While the People’s Republic of China is in the midst of dealing with prominent external issues like Taiwan and the South China Sea, it has also been facing internal struggles over an issue that seems peculiar at first glance for an officially atheist nation: religion. For a nation that teaches that religion is a backwards way of thinking, and prohibits members of its ruling party from practicing religion, religion has, and continues to have, an enormous impact on China even more than 70 years after the takeover of the Chinese Communist Party. The most conspicuous impact of religion on the PRC, at least here in the United States, has been the mass detention of Uygur Muslims in Western China by Beijing. This is due to a belief by Beijing that Uygurs hold extremist or separatist views due to their Muslim faith and are therefore a threat to the government’s control. However, Tibetan Buddhism, born in Tibet which is currently controlled by China, is also subject to a great deal of scrutiny by the Chinese government at the moment. Unlike Islam, which the PRC seems fine with eliminating from its society, the PRC and its government have a different relationship with Tibetan Buddhism. Upon examination of Tibetan Buddhism in China, we see that the Chinese government is willing to interfere with Tibetan Buddhism in order to use the faith as a tool for maintaining political control over Tibet, in a use of religion that conflicts with international law.
Part of the reason that Beijing is so eager to interfere with the internal affairs of Tibetan Buddhism is the fact that this school of Buddhism has long had a great deal of control over Tibet. This interference approach contrasts heavily with Beijing’s threatening approach to Muslim Ugyhurs, in which the practice of Islam is essentially being forbidden as more laws are passed restricting its practice. Originally introduced to Tibet from India in the 9th century, the Lamas or teachers of Tibetan Buddhism have served as spiritual leaders alongside the political leaders of the Tibetan community. From the 18th Century until 1959 when China took formal control of Tibet’s governance, the Dalia Lama – the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism – was the leader of a de facto independent Tibetan government, even when Tibet was part of various empires like the Qing. The current and 14th Dalia Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was the political leader of Tibet until 1959. At this time, a failed uprising in Tibet against increasing Chinese control over the region led him to flee to India to create a government-in-exile that has been successfully lobbying the West for decades to support an independent Tibet. Chinese control of Tibet over the last 70 years has decreased the influence of Tibetan Buddhism on the everyday lives of Tibetans due to crackdowns on almost every aspect of the faith over concerns that it promotes separatism. Still, Beijing realizes that Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalia Lama have a great deal of sway over the average inhabitant of Tibet due to the long-standing power of Tibetan Buddhism.
In order to combat the current Dalia Lama’s government-in-exile and the fears that the next Dalia Lama will use his position in Tibetan Buddhism to foster independence movements among Tibetans, the Chinese government has injected itself into the reincarnation process of the Dalia Lama. While the current Dalia Lama has stated that the next Dalia Lama will likely be born outside of Tibet (and therefore outside the control of Beijing), China has sought to ensure that the next reincarnation of the Dalia Lama will be under their control. The Chinese government already has a say on the selection of new Lamas using the former Qing practice of drawing names from a Golden Urn, though few outside China see these selections as legitimate. In 2007, the Chinese government passed a law saying that any reincarnation of a living Buddha (such as the Dalia Lama) would be subject to an application for approval by the government. In order to ensure that its authority over the reincarnation process of the Dalia Lama and other Lamas was recognized, the government in 1995 kidnapped the six-year-old internationally recognized reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, who has not been seen since, and proceeded to put forth its own candidate for Pachen Lama. Besides being the second-highest ranking figure in Tibetan Buddhism, the Panchen Lama has also traditionally played an important part in identifying the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. By disappearing one Pachen Lama and then putting forward a Chinese-backed Pachen Lama, the Chinese government will have a great deal of sway over naming a new Dalia Lama, since the Pachen Lama will help identify the next incarnation of the Dalia Lama. While the death of the current Dalia Lama will almost certainly lead to two reincarnations – one recognized by Beijing and one reincarnation recognized by the Tibetan government-in-exile, this is to the benefit of Beijing. This is because two Dalia Lamas would lead to strife among followers of Tibetan Buddhism over who to follow and would weaken the authority of the faith.
While China sees its interference into Tibetan Buddhism and the reincarnation of the Dalia Lama as something that it has legal authority to do, due to its control over Tibet, this is not supported by international law or the United Nations. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes clear, everyone has the right to freely practice their religion without interference from the government. By cracking down on Tibetan Buddhism on the belief that it will lead to Tibetians pushing for their independence, China has drastically interfered with that right. At the same time, the United Nations General Assembly has declared that the freedom of religion also includes the freedom to “train, appoint, elect, or designante by succession appropriate leaders” without outside interference. Yet, as China has made clear to the world, it will not only have a say in selecting new Lamas through the Golden Urn system, but will also wield a great deal of influence on selecting a new Dalia Lama – despite being an officially atheist nation. Beijing seems more than willing to ignore international law and the United Nations’ stances on freedom of religion in order to ensure that Tibet remains under its control and the current Dalia Lama stays exiled.
However, it is unlikely that any attempt by the international community to get Beijing to remove itself from the internal affairs of Tibetan Buddhism based on the options available to the international community. While the UN General Assembly could pass a resolution in support of no-government interference in Tibetan Buddhism, this would be legally non-binding and the PRC would have no reason to follow the resolution besides to prevent international condemnation. Only the UN Security Council could legally bind Beijing to remove itself from Tibetan Buddhism. Yet China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, can and would veto such a resolution. As such, the only non-violent way that the international community may be able to put pressure on Beijing would be through economic sanctions. However, the efficacy of economic sanctions against China has yet to be proven despite the numerous sanctions from the U.S. and E.U.
While most, if not all, of Beijing’s interference in Tibetan Buddhism has been internationally condemned and rejected, it is still a cause for concern. Tibetan Buddhism is a 1,200 year-old school of Buddhism that may be irreparably changed due to PRC’s interference – all so Beijing can feel as though Tibet is secure. Fortunately, Beijing’s authority over Tibetan Buddhism has not gone unchallenged. Besides the Dalia Lama and his government-in-exile, in March, Tibetian Buddhists in Mongolia chose the 10th reincarnation of the Bogd (the spiritual leader of Mongolia) without the consent of Beijing, despite Beijing’s assertion that it should have had some say. While there are concerns about how the Bogd was selected – the eight-year-old boy chosen was from one of the wealthiest families in Mongolia and is a dual Mongolian-American citizen – Mongolia’s decision to go forward with choosing a Bogd shows that Beijing will not have the ultimate say on deciding who becomes Lamas in other nations previously part of the Qing Empire (like Mongolia). While the selection of the next Dalia Lama is guaranteed to be a contentious process that could divide the faith, international support for a Dalia Lama chosen without Beijing’s interference could prove crucial in keeping Tibetan Buddhism from splintering in a way that may destroy the faith as a whole. At the same time, it is critical for the world community to be aware that the current treatment of Tibetan Buddhism by Beijing is not unique in China. At the same time, Uygurs are facing the destruction of their entire religious identity.
Author Biography: Tyler Capps is an Editor of the International Law Society’s International Law and Policy Brief (ILPB) and a J.D. Candidate at The George Washington University Law School. He has a Bachelor of Arts in History from the University of Florida.