In the aftermath of the tibet uphevals,the complicated romance between amarica and china is degenratign into mutual recirminations ,muttering about olympic boycotts and tensions taht are likely to rise through the summer.
It would be conenient if we could simply denounce the crakdown in tibet as the impopular ctaion of a dictatorial governement.But it wasn't. It was the popular action of a dictatorial governement and many ordinary chinese think the governement acted too wimphishly,showing far too much restraint toward " thugs " and " rioters ".
China and united states clash partly because of competing interets,but mostly because of competing naratives.
To Americans,tibet fits neatly into a framework of human rights and colonialism.To chinese ,steeped in education of 150 years of " guochi ", or national humiliations by foreigners,the current episode is one effort by imperialism and condescending foreigners to tear china apart or hold it back.
So what do we do? A boycott of the olympic games themselves is a nonstarter.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has raised the possibility of a boycott of the opening ceremony,and that is plausible.
The best answer is : postphone the decision until the last time so as to extort every last ounce ogf good behavior possible out of the chinese governement_on darfur as well as tibet.
But at the end of the day,if there have been no further abuses,president Bush should attend_for staying away would only inflame chinese nationalims and make bejing more obdurate.
If the president Bush attends the ceremonies,however he should balancethat with a day trip to a tibetan area.
Such as a visit would underscore american concern,even if the chinese trot out fake monks to expresse fake contenment with fake freedom.
President Bush and other western leaders should also continue to consult with the Dalai lama,even though this infuriates Bejing.
The dalai lama is the last ,best hope for reaching and agreement that would resolve the dispute over tibet forever.he accepts autonomy,rather than independant,and he has the moral authority to persuade tibetans to accept a deal.
The outlines of an agreement would be simple.The Dalai Lama would return to tibet as a spiritual learder,and tibetans would be permitted to possess his picture and revere him,while he would unequivocally accept chinese sovereignity.Monasteries would have munch greater religious freedom,and han Chinese migration to Tibet Would also accept that the tibetan region encompasses only what is now labeled tibet on the maps,not the much larger region of historic tibet that he has continued to claim.
With such an arrangement,China could resolve the problem of tibet,improve its international image,reassure taiwan and rectify a 50-year-old policy of repression that has catastrophically failed.
But don't hold your breath.Instead,President Hu JIntao_who made his reputation by crushing protests in Tibet in 1989_will make up for failed policy within Tibet by trying to stir up Chinese nationalist resentments at nosy foreigners.
America and China get on each other's nerves partly because thy are so similar.Both are big ,self-absorbed,and insular nation;both are entrepreneurial overachievers;both are infused with nationalism and yet tread clumsily on the nationalism of others_whether in Vietnam or Iraq,or Tibet and the Muslim region Xinjiang.
Both the united States and china also hurt themselves by petulantly refusing to engage leaders they don't like.
Americans sometimes think that the Ribetan resentments are just about political and religious freedom.They're much more complicated than that.Tibetan anger is also fueled by the sucess of Han Chinese stop owners,who are often better educated and more entrepreneurial.So Tibetan seek solace in monasteries or bars,and the economic gap widens and porvokes even frustration_which the spotlight of the olympic gives them a chance to express.
J'ai tou ecrit à la main,il doit y avoir des fautes.sorry
Article tiré du NEW YORK TIMES ,saturday,april 12,2008