Young 1 Anne Young Magie Ramirez GEOG 230 Section AD November 29, 2010 The Qinghai-Tibet Railway The

Qinghai-Tibet Railway is one of the most ambitious development projects ever undertaken. The highest altitude railroad in the world, it was a project over fifty years in the making, costing the Chinese government over $4 billion. The railway was designed to be an artery connecting the Tibetan Autonomous Region to the beating industrial heart of eastern China; however, the economic implications of the railroad are far more subtle. The railway has exacerbated economic and racial tensions on the plateau, a region already ranked as one of the worlds most economically unequal. To fully understand the motivation behind the QinghaiTibet Railway project and the effect it is currently having on Tibet, one must first understand the recent politics and economics of the plateau. This paper will present a brief history of both the project and the region, a discourse analysis using examples from American and Chinese media, and a discussion of the causes and effects of economic inequality in Tibet. The relationship between China and Tibet has a long and often troubled past. While China argues that Tibet has always been an integral part of the Chinese nation, most Tibetans say that Tibet has almost always been an independent country (Sperling). The truth is that Tibets political status in the first part of the twentieth century is unclear by Western standards. Imperial Britain termed Tibet a suzerainty of China, but often treated the region as a sovereign state when it suited their interests. Tibets relationship with China did not fit neatly into

Young 2 Western ideas of colonialism and sovereignty. Imperial China interacted with Tibet through a complicated system of fealty and patronage, but the relationship was not one of colony and occupier, or even of suzerain and suzerainty. It wasnt until after China had westernized its international relations that it argued that Tibet had been an integral part of China during this time period (Anand). On the global scale, Tibets interaction with its neighbors had more to do wi th their conflicts with each other than any interest in Tibet itself. Britain and Russia were engaged in The Great Game of Asian influence at the time. Britain in particular was actively working to make incursions into the territory. Although Tibet was operating as a de facto independent state in the first part of the twentieth century, the major political players in the region saw Tibet as a pawn in their own plays for power in Asia (Anand). Tibets economy at this time was fairly traditional. Its main t rading partner was China, but exports were not abundant. The region still operated under an agricultural feudal system. Some sources liken the system to slavery. Much of the trading, especially among Tibetans, was through a barter system, making the true economic activity of the system prior to Chinese invasion difficult to calculate. Tibet did not have much interaction with the global economy at this time (Li). After the rise to power of Mao Tse-tung in 1949, tensions between Tibet and China escalated. In 1950, the Peoples Republic of China invaded Tibet and had occupied Lhasa by 1951. The Dalai Lama, Tibets political and spiritual leader, was forced to flee to India on March 17, 1959 amid a failed violent uprising. Tibet became a victim of Chinas failed economic policies in the 1960s. The Great Leap Forward caused famine and inflation on the plateau,

Young 3 claiming hundreds of thousands of lives (Chorley). Over the next several decades, Tibet was largely left to its own devices by the Chinese government (Areddy). In recent years, however, China has begun investing much more in its western region, prompting an economic boom. On July 1, 2006, construction of the highest altitude railway system on the planet was completed. The Qinghai-Tibet Railway stretches over 1,900 kilometers (over 1,200 miles), with its highest altitude at 16,641 feet above sea level (Areddy). The railway begins in Xining, the capital of Qinghai province, and stretches over the Tutuo River and the Tanggula Mountains, finally ending up in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region. The project cost the Chinese government 33.01 billion yuan (about 4.1 billion American dollars) (Chi). The Qinghai-Tibet Railway was part of Chinas plan for development of its western frontier, The Great Leap West. One can now buy a train ticket for under $200 in Beijing and be in Lhasa in less than 48 hours. Consequently, it was predicted that the railway would bring more than 900,000 additional tourists to Lhasa, helping to grow its booming tourism industry. The extraction of resources from the Tibetan landscape would also be expedited. Tibet boasts the largest copper and chromium reserves in China. Some estimate that with completion of the railroad, mining could make up 30% of Tibets GDP by 2020, up from 3% in 2010 (Wong). One receives two very contrasting images about Chinas relationship with Tibet and its motive for building the railroad when looking at Chinese and Western media sources. The media plays a significant role in how that issue is perceived by different people in different places. Is the Qinghai-Tibet Railway an example of the benevolent Chinese government lifting an impoverished and hardworking region out of poverty? Or is this a case of an ancient culture

Young 4 being crushed by the unfeeling Communist Party? Two articles written about the railway offer very different perspectives of the project and its effect on the region. The first article, The Gravy Train, was published by a Chinese Communist newspaper, the Beijing Review. The author, Lan Xinzhen, presents a glowing report of the economic upturn in Tibet one year after the completion of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway. Last Stop, Lhasa, the second article, was published in The New York Times shortly after the railway began running. It details the reasons both for Chinas construction of the railway and for the opposition to the railway by many Tibetans. In The Gravy Train, the issue is depicted through a narrow lens. Xinzhen focuses exclusively on what the Chinese government calls economic benefits without mentioning opposition to the railroad. The problem according to Lan Xinzhen is not Tibetan dissent so much as the backward*ness+ of the region itself. The article paints a rosy picture of a secluded and poor Tibet being lifted towards prosperity by the Chinese government. Xinzhen does not present an explicit target within the article. Everyone who is quoted in The Gravy Train is in complete support of the railway, and all the evidence put forward shows a positive effect. Reading between the lines, Lan Xinzhen is condemning dissent on the issue because, using the articles logic, everything about the Qinghai-Tibet Railway is good for Tibet. Chinese Communist Party media often blames any dissent about or by Tibet on political plots... orchestrated by the Dalai clique (Chinese Media Silent on Tibet), referring to Tibetan Buddhisms exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. While any Tibetan unrest is blamed on a corrupting outside influence, the Tibetan people themselves are usually portrayed sympathetically, though often as caricatures of happy government supporters (Wei-Min Lee).

Young 5 By presenting the railroad in such a positive light, the Beijing Review is further marginalizing the opposition by implying that nearly all Tibetans are in complete support of the railway. In this article, the Qinghai-Tibet Railway is seen as the solution to Tibetan poverty. Tibet is portrayed as a poor, secluded, backwards region that the railway has ignited with sizzling development. Lan Xinzhen claims to be interested in an end result of Tibet being fully integrated into the Chinese economy, with the train the key step to getting that result. The Chinese government and the Communist Party are definitely the good guys in Xinzhens article. Not only did they build the Qinghai-Tibet Railway to jump start economic development in Tibet, but the article presents it as an almost humanitarian project. The fact that the railway will ease exploitation of natural resources which will be shipped to eastern China isnt mentioned. The article chooses to instead focus exclusively on the economic benefits for businesses in Tibet (although, ironically, the showcase business owner in the article is ethnically Han Chinese). The opening image in The Gravy Train is of the train itself, standing out imposingly against the rugged Tibetan landscape. The train is painted bright red, the color of the Chinese Communist Party. The image suggests the Chinese government in a position of power over Tibet. Whether or not this motivation to print the picture was conscious, the imagery is striking. Overall, The Gravy Train is the kind of article one would expect from an official Communist Party source. Dissent is ignored and all the evidence points to a benevolent Chinese government doing everything it can to help the Tibetans. This kind of discourse is the norm in much of Chinese media, with the issue framed as one of national unity and economic stability (Wei-Min Lee).

Young 6 One gets a very different idea of the situation in Tibet in the article Last Stop Lhasa. This New York Times piece takes a broader view of the issue than The Gravy Train, but spends a lot more time outlining opposition to the railway than covering the potential economic benefits. The project is presented in the American article as much more of a political issue than the Chinese media article, which tried to present it as an infrastructure project bereft of controversy. The problem this article presents is the conflict between the Tibetan people and the Chinese government over issues like the railway. Kahn claims, indirectly, that the Chinese government built the Qinghai-Tibet Railway for its own benefit, disregarding the opinions of the Tibetan people. The influx of Han Chinese people to Tibet by way of the railway will smother Tibets ancient spiritual culture, while undermining the pristine natural environment of its highlands. Kahn holds the Chinese government responsible for the bulk of the conflict. The government is portrayed as authoritarian and self interested, with no regard for the opinions of the Tibetan people. Kahn quotes a government source saying that the train was longed for by the people of Qinghai Province and the Tibet Autonomous Region, a statement that is contradicted by every Tibetan source Kahn uses. The article mentions that The New York Times was denied the requisite permits to enter Tibetan territory during the opening of the railway. Kahn seems to suggest that much of the tension between the Chinese government and the Tibetan people could be alleviated by the government spending more time listening to what people actually need. Instead of building what is presented in the article as a wasteful, unsustainable railway line to enhance Chinas economic and military control, there is a

Young 7 suggestion for more practical infrastructure like roads and electricity. The article ends by quoting the Chinese government, saying they are in a fight to the death with the Dalai Lama. The article seems to be suggesting that this kind of rhetoric is hindering possible solutions to the conflict, since the region retains resilient loyalty for the spiritual leader. Like The Gravy Train, this article is typical of the discourse of its respective country (Wei-Min Lee). The issue is framed as one of the controlling Chinese government in opposition to the spiritual, peaceful Tibetans. Both The Gravy Train and Last Stop, Lhasa are fairly typical discourses about Tibet and its relationship with the Chinese government. They are both one-sided and help to shed light on why it can be so difficult for the West and China to find common ground on this complicated issue. What are so often ignored by both media and governments are the realities for the Tibetan people. A Tibetan saying about the Chinese occupation goes, In the first ten years we lost our land, in the second ten years we lost political power, in the third ten years we lost our culture, in the fourth ten years we lost our economy (Goldstein). As with most geopolitical processes, the truth isnt that simple; however, this saying shows the powerlessness that many Tibetans feel about the changes in their country. It wasnt until China began to become a larger player in the global market that the government began to focus investment in its western territories. Despite this, Tibet is still not integrated into the global economy to the extent that Chinas coastal regions are. The plateau has been physically isolated until recently. However, Tibets natural resources are abundant and attractive to the Chinese government and entrepreneurs. The completion of the Qinghai-Tibet

Young 8 Railway has opened up the region to more global economic activity, though nearly all businesses on the plateau are still Chinese-owned (Li). Tibets rapidly growing economy has encouraged an unprecedented amount of immigration into the region. Most of the immigrants are ethnic Han Chinese, attracted to the region by the breakneck rate of economic growth. Government funds are flowing into the region at a rate of several hundred dollars per Tibetan resident per year, higher than the average income in China (Watts). Despite this influx of funds, the money is not distributed equally. Tibets cities boast the highest disposable income in all of China, but rural Tibetans are some of the poorest in the country (Watts). Tibets GDP has tripled in the last ten years (Luo); however, the United Nations Development Program estimates that Tibet may have the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world (Areddy). Although Tibet is growing quickly, most of the economic benefit is going to immigrant Han Chinese, not native Tibetans. Tensions between native Tibetans and ethnic Han Chinese, who constitute 80% of the workforce in Lhasa, have escalated in recent years, sometimes resulting in violence. No project has served as a catalyst for this tension more than the Qinghai-Tibet Railway. The project that is bringing an even larger influx of immigrants into the region had an only 10% Tibetan workforce (Areddy). The reasons for this inequality are varied. One affected segment of the population is nomadic Tibetans. The Chinese government, interested in curtailing the nomadic lifestyle, mandated low-interest loans with the caveat that the money was used to build permanent houses; however, the money loaned out was not sufficient for the full cost of the homes. The recipients were forced to take out more loans in order to construct the concrete houses. In order to pay back the money, the Tibetans had to rent out their farm land to ethnic Han

Young 9 Chinese. When many of the Tibetans were forced to move to the cities to find work to pay back the loans, they were unable to compete for jobs with highly educated Han immigrants who had experience in the urban workforce (Wong). In this economic setup, native Tibetans have very little power. The Tibetan social system is very different from that in coastal Chinese cities, but the urban employers are looking for employees who are formally educated and have urban work experience. Because of their rural upbringing, many Tibetans are at a natural disadvantage for lucrative jobs in the cities, even as they are being forced out of their livelihoods. Anger over this inequality escalated recently in violent protests. In March of 2008, at least thirteen people died and 300 buildings were burned in Lhasa. The targets of the violence tended to be Han Chinese. Some reports say that ethnically Tibetan business owners were instructed to tie white cloths outside their doors because the rioters were specifically targeting Han Chinese (Salvato). The Chinese media claimed the protests were not racially motivated, but were instead orchestrated by the exiled Dalai Lama (Jianhua). The Dalai Lama is a major player in Tibet, although the spiritual leader has not set foot there in over fifty years. The Chinese government blames nearly all unrest in the region on his influence. While images of him have been banned, many Tibetans still carry them tucked away in lockets or wallets (Wong). The Dalai Lama may not hold much power over the Chinese government, which has refused to meet with him, but he has power over both the Tibetan people and the West. Barack Obama choosing to meet with the spiritual leader was enough to sour relations between two of the worlds biggest economies (McAskill). Beginning in the early 1980s, the movement led by the Dalai Lama sought to change the international discourse

Young 10 about Tibet from geopolitics to human rights and freedom (Goldstein). The presence of an advocate like the Dalai Lama has brought the issue of Tibet into Western awareness. However, some say that the recent violent protests, in opposition to the Dalai Lamas peaceful stance, are a sign that his power over the Tibetan people is waning. The United States, for its part, has kept its position towards Tibet closely tied to its own political interests in the region. The U.S. has never officially recognized Tibet as an independent country, but during the Cold War the United States supplied military and financial aid to Tibetan guerrilla forces that fought the Chinese occupation. The Tibet Autonomous Region has experienced drastic change both politically and economically in the last century. Tibet continues to find its economy and culture at the mercy of foreign interests that may have little or nothing to do with the Tibetan people. Despite an intense PR campaign waged by leaders like the Dalai Lama, many Western nations are reluctant to make Tibetan grievances an issue because China is such an important player in the global economy. With heavy and unbridled investment by the Chinese government, the plateau is entering a global economy whether it is ready for it or not.