The previous month has seen a great deal of unrest in Tibet. Supporters of the Dalai Lama have begun a number of protests against the Chinese regime cur­rently controlling the disputed region.

An Associated Press article from March 30, catalogued the staunch support of China by many Chinese students studying in the West. Many claim coverage of Tibetan unrest is largely biased in support of the Dalai Lama and his sup­porters.

Their grievances include the use of words such as “killing,” “burning” and “crackdown” when reporting on the events and the implication that Tibet is and should be historically and right­fully independent of China.
Are these words unfair to use if that is indeed what is going on? Are reporters bound to be truth­ful AND polite? Surely, were our current U.S. regime to silence these students by not-so-peaceful means, and the press to report unrest by calling it a “minor tiff” between two factions, the stu­dents would not be pleased.

Yet, there is no displeasure with Chinese media distortions. Much of the ideology of these students are sparked by Chinese news claims that the rioting in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, was caused by roving bands of Tibetans terror­izing the majority Han popula­tion.

In any case, these students fail to see the point. The question here is not whether Tibet should be independent (indeed, the Da­lai Lama has long supported au­tonomy for the region, not inde­pendence), but rather whether a government has the right to control the religion, culture, and will of a people.

The Chinese gov­ernment has clearly committed to stamp­ing out traditional Ti­betan Buddhism. Most recently the govern­ment has simply refused to meet with the Dalai Lama to come to a resolution. They have repeat­edly misgauged Tibetan views on the Dalai Lama, advising them, for example, not to stone or spit at the Dalai Lama or his support­ers when they visited in the 1980s (actually, the Tibetans ended up throwing themselves at the Dalai Lama’s feet, crying and praying).

China has even gone so far as to appoint their own Panchen Lama,the monk second in com­mand of the Tibetan Buddhist monastic order and primarily re­sponsible for appointing the new Dalai Lama. They have incarcer­ated the Dalai Lama’s chosen boy for that job so that when the cur­rent, 14th Dalai Lama is gone, they will be able to appoint their own.

There is clearly something amiss in the world and growing Asian Buddhist activism is obvi­ous support of this. Buddhism traditionally espoused a shunning of politics and loving kindness toward all enemies. Buddhists, especially during this century however, have taken up the flag of political activism.

Buddhism takes political turn

From Vietnamese self-immola­tion to peaceful protests in Myan­mar and Thailand, Buddhists have become politically active to a much greater extent than ever before, sometimes even using vio­lent means: The 13th Dalai Lama said, “use peaceful means where they are appropriate, but where they are not appropriate, do not hesitate to resort to more forceful means.”
Aldous Huxley once noted, “Alone among all the great world religions, Buddhism made its way without persecution, censorship or inquisition. In all these respects its record is enormously superior to other religions, which made its way among people addicted to militarism.”

What has happened that we have forced a loving religion to make a severe values choice?

With convocation speakers this year like Greg Mortenson and Granny D. Haddock, it should be no surprise that we aren’t doing enough. Mortenson should have taught us that a single, “power­less” person sometimes produces the biggest change. Haddock should have taught us that we are not subjected to the whims of our world governments, rather they must answer to us.

The U.S. has supported China over Tibet for much of the last half-century, despite an appalling human rights record and large disregard for the environment. There is probably no change in sight, unless we make it.