Dear Family and Friends,

In her memoir about teaching English in 1980s Tibet, Inside the Treasure House, Catriona Bass wrote that, "[e]ver since the fifties, petitions had been smuggled out [of Tibet] to the UN. In the early days people dreamt of an army being sent in - they had heard of the UN forces in Korea [preventing South Korea from becoming a Communist-ruled state]."




Initially when I read that statement, I paused, considered, and thought, "naaaah." And yet, despite my rejection of this statement, the idea that the UN should've intervened on Tibet's behalf in 1951 has continued to nag me.

I barely need say here that I have established a fair understanding of Korea and its history - although by no means have I established scholarship-level knowledge of it, nor of international law, China, nor Tibet. In passing, I have read that the basis of the Chinese claim on Tibet is that the 2 share a very long history, an idea which is irrefutable considering their close geographic proximity. In fact, it was an army from Tibet in the year of 210 BC that attacked the Chinese city which we now know as Xi'an, ending a certain remarkable tomb-building project that has given modern-day tourists the joys of photographing an entire army of Terracotta Warriors. Throughout that time 'til comparatively modern times, say a century or so ago, Tibet developed its own life, maintained its own government, and indeed kept its own army (although whether the Tibetan army was fit for actual fighting is highly questionable).

The main pillar of China's claim on Tibet seems to be that for hundreds of years, Tibet paid costly tributes to the Chinese empire, for which China in provided protection - or at least desisted from actual aggression. But here's the thing: for hundreds of years, Korea also paid costly tributes to the Chinese empire in return for the same sort of protection. So while Tibet was busily making payments to the Chinese, identifying and raising Dalai Lama incarnates, building the Potala and allowing as few people as possible to visit their land, so was Korea. Well, with semantic differences. Korea was ruled by its Joseon Dynasty, built the Gyeongbokgugn Palace, and was isolated to the point of being well-known as "The Hermit Kingdom." One could well imagine that if had been possible for Europeans to crash ships and strand sailors on the shores of Tibet, Tibet might've been known as "The Super Hermited Kingdom" (or something like that) - but Tibet was so isolated that it lacked the very seas necessary to earn this imaginary title.

Anyway, the more I compared my understanding of Korean history to what I was learning about Tibetan history, the better I could understand, and indeed sympathize with the comparison that the Tibetans had drawn with the Koreans. However, historical comparatives between the two countries breakdown when the Japanese colonized Korea in the year of 1910 and collapse in the year of 1945, when the Americans and Russians agreed to temporarily split Korea into north and south. During the next few years South Korea hatched its fledgling democracy under the heavy-handed UN and US, while North Korea turned Communist under the equally heavy hands of Kim, Il-Sung backed by the Russians while China fully turned Communist under the leadership of Mao, Tse-tung. When North Korea attacked South Korea in 1950, the US, barely concealed under the auspices of the UN, went the rescue of its new friend and might have well re-acquired the northern portion of Korea to boot if China hadn't decided to send "volunteers" (their army) into Korea in order to support its Communist comrades. Speculation aside, the result of this 1950s disagreement remains: South Korea and North Korea are armistically divided with a DMZ and very different governments.

Nothing I've ever read about Korean history has ever cast any doubt upon the notion that Korea is a different state and a culture than China. But it must be noted that Korea is as - in fact more - geographically approximate to China than Tibet. Although the language and the writing and the cultures of China and Korea are completely different, you can equally truthfully say the same about Tibet. In fact, honesty, I observed more similarities between Korea and China than I did between Tibet and China. For example, Korea and China are both acutely Confucian societies, mixed with unmistakable strands of Buddhism and Christianity. But also, Korean and Chinese societies were structured similarly, ruled similarly, shared similar values, and tended to even look similar in that they valued a similar ascetic in art and architecture. In contrast, Tibetan culture seems untouched by Confucianism and its values, their historical government was a mix of religious and secular, and their art and architecture were quite different.

All of this got me thinking: Korea was a Chinese protectorate. If Japan, the US and Russia hadn't stuck their oars into Korea during the early 20th century, would China have made the same argument about Korea that they made about Tibet? The same argument that China prefers to make about the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and the same argument that the world seems to be gradually swallowing about Taiwan? At one point, was Korea been in real danger of also being swallowed by China?

I don't know what my Korean friends would say about this (I suspect they wouldn't approve of this general line of reasoning), but I came around to the Tibetan's logic and wanted an answer to the question: if the world and the UN intervened to grant Korea its rightful independence, why didn't they intervene on behalf of Tibet?

And the answer to that question can only lie within the alliances and political machinations of the late 1940s and early 1950s. In fact, when the Chinese Army moved to acquire Tibet in late 1950, the world had already mobilized its troops in order to rescue another country: Korea. Although truly, realistically at that point in time just past World War II as well as in 1959, the world was exhausted from war - it might not have been able to intervene even if the political will on behalf of Tibetan independence had been strong. The UN passed concerns intoning “grave concern” during 1959 and the early 1960s, while the Chinese dug in their heels and worsened the situation with the Cultural Revolution.


I suppose that now, in the year of 2008, the whys and whatfors must take a backseat to the reality of the Tibetan situation. In 1951, China forced Tibet into a 17-point plan that allowed Tibet to keep its own government - and then China proceeded to figuratively stomp that agreement into the ground - and then rip it to pieces. By 1959, things in Tibet were grim and became grimmer when the Chinese "invited" the young Dalai Lama to one of their army bases to enjoy some sort-of cultural performance – sans entourage. Tibetans were certain that their beloved leader was in danger - and they were likely correct. A few years before, leaders of the movement for Uyghur independence in a province neighboring Tibet that is now called Xinjiang, were invited for peace talks and their flight mysterious vanished, leaving the Uyghars without leadership nor independence. Luckily the Tibetans were able to rescue their leadership and it is well known that today Tibet is a region with a history of wanting to be to free of Chinese rule, a province titled a autonomous while utterly lacking autonomy. The world fantasizes about Shangri-La, utters platitudes in the ears of the beloved Dalai Lama, and either cannot or will not intervene as they did, 50 years ago, in Korea.



Catriona Bass's comment about Tibetans pinning their hopes for UN intervention was actually part of a longer heart-wrenching vignette. One day, one of Bass's friends, a Tibetan monk, showed her a letter that he had written to the United Nations saying, in part that

The world should know that every Tibetan considered the Dalai Lama to be their
leader.. Now the Chinese talk about liberalization, they say Tibetans have
never had it so good, but Tibetans are still unhappy. We have no real
freedom.. Many Tibetans are still suffering in person for their beliefs...
They are beaten and tortured and treated worse than ordinary criminals...

Bass wrote that she listened to her friend's letter to the UN with a fair amount of cynicism, some of which perhaps showed on her face because her friend said to her,

"You think I'm naive, don't you? Of course I know that western governments
aren't going to suddenly take our side against China. China is more important
than we are. It always has been, and now western countries are frightened that
if they offend the Chinese government they'll loose their share of Chinese
trade.

[And so,] we must talk to tourists, tell the outside world about
Tibet, maybe it will change something. Maybe it won't. But there is no other
way."

Visiting Tibet convinced me that the world should take a stronger stand, indeed the world should take action, in order to allow the people of Tibet to determine their own future. There must be a way.


Laura