为什么“扶手椅革命家”憎恨西藏

现代化的拉萨今日。

为什么“扶手椅革命家”憎恨西藏（译注1）

Why Armchair Revolutionaries hate Tibet，是High Peaks Pure Earth博客（http://www.highpeakspureearch.com），对布伦丹‧奥尼尔(Brendan O'Neill)发表在《美国保守党人》杂志的文章〈为什么自由主义者热爱西藏〉('Why Liberals Love Tibet')的回应。虽然这篇文章出现在一份右翼的杂志内，然而布伦丹‧奥尼尔是现在已经停刊的《活的马克思主义》杂志（Living Marxism）的前主编，目前亦是英国卫报的专栏作家。

译者：台湾悬钩子

就 像布伦丹‧奥尼尔的白痴文章一开头就诉说了他的自白，我也以我自己的经验来起头。我自己也有一段长期在伦敦街头抗议游行的历史。事实上，比奥尼尔还久。我 的第一个街头示威的经验是反对英迪拉‧甘地在印度实施紧急状态（译注2）。自那时候开始，参加街头游行的次数我已经数不清。如果奥尼尔认为人们抗议，是因 为他们想得到别人的赞美，那么他就可悲地错了。我们游行是因为我们反对不义。

作为一个政治运动人士，我对于各种形容我们的污名非常熟悉。 当我在街上游行反对英国警方为威慑亚裔人与黑人的“截停与搜查”(Stop and Search)立法；抗议英国移民局所实行的处女膜检测（译注3），我记得当时我被形容为“黑鬼”以及“吃社会福利饭的懒虫”，还有，当我跟“解除核子武 装运动”（Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND）一起示威游行时，被形容为一个共产党人的马前卒。当我在街头游行反对南非的种族隔离政权时，我记得被形容为不了解黑人、又从来没有与他们为邻的 人。所以奥尼尔的批评没有什么新颖的地方。他只是他理论上所应痛恨的特权阶级的一部分，他的批评，只是把前人的说词伪装为一种新奇而且原创的见解。

奥 尼尔文章的主要论点，是说，亲西藏的示威者，都是对西方失望的的浪漫派，并且是由西方中产阶级构成的。世界上所有的抗议运动，都曾经被指控为过于浪漫，而且是由 中产阶级的行善者所组成的。所以这类的批评没有什么新奇的，而奥尼尔只是反刍过去的人对抗议运动的批评。环保人士与动物权的抗议人士，常常被指控为从小看 太多《小鹿斑比》、或者国家地理频道（在南非，现在他们被称为“抱小白兔者”('white bunny huggers'）。我猜测奥尼尔也会描述反对南非种族隔离政策者，是一群罗曼蒂克的中产阶级，从小抱着“玩具小黑人”长大的。以色列人常常描述亲巴勒斯 坦的运动，就是充斥着头戴彩巾的革命家那种浪漫不切实际的形象。西方国家也常常贬低“解除核子武装运动”，说他们是苏联的同路人。这种抹黑抗议者的手段， 对于压迫者与他们的盟友来说，是一种常用的策略。

而中产阶级参与抗议运动的事实，说明的是西方社会的性质，特别是英国充满阶级与种姓的社 会制度。在一个层面上，我们也许可以批评抗议者的阶级成份，但认知不义的能力并不只限于特定阶级。最偶像级的左派革命人士，切‧格瓦拉(Che Guevara)，即来自中产阶级的背景，而且本人还是个医生，这个最布尔乔亚的行业。他当时岂是将波利维亚的农民生活浪漫化？或者他真实感受到弥漫南美 社会的不公不义？为正义公理的奋斗，不受阶级的拘束；如果情况不是如此的话，那么就没有革命会真正发生。让我们看看英国的工党议员，东尼‧班(Tony Benn)的例子，因为他的家族乃属于英国的上流社会，所以他的家人也从来没有进到矿坑，脸孔漆黑地实际扛媒袋出坑的经验。这是否意谓着他对于英国工人阶 级的支持，就是因为他对于韦尔斯翠绿色山谷充满罗曼蒂克想象的缘故（译注4）？

奥尼尔文章的另外一个论点，就是支持西藏，刚好符合西方政 府的利益。如果你对于历史有任何一丁点了解，你就会知道，自从西方帝国主义进入亚洲以来，西方在处理与西藏的关系上，一直都是亲中国的。明显的是，透过西 方与西藏的来往，中国成为西方宝贵的策略伙伴。在十八与十九世纪，西方国家因为害怕沙俄的扩张，所以采取了亲中国的立场。中国被视为可以阻止沙俄入侵中亚 的方法。如果西方过去真的这么反对中国，为什么西方政府不承认蒙古与西藏的独立？蒙古在1911年宣布他们自清朝独立，可是要一直等到苏联解体后，美国才 承认蒙古是一个独立国家。同样地，西藏在1911年宣布独立时，英国不支持，也没有其他任何一个西方国家支持。在冷战期间，中国就是西方国家围堵苏联的实 质盟友。当时对许多西方知识分子而言，中国的共产主义是一种可以接受的形式，虽然事实显示，许多人逃离中国前往中亚，因为在苏联国家生活比较容易。

今 日，西方政府与跨国企业敬佩目眩于中国经济的成功。最近，意大利汽车制造商，菲亚特(Fiat)，对中国政府道歉，因为他们请知名的亲西藏美国男演员李 查‧基尔来拍广告。为了什么？谁有听说过跨国企业对独裁政权道歉的？想象如果一个西方的跨国企业对拉丁美洲的独裁者道歉？对南非的种族隔离政府道歉？就为 了他们在广告中启用了反对他们政权的名人？为什么世界知名的网络大企业，如谷歌与雅虎很高兴地遵从中国审查官的要求，而且愿意允许把网络写作者送到牢里？ 他们代表的是西方的反华势力，还是他们是为了利益而与中国政权沆瀣一气？

奥尼尔的另外一个批评是藏人与他们的友人，都是卢德派（译注 5），反对发展的人。奥尼尔不了解的是，藏人反对的性质。藏人并不是反对发展。藏人反对的性质，乃是反对殖民式的剥削与资源的掠夺。如果他小心地研究西藏 的发展与资源取用的模式，他就会了解这是经典的殖民剥削：在地的人民在发展的过程中一无所获，而殖民的政府独占了所有的利润。就拿西藏与中国之间兴建的铁 路作为例子好了；无疑这是伟大的科技成就，并且需要庞大的资金投注，但该条铁路主要的目的，乃是为了完成并巩固殖民的征服。所以，藏人为什么要支持强化他 们被殖民的发展计划？你觉得中国人对于日本人当年在满州兴建铁路是充满感恩戴德的心情吗？事实上，我的许多藏人朋友，甚至不被允许搭乘前往他们家乡的火 车。

“扶手椅革命家”如奥尼尔之流，憎恨藏人，因为我们不说他们的语言。我们举的标语上没有他们熟悉的脸孔，如切‧格瓦拉。我们不会身穿 卡基布的革命装。我们的领袖不会说他们所了解的语言，我们也不讲标准的革命语言，也不对马克思、恩格斯与其他左派尊为神明、他们所熟知的人物鞠躬。结果 是，我们对他们而言，是很奇怪的一群人。

对于西方的“扶手椅革命家”，我们呈现的是一种危险，因为我们让他们对世界的想象受到打击，因为 在他们的想象中，每个人都必须遵从西方进步与现代化的形象。对他们而言，中国就是进步的完美例子。今日，中国抛弃了自己的文化遗产，并且变成仿效代表西方 所有事物的大师，从弹钢琴到穿西装等等。在一个简单的层次上，看看衣着：中国人不喜欢穿着传统的中国服装，因为这样代表“落后”。而我们藏人仍然穿着我们 传统的服饰，所以就被视为抗拒现代化与进步的落后民族。对我们而言，这是我们拒绝投降的表征。

“扶手椅革命家”有一种固有的成见，反对任 何与宗教有关的事物，所以我们的抗议运动，起源于一个他所不熟悉的领域。他不能接受宗教的价值也可能是社会改革的一种来源。马丁‧路德‧金在美国为黑人平 等而奋斗，其内在驱迫他的价值就是基督教的价值。同样地，西藏的坚定友人，南非的戴思蒙‧图图主教，是领导信众反对种族隔离政权的人。天主教的解放神学家 （Liberation Theologists）（译注6）也是挺身反抗南美独裁者的先锋。所以，藏传佛教也可以提供争取社会正义的一种基础。奥尼尔说达赖喇嘛不是民选的，又说 达赖喇嘛是社会改革的障碍物。虽然达赖喇嘛这种制度本身没有什么民主的地方，然而在奋斗中，人们总是会寻求最能传达他们理想的代言人。截至目前为止，达赖 喇嘛提供了一种统一我们的力量，而且一直都是一位敢言敢当的人物。他过去五十年来如此为西藏的人民努力不懈，我们为什么应该舍弃他？全世界各地都有被罢黜 的国王与神职人员，他们不是跑到法国南部去定居，就是变成新世纪的宗教上师，然而达赖喇嘛却为了他所代表的人民扛起了各种责任，这就是为什么对藏人而言， 他仍然还有意义的缘故。

不管“扶手椅革命家”选择加诸在西藏抗议者身上的若干名词——树木拥抱者、斑比爱好者、搞不清楚状况的女同性恋、浪漫的嬉皮——我们知道我们属于一群被极权者蔑视的长长抗议者名单之内。“扶手椅革命家”可能是白痴，但他们对于独裁政权而言，还是有用的宫廷小丑。

译注1：扶手椅革命家是armchair revolutionaries的直译，armchair本身即有光说不练，光讲理论而不懂实务，只会批评而没有亲身参与之意。

译注2：英迪拉‧甘地的紧急状态：在1975年6月，阿拉哈巴德的印度最高法院发现英迪拉‧甘地在大选期间派一个公务员在自己的竞选阵营里服务。从技术角度来讲，该次选举应该作废。所以法院裁定她要退位并在未来六年中禁止参加选举。

英迪拉固然提出上诉，但她的政敌却咄咄逼人要求她辞职。他们在全国发起示威，示威后期演变成骚乱。人民党则劝喻警方如果被要求开枪镇压时不要执行。公众的不满、艰难的经济环境、以及反应迟钝的政府令印度的时局愈演愈烈。其后，人民包围了议会和英迪拉的居所，要求她下台。

英 迪拉随即要求总统艾哈迈德颁布国家进入紧急状态。艾哈迈德是一位属于保守派的政治人物，亦是英迪拉的忠诚伙伴，在确保了国家紧急状态的实行后，英迪拉下令 警察和军队镇压示威和骚乱，并下令逮捕反对政党的领导层。在所有印刷媒体在被信息广播大臣所控制的情况下，警察从而亦获得了无限的权力和拨款。大选则被无 限期延后，所有非执政党控制下的地方政府都被解散。（资料来源：中文维基百科）

译注3：1979年2月1日卫报报导了一位妇女在希斯洛机 场的海关，接受了“处女膜检验”。此篇报导引起众愤，接下来媒体继续发现该妇女所经历的羞辱，并非单一个案。舆论要求工党政府举行公开调查，被拒绝，接下 来上任的保守党政府也拒绝。然而监视族群关系的“种族平等委员会”（Commission for Racial Equality）采取了行动，开始对英国的移民程续进行独立调查。1985年该委员公开的调查报告，结论是英国海关对各个族群常常有偏见与成见，而处女 膜检验就是用来区别南亚新娘（特别像孟加拉国、巴基斯坦等回教国家）是否想要利用结婚作为借口来英国非法居留的方式。此报告的出炉，使得英国内政部 (Home Office)不得不承诺改进移民处理程序，朝向更公开更透明迈进。

译注4：东尼‧班（又译东尼本，东尼汴恩）是英国工党的 资深国会议员。他的祖父在1914年被授予男爵头衔，而他的父亲，则是埃塞克斯郡的史坦斯盖子爵(Stansgate Viscount)，亦曾担任英国派印度事务大臣。东尼‧班为次子，他哥哥于二战中意外死亡后，由他继承该头衔，然而他已是下议院的国会议员，他不想接受 爵位，因为这样意味他必须放弃下议院的席位，成为上议院的一员。终于在1963年的贵族法修法后，让他得以放弃该头衔。他在1974年成为哈洛德‧威尔森 （Harold Wilson）内阁里的工业事务大臣，1975年改任能源事务大臣，他是英国少数担任政府工作后左倾的政治人物。

译注 5：1811年开始在诺丁罕郡出现、之后两年遍及英格兰，捣毁织袜机、蒸汽动力织布机和剪床的卢德分子（Luddite）(港译勒德分子，其实比较接近其 发音，这里是遵从大英百科的翻译)，此名称由来是因为他们的领袖自称卢德王（King Ludd）。稍后，“损毁机器”就在英国变成可以处以极刑的罪名。1813年有十七名卢德分子在约克市(York)被处以绞刑，其他人则被运送到澳洲坐 牢。

后来泛指所有反对科技进步与科技改革的人。

译注6：解放神学是20世纪70年代以后，主要在拉丁美洲天主教界中成形的一个神学主张。其主张信仰上帝的人（即是“上帝的选民们”）应该要关注人间制度的公平正义问题，例如贫穷的世袭化、经济资源的集中在少数人手中与种族歧视问题等，这些都是解放神学所要解放的对象。

附：布伦丹‧奥尼尔的〈为什么自由主义者热爱西藏〉

反对CNN网站的翻译：http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/thread-98781-1-1.html
（注：文章的黑体字以及括弧内的注解由台湾悬钩子补充。图片选自于每日邮报。）

每当示威者赢得令人生厌的政治家，媒体，尤其是自己父母的赞誉，我都感到可疑。

1993 年，作为一个愤怒的19岁青年，我在伦敦东部参加了反对警方种族歧视的游行，近距离地面对挥舞的警棍和激动的警察。在1994年，我参加了在美国驻伦敦大 使馆外举行的愤怒集会，反对克林顿政府入侵海地。在1995年我游行反对北约轰炸波黑塞族（台湾译波斯尼亚），和1999年空袭南斯拉夫，以及2001年 入侵阿富汗。可我一次也没有得到过一个政治家拍拍后背表示赞许，或者媒体的表扬。而我的父母认为我神经失常。

现在不同了。英国23岁的自 由西藏示威者露西 Fairbrother（我译成费尔布拉德）因为在北京鸟巢外悬挂“自由西藏”横幅而被驱逐出境。8月6日，奥运会正式开幕前两天， 露西 Fairbrother和其他三个自由西藏活动家在靠近鸟巢的地方了投射一个120英尺高的光束和展示他们的旗帜，供世界媒体拍摄。一夜之间，露西，这位 霸菱银行前任董事的女儿，化身为勇敢的英雄。当她到达伦敦机场，她被大批狗仔队拦住询问她对未来中国和西藏的看法。第二天她的咧嘴而笑面部特写给报纸和网 页增添了光辉。她被形容为“勇敢”，“坚定”和“最好的英国人”。她的母亲堆满自豪的笑容，宣布: “我为她骄傲。她在做她和我都认为是正确的事情。”一般情况下，家长都反对子女参加示威，但在露西的故事中，她母亲的声音，只是震耳欲聋的支持大合唱的一 部分。

事实证明，加入到自由西藏的潮流中不仅一点也不激进，而且更谈不上进步。反之，在北京的一个旗杆顶上，或者西藏活跃分子每天聚集之地--中国驻伦敦大使馆外大喊“自由西藏！”，您将赢得银行家，编辑，甚至是查尔斯王子的掌声。查尔斯王子本人支持西藏事业，据说给露西留下了深刻的印象。（这句话译反了。原文应是：据说，露西的作为让查理王子留下深刻印象）

“自由西藏”已成为落后和反动的呼声。在整个西方，它已变成可怜的富家孩子的宠物，他们对西藏的现代化感到失望，对中国不满。对他们来说，西藏是一个神秘的游乐场，必须受到保护，才能免受邪恶势力的入侵。

虽 然这场运动带着“自由”的字眼，自由西藏的游说却很少提及西藏的政治自由。它并不要求西藏人获得投票权，或组织自己的抗议。相反，它着重于保护西藏的“ 文化完整”和僧侣的宗教自由。国际组织“自由西藏学生”(上边提到的露西就是会员之一)认为中国在西藏进行的发展建设，包括“开采自然资源”和“大型基建 项目”，将“清除中国和西藏之间现有的社会文化和政治的分歧”。高效率的活动家把中国在西藏的存在形容为“文化灭绝” ，他们把中国对【西藏】古老传统的所谓的破坏，而不是对其民主权利的剥夺，看成是真正的犯罪。这项运动不是为了西藏人民的政治自决权，而是为了保护一个存 在于西方活动家想象中的文化实体。为了示威者和观光客的利益，而让西藏停滞在某个时光。

自由西藏运动人士这种自恋本质主要表现为两方面：一是激情的反对中国在喜马拉雅王国的现代化，另外一个就是对北京拒绝让达赖喇嘛重返西藏并就任“合法的”领导人愤愤不平。

自 由西藏活动家花费了很多精力来反对任何具有现代气息的事物，尤其是中国人的工作，工业和基础设施。他们正为中国建设格尔木-拉萨铁路线焦虑不安，这个壮观 的雄心勃勃的计划将使火车能从中国的心脏一直开到西藏。显然这是一种对藏人生活方式的威胁，在舒适的西方人和有钱的银行家女儿的眼里，西藏是非常简单和质 朴的，而且必须保持下去。

与此同时，运动人士对达赖喇嘛不加疑问的支持也说明他们把西藏人民看成是尚未成熟的民族，需要一个神一样的人物 来引导他们。达赖喇嘛从来不是由民选产生的。事实上，有些见地的作家认为， 强大的西方人和许多西藏人自身对达赖喇嘛的盲目崇拜，阻碍了民主的发展。在她的书《“西藏的独立”运动》，Jane Ardley写道，“很明显，达赖喇嘛的至高无上的精神权威的角色正是阻碍民主化的政治进程的原因。认为他从精神角度来说占领着道德高地（度），就意味着对他的政治权威的任何挑战都可能会被解释为反宗教。”

不仅不会带来自由，自由西藏活跃分子而是要把西藏变为博物馆，一块远离现代化的土地。不仅不会实现民主，西藏活动家卑躬屈膝的崇拜达赖喇嘛，有利于扼杀“反对和表达不同意见的机会”，就象Jane Ardley后来写的。 而“反（对）和表达不同意见”乃是民主的命脉。

西 藏一直以来都是某些人的玩物，这些人对现代世界感到失望。自从1933年詹姆斯希尔顿在他的“消失的地平线”一书中，把西藏描绘为“香格里拉”之后，它就 被滥用了。西藏象征着一个理想化的善良和纯洁之地，充满高贵和风雅的元素。西方人不喜欢西方世界变化的步伐，认定西藏是一个自然，没有政治的地方。 在他1991年出版的“神圣的西藏“书中，Philip Rawson写道: “西藏文化为西方以自我为中心的生活方式、我们的健忘（注意力的短暂）、还有我们越来越没有意义的对物质满足的追求，提供了一个强大的、未经玷污的和协调 的替代品。”

如今，西藏爱好者的驱动力并非来自藏人的政治声援，也肯定不是关于充分民主平等的积极讨论，而是一种对西方生活的厌恶感。用Rawson的话说，就是“西方人感到缺乏自我” ，旨在找到在表面上保留“纯粹东方”的满足（想在表面上维持“纯綷的东方”里寻求满足）。 具有讽刺意味的是，自由西藏活动带有殖民主义的色彩（倾向）：有钱的西方人追求感情上的占领。（有钱的西方人追求情绪上的满足）

在这个简单的世界里，西藏总是好的，而中国永远是坏的。如Donald S. Lopez Jr. 在“香格里拉的囚徒：藏传佛教和西方”一书中辩称，许多西方人把中国在西藏形容为“众多相似的无信仰的共产党人横行于一个和平的仙境般的土地”，西方人希望西藏人是“上等人”（超人），而中国人是“下等人”（次人） ，这样的妖魔化非常符合许多西方政府和媒体的的议程（目的）。因此，崇拜（赞美）围绕着Fairebrother女士（小姐）和她的朋友们，他们可以恭喜自己(因此得以沾沾自喜)。他们不只是白痴。他们是有用的白痴。

两篇原文

Why American Revolutionaries hates Tibet
By High Peaks Pure Earth

This is an original feature by High Peaks Pure Earth in response to Brendan O’Neill’s article titled, 'Why Liberals Love Tibet', published in the American Conservative. Although the article appeared in a right wing magazine, Brendan O’Neill was the former editor of the now defunct magazine Living Marxism and is currently a columnist for the British paper The Guardian.

As Brendan O’Neill began his idiotic piece with a confession, let me begin with one of my own. I too have a long history of marching on the streets of London. In fact, longer then O’Neill. I first joined protests against Indira Gandhi’s imposition of emergency laws in India. Since then I have lost count. If O’Neill thinks people protest because they desire a pat on the back, he is sadly mistaken. We march because we are opposed to injustice.

As a political activist, I am familiar with all the adjectives that are dished out against us. When I marched against the Stop and Search laws that were imposed by the British police to intimidate Asians and Blacks; protested against the virginity tests imposed by the British immigration services, I remember being described as a wog and a social security scrounger, and, when marching with the CND, being described as an agent of the Communists. When marching against the Apartheid regime, I remember being told that I did not understand the blacks and had never lived amongst them. So there is nothing new in O’Neill’s criticism. He is part of the privileged class that he is supposed to despise, which fashions cliché as a novel and original insight.

The main point of O’Neill’s piece is to say that the pro-Tibetan protesters are disillusioned romantics and made up of the western middle class. All protest movements in the world have been accused of being romantic and composed of middle class do-gooders. So, there is nothing new in this kind of criticism and O’Neill is merely regurgitating criticism that is most commonly leveled against any protest movement. The environmentalists and animal rights protesters are often accused of being romantic as a result of being brought up watching Bambi and viewing too many National Geographic programs (in South Africa they are now called ‘white bunny huggers’). I guess O’Neill would have described anti-apartheid protesters as romantic middle class being brought up hugging “golliwogs” during childhood. The Israelis often describe the pro-Palestinian movement as imbued with romantic images of revolutionaries in colourful headgear. The Western powers often disparaged the CND movement as an agent of Soviet Union. Such attempt to denigrate protesters is a common strategy of oppressors and their allies.

The fact that the middle classes engage in protest movements speaks more of the nature of Western society and particularly of Britain’s 化class and caste ridden social structure. At one level we might criticize the class origin of protesters but the ability to recognize injustice is not bound by class. The most iconic of all revolutionaries, Che Guevara, came from a middle class background and was a doctor, the most bourgeois profession of all. Was he romanticising the lives of the Bolivian peasants or had he recognised the injustice that permeates South American societies? The fight for justice cannot be bonded by class loyalty; if this were the case, no revolution would ever have taken place. Let’s take the case of the remarkable Tony Benn in Britain, since his family originated from high echelons of British society and have never crawled into the mine pits and blackened their faces from carrying sacks of coal. Does this mean that his support for the working class of Britain is imbued with romantic visions of the green valleys of Wales?

Another point O’Neill makes is that the Tibetan cause serves the interest of Western governments. If one has a modicum of understanding of history, one would know that since Western Imperialist penetrations into Asia, the West has also been pro-China in its relations with Tibet. It is evident that through Western interaction with Tibet, China has been a valuable strategic ally of the West. In the 18th & 19th centuries, Western powers adopted a pro-China stance because of fears of Tsarist Russia. China was seen as a means of countering Tsarist expansion in Central Asia. If the West was so anti-China, why did the Western Governments not recognise the independence of Mongolia and Tibet? Mongolia declared independence in 1911 from the Qing Empire and it was only after the collapse of Soviet Union that the Americans recognised Mongolia. Similarly, when Tibet declared independence in 1911 it did not have the support of the British nor of other Western powers. During the Cold War period, China was the de-facto ally of Western powers against the Soviet Union. For many Western intellectuals, China was the acceptable face of Communism. Despite the fact there were people fleeing from China to Soviet Central Asia, because life was better in the Soviet Union.

Today, Western governments and businesses are enamoured by the success of China’s economy. Recently, Fiat the Italian car company made an apology to the Chinese government for using well-known pro-Tibet American actor Richard Gere in its commercials. What for? Who has heard of a multi-national company making an apology to an authoritarian regime? Imagine if a Western multi-national company made an apology to a Latin American dictator or the Apartheid regime for using well-known opponents of the regime in its commercials. Why is it that major Internet companies, such as Google and Yahoo are happy to oblige the Chinese censors and are willing to allow bloggers to be sent to jail? Do they represent anti-Chinese forces in the West or are they allies of the Chinese regime for profit?

Another point Mr. O’Neill makes is that the Tibetans and their allies are Luddites, opposed to development. What O’Neill fails to understand is the nature of the opposition. Tibetans are not opposed to development. The essence of Tibetan opposition is about colonial exploitation and resource extraction. If he read carefully and studied the pattern of development and resource extraction in Tibet, it is classic colonial exploitation, where the people of the land are left disadvantaged and the colonial authority usurps the profit. Take for example the building of the railway link between Tibet and China; no doubt this is a great technological accomplishment and required huge investment but the primary aim of the railway was for the accomplishment and consolidation of colonial conquest. So, why should Tibetans support developments that strengthen their own subjugation? Do you think the Chinese are grateful to the Japanese for building the railway in Manchuria? In fact many of my Tibetan friends are not even allowed to board the train to their homeland.

Armchair revolutionaries like O’Neill hate the Tibetans because we do not speak their language. We do not carry placards with faces they know, like Che Guevara. We do not adorn ourselves with Khaki revolutionary uniforms. Our leaders speak in a language they do not understand, we do not espouse textbook revolutionary speak, and bow down to figures like Marx, Engels and others god like figures that are familiar to them. Therefore, we are alien.

For Western armchair revolutionaries, we present a danger because we destabilize their image of the world, where everyone must conform to the old fashioned western image of progress and modernity. For them China is a perfect example of progress. Today, China has discarded its heritage and become a master at emulating all things that represent the west, from learning to play the piano or wearing suits. At a simple level, look at the mode of dress, no Chinese would be seen dead in anything resembling traditional Chinese attire, which to them indicates “backwardness”. Whilst, we Tibetans cling to wearing our traditional clothes which is seen as a sign of resisting modernity and progress. For us, it is a mark of our refusal to surrender.

The armchair revolutionary has inherent prejudice against anything to do with religion and so our protest movement stems from unfamiliar territory. He cannot accept that religious values can be a source of social change. Martin Luther King’s fight for justice for black people in America was impelled by his Christian values. Similarly, the staunch ally of Tibet, Desmond Tutu of South Africa lead his fight against Apartheid regime. The Catholic Liberationist theologians were the forefront of opposition to South American dictators. So, Tibetan Buddhism can also provide a basis for the fight for social justice. O’Neill quoted that the Dalai Lama is not elected and claims that the Dalai Lama is an obstacle for social change. Whilst it is true there is nothing democratic about the institution and authority of the Dalai Lama, in any struggle the people allow what is most conducive to their struggle. At present, the Dalai Lama provides a unifying strength for our cause and has been an able-spoken person. Why should we abandon him when he has served the Tibetan people well for the past five decades? There are masses of disposed Kings and pontiffs around the world, they have retired to the South of France or established themselves as new age gurus but the Dalai Lama has shouldered the responsibility for the people whom he represents, this is precisely the reason that he continues to have meaning for the Tibetan people.

Whatever labels armchair revolutionaries choose to inflict on Tibet protestors - tree huggers, Bambi lovers, woolly-hatted lesbians, romantic hippies - we know we are in a long line of protesters belittled by the powerful. Armchair revolutionaries can be idiots, but they are always useful court jesters to authoritarian regimes.

Why liberals love Tibet
By Brendan O’Neill

Whenever a protester wins the fulsome praise of politicians, the media, and especially the radical’s own mother and father, I get suspicious.

In 1993, as an angry 19-year-old, I marched against police racism in East London, coming nose-to-nose with truncheon-wielding, hot-blooded coppers. In 1994, I joined an irate throng outside the American Embassy in London to register my opposition to Clinton’s invasion of Haiti. I also marched against NATO’s bombing of the Bosnian Serbs in 1995, its air assault on Yugoslavia in 1999, and its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Not once did I receive a pat on the back from a politician or sycophantic coverage in a sympathetic broadsheet. As for my parents, they thought I was certifiably off my rocker.

How different it has been for Lucy Fairbrother, the British 23-year-old Free Tibet protester who was deported from Beijing after hanging a banner reading “Tibet will be free” outside the Bird’s Nest stadium. On Aug. 6, two days before the Olympic Games kicked off, Fairbrother and three other Free Tibet activists scaled 120-foot-tall lighting poles close to the stadium and unfurled their banner for the clicking cameras of the world media. Overnight, Lucy—the daughter of a former director of Barings Bank—was transformed into a plucky hero. Upon her arrival at London City Airport, she was snapped by swarms of paparazzi and asked for her views on the future of China and Tibet. Her grinning mug shot graced the pages of every newspaper the following day, where she was described as “brave,” “committed,” and the “best of British.” Her mother beamed with pride. “I’m so proud of her. She is doing what she feels is right, and what I feel is right,” she declared. Normally, parental approval would sound the death knell to the career of any self-respecting protester, yet in the Tale of Lucy Fairbrother, her mother’s voice merely joined the deafening chorus of approval.

This should confirm that there is nothing remotely radical, much less progressive, about jumping on the Free Tibet bandwagon. Instead, yelling “Free Tibet!” from the top of a pole in Beijing or outside the Chinese Embassy in London, where Free Tibet activists gather every day, will win you a round of applause from bankers, editors, and even Prince Charles, a supporter of the Tibet cause who is reportedly impressed by the Fairbrother girl.

“Free Tibet” has become the cry of the backward and the reactionary. Across the West, it has been turned into the pet cause of poor little rich girls (and boys) who feel disillusioned with modernity and cynical about China and for whom Tibet has become a mystical playground that must be protected from the evil forces of progress.

Though the campaign has the word “free” in its title, the Free Tibet lobby has little to say about political freedom in Tibet. It rarely demands that Tibetans be granted the right to vote or organize their own protests. Instead, it focuses on protecting the “cultural integrity” of Tibet and the religious freedom of its Buddhist monks. Students for a Free Tibet, an international group of which Lucy Fairbrother is a member, frets that Chinese development in Tibet—including its “extraction of natural resources” and its “large-scale infrastructure projects”—will “erase existing socio-cultural and political divisions between China [and Tibet].” Tellingly, activists refer to China’s presence in Tibet as a form of “cultural genocide,” where the alleged hampering of ancient practices, rather than the denial of democratic rights, is the real crime. This is a campaign not for political self-determination for the people of Tibet but for the protection of a cultural entity imagined and reified by Western activists. It is about maintaining Tibet in a time warp for the benefit of protesters cum eco-tourists.

The essentially narcissistic focus of Free Tibet campaigners is revealed in their two main obsessions: passionate opposition to China’s modernization of the Himalayan kingdom and outrage that Beijing will not allow the Dalai Lama to return and assume his “rightful” position as Tibet’s leader.

Free Tibet activists expend much of their energy campaigning against anything that smells modern—especially Chinese jobs, industry, and infrastructure. They are currently agitated by China’s construction of the Gormo-Lhasa rail line, a spectacularly ambitious project that will allow trains to run from the heart of China into Tibet. Apparently such things are a threat to Tibetans’ way of life, which—in the eyes of comfortable Westerners and the daughters of rich bankers—is honorably simple and rustic, and must be kept so.

At the same time, Western campaigners’ unquestioning support for the Dalai Lama suggests they see Tibetans as an immature people who need a godlike figure to lead them. The Dalai Lama was never elected by anybody. Indeed, some perceptive writers argue that the idolization of the Dalai Lama, by both powerful Westerners and many Tibetans themselves, has impeded the development of democracy. In her book The Tibetan Independence Movement, Jane Ardley writes, “[It] is apparent that it is the Dalai Lama’s role as ultimate spiritual authority that is holding back the political process of democratization. The assumption that he occupies the correct moral ground from a spiritual perspective means that any challenge to his political authority may be interpreted as anti-religious.”

Far from assisting the emergence of freedom, Free Tibet activists want to preserve Tibet as a museum, to keep it as a land cut off from modernity. And far from bringing democracy to Tibet, the activists’ slavish worship of the Dalai Lama has helped to stifle, as Ardley further writes, “the opportunity for opposition and expression of different views,” the very lifeblood of the democratic way.

Tibet has long been the plaything of people disillusioned with the modern world. Since James Hilton wrote Lost Horizon in 1933, in which Tibet was depicted as “Shangri-la,” it has been used and abused, turned into an idealized land of goodness and purity by aristocratic and artistic elements in the West who despise the pace of change over here and like the idea of a natural, politics-free land “over there.” In his 1991 book Sacred Tibet, Philip Rawson wrote, “Tibetan culture offers powerful, untarnished and coherent alternatives to Western egotistical lifestyles, our short attention span, our gradually more pointless pursuit of material satisfactions.”

The driving force behind Tibetophilia today is not political solidarity with the Tibetans and certainly not any positive argument for full democratic equality, but rather a sense of disgust with Western life. In Rawson’s words, “the West perceives some lack within itself” and seeks to find fulfilment in the ostensibly preserved “pure East.” Ironically, then, Free Tibet activism has a colonial bent to it: wealthy Westerners pursuing emotional occupation.

In this simple world, Tibet is always good and China is always bad. As Donald S. Lopez Jr. argues in Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West, many Westerners talk of the Chinese in Tibet as “an undifferentiated mass of godless Communists overrunning a peaceful land devoted only to ethereal pursuits” and come to see Tibetans as “superhuman” and the Chinese as “subhuman.” That demonization fits well with the agenda of many Western governments and media outlets. Hence the adoration heaped on Ms. Fairbrother and her friends, who can congratulate themselves. They are not just idiots. They are useful idiots.

照片上的女孩子，正是被布伦丹‧奥尼尔讥讽的露西，她在北京鸟巢外悬挂“自由西藏”横幅而被驱逐出中国。第二张照片上，她在拉萨。