China for the World

Fareed Zakaria and Kishore Mahbubani got warm reviews for unconventional columns on China's Tibet crackdown. One reader agreed, "Putting public pressure on the Chinese is futile and counterproductive." Another called for the West to recognize China's "deeper integration into world affairs."

Responsibility for Terrorism
In "Gone in 11 Minutes Flat" (May 26), William Dobson suggested that the Singapore government's hesitation in disclosing information about the escape of Mas Selamat Kastari revealed its uneasiness over the people's "taking too active an interest in security matters." The government recognized early that extremist terrorism is not defeated by governments but ultimately by the people. The harm from a terrorist attack is not just the loss of lives or property but the fractures to social cohesion and intercommunal trust. Hence, we have always kept the public informed and engaged on matters of national security. While the government certainly strives to protect its people from the threat of terrorist violence, it has never pretended to have omnipotence or to be "ultracompetent," guaranteeing its people perpetual and absolute security. The government immediately accepted responsibility for Mas Selamat's escape. It made a full accounting to Parliament, including disclosing the findings of an independent committee of inquiry. These candid and detailed disclosures no doubt invited criticism of the lapses, but ultimately they strengthened public confidence in the integrity of the Singapore system and its processes.
Toh Yong Chuan,Director
International and Corporate Relations Division
Ministry of Home Affairs
Singapore

Perspectives on China and Tibet
After reading Fareed Zakaria's "Don't Feed China's Nationalism" (April 21/April 28) and Kishore Mahbubani's "Tibet Through Chinese Eyes" (May 5), one cannot agree more with both opinions, especially Zakaria's. If European leaders try to take advantage of the Olympic Games to pressure Beijing to reach the negotiating table with Tibet, they will exacerbate the Chinese nationalist view toward the Tibetans and further alienate the East from the West. It's also a question of face, an important idea in Chinese culture (and not mentioned in either article): "If you give face you will receive face," which means if the majority of European leaders are present at the opening ceremony, they will have the unique opportunity to present a powerful united front (not a virtual political one) to push the Chinese government to move toward a true dialogue with the Dalai Lama. This presence will be seen not only as recognition of China's tremendous economic development of the past 20 years (and not by the unreasonable, outdated, "Asia is better than Europe" logic that permeates Mahbubani's last book), but also as a powerful symbol of Europe's desire for Beijing's deeper integration into world affairs. In return, I believe the Chinese central leadership will be more flexible on the Tibetan issue. As the saying goes, giving face is in the interest of everyone, and in the meantime you can keep the Tibetans from bearing the brunt of the conflict.
Alexandre Carrico
Lisbon, Portugal

How utterly refreshing to read Fareed Zakaria's "Don't Feed China's Nationalism." I agree wholeheartedly that putting public pressure on the Chinese regime to make substantial changes to any of its current policies, whether at home or abroad, is not only futile, it is counterproductive. It is unfortunate that the opinion-poll-obsessed leaders in the West continue to express views on China more to serve their own best interests rather than those of China. The anger expressed over the torch relay, and talk about who's going to the opening ceremonies, will at best serve to confirm to the Chinese leadership and the Chinese people that we simply do not understand them. At worst, they will lead to retrenchment and distrust, and we will be left wondering why the Chinese do not embrace Western values and ethics. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of torch protesters could not find Tibet on a world map if their lives depended on it. And I can only imagine the outcry if Chinese leaders told us they wouldn't ship any more products until we vastly improve our education; take far better care of our elderly; reduce sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancies and drunkenness, and do something about the enormously wasteful consumption of scarce resources. China is already undergoing change at an unprecedented pace. If we wish to encourage that change—and it is in our best interests to do so—the most effective mechanisms will be more, and more open, dialogue; a continued lowering of the barriers to travel and the exchange of ideas, and an acceptance that the massive challenges faced by the Chinese regime are beyond the average Westerner's ability to comprehend.
Andrew Gaynor
Maidenhead, England

Kishore Mahbubani's analysis of Chinese protests against Westerners was very pleasing. I'd like to add one more point to the reasons for dissent: traditionally, politics has a higher priority over everything—including religions—in China. And most Chinese cannot accept the coexistence of religious freedom and politics, especially when it's in Tibet, which was once a religious country. That's why the Chinese think China must not yield to the West. I would also like to clarify the fact that Tibet was actually controlled by China for only about 300 years, since the Ching dynasty, not the Yuan. The Yuan was a Mughal dynasty, and whether the Mughals should be considered Chinese is a matter of dispute. After that, Tibet was again an independent country. To form the Ching dynasty, Manchurians conquered extensive territory in East Asia, which became today's China.
Pui-Ying Hui
Hong Kong

Regarding the article "Tibet Through Chinese Eyes" by Kishore Mahbubani, I fully concur with his views concerning the hypocrisy of politics in the United States and Europe, especially in their foreign policies. I also stand against any country that denies anyone his human rights. However, the article contains misinformation about the history of Tibet that must be discredited. The real history forms the basis of why "Free Tibet" activists insist Tibet is independent of China. The article states, "Chinese leaders believe that China has exercised sovereignty over Tibet for 700 years now, ever since the Yuan dynasty—one reason the 'Free Tibet' slogan angers them so much." The Yuan dynasty was a khanate of the Mughal emperor, Kublai Khan. This khanate included Mongolia and the conquered territories that form most of modern-day China, part of Burma, part of India and Tibet. The Mughal Empire was made up of many khanates that stretched over most of Asia to the borders of Europe and also included parts of the Middle East. The Ming dynasty of the Han people, the majority race of modern-day China, overthrew the Yuan dynasty in 1368, and the Mughals fled to Mongolia. Tibet at this point became independent of the Mughal Empire—not of China. In my view, from the 14th century until the 20th century Tibet was an independent country either invaded or occupied by Mughal tribes, the Han Chinese (Ming dynasty), the Manchus (Ching dynasty), the Gurkhas of Nepal and the British. More recently, Communist China invaded Tibet in 1950 and has occupied it until the present day. People in China have an excuse for not being able to freely determine whether Tibet is independent or under Chinese sovereignty, as the state controls information, the media and the Internet. But information is available to "liberal Western-educated Chinese intellectuals" and Chinese people living abroad. What is their excuse? Will Chinese imperialism be tolerated and China permitted to expand into the other khanates of Kublai Khan without question?
Stephen Mcmillan
Hong Kong