On February 13, the 100th Tibetan set himself on fire in protest of China’s control over Tibet. Self-immolation has served as the most desperate means by which Tibetans communicate their commitment to Tibetan independence since 2009, when a Tibetan monk became the first to set himself on fire.

Tibet deserves independence no more than any other minority group in China. (SpiritualQuestAdventures, Creative Commons)

The Chinese government’s disregard for basic human rights is not news; totalitarian regimes can hardly tolerate dissent if they are to stay in power. China’s 55 minority ethnic groups face the brunt of the oppression, both politically and culturally. Although Tibet was given nominal freedom by the national government to govern outside the strict confines of the Communist Party as a “autonomous region,” soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army, both symbols and active agents of Beijing’s control, remain a common sight for Tibetans going about their daily lives. Beijing undoubtedly exercises meticulous review and direction of local policies, and the military is quick to extinguish any embers of political dissent among the citizenry.

I do not contest that the Chinese government’s existing paradigm for governing Tibet is in need of an overhaul, most critically of its policies of forced cultural assimilation and micromanagement of the supposedly autonomous local government. But blindly asserting that Tibet deserves freedom from China is also misguided, the product of an assumed causal relationship between human rights violations and the loss of sovereignty. To contend that Tibet should “secede” from China because Tibetans feel marginalized means that every other ethnic minority that feels equally alienated by the Han majority should claim independence as well.

The standard of living in Tibet was greatly improved by its consolidation into Chinese territory in the early 1950s. The national government poured vast amounts of capital into building roads, erecting power lines and pumping clean running water to the plateau, all of which provided jobs for the local people and enabled them to enjoy basic services essential to life in the modern age.

It is inappropriate and insulting to portray Beijing as the evil straw man that holds Tibet under its foot. China continues to work to bring modern resources, like education and healthcare, to this once impoverished land. Though Tibet’s standard of living still pales to that of cosmopolitan areas, it would be much worse had China not intervened.

There remain, however, many drawbacks to China’s continued control of Tibet. The Han majority will always exercise some manner of cultural imperialism and religious intolerance will persist under the umbrella of communist ideology. But every ethnically homogeneous nation has its struggles with cultural self-determination of minority groups and the Tibetans are not the only group in China at odds with Beijing over the issue of religion. The many cracks in the status quo do not amount to the failure of China to uphold the social contract to its people.

Self-immolation is a horrifying extreme for Tibetans to be driven to, but its underlying purpose is to play on the emotions of the West, whose entrenched ideals of freedom and egalitarianism hinder a purely logical analysis of the individual situation. Beijing must take an active role in acknowledging and ameliorating Tibet’s acute grievances, but Tibet must also acknowledge the benefits that they have received under Chinese governance and should voice its concerns without resorting to inflammatory means of protest.

Reach Contributor Ashley Yang here.