High drama in the Himalayas

Michael Vatikiotis , Singapore | Thu, 04/03/2008 1:36 AM

Who would have thought the roof of the world could be such a turbulent place. From the foothills of the Himalayas, to the mountain passes of Bhutan, and up on the high Tibet plateau, people are voting for change -- either with their feet or at the ballot box.

This burst of political action in one of the world's remoter corners has taken the international community by surprise, though it should not have done. For this is a salutary lesson to us all that societies everywhere, no matter how isolated or traditional they may be, will act to assert their right to security and freedom.

What makes recent events in Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet so instructive, however, are the varied approaches to change and contrasting responses by states and the international community. The fact that these different situations can be found unfolding in similarly traditional communities all at the same time should teach us about the dangers of using notions of relativism and context to judge human actions.

In the first place we should be wary of notions that culture and religion are critical variable factors in politics. Tibetan Buddhist monks who roamed angrily through the streets of Lhasa in mid-March, share the same fervently observed religion with the people of Bhutan who just two weeks later voted in one of the most placid transitions to democracy that the world has ever seen. The variable here is obviously not conservative Buddhism, but the wisdom of those who hold power.

Let recent events in the Himalayas also be a lesson to those who regard religious fervor as an inevitable path to violence. In Bhuddist Bhutan and Hindu Nepal strong traditions of monarchy associated with the religious faith are being peacefully supplanted by representative models of government. We must shed romantic Orientalist notions of "Shangril-a" and recognize that democratic change is not constrained so easily by religious tradition and dogma.

But above all the striking contrast between the peaceful resolution of a vicious armed conflict in Nepal, the imposition of democracy on reclusive Bhutan by an enlightened monarch, and the scenes of violent protest across Tibetan areas of China, tells us that there is no substitute for dialogue and consultation when it comes to resolving conflict.

Nepal was for many years considered a sleepy Hindu kingdom, and the vicious armed conflict provoked by the failure of multiparty democracy to enfranchise the rural poor in the 1990s was largely ignored by the world. After almost a decade of fighting which left tens of thousands dead, it was hard to imagine dialogue with the hard line Maoist movement that led the insurgency.

But with the help of mass protests demanding peace, the conservative Hindu monarchy capitulated and instead of violent change, the people of Nepal have opted for elections in April and constitutional reform.

Peace is not a forgone conclusion in Nepal as neither the Maoist insurgency nor the army has been defeated, but at least forces that once fought each other with automatic weapons are now arguing over constitutional arrangements for power sharing.

China's problems with Tibet have roots in the clumsy way in which the integration of the Tibetan people and their unique culture and religion has been handled by officials sent from Beijing. Although unrest has been brewing for some time, support from a well organized Tibetan nationalist movement overseas and the ability of angry people in remote regions to communicate over the internet and mobile telephone helped spark the most serious challenge to Beijing's authority in two decades.

China has wisely deployed dialogue in the past to keep the overseas Tibetan challenge at bay. There have been several rounds of talks between representatives of the Dalai Lama, based in India, and the government in Beijing. Given the scale of the unrest and the sensitivity of this Tibetan uprising, coming just months ahead of the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer, perhaps it is predictable that Beijing's initial response has been one of repressive outrage.

Few governments in the world initially react to internal revolt with overtures of dialogue. But as events in Nepal suggest, there simply isn't a way to push popular aspirations back into a bottle, even in remote traditional societies.

The unrest in Tibet comes at a time when China is being challenged to assume a more responsible stake in global affairs. Chinese officials have recently acknowledged privately that Beijing's traditional refusal to become involved in the affairs of other countries will have to adapt to justified calls for greater participation in international peacemaking efforts in places like Sudan or Myanmar, where China has economic leverage. It would be a pity if this encouraging trend is stymied by reaction to unrest on the Tibetan plateau.

Rather, China should take comfort from the fact that many states in the world which have faced challenges to sovereignty at home end up learning from these experiences and become useful agents of international peace. There is no shame at all in defending sovereignty, but the world expects dialogue rather than confrontation to be the preferred route to settling internal conflict.

Equally, it would be a shame if the Dalai Lama, who has professed desire for a non-violent solution in Tibet, should fail to respond to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's call to utilize his influence to stop the violence in Tibet.

Recent experience in Asia would suggest that mediation and negotiation, however tricky, tends to favor the cohesion of existing states by developing new and more modern forms of autonomy that address long standing grievances and aspirations. The slippery slope that Indonesia feared as it broached talks with the Aceh rebels has turned into a glide path towards successful conflict resolution that stands out as an example for others.

The question for China at this sensitive juncture therefore, is how much time will be wasted before sense prevails and the talking begins.

The writer is Asia Regional Director for the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.

Comments (0) | Post comment

A | A | A |