Thanks to Op Ed News for having the courage to carry my article A Buddhist Struggles to Stay Grounded on Tibet and China http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_keith_mo_080324_a_buddhist_struggles.htm It must have come as an upsetting read for many people, but others - or the same people - have also found it to have a 'ring of truth' as somebody put it.
Since I wrote it I have come across other interesting analyses and some reproaches from fellow Buddhists, so this follow-up article is an update-compilation on one Buddhist's continuing struggles to stay balanced on this 'Tibet-China issue' (which by the way some might see as the same as saying California-US or Scotland-UK issue, not Canada-US or Republic of Ireland-UK).
First I'll pass on several of the more political analyses: then towards the end reply to some more or less well-deserved criticism from fellow Buddhists.
1) A friend who monitors the think-tanks of the powerful sent me the following very important 1998 analysis currently being strongly promoted by the (neo-liberal and 'realist') Council for Foreign Relations, which I usually disagree with strongly! "
The Dalai Lama's Dilemma
Summary: The Dalai Lama's international campaign against China has pushed Beijing to modernize Tibet, resulting in an influx of non-Tibetans seeking economic opportunity. If the Dalai Lama wants to preserve Tibet as a homeland, he must either acquiesce in violence by militants or compromise. He will resist either course, so the United States should facilitate negotiations. Full autonomy is out, but the Dalai Lama can obtain a greater emphasis on the Tibetan language and a larger number of positions for Tibetans in the administration.
Melvyn C. Goldstein is John Reynolds Harkness Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Center for Research on Tibet at Case Western Reserve University. His most recent book is The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama, from which this essay is adapted."
I found this article tremendously helpful in getting a sense of the moves and counter-moves of both/various sides over recent decades. I hope Melvyn's Goldstein's essay helps us all to understand the situation in greater depth, even if we may agree to differ on which actions, appeals and petitions we think helpful to support and which may do more harm than good. In my view the more support the well-meaning liberals of the 'non-violent' West give to the Tibetans, the more pleased will be the neocons (as opposed to neo-liberals and realists) who would like nothing better than to have the current destabilisation continuing indefinitely.