While the West is whipping anti-Chinese sentiment over Tibet, it is throwing stones from within a glass house, writes John Whitbeck* I have been watching with growing astonishment and concern assaults on the bizarrely quasi-religious Olympic Torch as it has staggered through London, Paris and San Francisco, as well as the self-righteous pronouncements of certain European "leaders" (and even by the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general and John McCain) that they will not be attending the opening ceremony of the Olympics -- or are seriously considering not attending and urging others not to attend -- unless China bows to their "human rights" demands. Have they even been invited? Who needs them? Why, aside from the obvious intention to offend, should the Chinese care? I should make clear from the start that I am profoundly sympathetic to Tibet and Tibetans. I have had the privilege of meeting His Holiness the Dalai Lama on two occasions, most recently when we both spoke at the same human rights conference in Sweden. The white kata that he hung around my neck on the first occasion is proudly displayed in my study. In person, he exudes a quiet, modest charisma and aura of human saintliness that is captivating even to an atheist. I wish that he could return to the Potala Palace and that his people could enjoy the broad cultural and administrative autonomy that he seeks for them. Furthermore, when I travelled to Tibet in 1981 (at a time when I had already visited all but one of the world's then existing countries), I found it, far and away, the most fascinating place that I had ever visited. It took my breath away in every sense. Having said that, the current anti-Chinese frenzy in the West, pursued in the guise of pro-Tibetan (and, to a lesser extent, pro-Darfuri) human rights activism, and the Western media's coverage of it, reek of hypocrisy. As best as I can tell, the recent violence occurred when some ethnic Tibetans, understandably fed up with the ever-increasing presence and domination of Han Chinese in traditional Tibetan areas, exploded in frustration, burned some Han Chinese shops and killed some Han Chinese civilians. What, in such circumstances, would one expect the Chinese authorities to do? When, by way of example, some African-Americans in Watts and other poor areas of Los Angeles exploded in frustration, burned some white- owned and Korean-owned stores and attacked some non-blacks, did the American police run away? As I recall, they sought to restore order. So have the Chinese authorities. (As a practical matter, the most brutal images of repressive police action against ethnic Tibetan protesters have not come from China but from other countries, most notably Nepal). Can anyone seriously argue that Chinese treatment of Tibetans, who have not been subject to either genocide or ethnic cleansing and of whom the vast majority continue to live on their ancestral lands, compares unfavourably with the treatment accorded to Native Americans by the European settlers in North America or the treatment accorded (and continuing to be accorded) to the indigenous Palestinians by Zionist settlers in Palestine? Can anyone seriously argue that it is even in the same league of evil and injustice? With more than 50 recognised ethnic minorities comprising roughly six per cent of China's immense population, Chinese government policy has always aimed at cultural integration of all Chinese citizens rather than at multiculturalism. Inevitably, some peoples are deeply attached to their own distinct cultures and do not wish to be integrated into another one. If Chinese treatment of certain ethnic minorities justly merits criticism, most serious observers would argue that repressive measures against the Uighurs of Xinjiang have been more severe than repressive measures against Tibetans. However, although there are many more Uighurs than Tibetans, one hears very little about Uighurs in the West. They are Muslims. Uighur nationalist movements are on America's list of "terrorist" groups, and four Uighurs swept up in Afghanistan were incarcerated at Guantanamo for years, even long after being exonerated as potential threats to America, before finally being dumped in Albania because no other country would provide them asylum. Furthermore, how reasonable is it to hold China responsible for the human suffering resulting from multiple separatist insurgencies and governmental counterinsurgency measures in the Darfur region of Sudan (because China invests in Sudan's oil industry?) while not holding America and its Western collaborators responsible for the far worse human suffering resulting from America's invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and America's unconditional financial and diplomatic support for Israel's occupation of Palestine? If the Chinese feel that the current anti-Chinese frenzy in the West has its roots in jealousy at China's 12 per cent annual economic growth rate and its increasing success in all aspects of world affairs, seasoned with ample doses of racism and hypocrisy, this would not be an irrational appreciation of the situation. At least with respect to its role in world affairs, China has proven a rather gentle and benign dragon in recent decades, focussed on improving the economic conditions and quality of life of its people rather than on military aggression or full-spectrum domination over mankind and the planet, even while its strength and potential power have been growing exponentially. Seeking personal emotional satisfaction or domestic political advantage by gratuitously sticking pins in the Chinese dragon is unlikely to prove a wise course of action. The world has enough problems already. * The writer is an international lawyer and author of The World According to Whitbeck .
