jinyan’s as claimed by Sperling. The only difference is that Wang cleverly puts a spin to it (such as the first paragraph) to make it sound nice while entrenches Chinese misconception in the meantime, like an excellent propagandist. Moreover, it also suggests an arrogant and patronizing attitude, which is not detected by Sperling.
Perhaps in an attempt of trying to tell Tibetans what to do, Woeser wrote the petition of March 7, 2012, to appeal to Tibetans living in Tibet to halt self-immolations. Logically speaking, if Tibetan self-immolators are really regarded as wise by Wang and Woeser, as claimed by Sperling, why was there a need to call for a halt? If they are wise, shouldn’t they know best when it comes to something as important as their very own lives? Secondly, since the petition is couched in touchy-feely rhetoric of grandstanding, one can’t help but wonder if this project is more about self-aggrandizement than anything else. The giveaway is the English translation of it, which came as part and parcel of the petition from the very beginning. Do Tibetans living in Amdo and Kham really need an English version to understand what it is saying? Last but not least, given the fact that Wang Lixiong had been well-known for his petition to the Chinese authority to change its way on the trial of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche a decade ago(7) , the egregious aspect of this petition is that it does not regard calling for the government to redress the situation as the most urgent and important issue. Instead, urging the victims to keep quiet while other means of dissenting are out of the question would be “of utmost urgency”, according to Woeser.(8) Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser fiddle while Tibet burns.
The most salient effect of this petition was that it created an impression purged of any political factors which trigger the crisis in Tibet. While it hinted at the huge strain caused by oppressive measures, the oppression itself was never the main subject highlighted or explained at length. Instead, people were asked to call for Tibetans to cherish their lives. Perhaps because of its whole package of patronizing attitude and lack of any political complications, it went down very well with some overseas Chinese and they did exactly what Woeser asked. Thus we have Chinese human rights activists and Tiananman activists from San Francisco, USA, appealing to the Tibetans to cherish their lives on 13 March 2012.(9) They cited tyranny of the Chinese regime and the lack of religious freedom as the reasons for Tibetans to commit these acts. One of them also noted that the material life of Tibetans had been improved,(10) which evoked the popular Chinese sentiment that the Tibetans are ungrateful to such improvements. Repressive measures such as military lockdown, monasteries under siege, patriotic education, or the omnipresence of Chinese police and paramilitary in Tibet, etc, were never mentioned in their appeal. Why should they as these factors were never explained to them? And they were not asked to do anything about them?
Hearing this blaring call for Tibetans to cherish their lives from some Chinese, an exiled Tibetan poet and writer in Australia, Dhungser, remarked rather wryly: why don’t these Chinese people call for the Chinese government to cherish lives? Perhaps by then, he said, Tibetans would really see the noble and altruistic spirit of these Chinese, which might really help the interaction between the Tibetans and Chinese.
Commenting on the high profile of the Woeser’s appeal, a Taiwanese supporter, who is also an experienced activist of Taiwan independence movement, expressed her regret to me that the petition made it look like it was the Tibetan self-immolators who had done something wrong. “Shouldn’t this appeal be about calling the Chinese government to stop being a monster in Tibet?” said she. To be fair, Wang Lixiong did write a petition on March 8, 2012(11) , calling members of the National People’s Congress to review the nationality policy applied in Tibet and Xinjiang . But some people protested on Woeser’s blog that resistance in Xinjiang was misnamed as terrorism which Wang has never retracted, and they refused to sign. The Taiwanese activist also points out that this gesture is futile since the Congress is but a rubber stamp, which is common knowledge. Instead of joining forces with Woeser to call for the Chinese to condemn the government, Wang opted to write this petition which was never as high-profile as Woeser’s.
That is the crux of the matter. Making little effort in demanding and urging the Chinese government to redress the iniquities, Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser have diminished themselves as dissidents of PRC state, which by its own very definition requires them to protest against wrongdoing of the government. Without such protest first and foremost established and firmly lodged in the heart in their essays and petitions, calling Tibetans to halt self-immolations is practically asking Tibetans to put a stop to their resistance to an imperialistic power. And that is exactly what Wang Lixiong asks. In the same article in question, he proposes village autonomy as the solution because it is about human rights, mining problems, environment conservation, religion, and nothing to do with the Tibetans as a nation.(12)
Belatedly, in a post several months later, Woeser acknowledged the Chinese government caused the wave of self-immolations.(13) But we still have no petition to the government from her yet. (By contrast, it has been pointed out to me that Arjia Rinpoche who co-signed Woeser’s petition, when he was interviewed along with Woeser in an RFA programme, had voiced his protest to the Chinese regime as early as March 22, 2012. (14)) In one of his most recent articles published on 18 December, 2012, Wang Lixiong justifies the lack of condemnation in his analysis of the causes of self-immolations by saying that although Chinese government is the main culprit, it is a foregone conclusion. He says, he is not going to use the limited space of the column in which he is writing to repeat it.(15) In this precious space, who does he think should bear the brunt of his criticism for the current crisis? The Tibetans-in-exile for sure! He reasons, because Tibetans within Tibet have had high hopes of people-in-exile, now they are badly let down and can’t wait for the exiles to bring about the changes much needed in Tibet any more, thus they committed the acts of self-immolation.
As he sees it, the exiles should definitely shoulder part of the blame. But looking at the inches he dedicates to discussing the exile politics, one can’t help but conclude that the buck is passed to Tibet, and the Chinese regime has got away with murder. It seems that he has never thought that the government running and ruining Tibet is also the government that rules him. As a dissident, he is duty-bound to do something to change his government, instead of the organization-in-exile. But he seems to be running on a logic that bad guys doing bad things is only natural, nothing can be done to change that. Thus it is more constructive to put the pressure on the good guys.(16)
Therefore, although in a very good position to call for solidarity from the public or the middle class, Wang still does not see fit to appeal to them to put pressure on his own government to change its grotesque misconducts. This is clearly demonstrated by one of the articles that he writes for an influential magazine in Hong Kong.(17) As it is more widely read and circulated among the Chinese and would not be limited to the cyperspace anymore, Wang reiterates village autonomy is the hope for Tibet. (I have written in another article in Chinese to contest this claim and debunk the myth of Wukan village at length, which has been translated into Tibetan.(18) ) Village autonomy, as he has clearly pointed out, is something exiles should send trained personnel to Tibet to execute,(19) implying it is none of the business of the Chinese. He further advises, there will be crackdowns from the Chinese government but it will be too ashamed to put everyone in jail.(20) (Indeed! So much for the machine without a conscience.) But doing it would win the support from the Chinese masses and would secure the autonomy for Tibet within China, he says. He also warns the goal of independence is desirable but unachievable because more than one billion Han people would oppose to it while the Middle Way is only opposed by the autocracy. (21)
It seems that he is now resorting to tactics of scaremongering. Who knows what one billion people would do when China becomes a democracy as it is never tried or tested? Moreover, isn’t it in his job description as a Chinese intellectual to lead the public opinion and to change it? He should know, perhaps better than the majority of Chinese people, many Tibetans sincerely wish to have their own nation, as they are willing to sacrifice their lives to call for it. It always has been and will be a recurring theme of Tibetan protests. This is a paramount issue which has to be addressed, not swept under the carpet like he does in the article “Apart from Self-immolation, What Else Can be Done?” and many others.
This theme of leaving the Chinese regime out of Tibet’s woes, brushing aside the wishes of the self-immolators especially when it comes to nationalist aspirations, runs through Wang’s writing. Where Wang leads, Woeser follows. Without redressing these issues, this couple would not seem to have Tibetans’ best interests at heart, although Woeser in particular emotes and wrings her hands constantly on her blog and the mircroblogging service, as portrayed by Sperling in his longer essay. I am afraid the beautifully-crafted rhetoric with no apparent denigration or disparagement alone cannot convince me that they are truly respecting the Tibetans who had committed self-immolation.
It has been noted by the Sinologist Remi Quensnel that Wang Lixiong’s writing is that of a zhinang, the advisor who puts his knowledge at the disposal of a ruler.(22) It is worthy to ask who that ruler is. Before, it might well have been the Chinese government. Now it looks like he is serving the concept of China as a whole with Tibet as an inalienable part of it. And this is widely detected by many Tibetans who can read Chinese but may not be able to articulate it. It is understandable that they are uneasy and wary of Wang’s writing and opinions. These Tibetans do not deserve to be called identity-based reductionists, as stated by Professor Sperling in his essay.
In Russia, Putin has created a system of opposition parties, which ostensibly play the role of regime critics while never pushing their criticism beyond the boundaries set by the Kremlin. Furthermore, fake NGOs are created to legitimize government policy and confuse the public about who is in the right.(23) Similar things had been done in Taiwan in its pre-democratic years by the party in power. Unfortunately, some of the ostensible critics had successfully duped the Taiwanese who enthusiastically embraced their messages. But in the open society that is Taiwan today, their intent of undermining the interests of the Taiwanese has eventually come to light. One can be pretty certain that the Chinese Communist authority is also familiar with this technique. I am not charging Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser of playing such a role. But in dealing with an authoritarian regime like China, one should always be vigilant and alert. I suppose it is right to admire the work of Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser as they stick their necks out to blog about Tibet. But their flaws and faults should never be air-brushed. It would also be premature to put them on a pedestal in this murky situation. It is only right to watch these two celebrities with a level gaze and pose honest questions. There should not be any reservations with criticism simply because they are living in an unfree society. If they are genuinely concerned about the Tibetans, they would only welcome constructive criticisms and gladly change their tacks. Given what is at stake, we have to get this right because the Tibetans who had committed self-immolation, unlike these two, did not have access to free cyberspace (without the Chinese Firewall) and a free press to voice their thoughts and opinions.
Notes:
(1)王力雄：除了自焚，還能做什麼？Jan 12, 2012.
(2)專制政權只有剛性結構、冷酷邏輯、以及官僚利益…有誰看過它的良知？…權力不讓步就不會有進展，因此目前的西藏落入困境是必然。
(3)潘晴，〈自由无涯，珍惜生命，坚强活着，才有希望！〉March 29, 2012. http://zhu-ruiblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/blog-post_5001.html
(4)潘晴：「王力雄在《除了自焚，还能做什么？》的文章中认为，藏人自焚不会得到中国政府的让步，因为专制政权的本质决定了它是不会被苦难打动的。这是以往西藏的非暴力抗争陷入困境的必然性所在。」
(5)潘晴：「我呼籲藏人們不要再自焚了。因為有良知的人才能感動，…中國大陸…的魔鬼政府，犧牲再多生命他們會感動嗎？」見〈悉尼召開自由在烈火中〉, April 26, 2012, http://blog.boxun.com/hero/201204/dongsai/19_1.shtml。
(6)說自焚者有勇氣沒有智慧，是不公平。智慧不是苟且偷生的技巧，是能夠帶領西藏走出困境的高瞻遠矚。那不是是普通民眾應該和能夠承擔的。…如何實現應該是政治家拿出智慧。…請告訴勇敢的藏人，他們可以做什麼，知道了應該和能夠做什麼，他們就會活下去，而不是用慘烈自焚換來媒體短暫一瞥。
(7)大陸漢族王力雄等各界人士提出三點建議， 呼籲全國人大和法院公正審理阿安扎西、洛讓鄧珠死刑案，December 12, 2002. http://www.hrichina.org/hk/content/2560.
(8)In Woeser’s petition: “We urge organizations concerned with the Tibet issue to immediately take actions to constrain the increasing trend and speed of self-immolation, which should be treated as a matter of utmost urgency.” 我們促請，與藏人有關的組織機構，馬上投入行動，把遏制當前自焚擴大和加速的趨勢最為當務之急。
(9)美舊金山人權和民運人士呼籲藏人停止自焚，March 13, 2012. http://www.peacehall.com/news/gb/intl/2012/03/201203140058.shtml#.UQ4RtB2pCMs
(10)中国民主党旧金山分部主任委员王宇鹏表示：有人问，藏族人民的生活改善了，为什么还要自焚呢？这些人不了解，一个全心信佛的民族，如果有人用暴力剥夺了他们的信仰自由，就会把这个民族逼迫到绝望的地步。
(11)王力雄起草：呼吁全国人大检讨和纠正现行民族政策，March 8, 2012
http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/03/blog-post_09.html
(12)王力雄：在我看，突破西藏困境應該就是從村民自治開始。對於村民自治，民族議題並非首當其衝，而是針對人權、開礦、環保、宗教活動等問題的具體維權。
(13)唯色：沒有沉重壓迫藏人豈會自焚？November 25, 2012. http://sangjey.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/blog-post_6011.html
(14)http://www.rfa.org/tibetan/chediklaytsen/amdolaytsen/jomolang-mae-nyinsib/ar-jia-rinpoche-and-woeser-released-request-statement-on-self-immolation-03222012155445.html
(15)Wang Lixiong, Last Word Analysis: Why Tibetans Self-Immolate? Translated by Ogyen Kyab, see https://www.facebook.com/notes/ogyen-kyab/last-words-analysis-why-tibetans-self-immolate/573443899339105. 王力雄：
「造成藏人自焚的首要責任在中國政府…。本文有限的篇幅不用於重複這個結論…。」
(16)Wang Lixiong, Last Word Analysis: Why Tibetans Self-Immolate? 王力雄：燃燒的遺言 ：「如同在戰場，譴責敵方殺人，雖然沒錯卻是多餘。要想取得勝利，更價值的是檢討己方和改進己方。如果對自焚只停留在譴責壓迫者上，自焚的犧牲就成了浪費。」
(17)Wang Lixiong, What Else If No Self-Immolation? Translated by Ogyen Kyab, http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/12/blog-post_29.html. It is also posted on Tibet Telegraph Blog, http://www.tibettelegraph.com/2012/12/what-else-if-not-self-immolation.html. The Chinese version is published by iSun Affairs, Hong Kong. vol.36. （香港《陽光時務週刊》，第036期。） 王力雄，〈不自焚，能怎麼做〉，http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/12/blog-post_28.html.
(18) http://karkhung.com/?p=1198, http://karkhung.com/?p=1214, http://karkhung.com/?p=1219.
(19)王力雄：〈西藏需要方法〉，February 8, 2012：「达兰萨拉尽可以对此研究方案，进行实验，培训人员，向西藏境内推广。」
(20)Wang Lixiong, What Else If No Self-Immolation? 王力雄，〈不自焚，能怎麼做〉：「當局鎮壓可想而知。……除非當局有足夠的監獄，最後把整個村莊的所有村民都關押起來……得有多少個監獄才能關押那麼多村民？得有多厚的臉皮才能承受由此行成的世界奇聞？」
(21)ibid., 「對中間道路，障礙只是專制政府；而對西藏獨立，障礙則會擴大到十數億漢人。專制政府的障礙可以隨中國民主化消除，十多億漢人的障礙卻會因為多數裁定機制在民主化後更強。」
(22) cited in Robert Barnet, Introduction to The Struggle of Tibet, p. 21
(23) William J. Dobson, The Dictator’s Learning Curve: inside the Global Battle for Democracy. p. 18, 28.
(*)This point is contested by Tibetologist Thierry Dodin. He thinks what Wang Lixiong means is not that Tibetan self-immolators craved the limelight. He says,"What I think he means is that they count with a media effect that will popularise the cause." I have no intention of splitting hairs here. Whatever Wang Lixiong says, it is very clear he paints a picture of Tibetan self-immolators who aimed to move the external actors. This point is clearly demonstrated by Wang in "Last Words Analysis." I quote: "After the 2008 Tibetan protests ended in repression, many lone Tibetans continued to take to the streets, shouting slogans and distributing leaflets, the outcome was always the same – they all quietly disappeared. How can individual actions burst out of this disappointing submersion?.... That is to resort to more extreme ways of protests. ....The self-immolations are seen throughout the world and reported, recorded, prayed for, paid condolences, and the other Tibetans see this and think that this is an effective individual action to protest and thus follow the examples."
2008年的西藏抗议遭镇压后，不少藏人独自上街，喊口号撒传单，结局都是无声息地人间蒸发。分散的个体如何能从这种令人绝望的淹没中迸发？那只有采取更加激烈的方式……自焚的确跃然而出。每个个体生命的燃烧都会被全球看到，被报道、记载、祈福、慰问、广泛传播，从而让其他藏人看到——自焚是个体行动中最为有效的方式，进而效法，形成愈演愈烈的自焚运动。
Unlike the professor, Chinese people who echoed Wang’s position have never got his meaning wrong. A case in point is Tiananman activist Pan Qing in Sydney, Australia. In an article named “Freedom is Boundless: Tibetans have to Cherish Life and Live Strong, then There Will be Hope!” (3) he cited Wang’s article and interpreted his meaning thus: “Tibetan self-immolators would gain no concession from the Chinese government, because the nature of the authoritarian regime predetermines its apathy to sufferings. This is the inevitability that non-violent resistance in Tibet’s past had gone nowhere.” (4) Thus he reasoned that Tibetans should stop committing self-immolation because the evil government in mainland China does not have a conscience and would not be moved.(5) In other words, the acts of self-immolation are still regarded as something futile that aimed at external actors, which is exactly the position that Sperling assumes Wang Lixiong has transformed.
The devil is in the detail and the detail continues. In the third paragraph of Wang’s article, to paraphrase his words, he goes on to say although it is unfair to say the Tibetan self-immolators were unwise, it is also true that the wisdom is of a great vision in solving Tibet’s problems, which should not be shouldered by common people. Brave Tibetans should be advised of what they should do and could do by politicians who possess the kind of wisdom he mentioned above. If this is done, he says, Tibetans would not choose these harrowing acts of self-immolation in exchange for brief appearances in the media.(6) From this, one can deduce, in Wang’s language, the ‘not-unwise’ Tibetans were still quite unwise and fairly lacking in sense. They had committed self-immolation because they did not know what to do (nobody tells them!) and because they craved the limelight of the media.(*) Thus, Wang’s position is not that different from Zen Jinyan’s as claimed by Sperling. The only difference is that Wang cleverly puts a spin to it (such as the first paragraph) to make it sound nice while entrenches Chinese misconception in the meantime, like an excellent propagandist. Moreover, it also suggests an arrogant and patronizing attitude, which is not detected by Sperling.
Perhaps in an attempt of trying to tell Tibetans what to do, Woeser wrote the petition of March 7, 2012, to appeal to Tibetans living in Tibet to halt self-immolations. Logically speaking, if Tibetan self-immolators are really regarded as wise by Wang and Woeser, as claimed by Sperling, why was there a need to call for a halt? If they are wise, shouldn’t they know best when it comes to something as important as their very own lives? Secondly, since the petition is couched in touchy-feely rhetoric of grandstanding, one can’t help but wonder if this project is more about self-aggrandizement than anything else. The giveaway is the English translation of it, which came as part and parcel of the petition from the very beginning. Do Tibetans living in Amdo and Kham really need an English version to understand what it is saying? Last but not least, given the fact that Wang Lixiong had been well-known for his petition to the Chinese authority to change its way on the trial of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche a decade ago(7) , the egregious aspect of this petition is that it does not regard calling for the government to redress the situation as the most urgent and important issue. Instead, urging the victims to keep quiet while other means of dissenting are out of the question would be “of utmost urgency”, according to Woeser.(8) Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser fiddle while Tibet burns.
The most salient effect of this petition was that it created an impression purged of any political factors which trigger the crisis in Tibet. While it hinted at the huge strain caused by oppressive measures, the oppression itself was never the main subject highlighted or explained at length. Instead, people were asked to call for Tibetans to cherish their lives. Perhaps because of its whole package of patronizing attitude and lack of any political complications, it went down very well with some overseas Chinese and they did exactly what Woeser asked. Thus we have Chinese human rights activists and Tiananman activists from San Francisco, USA, appealing to the Tibetans to cherish their lives on 13 March 2012.(9) They cited tyranny of the Chinese regime and the lack of religious freedom as the reasons for Tibetans to commit these acts. One of them also noted that the material life of Tibetans had been improved,(10) which evoked the popular Chinese sentiment that the Tibetans are ungrateful to such improvements. Repressive measures such as military lockdown, monasteries under siege, patriotic education, or the omnipresence of Chinese police and paramilitary in Tibet, etc, were never mentioned in their appeal. Why should they as these factors were never explained to them? And they were not asked to do anything about them?
Hearing this blaring call for Tibetans to cherish their lives from some Chinese, an exiled Tibetan poet and writer in Australia, Dhungser, remarked rather wryly: why don’t these Chinese people call for the Chinese government to cherish lives? Perhaps by then, he said, Tibetans would really see the noble and altruistic spirit of these Chinese, which might really help the interaction between the Tibetans and Chinese.
Commenting on the high profile of the Woeser’s appeal, a Taiwanese supporter, who is also an experienced activist of Taiwan independence movement, expressed her regret to me that the petition made it look like it was the Tibetan self-immolators who had done something wrong. “Shouldn’t this appeal be about calling the Chinese government to stop being a monster in Tibet?” said she. To be fair, Wang Lixiong did write a petition on March 8, 2012(11) , calling members of the National People’s Congress to review the nationality policy applied in Tibet and Xinjiang . But some people protested on Woeser’s blog that resistance in Xinjiang was misnamed as terrorism which Wang has never retracted, and they refused to sign. The Taiwanese activist also points out that this gesture is futile since the Congress is but a rubber stamp, which is common knowledge. Instead of joining forces with Woeser to call for the Chinese to condemn the government, Wang opted to write this petition which was never as high-profile as Woeser’s.
That is the crux of the matter. Making little effort in demanding and urging the Chinese government to redress the iniquities, Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser have diminished themselves as dissidents of PRC state, which by its own very definition requires them to protest against wrongdoing of the government. Without such protest first and foremost established and firmly lodged in the heart in their essays and petitions, calling Tibetans to halt self-immolations is practically asking Tibetans to put a stop to their resistance to an imperialistic power. And that is exactly what Wang Lixiong asks. In the same article in question, he proposes village autonomy as the solution because it is about human rights, mining problems, environment conservation, religion, and nothing to do with the Tibetans as a nation.(12)
Belatedly, in a post several months later, Woeser acknowledged the Chinese government caused the wave of self-immolations.(13) But we still have no petition to the government from her yet. (By contrast, it has been pointed out to me that Arjia Rinpoche who co-signed Woeser’s petition, when he was interviewed along with Woeser in an RFA programme, had voiced his protest to the Chinese regime as early as March 22, 2012. (14)) In one of his most recent articles published on 18 December, 2012, Wang Lixiong justifies the lack of condemnation in his analysis of the causes of self-immolations by saying that although Chinese government is the main culprit, it is a foregone conclusion. He says, he is not going to use the limited space of the column in which he is writing to repeat it.(15) In this precious space, who does he think should bear the brunt of his criticism for the current crisis? The Tibetans-in-exile for sure! He reasons, because Tibetans within Tibet have had high hopes of people-in-exile, now they are badly let down and can’t wait for the exiles to bring about the changes much needed in Tibet any more, thus they committed the acts of self-immolation.
As he sees it, the exiles should definitely shoulder part of the blame. But looking at the inches he dedicates to discussing the exile politics, one can’t help but conclude that the buck is passed to Tibet, and the Chinese regime has got away with murder. It seems that he has never thought that the government running and ruining Tibet is also the government that rules him. As a dissident, he is duty-bound to do something to change his government, instead of the organization-in-exile. But he seems to be running on a logic that bad guys doing bad things is only natural, nothing can be done to change that. Thus it is more constructive to put the pressure on the good guys.(16)
Therefore, although in a very good position to call for solidarity from the public or the middle class, Wang still does not see fit to appeal to them to put pressure on his own government to change its grotesque misconducts. This is clearly demonstrated by one of the articles that he writes for an influential magazine in Hong Kong.(17) As it is more widely read and circulated among the Chinese and would not be limited to the cyperspace anymore, Wang reiterates village autonomy is the hope for Tibet. (I have written in another article in Chinese to contest this claim and debunk the myth of Wukan village at length, which has been translated into Tibetan.(18) ) Village autonomy, as he has clearly pointed out, is something exiles should send trained personnel to Tibet to execute,(19) implying it is none of the business of the Chinese. He further advises, there will be crackdowns from the Chinese government but it will be too ashamed to put everyone in jail.(20) (Indeed! So much for the machine without a conscience.) But doing it would win the support from the Chinese masses and would secure the autonomy for Tibet within China, he says. He also warns the goal of independence is desirable but unachievable because more than one billion Han people would oppose to it while the Middle Way is only opposed by the autocracy. (21)
It seems that he is now resorting to tactics of scaremongering. Who knows what one billion people would do when China becomes a democracy as it is never tried or tested? Moreover, isn’t it in his job description as a Chinese intellectual to lead the public opinion and to change it? He should know, perhaps better than the majority of Chinese people, many Tibetans sincerely wish to have their own nation, as they are willing to sacrifice their lives to call for it. It always has been and will be a recurring theme of Tibetan protests. This is a paramount issue which has to be addressed, not swept under the carpet like he does in the article “Apart from Self-immolation, What Else Can be Done?” and many others.
This theme of leaving the Chinese regime out of Tibet’s woes, brushing aside the wishes of the self-immolators especially when it comes to nationalist aspirations, runs through Wang’s writing. Where Wang leads, Woeser follows. Without redressing these issues, this couple would not seem to have Tibetans’ best interests at heart, although Woeser in particular emotes and wrings her hands constantly on her blog and the mircroblogging service, as portrayed by Sperling in his longer essay. I am afraid the beautifully-crafted rhetoric with no apparent denigration or disparagement alone cannot convince me that they are truly respecting the Tibetans who had committed self-immolation.
It has been noted by the Sinologist Remi Quensnel that Wang Lixiong’s writing is that of a zhinang, the advisor who puts his knowledge at the disposal of a ruler.(22) It is worthy to ask who that ruler is. Before, it might well have been the Chinese government. Now it looks like he is serving the concept of China as a whole with Tibet as an inalienable part of it. And this is widely detected by many Tibetans who can read Chinese but may not be able to articulate it. It is understandable that they are uneasy and wary of Wang’s writing and opinions. These Tibetans do not deserve to be called identity-based reductionists, as stated by Professor Sperling in his essay.
In Russia, Putin has created a system of opposition parties, which ostensibly play the role of regime critics while never pushing their criticism beyond the boundaries set by the Kremlin. Furthermore, fake NGOs are created to legitimize government policy and confuse the public about who is in the right.(23) Similar things had been done in Taiwan in its pre-democratic years by the party in power. Unfortunately, some of the ostensible critics had successfully duped the Taiwanese who enthusiastically embraced their messages. But in the open society that is Taiwan today, their intent of undermining the interests of the Taiwanese has eventually come to light. One can be pretty certain that the Chinese Communist authority is also familiar with this technique. I am not charging Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser of playing such a role. But in dealing with an authoritarian regime like China, one should always be vigilant and alert. I suppose it is right to admire the work of Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser as they stick their necks out to blog about Tibet. But their flaws and faults should never be air-brushed. It would also be premature to put them on a pedestal in this murky situation. It is only right to watch these two celebrities with a level gaze and pose honest questions. There should not be any reservations with criticism simply because they are living in an unfree society. If they are genuinely concerned about the Tibetans, they would only welcome constructive criticisms and gladly change their tacks. Given what is at stake, we have to get this right because the Tibetans who had committed self-immolation, unlike these two, did not have access to free cyberspace (without the Chinese Firewall) and a free press to voice their thoughts and opinions.
Notes:
(1)王力雄：除了自焚，還能做什麼？Jan 12, 2012.
(2)專制政權只有剛性結構、冷酷邏輯、以及官僚利益…有誰看過它的良知？…權力不讓步就不會有進展，因此目前的西藏落入困境是必然。
(3)潘晴，〈自由无涯，珍惜生命，坚强活着，才有希望！〉March 29, 2012. http://zhu-ruiblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/blog-post_5001.html
(4)潘晴：「王力雄在《除了自焚，还能做什么？》的文章中认为，藏人自焚不会得到中国政府的让步，因为专制政权的本质决定了它是不会被苦难打动的。这是以往西藏的非暴力抗争陷入困境的必然性所在。」
(5)潘晴：「我呼籲藏人們不要再自焚了。因為有良知的人才能感動，…中國大陸…的魔鬼政府，犧牲再多生命他們會感動嗎？」見〈悉尼召開自由在烈火中〉, April 26, 2012, http://blog.boxun.com/hero/201204/dongsai/19_1.shtml。
(6)說自焚者有勇氣沒有智慧，是不公平。智慧不是苟且偷生的技巧，是能夠帶領西藏走出困境的高瞻遠矚。那不是是普通民眾應該和能夠承擔的。…如何實現應該是政治家拿出智慧。…請告訴勇敢的藏人，他們可以做什麼，知道了應該和能夠做什麼，他們就會活下去，而不是用慘烈自焚換來媒體短暫一瞥。
(7)大陸漢族王力雄等各界人士提出三點建議， 呼籲全國人大和法院公正審理阿安扎西、洛讓鄧珠死刑案，December 12, 2002. http://www.hrichina.org/hk/content/2560.
(8)In Woeser’s petition: “We urge organizations concerned with the Tibet issue to immediately take actions to constrain the increasing trend and speed of self-immolation, which should be treated as a matter of utmost urgency.” 我們促請，與藏人有關的組織機構，馬上投入行動，把遏制當前自焚擴大和加速的趨勢最為當務之急。
(9)美舊金山人權和民運人士呼籲藏人停止自焚，March 13, 2012. http://www.peacehall.com/news/gb/intl/2012/03/201203140058.shtml#.UQ4RtB2pCMs
(10)中国民主党旧金山分部主任委员王宇鹏表示：有人问，藏族人民的生活改善了，为什么还要自焚呢？这些人不了解，一个全心信佛的民族，如果有人用暴力剥夺了他们的信仰自由，就会把这个民族逼迫到绝望的地步。
(11)王力雄起草：呼吁全国人大检讨和纠正现行民族政策，March 8, 2012
http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/03/blog-post_09.html
(12)王力雄：在我看，突破西藏困境應該就是從村民自治開始。對於村民自治，民族議題並非首當其衝，而是針對人權、開礦、環保、宗教活動等問題的具體維權。
(13)唯色：沒有沉重壓迫藏人豈會自焚？November 25, 2012. http://sangjey.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/blog-post_6011.html
(14)http://www.rfa.org/tibetan/chediklaytsen/amdolaytsen/jomolang-mae-nyinsib/ar-jia-rinpoche-and-woeser-released-request-statement-on-self-immolation-03222012155445.html
(15)Wang Lixiong, Last Word Analysis: Why Tibetans Self-Immolate? Translated by Ogyen Kyab, see https://www.facebook.com/notes/ogyen-kyab/last-words-analysis-why-tibetans-self-immolate/573443899339105. 王力雄：
「造成藏人自焚的首要責任在中國政府…。本文有限的篇幅不用於重複這個結論…。」
(16)Wang Lixiong, Last Word Analysis: Why Tibetans Self-Immolate? 王力雄：燃燒的遺言 ：「如同在戰場，譴責敵方殺人，雖然沒錯卻是多餘。要想取得勝利，更價值的是檢討己方和改進己方。如果對自焚只停留在譴責壓迫者上，自焚的犧牲就成了浪費。」
(17)Wang Lixiong, What Else If No Self-Immolation? Translated by Ogyen Kyab, http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/12/blog-post_29.html. It is also posted on Tibet Telegraph Blog, http://www.tibettelegraph.com/2012/12/what-else-if-not-self-immolation.html. The Chinese version is published by iSun Affairs, Hong Kong. vol.36. （香港《陽光時務週刊》，第036期。） 王力雄，〈不自焚，能怎麼做〉，http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/12/blog-post_28.html.
(18) http://karkhung.com/?p=1198, http://karkhung.com/?p=1214, http://karkhung.com/?p=1219.
(19)王力雄：〈西藏需要方法〉，February 8, 2012：「达兰萨拉尽可以对此研究方案，进行实验，培训人员，向西藏境内推广。」
(20)Wang Lixiong, What Else If No Self-Immolation? 王力雄，〈不自焚，能怎麼做〉：「當局鎮壓可想而知。……除非當局有足夠的監獄，最後把整個村莊的所有村民都關押起來……得有多少個監獄才能關押那麼多村民？得有多厚的臉皮才能承受由此行成的世界奇聞？」
(21)ibid., 「對中間道路，障礙只是專制政府；而對西藏獨立，障礙則會擴大到十數億漢人。專制政府的障礙可以隨中國民主化消除，十多億漢人的障礙卻會因為多數裁定機制在民主化後更強。」
(22) cited in Robert Barnet, Introduction to The Struggle of Tibet, p. 21
(23) William J. Dobson, The Dictator’s Learning Curve: inside the Global Battle for Democracy. p. 18, 28.
(*)This point is contested by Tibetologist Thierry Dodin. He thinks what Wang Lixiong means is not that Tibetan self-immolators craved the limelight. He says,"What I think he means is that they count with a media effect that will popularise the cause." I have no intention of splitting hairs here. Whatever Wang Lixiong says, it is very clear he paints a picture of Tibetan self-immolators who aimed to move the external actors. This point is clearly demonstrated by Wang in "Last Words Analysis." I quote: "After the 2008 Tibetan protests ended in repression, many lone Tibetans continued to take to the streets, shouting slogans and distributing leaflets, the outcome was always the same – they all quietly disappeared. How can individual actions burst out of this disappointing submersion?.... That is to resort to more extreme ways of protests. ....The self-immolations are seen throughout the world and reported, recorded, prayed for, paid condolences, and the other Tibetans see this and think that this is an effective individual action to protest and thus follow the examples."
2008年的西藏抗议遭镇压后，不少藏人独自上街，喊口号撒传单，结局都是无声息地人间蒸发。分散的个体如何能从这种令人绝望的淹没中迸发？那只有采取更加激烈的方式……自焚的确跃然而出。每个个体生命的燃烧都会被全球看到，被报道、记载、祈福、慰问、广泛传播，从而让其他藏人看到——自焚是个体行动中最为有效的方式，进而效法，形成愈演愈烈的自焚运动。
Posted by rosaceae at 16:22│Comments(0)
│報導與評論
※このブログではブログの持ち主が承認した後、コメントが反映される設定です。
画像一覧 
