Initiatives of Change - Building a Bridge with China by Mike Lowe, Australia

Reading some websites giving Chinese perspectives on Tibet, I realize just how great the gulf is between China and the West. And I'm not just talking about official Chinese Government perspectives, but the opinions of ordinary well-educated Chinese.

Behind these vastly different understandings lie two different narratives: Put very simply the Western story is that Tibet was once a peaceful and spiritual place – home of the mythical Shambhala/Shangri-La – until it was invaded by the Chinese Army in 1950. Since then the Chinese have been systematically trying to destroy Tibetan culture, blowing up monasteries, killing and imprisoning Buddhist monks and bringing in huge numbers of Chinese settlers, thus marginalizing Tibetans in their own land.

The Chinese story, on the other hand, is that Tibet was always historically a part of China – albeit a forgotten and less civilized part on the fringes of empire. Tibetan culture was barbaric, feudal and corrupt. The move into Tibet was an extension of the grand communist project of modernizing China, bringing her people out of the darkness of feudalism and transforming it into an industrial society capable of meeting the material needs of all.

Discussion of which story is 'true' is likely to be futile. Each side is convinced by their own 'facts'. The point it that these two very different stories make it very difficult to communicate. When the West talks about human rights, the Chinese hear it as cynical 'China bashing'. It is hard for them to understand why the West should be so concerned about human rights in Tibet when it appears less concerned about human rights in Guantanamo Bay or Iraq.

When the West says that China should talk to the Dalai Lama, the Chinese hear this as political manoeuvring. From their perspective the Dalai Lama is a CIA funded tool of Western foreign policy.

I am reminded of a saying of John Coleman, an African American pioneer of reconciliation: 'You have to build a bridge of trust that is strong enough to hold the truth that you want to communicate.' Such a bridge of trust does not exist. Until it does, the efforts of pop stars shouting 'Tibet', or protesters trying to extinguish the Olympic torch, will only widen the gulf.

Trust is built, above all, by humbly listening. We Westerners have not been good at either being humble, nor listening.

Humility means acknowledging our own faults, including the shameful episode of the Opium Wars when imperial Western powers took advantage of a weak China to line our own pockets by pushing drugs. It means acknowledging that our own record on human rights has been less than perfect. It means recognizing the spiritual poverty of our culture which makes the myth of 'Shangri-La' so appealing.

Listening means being ready to hear. I love the story of the Western professor of religion who goes to learn about Buddhism from a Zen master. The master pours tea. The cup fills up and the master keeps pouring until tea spills over onto the tray and the floor. The professor jumps up crying 'Stop, stop. The cup is full, no more will go in!' The master looks at him and says 'you are like that cup: So full of your own ideas and opinions that no more will go in.'

The 2008 Olympic Games are a great opportunity for engagement between China and the West. Yes, China will be under scrutiny, particularly over human rights and the treatment of minorities, and rightly so. But progress comes from dialogue. If we can 'empty our own cups', putting aside all we think we know about the other and humbly listening to each other, we may be able to model genuine dialogue.

Such a model might then stand a chance of being applied in Tibet, where it is certainly needed. The good news is that many younger Chinese find Tibetan spiritual culture as attractive and fascinating as Westerners. This bodes well for the many open-hearted dialogues, both official and non-official that will be needed between Chinese and Tibetans if Tibet is to live up to its spiritual promise.