TIBET'S CURRENT STATUS: A WESTERN IMPERIAL LEGACY

Tibet, which as a political entity operated with other external powers (especially Mongols and Hans) on principles such as patron-client relations and chos srid gnyis Idan (politics and religion combined; see Burman 1979; Kolas 1996), [53] has become yet another victim of modern ideas such as territorial sovereignty and the separation of religion and the state. This raises the question of the relevance of the European model of the nation-state for many parts of the non-Western world. Present-day international politics ensures that claims to independence are afforded more recognition when stated in terms of the nineteenth-century European ideal of the nation-state under a nationally representative government (Samuel 1993,

143). This makes the task of the Tibetans more difficult as Tibet was never a centralized nation-state. The closest it came to the European model was between 1913 and 1951, but the lamaist state failed to become a modern state (Goldstein 1989) or to be recognized as such (Shakya 1999).

The extrapolation of Western ideas in a situation where people operated by way of a totally different worldview has facilitated the victimization of communities like the Tibetans. Developments during the era of imperialism have serious ramifications in many parts of the contemporary world. Conventional IR that has ignored the history and politics of imperialism (by considering it to be a legitimate area of inquiry primarily for imperial history) is therefore not well suited to provide a contextual understanding of such international problems as the Tibet question. For an effective analysis of the debate over the historical status of Tibet, critical international theories could contribute to the historicization of the concept of sovereignty, while postcolonialism can help bare its linkage with imperialism.

EXOTICA TIBET AND THE DEPOLITICIZATION OF THE TIBET QUESTION

What the above discussion of the historical writing of Tibet in the modern geopolitical imaginary reveals are the mutually constitutive relations between representations and imperialism, knowledge and power. Exotica Tibet was not confined to the cultural sphere. For instance, the accounts of British Indian officials like Charles Bell and Hugh Richardson show that their "more prosaic view did not destroy this exotic representation but tacitly encouraged it" (McKay 1997, 207). Prevalent attitudes toward Tibet often reflected contemporary political preoccupations. As discussed earlier, during the Younghusband invasion most British writings depicted a despicable state of affairs within Tibet. Then came a shift toward a positive exoticization (see Hansen 1996). Bell's writings played an important role in transforming the image of Tibet in the West in the 1920s and 1930s. Tibetan Buddhism (more commonly known as Lamaism) was seen in a new context. For instance, Shuttleworth points out, "After reading Sir Charles' book [The Religion of Tibet], one comes to realize that something of the pure flame of Buddhism still lights up the Tibetan Church, and that Lamaism is more than a museum of dead, grotesque monstrosities, that serves no purpose except to provide a livelihood for its priestly custodians" (IOR: MSS EUR/ D722/18 n.d.).

Romantic paternalism continued to mark the representations of Tibet even after World War II (see Klieger 2006). For instance, the U.S. War Department in 1947 could envisage only two possible uses for Tibet: "as a country offering great waste areas in which rockets could be tested, or as a final retreat (Shangri – la) to which peace-loving people could flee when atomic war breaks, for Tibet is too remote to be of significance in any war" (in Knaus 1999, 26; see also Laird 2002; Margolis 2000; Peissel 1972). [54]

Exotica Tibet, especially in the second half of the twentieth century, has disproportionately emphasized Tibetan religiosity, which has led to the sidetracking of the political question of the status of Tibet. Let us note the shifts in the wordings of the United Nations resolutions passed with regard to Tibet. In November 1950, El Salvador submitted a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly that clearly recognized Tibet as a historically independent state. The draft resolution opened: "Taking note that the peaceful nation of Tibet has been invaded, without any provocation on its part, by foreign forces" (International Campaign for Tibet 2006). But no discussion was carried out as Britain, India, and the United States asked for deferment in the hope of a peaceful resolution. This was the only instance of a clear attempt on the part of a state to raise the issue of Tibet in unambiguously political terms. The three resolutions subsequently passed by the General Assembly tended to emphasize Tibet's uniqueness, its cultural and religious life, and the human rights of Tibetans. European countries did not want Tibet to be raised as an issue in the UN for fear that it might set a precedent for their colonies (Shakya 1999, 221). The United States did not want to offend Nationalist China. India saw Tibet mostly as a thorn in the side of Sino-Indian relations. Communist states supported Chinese rights of sovereignty. It therefore comes as no surprise that the resolutions passed regarding Tibet in the UN General Assembly were sponsored by small countries seen as internationally insignificant. And even here, the language was usually tempered. Resolution 1353 (XIV), apart from other UN principles, "mindful also of the distinctive cultural and religious heritage of the people of Tibet and of the autonomy which they have traditionally enjoyed" (emphasis in original), affirmed respect in the Charter and called "for the respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life" (General Assembly 1959; emphasis added). The sponsors, Ireland and Malaya, clarified in their opening statements that the resolution was based not on the political aspect of Tibet's status but on the violation of human rights only (Shakya 1999, 228-29). The 1961 Resolution 1723 (XVI), in contrast, did mention the "right to self-determination" (General Assembly 1961), but the 1965 Resolution 2079 (XX) focused on violation of human rights. Thereafter, with the changing dynamic of China's relations with Western states as well as other nonaligned states, Tibet as an issue did not evoke interest among states.

With the Sino-American rapprochement in the 1970s, little was heard about the destruction of traditional life within Tibet, which intensified during the Cultural Revolution. But considerable attention was paid to the Tibet question when other communist regimes fell in Eastern Europe and the discourse of human rights emerged on the international plane. The linkage of the Tibet question to the West's political interests may be unsurprising, but if we are to address the Tibet question effectively, we need to move beyond conventional international politics with its emphasis on realpolitik and sovereign statehood. For the existence of a "Tibet question" on the international plane is less political and more cultural fascination for Tibet in many parts of the world, and due to the personal appeal of the Dalai Lama (Sautman and Lo 1995, 1). The recent high international profile for the Tibet question is not a result of states "rediscovering" Tibet but rather of nonstate actors becoming international actors. It is connected with transnational movements that are seen as increasingly challenging the international system that solely privileges nation-states.