March 10, 2004

OP Columnist

There are some peo-
ple in this world who

 

are so idolized, wor-
shipped, and respect-
ed that criticism of them becomes
almost unthinkable. It is difficult,
for example, to criticize Nelson
Mandela without looking like a pro-
apartheid racist, or to criticize
Ghandi without appearing indiffer-
ent to the” excesses of British
Imperialism. Criticism; however, is a
necessary part of the political
process, and there is something
decidedly undemocratic about polit-
ical figures who are deemed to be
“above” criticism by their support-
ers.

Perhaps one of the most promi-
nent examples of a man who is often
regarded as being “above” criticism
is His Excellency, the Dalai Lama of
Tibet. The Dalai Lama is of course
the spiritual leader of the Tibet
Buddhists, and widely regarded as a
prominent leader of all Buddhists
worldwide. He is also an immensely
popular global figure, the winner of
the Noble Peace Prize, and generally
a man who can command the atten-
tion of politicians and activists the
world over. When it was announced
a few weeks ago that he was coming
to Vancouver, Universities began
busily preparing banquets in his
honour, while tickets for his speech
sold out almost _ instantly.
Somewhere, amidst all this hype, a
small voice must ask “why?”

I have honestly never fully been
able to understand the appeal of the
Dalai Lama—especially his enor-
mous appeal to members of the left.
I would go so far as to allege that his
following among lefties is equal to,
or even greater to, those who follow
him on a strictly religious basis.
After all, Buddhists are not a major-
ity in Vancouver, so the appeal has
to come from somewhere else.

From a literal point of view, His

= # * ®
; -
s e *
* s ’
+ % e
«16 ° ‘
a ‘ 5

 

 

 

J.J. McCullough

Holiness seems to have little in com-
mon with those on the political left.
The Dalai Lama is a religious figure,
and the left embraces secularism and
atheism, The Dalai Lama holds his
position by divine right, and liberals
champion democratic equality. He
considers homosexuality a sin, and
condemns abortion, so he’s hardly a
social liberal. He’s far from being
anti-capitalist, what with his movie
star lifestyle and vast line of books
and merchandise.

His Serene Majesty was even a
paid asset of the lefts much-hated
CIA during the 1960 invasion of
Tibet by Communist China. How
then did this man, who embodies
may of the values the left claims to
oppose, get to be so universally
adored by liberals across the planet?
The Pope does and says a lot of the
same things as the Dalai Lama, but
the anarcho-socialist set isn’t exactly
hanging his posters in their dorm
rooms.

Part of the appeal is the simple
fact that the Dalai Lama’s story is so
fundamentally simple to under-
stand—or at least can be presented
in a simple way. Here we have this
poor, kindly old man who got
kicked out of his country and now
must wander the Earth seeking assis-
tance for his oppressed legions of
robe-wearing subjects. There don't
appear to be a whole lot of complex-
ities.

The Dalai Lama is a cheerful man
who speaks about peace and happi-
ness, while the Chinese are brutal,
militaristic sadists. True, they might
be Communists, but no everyone
knows they're not true socialists.
Over the years the far left has will-
ingly aligned itself with many
unpleasant characters, such as Ho
Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Daniel
Ortega, and various other thugs and
tyrants. The Dalai Lama is thus the
perfect antithesis to such dema-

 

The Dalai Lama—So What?

gogues. He is spiritual, friendly, and
most of all—powerless.

There has always been a sort of
strange, often patronizing, fascina-
tion of the left with the third world.
Unable to apply their failed ideolo-
gies and policies to western coun-
tries, underdeveloped nations are
increasingly looked to as potential
“good examples” to embody the
socialist dream. There can be little
doubt that this is where much of the
left’s fascination with Tibet comes
from. Tibet, this hermit kingdom of
sandal-wearing monks and _ rice
farmers is a land pure and
untouched by western thoughts and

was once Tibet. It is a Buddhist
country, ruled by a deeply spiritual
and ancient Buddhist monarchy,
and proclaims itself to be among
one of the most humble and peace-
ful nations on Earth. According to
the Freedom House human rights
group, it is also one of the most
oppressive nations on Earth. People
in Bhutan have no rights, no free-
dom, and no democracy. Their
country is an authoritarian king-
dom, run by an oppressive king and
his small clique of advisors. Freedom
of religion is obviously not allowed,
for the country is essentially a theoc-
racy, in which Buddhism is the only
faith deemed acceptable by the state.

In Bhutan, red-and-yellow robes
are not just quirky ethnic garb, but

Opinions © the other press ©

CAP Right Hook

so they can practice “their” faith,
presumably to the exclusion of all
others. The Dalai Lama does not say
he hopes to be elected President of
Tibet—he expects to be made King
automatically, by

birthright.

nature of his

At a time in which this world is
trying to embrace tolerance, and
teach all peoples of earth to look
past their minor differences, do we
really need to be supporting the cre-
ation of yet another hegemonic
theocracy?

Of course, my intention in writ-
ing this article is not to slander the
character of the Dalai Lama. He is
an honourable, kind man who con-
sistently preaches a message of peace
even in times of conflict and uncer-

 

 

ideology. This is a place where peo-
ple live in perfect collectivist harmo-
ny, living utopian lives of spiritual
fulfillment and egalitarian co-opera-
tion. If only we could “Free” Tibet
from the Chinese, this lovely utopia
could once again become a reality.
Or so the logic goes. Of course, if
real life were any indication, a
“freed” Tibet ruled by the Dalai
Lama would be far from a beacon of
socialistic paradise.

Bhutan is a small country that
borders China and the territory that

 

oe
basal

CRITICS

http://www. filibustercartoons.com

 

mandatory dress for all male citi-
zens, who must conform and sur-
render themselves the ruling ideolo-
gy. Ethnic and religious minorities
are routinely beaten and persecuted.
The country, in short, is a poor,
backwards, intolerant feudal state in
which religious and cultural hege-
mony are forcibly imposed in order
for the state to fit its own rigid defi-
nitions. Would a free Tibet be much
different than Bhutan? There is little
reason to believe this. The Dalai
Lama wants a state for “his” people

Ahh, nothing like
regulating people's
ah ee Coe

eh shnookums?

http://www.otherpress.cae

tainty. The problem is, the left is not
actually in love with the real Dalai
Lama. They are not in love with an
ex-CIA asset who wants to regain his
status as an absolute monarch so he
can rule a tiny country according to
his socially conservative theocratic
principles. Rather, they are in love
with an idealized version of a
nomadic political exile who needs
smart western liberals to tell him
what to do.

The true appeal of the Dalai
Lama is rooted in the left’s patroniz-
ing love for oppressed peoples in
foreign lands who can then be
adapted for tools of their own agen-
da. In another time we would have
called this sort of attitude “oriential-
ism,” and recognized it for the shal-
low and exploitative opportunism
that it is.

The Dalai Lama’s time has come
and gone. People concerned with
human rights and democracy should
fight for a liberated China, not the
breaking up of the county into
a few backwards tribal-states. Let
the man continue to preach his
messages of peace and tolerance, but
we shouldn't feel obligated to lavish
praise and honours upon him just
because he has a funny robe and a
sad story to tell.

 

How did I
get here?

 

Cartoon by J.J. McCullough

Page 9