Monday, June 05, 2006
Waging Peace and Freeing Tibet in Charlottesville, Virginia
The other day I found myself, for the umpteenth time, driving in Vermont behind a Kerry/Edwards supporter whose vehicle also bore the slogan 'FREE TIBET'. It must be great to be the guy with the printing contract for the 'FREE TIBET' stickers. Not so good to be the guy back in Tibet wondering when the freeing thereof will actually get under way. For a while, my otherwise not terribly political wife got extremely irritated by these stickers, demanding to know at a pancake breakfast at the local church what precisely some harmless hippy-dippy old neighbor of ours meant by the slogan he'd been proudly displaying decade in, decade out: 'But what exactly are you doing to free Tibet?' she demanded. 'You're not doing anything, are you?' 'Give the guy a break,' I said back home. 'He's advertising his moral virtue, not calling for action. If Rumsfeld were to say, "Free Tibet? Jiminy, what a swell idea! The Third Infantry Division go in on Thursday", the bumper-sticker crowd would be aghast.'
He has came back to this point again in recent weeks in connection with the Darfur crisis.
The reason I felt compelled to recycle an old Mark Steyn column today is because a Free Tibet march to Washington began here on Sunday. As reported by the Charlottesville Daily Progress:
Organizers of the “March for Tibet’s Independence,” which started at the Downtown Mall on Friday and will conclude in Washington on June 11, hope their message extends well beyond the 115-mile corridor of their journey.
International Tibet Independence Movement President President Larry Gerstein, who started these types of marches in the 1980s with the Dalai Lama’s eldest brother, Taktser Rinpoche, talked about the importance of continuing demonstrations, both for those in the United States and those in Tibet. “These Tibetans, their voices get into Tibet and give [the people there] hope,” he said. “These are important advocates for freedom, because people in Tibet can’t do it themselves.”
Gerstein said Charlottesville has a particularly educated community when it comes to Tibet, and pointed specifically to the University of Virginia’s Tibetan Studies program. “The foundation is here,” he said. “Now it’s time to bring out the advocacy side.”
Cate Tokarz was walking along the Downtown Mall with her 3-year-old daughter, Lizzi, when she noticed the pre-march demonstration. She said she was proud to let her daughter sit among the protesters and wave a flag. “I want to teach her early that it’s important to be an American child,” she said. “It’s important to stand up for these kinds of things.”
The rest of the article talks about the hardships of Tibetans and the demographics of the walkers on the march, but never once explores the concept of how a free Tibet might actually come to pass. Raising consciousness, it seems, is enough. The fact that these marches have been occuring since 1980 without apparent effect is reported without irony, harkening back to Steyn’s point.
In the last few weeks, Charlottesville has seen a proliferation of little purple signs popping up in people’s yards. On one side they say “End the War Now,” and on the other say “Wage Peace.” I have not spoken to anyone who has one of these signs, but I can only assume that the “war” they refer to is the US occupation of Iraq, which presumably we could end unilaterally if we so chose. Surely they cannot be refering to the greater war on Islamic terror. I lived in downtown Manhattan on September 10th, 2001, and everyone I knew was very busy waging peace at that time. If I recall correctly, waging peace was also a key component of US foreign policy right up to the moment we were attacked.
I wish there was more space on these signs for clarifying positions. Because Wage Peace cannot be an unconditional policy, can it? How about a sign that says "End Iraq war now, but Win Other War." Or maybe these folks really are in favor of toal capitulation across all sources of conflict. Perhaps Hitler's tour of Paris on June 23, 1940 was simply how the French government chose to respond to popular calls to “End the War Now, Wage Peace.”
Getting back to Steyn’s observation, one cannot help but wonder what is going through the minds of the Free Tibet marchers as they embark on their long walk to DC, filing past the Wage Peace signs sprouting along our leafy streets. Do they bring them a sense of comfort, or despair for the hopelessness of their cause?
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jun 05, 02:05:00 PM:
It's like I always say, "slogans are not the answer."
By , at
Mon Jun 05, 04:57:00 PM:
I give up. Some people are just problem-seekers too pansy to pony up a real solution.
Now that I'm thinking about it, TigerHawk, what are YOU suggesting we do about Tibet? There's no point in ripping on the ineffectiveness of the march unless you're proposing some real action. :)
Good point...I'm not proposing a solution either. Oops.
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Jun 05, 10:23:00 PM:
We see again the damage of Gandhi. Because of the implied half-billion behind him who might not be peaceful, plus the moral awareness of the British he was trying to influence, Gandhi was able to advertise that his civil disobedience had brought about great changes.
To this day hopeful lefties believe it will happen again, if they are just earnest enough. They believe that protest is in itself a strategy.
By , at
Tue Jun 06, 12:04:00 AM:
Frankly, the prospect of a "Free Tibet" is much dimmer now than years ago. I read "Riding the Iron Rooster" by Paul Theroux some years ago, and he concluded his tour of China by visiting Tibet (by car) and was deeply touched by the spirituality of the place, and remarked that Tibet would be in real trouble if the Chinese ever finished the rail line they were building to Tibet (1986).
Well, a few years ago I was in China, and a Chinese gentleman I was traveling with remarked how excited he was about a pending trip to Tibet, now that there was a railine to travel on to get there (2001). It's like a Disneyland visit to the regular ethnic Chinese.
From what I'ver read, I understand the Tibetans just want some kind of limited autonomy under the Chinese central government and to be able to practice their form of Buddhism (very non-violent, peaceful people).
We could picket the Chinese embassy, boycott Chinese goods, demand religious freedom for all Chinese, yada, yada, yada.
Dream on if you think that China will give up one inch of territory, or grant any such concessions in this lifetime. They've been sitting on Tibet for over 50 years, and their grip is tighter than ever.
It's a frickin' tragedy that we have no power whatsoever to influence the outcome of. There is no "plan" that will pry Tibet from China, or will even lead to some sort of tolerable outcome for the native Tibetans. In a couple generations, the predominant racial group in Tibet will be ethnic Chinese anyways, so then the problem will be moot.
-David
By CHESHIRECAT, at
Sat May 30, 04:41:00 AM:
hey I am Cate tokarz and you refer to me and my daughter in your artice. I was wondering why? My 3 year old was concerned and wanted to support the people protesting. I think the tibeten issue is a bit over a 3 year olds head but I was proud to teach her that in america we all are free to voice our oppinions. Just curious as to why you mentioned us?
By TigerHawk, at
Sun May 31, 05:08:00 PM:
I did not write the post, but the reference appears in the linked Daily Progress article. Just ended up in the block quote, I guess.
