Sovereignty, Ethnicity, and Culture: the Tibetan issue in an institutionalist perspective

Abstract

The central government's pouring of money into the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) or other Tibetan autonomous areas is apparently not really easing the tension in these regions. In response to Western criticism of the Chinese government policy in Tibet, President Hu Jintao says that the Tibetan problem is not about ethnicity, religion, or human rights, but about national unity or integrity. In fact, the Tibetan problem is about all of these things, and they are intertwined with one another. This paper attempts to understand each of them from an institutionalist perspective and to see in what way such an understanding of the problems may help solve them. Specifically, I first explain new institutionalism. Then I analyze the following problems from mainly a sociological new institutionalist perspective: (1) sovereignty and autonomy; (2) ethnicity and human rights; and (3) culture and religion. Finally I look at the possibility of social change under the institutionalist constraints. It is true that much research has been done on the Tibetan issue and the solution of it, but rarely do we see an institutionalist analysis. I hope that such an analysis will shed light on the understanding of the problem and help avoid the scene we see in the quote at the start of this paper.

Notes

*Zhidong Hao is professor of sociology at the University of Macau. He is the author of Macau: History and Society (2011); Whiter Taiwan and Mainland China: National Identity, the State, and Intellectuals (2010); Toward Democratization and Harmony: Difficulties in Social Progress in Macao, Taiwan, and Mainland China (in Chinese, 2008); and Intellectuals at a Crossroads: The Changing Politics of China's Knowledge Workers (2003); co-author of Xijiao Village: The Historical Transformation of a Rural Community in Northern China (in Chinese, 2009); editor of National Identity and the Future of Cross Strait Relations (in Chinese, 2008); co-editor of A Comparative Study of Village and Township Governance across the Taiwan Strait (in Chinese, 2008), among other things. He can be reached by email at [email protected].

^1. Edward Wong, ‘Unease in Tibet over influx of China's money and migrants’, The New York Times, (24 July 2010).

^2. Carolyn Forestiere, ‘New institutionalism and minority protection in the national legislatures of Finland and Denmark’, Scandinavian Political Studies 31(4), (2008), pp. 450–453.

^3. For example, see Elisabeth S. Clemens and James M. Cook, ‘Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change’, Annual Review of Sociology 25, (1999); Forestiere, ‘New institutionalism and minority protection in the national legislatures of Finland and Denmark’; Peter A. Hall and Rosemary C. R. Taylor, ‘Political sciences and the three institutionalisms’, Political Studies 44(4), (1996); and Peter A. Hall and Rosemary C. R. Taylor, ‘The potential of historical institutionalism: a reply to Hay and Wincott’, Political Studies 46(5), (1998); Thomas A. Koelble, ‘Review Article: The new institutionalism in political science and sociology’, Comparative Politics 27(2), (1995), pp. 238, 240; Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991); Jacob Torfing, ‘Path-dependent Danish welfare reforms: the contribution of the new institutionalisms to understanding evolutionary change’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 24(4), (2001).

^4. For the features of historical institutionalism, see Hall and Taylor, ‘Political sciences and the three institutionalisms’, p. 941.

^5. For the features of historical institutionalism, see Hall and Taylor, ‘Political sciences and the three institutionalisms’, p. 947.

^6. Torfing, ‘Path-dependent Danish welfare reforms’, p. 297.

^7. Clemens and Cook, ‘Politics and institutionalism’, p. 449.

^8. For this point, see Clemens and Cook, ‘Politics and institutionalism’, p. 459; Koelble, ‘Review Article: The new institutionalism in political science and sociology’, p. 238.

^9. See Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).

^10. For more discussion on the concept, see Ann Frechette, Tibetans in Nepal: The Dynamics of International Assistance among a Community in Exile (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2002), p. 15; He Baogang, ‘The question of sovereignty in the Taiwan Strait: re-examining Peking's policy of opposition to Taiwan's bid for UN membership’, China Perspectives no. 34, (2001), p. 7; Roger Scruton, A Dictionary of Political Thought (London: Macmillan, 1982), p. 441.

^11. See the Chinese government's website, available at: http://www.gov.cn/test/2009-03/03/content_1248830.htm, and the exiled Tibetan government's website, available at: http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id = 6&rmenuid = 8 (both last accessed 20 July 2010).

^12. Pierre-Antoine Donnet, Tibet Survival in Question (London and New Jersey: Zed Book Ltd, 1993), p. 55.

^13. For their war with one another during the Tang dynasty (618–907), their incorporation into the Mongol Empire, their relationship during the Ming dynasty, and Zhao Erfeng's efforts to Sinicize the eastern Tibetans, see Michael C. Davis, ‘The quest for self-rule in Tibet’, Journal of Democracy 18(4), (2007), p. 165; Donnet, Tibet Survival in Question, p. 59; Heather Stoddard, ‘Tibetan publications and national identity’, in Robert Barnett and Shirin Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet (London: Hurst and Company, 1994); John Dowd, ‘Is Tibet a colony of China?’, in Robert McCorquodale and Nicholas Orosz, eds, Tibet: The Position in International Law. Report of the Independence for Tibet (London, 6–10 January 1993), p. 179; George N. Patterson, “China and Tibet: Background to the Revolt,” The China Quarterly, No. 1 (1960), pp. 87–90; Wang Lixiong, Tianzang: Xizang de mingyun [Sky Burial: The Fate of Tibet] (Hong Kong: Mirror Press, 1998), pp. 15–16, 74–76; Zhang Yun, Xizang lishi wenti yanjiu [Studies on Tibetan History] (Beijing: China Tibetology Press, 2006), p. 228.

^14. Davis, ‘The quest for self-rule in Tibet’, p. 160.

^15. For a discussion on granting full autonomy to Tibet, see also Xu Mingxu, ‘Complete autonomy: the best approach to peaceful resolution of the Tibet problem’, Journal of Contemporary China 7(18), (1998), p. 372.

^16. There are also intra-ethnic conflicts, but they are not as salient.

^17. For the fight between the two Ambans and the rebel king of Tibet in 1750 and the conflicts and killings between the Han and the Tibetans, see Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, pp. 39–40, 73–77.

^18. Patterson, ‘China and Tibet’, pp. 94–100; Warren W. Smith, ‘The nationalities policy of the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist transformation of Tibet’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet, p. 63.

^19. Patterson, ‘China and Tibet’, pp. 94–100; Warren W. Smith, ‘The nationalities policy of the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist transformation of Tibet’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet, p. 191.

^20. Solomon M. Karmel, ‘Ethnic tension and the struggle for order: China's policies in Tibet’, Pacific Affairs 68(4), (1995), p. 491.

^21. Donnet, Tibet Survival in Question, pp. 167–171; Xu Mingxu, ‘Complete autonomy’, p. 376.

^22. See Human Rights Watch, ‘I Saw It with My Own Eyes’: Abuses by Chinese Security Forces 2008–2010 (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2010).

^23. Donnet, Tibet Survival in Question, p. 171; June Teufel Dreyer, ‘Economic development in Tibet under the People's Republic of China’, Journal of Contemporary China 12(36), (2003) p. 426; Karmel, ‘Ethnic tension and the struggle for order’, pp. 499–500; Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, pp. 358–361.

^24. Davis, ‘The quest for self-rule in Tibet’, p. 163.

^25. Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, pp. 364–365, 470, 531–534.

^26. Gao Ping, Buru Xizang jishi [Memoirs on Walking into Tibet] (Tianjin: Baihua Wenyi Press, 2000).

^27. Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, pp. 247–248.

^28. Dreyer, ‘Economic development in Tibet under the People's Republic of China’, p. 416; Melvyn C. Goldstein, ‘Change, conflict and continuity among a community of nomadic pastoralists’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet, p. 99; Wang Yao, ‘Hu Yaobang's visit to Tibet, May 22–31, 1980: an important development in the Chinese government's Tibet policy’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet, pp. 287–288.

^29. Karmel, ‘Ethnic tension and the struggle for order’, pp. 486–488.

^30. Wang Xiaoqiang, ‘The dispute between the Tibetans and the Han: when will it be solved?’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet, p. 291.

^31. Melvyn C. Goldstein, ‘On modern Tibet history: moving beyond stereotypes’, in Alex McKay, ed., Tibet and Her Neighbours: A History (London: Edition Hansjorg Mayer, 2003), p. 219.

^34. Donnet, Tibet Survival in Question, pp. 47–48; Dung-dkar-blo-bzang-vphren-leg, On the Tibetan System of Politics and Religion into One, p. 32; Li Shaoming, ‘On the multicultural system of the Tibetan nation’, p. 294.

^32. Dung-dkar-blo-bzang-vphren-leg, Lun Xizang zheng jiao he yi zhidu [On the Tibetan System of Politics and Religion into One], trans. Guo Guanzhong and Wang Yuping (Beijing: Institute of Ethnic Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1983); Li Shaoming, ‘Lun Zangzu de duoyuan yiti geju’ [‘On the multicultural system of the Tibetan nation’], in Fei Xiaotong, ed., Zhonghua minzu yanjiu xin tansuo [New Studies on the Chinese Nation] (Beijing: Chinese Social Sciences Press, 1991).

^33. Donnet, Tibet Survival in Question, p. 47.

^35. Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, pp. 170–173.

^36. Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, p. 238.

^37. Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, pp. 320–321; Karmel, ‘Ethnic tension and the struggle for order’, p. 499.

^38. Xu Mingxu, ‘Complete autonomy’, p. 372.

^39. Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, pp. 333–334.

^40. Dreyer, ‘Economic development in Tibet under the People's Republic of China’, p. 421.

^41. Karmel, ‘Ethnic tension and the struggle for order’, p. 495.

^42. Karmel, ‘Ethnic tension and the struggle for order’, p. 504.

^43. Robert Barnett, ‘Chen Kuiyuan and the marketisation of policy’, in McKay, ed., Tibet and Her Neighbours, pp. 234–238; Melvyn C. Goldstein, Ben Jiao, Cynthia M. Beall and Phuntsog Tsering, ‘Development and change in rural Tibet: problems and adaptations’, Asian Survey 43(5), (2003), p. 763.

^44. Dreyer, ‘Economic development in Tibet under the People's Republic of China’, p. 423.

^45. Karmel, ‘Ethnic tension and the struggle for order’, pp. 497–498.

^46. Ronald D. Schwartz, ‘The anti-splittist campaign and Tibetan political consciousness’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet, pp. 223–234.

^47. Ronald D. Schwartz, ‘The anti-splittist campaign and Tibetan political consciousness’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet, p. 235.

^48. Kathleen Thelen, ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’, Annual Review of Political Science 2, (1999), p. 385.

^49. Jane Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2002), p. 164; Davis, ‘The quest for self-rule in Tibet’, p. 168.

^50. On post-sovereignty, see He Baogang, ‘Taiwan wenti de sanzhong fenxi fangfa’ [‘Three approaches to the Taiwan problem’], in Hao Zhidong, ed., Guojia rentong yu liang'an weilai [National Identity and the Future of Cross-Strait Relations] (Macao: University of Macau, 2008), p. 282.

^51. On the controversy of this issue, see Elliot Sperling, ‘The rhetoric of dissent: Tibetan pamphleteers’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet.

^52. Patterson, ‘China and Tibet’, p. 92.

^53. For this point, see Sperling, ‘The rhetoric of dissent’, pp. 269–272.

^54. Wang Lixiong, Dijin minzhu: Zhongguo de di santiao daolu [Incremental Democracy: The Third Way for China] (Hong Kong: Social Science Press Ltd, 2004).

^55. Karmel, ‘Ethnic tension and the struggle for order’, p. 506.

^56. Davis, ‘The quest for self-rule in Tibet’, p. 163.

^57. Hanna Havnevik, ‘The role of nuns in contemporary Tibet’, in Barnett and Akiner, eds, Resistance and Reform in Tibet, pp. 262–263.

^58. Davis, ‘The quest for self-rule in Tibet’, p. 163.

^59. Goldstein et al., ‘Development and change in rural Tibet’, p. 779.

^60. Dreyer, ‘Economic development in Tibet under the People's Republic of China’, p. 418.

^61. I owe the issues and concerns in this and the next paragraphs to an anonymous reviewer. Thanks go to him or her for raising these issues. I hope that I have addressed them fairly effectively here.

^62. Lack of trust is an indication of the identity insecurity dilemma on the part of the CCP government. For more on the identity insecurities on both sides, see Tsering Topgyal, ‘Insecurity dilemma and the Tibetan uprising in 2008’, Journal of Contemporary China 20(69), (2011), pp. 183–203.

^63. Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement, pp. 178–179.

^64. For example, see Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement, p. 174; Frechette, Tibetans in Nepal, p. xi.

^65. Donnet, Tibet Survival in Question, pp. 182–183.

^66. Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement, p. 169.

^67. Dreyer, ‘Economic development in Tibet under the People's Republic of China’, p. 419.

^68. Frechette, Tibetans in Nepal, p. 95.

^69. Frechette, Tibetans in Nepal, p. 65.

^70. For example, see Dreyer, ‘Economic development in Tibet under the People's Republic of China’, p. 423.

^71. Donnet, Tibet Survival in Question, pp. 153–157.

^72. Frechette, Tibetans in Nepal, pp. 51–52.

^73. Frechette, Tibetans in Nepal, pp. 180–183.

^74. Wang Lixiong, Sky Burial, p. 164.