narrativeautumn

POINT OF VIEW
Tibet Through Chinese Eyes
Most Chinese think the West’s real aim is to deny them the triumph they deserve for their success.
By Kishore Mahbubani | NEWSWEEK
May 5, 2008 Issue

The recent crisis over the Olympic torch and Tibet represent an epic clash: not just between Tibetans and Beijing, but between a self-congratulatory Western worldview and the very different vision of a billion-plus Chinese. Until Western leaders start trying to understand the Chinese perspective, friction is likely to grow, and the victims will include the Tibetans themselves—the very people Western leaders say they want to protect.

According to the current U.S. and European narrative, the popular protests in Tibet and elsewhere were entirely justified. The demonstrators pushed a moral cause: to free the poor Tibetans from an oppressive communist government. And the European leaders who decided to boycott the Olympics’ opening ceremonies, like Germany’s Angela Merkel, deserved nothing but praise for their courageous stance.

The Chinese view could not be more different. Before describing it, however, it is vital to dispel a major Western misconception. Many Americans and Europeans think that China’s furious reaction to the protests—a reaction that has now inspired a massive boycott of Western goods and businesses in China—has been the result of media manipulation and information control by Beijing. If only the Chinese public had access to real facts, Westerners think, their attitudes would be different. This is a huge mistake. The reality is that some of the strongest anger toward the West at the moment is coming from liberal Western-educated Chinese intellectuals who have access to accurate information. China today enjoys the most competent governance it’s ever had, and its elites are intelligent, well educated and sophisticated—the exact opposite of the “goons and thugs” described by CNN’s Jack Cafferty.

The Chinese are so angry because virtually all of them believe that the Western protests have had little to do with human rights, Tibet or Darfur. Instead, the Chinese think, the West’s real motivation is to deny China the triumph it deserves for its enormous successes. According to this view, Westerners cannot stomach the thought that China is poised to hold the best Olympics ever. Such a spectacle would vividly demonstrate how power has shifted from West to East. This would be intolerable, and thus Americans and Europeans are dead set on finding some way to disrupt the Games—and if Tibet or Darfur won’t suffice, they’ll find some other method. As several Western-educated Chinese friends have whispered to me, “Kishore, this is pure racism. The West cannot bear the thought of China’s succeeding.”

Chinese skepticism about the Western commitment to human rights is well founded. Indeed, there is something ironic about those who have committed genocide against American Indians or Australian Aborigines now castigating China on Tibet. Furthermore, Guantánamo—which Amnesty International has described as “the gulag of our times”—plus Abu Ghraib and European complicity in Washington’s extraordinary rendition program have badly damaged the West’s credibility and legitimacy.

Most Chinese also believe that Tibetans have received special treatment from Beijing. After the disastrous Cultural Revolution, in which all Chinese suffered, Deng Xiaoping adopted a more pragmatic approach to the region. Ruined religious sites were repaired, monasteries were reopened, new monks were allowed to join orders and the Tibetan language was permitted to be used more extensively than before. Chinese leaders believe that China has exercised sovereignty over Tibet for 700 years now, ever since the Yuan dynasty—one reason the “Free Tibet” slogan angers them so much. Then there’s the recent territorial disintegration of the Soviet Union and memories of how the West seized Chinese territory in the 19th century: still more reasons why Chinese suspicions run deep.

What really frustrates Beijing is the West’s apparent lack of comprehension of China’s aims for the Olympics. In 2005, World Bank head Robert Zoellick called on China to become a “responsible stakeholder.” The Beijing Olympics were meant to symbolize China’s willingness to do just that, and the Chinese expected their efforts to be welcomed enthusiastically. But now most Western leaders seem intent on slamming the door in Beijing’s face instead. The tragedy is that this will only stoke angry Chinese nationalism, which has already begun to surface. A fire-breathing Chinese dragon will clamp down on Tibet even harder than the current government has, which would serve no one’s interests. The West’s failure to recognize this fact demonstrates a serious failure of long-term strategic thinking.

If Europe’s leaders really want to show political courage, they should attend the Olympics’ opening ceremonies. Doing so would encourage China to open up further and engage the world. Over time, this will liberalize Chinese society and even lead to greater political and cultural autonomy for the Tibetans. So far, only one major Western leader has shown the requisite courage and foresight: George W. Bush. It is hoped numerous leaders from other continents will join him in Beijing. When that happens, it will only underscore Europe’s growing irrelevance: a tragedy that Europeans are bringing upon themselves.

Mahbubani is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore and the author of “The New Asian Hemisphere.”

© 2008

Posted April 2008

Bill Clinton once styled himself the “comeback kid,” but he has nothing on Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim. Two weeks ago, the former deputy prime minister turned political prisoner was officially cleared to reenter politics, and many think he could become his country’s next prime minister. He spoke to FP about his return to power and how former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad thought he could break him.

Foreign Policy: When will you seek political office?

Anwar Ibrahim: I can now. The issue is when do I want to do it. [The opposition alliance] has five state governments with one federal territory, six regions that are the key regions. We have to make sure that they are managed well and transparently. There are a lot of things that need to be done because we are not just improving the performance of the previous government. I want to ensure that the coalition will stick together, and there is the responsibility of taking over the government. That is more pressing than my personally running for a seat in the Parliament, because that would deflect attention. But I am not discounting [my running for office]. We are still looking at it and it can even be soon.

FP: What explains your coalition’s strong performance in the last election?

AI: It is a strength of a more multiracial, interreligious formula. We are forged together on the basis of our belief in democratic reforms. After all, this is not something alien. This is what was promised to us when we achieved independence in 1957. Coupled with this multiracial, interreligious agenda, we talk about a new Malaysian economic agenda. We have lost competitiveness. There is no independent judiciary. People tend to ignore the fact that a true democratic administration would give people more confidence.

The elections here were never free and fair. We don’t have free media. I don’t have 10 minutes of airtime on local television. Even the electoral process was clearly fraudulent. But with all that, we still made an extremely impressive showing. They term it now a political tsunami.

FP: So what is the most difficult part of leading an opposition party like this?

AI: You have to spend a lot of time engaging them. Getting them to agree is not just a matter of political expediency. It is a matter of creating a specific policy and reform agenda while protecting the interests of these party elements. The engagement is a series of conversations. It is tiring.

FP: Do you have concern about people defecting? How are you going to hold them together?

AI: For now we are very firm and committed to the program. In fact, it is the ruling party that is now worried about people defecting.

We have the numbers. We have 30 [members of the ruling party who say they will defect]. The question then is, why don’t we move now? We are not moving now for a number of reasons. Number one, Parliament has not yet convened. Secondly, we want the majority to be comfortable. Number three, those that have committed must be tested that they are committed to the reform agenda. Otherwise the coalition can be volatile.

FP: Mahathir Mohamad was prime minister of Malaysia for 22 years before he retired in 2003. What do you think his legacy will be?

AI: I think [he will be remembered] as a young nationalist who came into the picture to try to make a stand in terms of change and becoming more independent, but grew to be too overconfident, too assertive, and turned into almost a megalomaniac. The country was his. This is often a problem with many of the leaders of emerging countries. You have the sense even now that he believes he cannot leave because of what [he thinks] will be destroyed. What is being destroyed? The media and the judiciary was destroyed under him.

FP: You got into trouble in the late 1990s once you began to criticize Mahathir, your former political mentor. Did you underestimate him as a political opponent?

AI: No, I didn’t. But at that time I had strong views. He resented the idea of my rapport and contact with the West, particularly the United States. And I said, I know I am not on the CIA payroll. I have strong views on Iraq. I have very independent views. What is the harm of my treating America as a friend? He expects everyone else to be so anti-American to the point of being irrational.

FP: Do you think that Mahathir inadvertently made you a tougher opponent?

AI: Mahathir probably underestimated me. He always believed that people crack under torture or detention. He used to tell me in those days, when we were on friendlier terms, that what he dreaded most was to be detained without knowing when he would be released. So that is what he did to me. He underestimated me. He thought that I would break.

Anwar Ibrahim is former deputy prime minister and finance minister of Malaysia. He was sentenced to six years in prison on corruption charges in 1999, sentenced to another nine years for sodomy in 2000, and released in 2004. He now leads the country’s alliance of opposition parties.