对中西方在涉藏问题上认知偏差的几点认识

■ 吴楚

对中西方在涉藏问题上认知偏差的几点认识

■ 吴楚

一、中西方在涉藏问题上认知偏差的表现

重点是三个方面：

第一，关于主权问题。西藏是中国一部分，涉及中国的核心利益。同时也早已为国际社会所承认，过去态度比较模糊的有两个，一是印度，一是英国，特别是英国，一直宣称中国对西藏只拥有宗主权，直到2008年10月，英国外交大臣米利班德发表声明，明确承认西藏是中华人民共和国一部分，英国过去的政策是“时代错误”。然而，西方学术、民间、媒体的态度却又是另一番景象，大多是在附和达赖集团的主张，宣扬“西藏是一个独立国家，1950年后被中共政权占领” 。

第二，关于人权问题。西方国家政府近年来的一个基本表态是，“明确承认西藏是中国的一部分，同时也关注西藏的人权状况。”中国人的认识是，1959年西藏民主改革之前，长期实行政教合一的封建农奴制度，占人口95%的藏民由于是农奴，连基本的生产资料和人身自由都没有。通过民主改革，百万农奴真正成为自己命运的主宰，成为国家的主人。然而，西方政界和公众长期在西藏人权问题上与中国纠缠，并有两个突出的观念，一是西藏在过去由达赖喇嘛统治时期，是一个宗教信仰虔诚、社会和谐安宁的香格里拉；另一个观点是中共政权控制西藏后人权状况恶化，特别是本民族语言、文化、宗教信仰受到压制，至今如此。

第三，关于达赖喇嘛问题。1995年以后中国政府明确指出，达赖是图谋“西藏独立”的分裂主义政治集团的总头子，国际反华势力的忠实工具，在西藏制造社会动乱的总根源，阻挠建立藏传佛教正常秩序的最大障碍，并认为达赖早已无权代表西藏和西藏人民。然而西方人则普遍认为，达赖喇嘛是慈悲、非暴力、有智慧的，也是世界性的宗教领袖，中国政府只有和这位全体藏族人信仰的、藏人利益的代表进行谈判，才能从根本上解决“西藏问题”。

二、强烈认知差异的思想文化背景

中西方在涉藏问题上为什么存在如此强烈对立的认知差异。最重要、最核心的原因是以美国为首的西方把涉藏问题作为对中国进行丑化、牵制的一张牌。其次，是由于达赖集团几十年来对境外藏胞的仇恨教育和对世界的欺骗宣传。以上两条是比较明确和公认的。此文则着重探讨一下对这种认知差异背后的思想文化背景的思考。笔者认为，西方思想文化中几个重要方面对其在涉藏问题上的认知影响较大：

第一，西方民族国家理论。西方特别是欧洲国家历史上各城邦、封建领地之间的分权、自治是一种常态。资产阶级革命后，成立单一民族国家是常态，对于多民族国家则多采取自治和民族自决的办法，认为一个国家拆分成几个国家是正常现象，西藏意愿与中国在一起或是选择分离，是其民族的权利，也是正常现象。而中国人看来，中国的历史是由多民族共同创造的，是多元一体格局，并且形成了强烈的大一统理念，近代又遭受列强入侵，对于国家统一、民族团结看得比任何事情都重，绝不会容忍西藏的分离。

第二，宗主权理论。在西方学术和公众眼中，中国历史上是一个帝国体系，特别是元、清两代更是典型的帝国，与奥斯曼帝国、沙皇俄国等类似，是建立在军事统治和民族压迫基础上的，因而他们更愿意把中国想象成是满洲、蒙古、西藏、东土耳其斯坦和汉人中原的拼凑体，中国历史上对西藏最多只拥有宗主权，到了近代，这种帝国的瓦解是社会发展的必然，而二战后中国对西藏拥有主权的主张得到国际社会公认，也是由于雅尔塔体系对战后国际政治格局的利益安排以及后来中共强权入侵的结果。在这种认识下，达赖喇嘛提出通过与中国政府谈判以实现西藏“高度自治”，在西方一些人眼里不仅符合对这种宗主权的历史回忆，而且简直就是慈悲的达赖喇嘛为了减轻西藏人民所受痛苦所采取的巨大让步和智慧之举。

第三，“东方主义”传统。所谓“东方主义”，简单地说就是西方人一方面将其他文明看作是观察、研究的对象，另一方面却又按照自身的逻辑重构其他文明的形象。东方主义在涉藏问题上最突出的表现就是把过去的西藏想象为一个和平、自由、没有阶级、不分贵贱、非物质的人间净土。根据国内有关专家的研究，达赖喇嘛也在国外很卖力地、巧妙地“自我东方化”，不但将西方人对西藏的精心设计照单全收，而且还自我设计、乃至窜改西藏的传统，以迎合西方人对西藏的想象和热望。不管西方人对现实的西藏有多少的了解，西藏都是他们心中的最爱，“西藏问题”牵涉了当今世界上几乎所有最重要的“话语”，如人权、博爱、和平、环保、非暴力、文化传统的延续、男女平等、宗教自由、民族、文化自决等等。对于西方人来说，“西藏问题”是一个立场问题，事关政治正确与不正确，对于西藏的立场和态度表明你是否是一个先进和开明的现代人。在这种情况下，不管是我们大张旗鼓地宣传西藏现代化建设取得的巨大成就，还是言辞激烈地批判达赖及其追随者分裂中国的狼子野心，都因为和西方主流的“西藏话语”背道而驰而多半是对牛弹琴，得不到西方受众的理解和支持。

三、两点启示

1．对涉藏问题的长期性、复杂性要有充分的估计。由于有这种思想文化背景的差异，使得西方政客对西藏的政治算计有了文化、道义和舆论上的基础，使得西方公众、媒体、政界对于涉藏问题的偏见根深蒂固，这种偏见不会轻易随着中国实力的上升和与西方关系改善而迅速消失。当前西方对中国快速发展的防范遏制心理在上升，他们不仅害怕中国经济、军事实力的强大，更害怕中国模式的成功，而中国模式也包括中国人的天下观，解决民族、宗教问题的智慧和办法，从这个意义上讲，西方一些人是不愿意让中国治理西藏的模式在世界上获得好名声的。有关专家早就指出，以西方的民族主义理论看待中国对西藏的主权具有潜在的不确定性，主权的一个关键要素是国际政治承认，但在当代国际社会环境格局下，主权承认的政治从来不是稳定不变的政治，西方国家起先也按照国际法承认南斯拉夫的主权，但随着形势的变化，他们很快打破国际法规则，理直气壮地对南斯拉夫进行肢解。从这个意义上讲，我们对所谓国际上承认西藏是中国一部分、不与“西藏流亡政府”发生官方联系的表态也不必太在意、太当真。承认不承认又能怎样，西藏照样是中国一部分，照样在不断发展。就是承认了，也没见西方减少对达赖集团的支持，更不能排除一旦形势变化西方转眼放弃在涉藏问题上的所谓承诺，对此绝不能有任何幻想。

2．应全方位加强学术和思想文化的交流。当前国际学术界对于“东方主义”等在研究中国和涉藏问题上的局限性、虚伪性已经有了一定的反思和批判，我们也应以更开放、更自信的姿态加大国际交流，以扩大这种声音，进而影响国际舆论和西方公众、媒体。特别是要加强国际藏学的交流，在藏学界起到平衡和引导作用，扭转国际社会对西藏历史、文化和现实进行香格里拉和殖民心态的误读。同时在涉藏学术交流中引入更多的学科和领域，比如国际法、文化比较研究，引入西方的汉学家等等，增进国际社会对中国历史上多元一体格局、大一统理念、民族区域自治制度的理解和认同，通过对中国整体认知的改进来缩小在涉藏问题上的认知偏差。

I. The manifestation of cognitive bias in the way Chinese and W esterners view the Tibe t issue

Cognitive bias is manifested mainly in three areas :

1. The sovereignty issue. Tibet is a part of China and involves China’s core interests. The international community long ago acknowledged this. In the past only India and Great Britain were vague on this matter. Great Britain in particular for a long time maintained that China merely exercised suzerainty over Tibet. It was only in October 2008 that British Foreign Secretary David Miliband issued a statement clearly acknowledging that Tibet is a part of the People’s Republic of China and that Great Britain’s past policy was a “mistake of the times.”However, the academic, popular and media attitude is quite different. For the most part, it accords with the Dalai Lama’s position that “Tibet is an independent country that was occupied by the Chinese Communist regime after 1950.”

2. The human rights issue. In recent years the basic position of Western governments has been to “openly admit that Tibet is a part of China while at the same time showing concern for the human rights situation in Tibet.” The Chinese people’s understanding of the situation is that for a long time before the democratic reforms in Tibet in 1959, Tibet practiced a feudal serf system in which politics and religion were intertwined.At that time, 95% of the people were serfs who had no means of production or personal freedom. After the democratic reforms, millions of serfs genuinely took control of their lives and became masters of the country.However, Western politicians and the Western public have for a long time badgered China about human rights in Tibet and have held two prominent misconceptions:first, that under the rule of the Dalai Lama Tibet was a Shangri La of devout religious believers who lived in a harmonious and peaceful society; and second, that after the communist Chinese regime took control of Tibet,the human rights situation there worsened and the native language, culture and religious belief were suppressed and still are.

3. The Dalai Lama issue. Since 1995, the Chinese government has clearly pointed out that the Dalai Lama is the head of a separatist political clique plotting“Tibetan independence,” the obedient tool of foreign anti-Chinese forces, the source of social unrest in Tibet, and the greatest obstacle blocking the orderly development of Tibetan traditional Buddhism, and he has long since lost the right to represent Tibet and the Tibetan people.However, Westerners generally believe that the Dalai Lama is benevolent, nonviolent and wise, and a world religious leader, and that if only China negotiates with this person who all Tibetans trust and who represents the interests of the Tibetan people, the “Tibet issue” can be fundamentally solved.

II. The intellectual and cultural background of these sharp cognitive differences

Why are there such sharp cognitive differences in Chinese and Western views on the Tibet issue? The most important and central reason is that the West with the United States in the lead use the Tibet issue as a means to vilify and contain China. In addition, for several decades the Dalai Lama clique has carried out hate education among the Tibetan diaspora and spread deceitful propaganda throughout the world. There is broad consensus on these two points. Here I will focus on an exploration of the intellectual and cultural background of these cognitive differences. I personally believe that there are several important intellectual and cultural aspects of Western thinking that have a large impact on how Westerners view the Tibet issue.

1. Western nation-state theory. For a long period in Western history, especially European history, it was normal for government to be decentralized and for city states and feudal territories to be self-ruling.After the bourgeois revolution, nation-states arose, and countries that included more than one nation typically adopted some measures for self-rule and national selfdetermination. It is considered normal for a country to be split up into a number of smaller countries, so many Westerners think that Tibetans have the right to choose whether they want to remain part of China or to split from it. However, in the minds of the Chinese people, China was created by the common efforts of many nationalities and China has a pattern of diversity within unity. In addition the Chinese have a powerful conception of great uni fi cation, and the invasion of China in its modern history by Western countries led them to value state and national unity above all else. They absolutely will not let Tibet go.

2. Suzerainty theory. In the eyes of Western scholars and ordinary people, China has been an imperial country throughout its history, and it was a typical empire particularly in the Yuan and Qing dynasties, similar to the Ottoman Empire and Czarist Russia, that is, an empire built on military might and the suppression of native populations. Hence, these Westerners are willing to view China as a patchwork made up of Manchuria,Mongolia, Tibet, East Turkistan and the Chinese central plains. So they think that throughout history China only exercised suzerainty over Tibet, and the dissolution of empires in modern times is an inevitable consequence of social development. Moreover, after World War II,China’s sovereignty over Tibet was widely recognized in the international community because it was set forth in the Yelta system for the post-war international political world order, and its reality is the result of the occupation of the Chinese Communist regime. With this view of things, many Westerners not only view the Dalai Lama’s proposal to negotiate with the Chinese government to achieve “a high degree of autonomy” for Tibet as being in accord with their historical recollections of suzerainty,but also a major concession and a wise move that would enable the benevolent Dalai Lama to diminish the suffering of the Tibetan people.

3. The Orientalism tradition. Orientalism in essence is an attitude of Westerners to consider a different culture as the object of observation and research, and in addition to use their own logic to reconstruct the other culture.The most prominent manifestation of Orientalism in the Tibet issue is imagine that the old Tibet was peaceful and free, without class distinctions, without rich and poor, and a non-materialistic land of purity. According to research by Chinese scholars the Dalai Lama is working hard and cleverly to “orientalize” himself so that Westerners unquestioningly accept this idealization of Tibet, and he is also tampering with Tibetan traditions to cater to their preconceptions and hopes. No matter how little they actually know about the real situation in Tibet, Tibet is the greatest love in their hearts, and Tibet involves all the most important topics in the world today,such as human rights, universal brotherhood, peace,environmental protection, nonviolence, preserving cultural traditions, the equality between men and women, religious freedom, ethnicity and cultural self-determination. In the minds of many Westerners the Tibet issue is a position issue, and your position on it shows whether you are politically correct or not and whether you are a progressive and enlightened person. In this kind of situation, it doesn’t matter how much we trumpet the great achievements that have been made in Tibet’s modernization and development or strongly criticize the wild ambition of the Dalai Lama and his followers to split China, nothing we say to the Western audience will be understood or supported anymore than talking to a wall because it runs contrary to the fl ow of Western discourse on Tibet.

III. Two Revelations

1. We need to fully appreciate the duration and complexity of the Tibet issue. These differences in intellectual and cultural background provide the cultural,moral and public opinion foundations upon which Western politicians make their political calculations and are the source of deep-rooted biases the Western public, media and politicians have on the Tibet issue. These biases will not quickly disappear as China’s national strength increases and its relations with the West improve. At present, Western countries are becoming more determined to prevent and curb China’s rise. They are not only afraid that China’s economic and military power will grow, but are also afraid of the Chinese model of success. This model includes the Chinese people’s conception of the world and its wisdom and methods for solving ethnic and religious problems. From this perspective, some Westerners are unwilling for China’s method of ruling Tibet to fi nd favor in the world. Experts pointed out long ago that viewing China’s sovereignty over Tibet from the perspective of Western theory of nationalism has latent uncertainty. An integral factor of sovereignty is international political recognition, but in the present international environment,the politics of recognizing sovereignty is never stable and unchanging. Western countries originally recognized the sovereignty of Yugoslavia on the basis of international law,but as the situation changed, they quickly broke the rules of international law and dismembered it without any qualms.In light of this, we should not put much stock in the fact that other countries recognize that Tibet is a part of China and that they have not established of fi cial relations with the“Tibetan government in exile” .Whether they recognize it or not, Tibet is a part of China and will constantly develop.Even though they recognize Tibet is part of China, Western countries have not diminished their support for the Dalai Lama’s clique. We cannot exclude the possibility that if the situation changes Western countries might renounce their so-called promises concerning the Tibet issue in the blink of an eye. On this matter, we absolutely cannot harbor any illusions.

2. We should comprehensively increase academic,intellectual and cultural exchanges. At present, there is already some reflection and criticism in the international academic world of the limitations and falseness of the Orientalist approach to research on China and the Tibet issue. We should take a more open and con fi dent attitude in increasing international exchanges and expanding this kind of voice, and further in fl uence international public opinion and the Western public and media. We especially should increase international exchanges in Tibetan studies, play the role of providing balance and guidance to the world of Tibetan studies to reverse the international community’s misreading of Tibetan history, cultural and current affairs as in the case when they see it as Shangri La or view it with a colonialist state of mind. We should also extend academic exchanges on Tibet to more disciplines and areas, such as international law and comparative culture research, get Western Chinese scholars interested in topics concerning Tibet, and get foreign historians to understand and recognize manifestations of diversity and unity, great uni fi cation and the system of autonomous ethnic regions in Chinese history. In this way we can decrease cognitive bias on the Tibet issue by increasing overall understanding of China.

COGNITIVE BIAS IN THE WAY CHINESE AND WESTERNERS VIEW THE TIBET ISSUE

■ Wu Chu

(孙显辉 译)