China and Tibet

Although the coverage has softened over the past couple of days, the criticism of China's "aggression" in Tibet has already revealed much about the American attitude towards the affairs of other nations.

We are lead to believe that protesters are everywhere, united in the common goal that is Tibet's freedom. Actors such as Richard Gere have taken center stage, spearheading the campaign to recognize a free and independent Tibet. Protest tactics have ranged from regular street demonstrations to disruptions of the ceremonial passing of the Olympic Torch.

This week, Congress predictably passed a (non-lawful) condemnation of the Chinese government, calling on the Chinese to release Tibetans imprisoned for non-violent demonstrations. The article also alludes to the possibility of the United States boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing, although President Bush has yet to commit to a position on the matter.

There are several issues buried within this resolution. First, and perhaps most alarming, is the fact that American hubris cannot be questioned. As evidenced in the 413-1 vote (care to guess who casted the dissenting vote?), Americans, through their elected officials, have taken it upon themselves to cast judgment on the affairs of another sovereign nation. Does anyone seriously think the Chinese are incapable of resolving their own internal issues without American influence? How would Americans react if the Chinese government voted to condemn our treatment of, say, illegally detained prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay?

Second, there is the contradiction of American "nationalistic" principle. Presumably, the Chinese government desires to prevent the emergence of a free, independent Tibet, and to maintain control over the region as part of a unified Chinese state. The relationship between China and Tibet is complicated, to say the least, and the history of the conflict certainly exceeds the tenure of the United States' role as the world's arbiter.

Perhaps the best parallel to draw here is the secession of the Southern States prior to the Civil War. Southerners saw the election of Abraham Lincoln as an affront to their way of life and a prelude to war. Consequently--or constitutionally, if you prefer--Southerners seceded from the voluntary union between the states.

While I realize I am doing a major disservice to two major incidents in world history by summarizing them in two brief paragraphs, I don't think the parallel can be ignored. In order to remain consistent in their beliefs, then, protesters, as well as Congress, would also have to rescind any previous support for the Union during the American Civil War. After all, what right did those Yankees have to invade an independent, sovereign nation? Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath for any resolutions condemning northern aggression in the Civil War.

Finally, there is the feel-good gesture of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, et. al. calling on the United States to boycott (at least) the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. Following in a long line of altruistic government action, the idea seems to be gaining some traction, at least among the political elite. To further stoke the flames of controversy--and a rule that will certainly draw the ire of pro-Tibet people--the International Olympic Committee (IOC) issued a statement that said (in part), "...Athletes are free to express political views, but face sanctions if they indulge in propaganda."

The issue of how to determine patriotic acts from propaganda notwithstanding, why have the games become a political venue as opposed to a celebration of human achievement? Further, what right do non-entities such as the IOC and governments have to suppress individual expression?

That's what makes Ron Paul's opposition to the condemnation of the Chinese government's "aggression" in Tibet so meaningful. His lone "nay" vote is consistent with his steadfast commitment to individual liberty as well as his belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy. While other politicians and protesters are using the Tibet "crisis" as a political soap box to profess their altruistic belief in an American-dominated world, their actions are easily exposed for the logical inconsistencies that they are.