Difference between autonomy and independence

While it is important to protect cherished rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, it is imperative to ask how to move from a nation with none of these protections to a nation that enforces these rights. It is meaningless to have symbolic reference to these rights if they do not translate to improved quality of lives.

Here we have China which represents a unique opportunity to turn an oppressive state in poverty into a nation with democracy and free rights, plus all good things capitalism brings. The focus then should be on the process of implementing democracy and rights protection. There is no doubt that everyone desires the highest form of individual autonomy, but everyone also disagrees about the cost for such exchange. There is well-grounded fear that there may be too much of a good thing too fast – If we turn to Iraq, it is not difficult to understand why scepticism accompanies any international effort of “nation rebuilding.” On whose terms should the process of nation building be? Is there simply a one-size-fit-all Westernized “democracy”? Would lives be worse off after the imposed “democracy”?

In the midst of Canadian protestors being arrested for their Tibetan freedom movement, I can’t help but wonder what Canadians think about our own situation with Quebec fighting for autonomy. Do we really believe that Quebec is any different from Tibet, simply because we have given Quebec democracy and rights protection? Wasn’t Quebec (or Lower Canada) "occupied" at one point in time? If given enough time and patience, do we really think Tibet is incapable of developing special autonomy within a stronger nation of China? If we imposed independence on Tibet, who is the biggest benefactor – the Tibetan people or some other countries with a stake in seeing China’s nation-building effort turn sour? If Tibet is granted independence, then what about Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau which are already special administrative regions/ self-declared independent nation? A similar debate is happening in Hong Kong, where its governor are appointed rather than generally elected. No one wants to argue for complete independence for Hong Kong, however, because the implication could spell significant economic disadvantage despite greater autonomy. The debate now focuses on how to build a nation within a nation, giving regards to all the distinct characteristics of “Hong Kong” as an autonomous region.

Interestingly, the Dalai Lama has publicly explained that freedom for Tibet do not translate to independence per se. What the Tibetan people want are the freedoms to practice religion, free speech and special autonomy for their distinct culture and an implicit desire for peace, prosperity and stability. An internationally imposed independence not only risks all these objectives but carries no regards for the input of the indigenous people into its own nation-building process. If we truly cherish and respect the wish of the Tibetan people, a nation-building exercise must be developed within and by the Tibetan people on their own terms. Unfortunately, dissenting voices like mine are not popular (and not supported) by the westernized global media. This is only further compounded by the lack of freedom of press within China. If the Chinese government wishes to develop a more balanced support for its position, it should allow freedom of press in order for moderate western reporters to develop their own opinions from within the nation.

If Canadians are generally supportive of the idea of an independent Tibet, why are we so aghast about the idea of an autonomous Quebec? Perhaps these two examples aren’t entirely comparable, for Quebec has been “occupied” against its will for more than a century (if not longer) while Tibet has been occupied for merely half a century. Quebec, by comparison, has been integrated much more thoroughly in terms of language, culture and economy. Nonetheless, if we examine our own fear about a potential Quebec seccession and a Canadian nation that is not geographically united, we may be able to understand the Chinese government’s fear of political and economic vulnerability (to Russia, India, Mongolia for example) brought on by an independent Tibet. All this of course is my own speculation, and we will never know how the Chinese really feel until there is a medium for uncensored political discourse.