Direct Economic Action (DEA)
For Tibetan Independence and for Freedom and Justice Worldwide

A Draft Proposal

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Probably one of the most underused but powerful weapon individual modern man has to effect political and social change in this commerce driven world of ours is his purchasing power. It has been underused because the correlation between "shopping" and political freedom is not an immediate one to most people, and also required, at least in the past, prohibitive organisational and communications resources to implement. But this is all changing, or so an article in the Financial Times (London) entitled "How should Companies Respond to Boycotts" (November 16, 1998, Monday) tells us:

The use of boycotts as a coercive marketplace tactic has increased in recent years and is expected to rise further. One reason for this is that consumer protests are proving more successful than in the past, both because those who organise boycotts are adopting more sophisticated tactics and because more consumers are supporting and joining organisations with explicit social and political agendas…The prudent marketing manager no longer worries only about product and service quality. Monitoring deeper feelings towards the business and its home country may be critical in preserving customer relationships.

The single most important factor for the increasing success of consumer boycotts is undoubtedly the tremendous development of global communications; the fax, email, satellites and just the sheer proliferation of the old telephone, which has given individuals a new power to communicate and network with each other anywhere in the world. The advent of the internet has also dramatically improved the opportunities for boycotts by providing individuals access to every kind of financial and commercial information imaginable, which would have been impossible before; and by permitting individuals to disseminate their views world-wide through such affordable and interactive mediums as the web-sites or discussion groups.

But even in the old days when telephones were rare and exotic hand-cranked items, economic boycotts were conducted and did often succeed. Gandhi's Swadeshi campaign to boycott English textiles was the first effective demonstration of the untenability of British rule in India. Gandhi's campaign caused much suffering in Britain. A large number of mills in Lancashire were closed and many thousands rendered jobless. But the moral righteousness of Gandhi's action was so evident that when he visited Britain in 1931, he was given a rousing welcome in Lancashire by unemployed workers.

The power of economic action was most clearly demonstrated in South Africa in the struggle against apartheid. The boycott and international sanctions hurt the black community the most, since it was the poorest and had the least economic cushion against outright penury and hunger. Nevertheless the resolve of South African blacks and their leaders never wavered. In fact even after Nelson Mandela was released and a number of important reforms put into place by President de Klerk, the ANC called for the continuation of international sanctions till apartheid was completely dismantled and a transitional government was in place.

Pro-democracy forces in Burma have been unequivocally calling on all countries of the world for the imposition of an overall "South Africa-style economic sanction against the ruling military government in Burma". A world-wide campaign for consumer boycott and shareholder pressure have forced companies like Amoco, Eddie Bauer, Liz Claiborne, Macy's and Petro Canada to withdraw from Burma. In 1996 three cities in the United States, Berkeley (Ca), Madison (Wn), and Santa Monica (Ca), passed laws boycotting companies which are doing business in Burma. On 22nd April 1997 Pepsico announced its plans to sell its 40% stake in a joint venture in Burma. (I do not have information on the current state of the economic action in Burma) Of course the way ahead is far from easy but at least the pro-democracy activists and their leader Aung San Suu Kyi have no doubt as to the soundness and integrity of their strategy.

The first attempt at Economic Action in the Tibetan Movement seems to have been made by the US Tibet Committee and the Canada Tibet Committee in the late 80’s. The main thrust of the campaign "Toycott", a boycott of Chinese made toys, quickly gained considerable attention and publicity. But the campaign was discontinued as exile Tibetan leaders hoped for a dialogue with China.

In 1996(?) the Students for A Free Tibet and the Milarepa Fund launched a campaign to boycott Chinese goods. It also had a very positive start and we were informed in the newsletter of the Tibetan Rights Campaign in Seattle, that a department store in that city has promised not to carry any goods made in China. But once again after a few months the campaign was inexplicably dropped. A year or so later Campaign Free Tibet in the UK led an effort to pressure Holiday Inn out of Lhasa. Rather dramatically and quite unexpectedly, Holiday Inn capitulated and closed down its operations in Lhasa city. But the official line of Tibet related activism had become "constructive engagement with China" and nothing further was pursued.

DEA: the only effective weapon we have at present

Much of Tibetan activism against China has been on the symbolic level: Tenth March parades, demonstrations, freedom concerts, marches and so on. Of course all these activities are important. They are powerful on a symbolic level, often serving to renew our commitment to the cause. They also attract sympathy and publicity for the cause of Tibet and create a greater awareness of Tibet in the world.

Another form of activism has been the petitioning of governments and leaders and world bodies to intercede on our behalf. All the letter- writing campaigns to presidents, prime-ministers, senators, parliamentarian, the UN Secretary general and even the hunger strikes before the UN are in effect forms of petitioning. Even our so called diplomatic efforts, meetings with government heads, etc, can be put in this category, as we can brings no form of pressure or threats to bear in these talks but have to appeal to the other side generosity, compassion or whatever. However important these efforts, they are nonetheless supplicatory and passive.

We must seek a course of action that is not merely symbolic or supplicatory but strikes a direct blow at Chinese tyranny. We must do something that causes cause a tangible injury, loss or disadvantage to China. We must also think in terms of what causes pain to China and not necessarily what gives us activists and participants satisfaction. Right at the moment China is most sensitive to economic loss. More than the loss of the lives of its citizens, economic injury would hurt China. One person not buying goods manufactured in the PRC would cause, let us say, a loss of $1000 annually to the Chinese economy, which is admittedly not much. But the fact remains that it is a loss to China. No matter how small it is at least real, tangible and quantifiable; and therefore far more valuable and effective than all the promises and assurances Tibetans have received from world leaders, politicians and ‘experts’.

It is a solid starting point. If five thousand Tibetans in the West did not buy Chinese goods we could be causing $5000,000 loss to China every year, which is also admittedly not very much, but if each of these 5000 people recruited ten friends each…? And so on?

Right now there is tremendous sympathy and attention for Tibet in the world. Far more than what the Palestinians, Bosnians or Kosovars ever got. But we do not use it. These people either read a book on Tibet, meet aTibetan, or travel iAt present what we have for them to do – other than asking them for money to support a monastery or a school, or possibly write a letter to their Congressmen or to the UN – is virtually nothing. But people want to do something, to become involved. And furthermore the only way of getting a person to retain the initial interest he had in Tibet is by giving him something meaningful to do. The more he or she becomes involved the more committed he or she becomes. The only way of maintaining people’s interests is by involving them in some positive activity; preferably something which involves a measure of sacrifice, discomfort and expenditure of energy.

A secondary benefit of such a campaign is that by involving every Tibetan in the West, every old pala and amala, in near daily activity against China we empower and educate all these people, and would (at the least) keep the community from regressing into apathy and internal conflicts as it is doing now.

It is also extremely important that we launch a campaign at the grass-roots level. There is an elitism of sorts in a lot of Tibet related activism these days. A kind of activist chic. "Look at us cool activists" sort of thing. One could possibly close down an assembly line or embarrass a company with such activism, but if we want a revolution we must get grass roots support and involvement.

The time is right

Unlike a few years ago when the first flush of business opportunities opened up in China, there has been a definite downturn in enthusiasm about China among people in the West, even in business circles. Of course the mains reasons are the Some of the reasons for this:

The non-appearance of the huge markets that Western business people envisioned in China. In fact the reverse is true as the monumental trade deficit with China, far exceeding that which the US ever has with Japan.

The awareness that China does not play by the rules and that many Western business in China have been victims not just of unfair practices, but active Chinese government connivance in them.

Other important factor contributing to the new disillusionment with China is the publication of the Cox report in Congress and the disclosure of a massive program by China to steal nuclear and hi-tech secrets from the USA.

The many levels on which the campaign can be conducted

An economic campaign against China allows everyone a role on their own level of ability and choice.

On the basic level we would have people just not buying Chinese goods, or avoiding buying Chinese goods as much as possible. A checklist or a chart could be provided which they could stick on their refrigerator and keep track of the successes or failures of their personal struggle not to buy Chinese goods. One could make the process competitive, or game-like in a way, that would hold the interest and involvement of the participant. This activity could also be given a ritual context in the way of Gandhi’s khadi spinning, which would serve to daily renew participants of their commitment to the struggle for freedom. A newsletter and web-site, which besides other things provided information on alternatives to Chinese made goods, would be crucial for participants on this level.

On the next level we would have people who not only don’t buy Chinese goods, but want to persuade others not to do so. We could arm them with information and arguments to help them talk to shoppers and even storeowners, company executives and CEO’s
(A tentative list of such argument is provided below). A handbook, a kind of "Boycotter’s Bible" would be very useful. Quite possibly one could organise workshops, seminars and training sessions to hone their skills of those participating on this level. These are people who could also picket the big departments and Toy’s’R Us stores around Christmas giving out leaflets to shoppers asking them not to buy Chinese goods.

The next level is the involvement of all existing Support Groups and Tibetan organisations. All of these groups are conducting awareness building efforts of one kind or another with concerts, marches and cultural festivals. These could be ideal environments to involve people in Direct Economic Action.

Yet a further level could be envisaged for groups and support groups who have the energy and the resources to target specific companies or financial institutions doing Business in China, as SFT did with the World Bank.

"Boycott Central"

All these various level should be linked by a co-ordinating centre, A Boycott Central. It would have to bring out the newsletter which, besides news about the progress of the movement, could provide information on stores and outlets where non-Chinese brands were available and so on. This could be replicated on a web-site. This would also be the place where campaign literature, designs etc would be created and distributed.

This Centre would also link up with organisations like Harry Wu’s "Lao Gai Centre", for information on goods manufactured in prisons and concentration camps. Also the AFL-CIO, who have researchers working on all aspects of China’s trade relationship with the USA, especially on the export and dissemination to the USA of goods manufactured by the PLA. The Centre could also get in touch with Ralph Nader’s outfit for expertise and information on how to investigate companies. This Centre could also get in touch with trade representatives of countries like India, Korea, Bangladesh etc., for information on distributors and outlets for their manufactured goods. The centre could become an information storehouse of the illegal activities of companies, politicians, and others with connections to China, which could be used for media exposure or even Civil Action suits.

It is important that Boycott Central not be a kind of headquarters issuing orders to various sub groups. Instead it should be a clearing-house for information and a resource for all the many groups and individuals participating in the DEA. This entire campaign should be broad-based and loose-knit enough so that the creativity and energy of its component elements can be fully utilised, and that ideas and initiative not be straight-jacketed by the usual organisational tendency towards uniformity and conformity, and the amour propres of organisers.

Can we start a campaign inside Tibet?

Whenever the example of a South Africa is raised as an example of a successful economic boycott, nay-sayers and better-notters invariably have to point out that the South African campaign started inside the country, and that the same is not possible in Tibet. Possibly not. But does it have to be? Different circumstances necessitate modifications in one’s strategies, not dropping them altogether.

Tibetans inside Tibet face a much more repressive system than the apartheid regime in South African, and have no opportunity to express their grievances before representatives of the international media or organise in a way that was possible in the relatively more open South African society.

Still, through publicity of the international DEA campaign inside Tibet, by radio and word of mouth, it is more than possible to initiate a campaign whereby without any overt declaration by individuals or creation of any organisations, individual Tibetans could merely stop buying from Chinese stores and stalls, stop eating at Chinese restaurants and not use Chinese tradesmen and artisans. It will be more difficult to get Tibetans to completely stop buying Chinese goods per se, as local industries are virtually non-existent, but it will be an important first step to not buy goods from Chinese retailers. For instance the traditional khadaks (greeting scarves) are manufactured in China, and even the khadak-sellers before the Jokhang temple are Chinese, since they have undercut Tibetan khadak-sellers. But it should become a point of honour for Tibetans to only buy from Tibetan khadak-sellers even if costs them a little extra. One could even get a religious figure to declare that khadaks bought from Chinese vendors are unacceptable in Tibetan temples. The same with craftsmen like tailors and carpenters. Tibetans should employ only Tibetans. Such action could be conducted completely inconspicuously and unnoticed by informers and Chinese security personnel, but nevertheless have a profound effect on relationships within Tibetan society and on individual morale.

Another way in which one could start a boycott campaign, of a kind, could be through a cultural context. The former Panchen Lama was very insistent that Tibetans wear their traditional costume. He would become quite angry and scold those Tibetans who came to see him dressed in Chinese clothes. The Dalai Lama himself constantly stresses that it is vital for Tibetans to preserve their culture. But how does one retain one’s identity when daily one’s clothes, possessions, even one’s physical appearance, became more and more Chinese? It would therefore be not impossible to introduce a campaign inside Tibet of not just boycotting Chinese goods, but of taking pride in Tibetan traditional products. Wearing of Tibetan clothes should not just be encouraged, but a become a new fashion. Also Tibetans should be asked to eat their food in wooden bowls as in the old days, and to give up Chinese utensils. This is not merely traditionalism for its own sake but a practical measure as Chinese made clothes: thin nylon socks, cheap canvas sneakers, ill-fitting suits that many Tibetans wear right now are not suited to the climate and environment of Tibet as traditional clothes are. This like Gandhi’s khadi campaign could become a way of empowering the ordinary Tibetan inside Tibet. Of course such a campaign will require time and organisation to implement, but it would gain a tremendous boost if the appeal for it could be made by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan spiritual leaders.

Such a trend is already taking place in many of the villages and small towns of Eastern Tibet where it seems to be a matter of pride for the people to dress traditionally and look different as possible from the Chinese.

Why a broad campaign? Why not "specific targets"?

In any discussion on boycotts there is a good deal of resistance to a boycott that is not targeted at specific companies. The logic being that targeting a specific company is more realistic and achievable than a broad campaign. But is it? A long time American observer of the Tibetan scene put it very succinctly in a discussion:

People keep saying that they loved the Holiday Inn campaign. But what kind of victory was that? Whose victory was it, and on whose terms? What goal did it serve other than to remove a hotel in Lhasa? The reason the Nestle campaign was a company specific boycott was because its goal was to stop selling baby formula to women in Africa in order to protect them and their children from disease and economic exploitation. To what extent did the Holiday Inn campaign improve the lives of Tibetans? To what extent did it do anything to cause the Chinese to reverse their oppressive policies in Tibet? All it did was allow those on the outside to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Let's be clear, success has got to be evaluated by very different criteria than the movement has thus far developed.

In the military it is axiomatic that "special operations" are only useful within the context of a broader military campaign. One is not saying here that Support Groups should not target specific companies or financial institutions doing business with China, but that such specific operations only have meaning and will benefit the cause if there is a broader economic campaign to which it can contribute. Otherwise such target-specific projects, by themselves, serve only as symbolic gestures.

How to Persuade John Q Public?

If the campaign is to really move beyond the realm of Tibet Supporters and to the general public then it is vital to present arguments that have a universality about them, or on the other hand appeal to the self-interest and idealism of the consumers. Some random arguments:

When we buy goods manufactured China we are contributing to the perpetuation of a labour force that has no right to organise, to bargain or strike. In China labour organisers are either in jail or concentration camps, or have been executed with a bullet in the back of the neck.

This argument could be extended further. When manufacturing moves from, let us say the US to China, the efforts and sacrifices of generations of individuals and organisations in this country to secure the rights of worker has been neatly side-stepped. It is not just a question of jobs moving to countries where wages are lower. Free-traders argue that as time goes by labour costs will become more expensive and the Chinese advantage will diminish. But this presupposes that labour in China like Taiwan or Korea or India have the potential to demand better wages and conditions. In fact even modest attempts to organise labour in China have met with harsh crack-downs and imprisonment and executions of labour leaders. One of the real but often unstated reasons why Western companies are reluctant to relocate industries to democracies like India, where labour is cheap, is that they are workers are unionised and have definite rights. We could develop this argument further to say that people should buy goods made in democracies like India or South Korea, or nations on the road to democracy like Indonesia, Bangladesh and others, instead of those made in Communist China.

Another argument is that rather than moving towards democracy via capitalism, the Chinese are creating a new ideology where capitalism can be blended with tyranny, to create a sort of "Market Fascism" as it were. The declared model for this ideology is Singapore. Singapore's civilian exterior, clean cut orderly economy and anti-democratic politics make up a dangerous "model", not just for the likes of China and Burma, but possibly even for shaky new democracies in Asia and Africa with economic problems and over-ambitious leaders. Henry Kissinger and James Schlesinger have honoured Lee Kuan Yew as Singapore's "architect of the next century". They and other members of the Nixon Center for Peace and Prosperity probably find the idea of a successful capitalist/fascist country with good golf courses and a muzzled press, secretly attractive. Others of more democratic bent are troubled. In an essay in the New York Times, William Safire warned that "The Singapore virus -- the notion that capitalist prosperity can be abetted by political repression -- could infect the global economy with its strain of fascism.

Then there is the question of China’s protectionism, which is a gigantic and unimaginably complicated system featuring not only the standard state subsidies of exports industries, but a host of practices designed not only to undercut competitive American made goods but to confuse western businessmen and politicians intending to reform it. Subsidies come in forms of preferential bank loans among other practices. Another method is import substitution. The Chinese government rigs the market so that items being imported are produced domestically even if the cost is greater. China is also a master hand at other much cruder forms of protectionism. One US government report catalogued the bewildering array of devices that China employs to block imports from the US and other countries: Prohibitively high tariffs from 35 to 150%. Import licenses, import quotas, import restrictions, stands and certification requirements. In some case after pressure from Congress or some federal agency, the Chinese trade bureaucrats have removed barriers on imports with great fanfare while simultaneously but quietly installing new barriers against the same imports. It is hoped by China’s business "partners" that after China’s entry into the WTO this would all be past history, but it is doubtful if China will ever give up these practises when the Western leaders are unwilling to offend China, much less penalise it for its offences.

US trade balance with China is at present 50 (?) billion dollars annually and rising. In the Japanese case it went up slowly for three decades till it began falling in the mid nineties. In China’s case it seems to have struck almost overnight. In the entire postwar history of trade competition, by contrast, Japan never came close to putting the United States in such a disadvantaged position. In the first half of 1996, Japan’s export advantage ratio was 1.6:1. Its exports to the United States were 56.7 billion; its imports 34.5 billion. It must also be borne in mind that Japan is a democracy an ally of the USA. In fact Japan is a small island nation that is an American client state, at least as far as its defense is concerned.

Why the campaign must be, and seen to be, political

As in South Africa this campaign must be, and clearly seen to be, fighting for definite political goals. The anti-apartheid campaign was never about saving the culture of the Zulus or any other native tradition. People joined the campaign because they opposed political oppression, the ruthless economic exploitation of non-whites, and the injustice of minority rule. It is around similar issues that we need to galvanize support for Tibet. The struggle for the restoration of Tibet’s independence represents the struggle to create a world where justice prevails for all and the human spirit has the freedom to express itself on its own terms. The boycott can connect its supporters with the struggle that the people inside Tibet are waging - the struggle for freedom, dignity, and justice. That struggle is not primarily about saving culture or religion. It is a political struggle.

Student participation in the campaign

One of the features of the anti-apartheid campaign in the West was the tremendous student involvement which invested it with an energy and dynamism of its own. We must bear in mind that international sanctions against South Africa were fought tooth and nail by Western governments and businesses (using the exact same arguments as in the case of China) and that only after a long campaign by students and activists did they finally impose sanctions on South Africa. The involvement of students also gave the movement its cache, which then translated into the involvement of celebrities and stars and the public at large.

In the Tibetan context we have an even greater advantage as students in the West are already organised in the Students for a Free Tibet movement, with its many chapters all over the United States and extending into Europe and Asia. More than anywhere else it would be the campuses of the free world where the DEA campaign would gain supporters not swayed by arguments of "realpolitik" or selfish economic interests, but by idealism.

Universities, in a sense, have set the intellectual and political trends in certain periods in recent history. If the campaign takes off in the campuses we could be sure of awakening general public interest throughout the country and the world, as students did in the sixties and seventies.

The Chinese reaction

It is important that we be fully prepared for the negative and even hostile reaction we will get to this campaign from the Chinese community in the West. There will be ridiculous accusations that the DEA is "racist" and so on, but that can easily be countered by the reminder that China supported economic sanctions against South Africa, and even financially and politically helped the ANC. It even provided arms and training to the ANC’s military wing.

But it is important that we remind ourselves of Harry Wu’s words. When informed of the proposed boycott of Chinese goods by an SFT board-member, Andy Ayers, Harry said it was high time that such a campaign was launched. He said it was important for people to realise that the Western purchase of Chinese goods and endorsement of the Chinese economy contributed in large part to ensuring that the Communist Party retained power in China. Also that purchase of Chinese good contributed directly to the enrichment of Party leaders rather than the welfare of the Chinese people.

Conclusion

We have discussed the case for Direct Economic Action from so many different angles, approaches and rationales that it might be a good thing to get back to the basic reason for this campaign – Tibetan Freedom. Do Tibetans living under Chinese oppression want us to conduct a campaign that could adversely affect their personal living standard? Do they want economic gain more than freedom and independence? We are not in a position to conduct a poll in Tibet, or even question people there in a frank and open manner but we find a succinct expression of the Tibetan attitude on this matter in this excerpt from a dissident document which was circulating in Tibet in the late eighties:

If (under China) Tibet were built up, the livelihood of the Tibetan people improved, and their lives so surpassed in happiness that it would embarrass the deities of the Thirty-Three Divine Realms; if we were really and truly given this, even then we Tibetans wouldn’t want it. We absolutely would not want it.

Stray thoughts & incomplete ideas

These days even single brand names like Nike are manufactured in different plants in different countries. We could insist in stores that we want Nike Bangla Desh or Nike Indonesia, not Nike China. So we are not targetiing Nike, per se, only asking them to give us stuff from their Bangla Desh plant.

We could persuade Walmart’s type stores to carry goods not made in China. It has happened before in Seattle. This in itself would be one more success for the campaign, but also help boycotters with their shopping. It’s really difficult these days to find something not made in China. Maybe a mail order or internet shopping centre.

Get celebrities aboard. This is one campaign where actors, singers and stars could be tremendously effective. Maybe Monica could be persuaded to declare that her thongs were NOT MADE IN CHINA.

Launch a Christmas campaign. Leaflet Toys’R Us and other department stores. Use Street Theatre. Maybe a little skit "The Mao that Stole Christmas". The story of how the North Pole was "Liberated " by the PLA who took over Santa’s workshop; and how Santa and the Elves are now undergoing Reform Through Labour. "No Victoria, Santa is not dead, he is merely doing time in the frozen wastes of Manchuria for "Counter-Revolutionary" activities. That is why also, children, all your toys have this label on them: MADE IN CHINA."

Christmas would be a good time to bring to public notice the persecution of Christians in China. Also Catholic bishops in jail. Beijing’s appointment of its own Bishop. The little Panchen Lama, and the boy Karmapa fleeing in the snow to freedom.

The West sometimes describes itself as a consumer society. So why not use this vice to at least to make a moral point. Maybe consume with some discrimination. Turn your mania for shopping into a moral and political weapon.

People in the West demand choices, even in life style, consumer items, in everything. But in reality the choice is between brand A and brand B. Why not push this further and in a more ethical direction. One can chose to insert a moral quotient in even one’s daily shopping

There is an argument that most products from China are bought by the working class or minorities like the Hispanic community, who will not respond to arguments of human rights violations or Tibetan freedom. But it can be argued that this section of society suffers most from inroads of Chinese goods into America, when manufacturing declines in this country. Such an argument could be used to present the case of a boycott of Chinese goods to Hispanic community with an additional factor. China is anti-pope and anti Catholic, and even prevented the pope from visiting his flock in Hong Kong, and has thrown a number of Bishops in concentration camps.

There is a charming photograph from Gandhi’s visit to England in 1931. Wrapped in a woolen shawl and looking happy but somewhat bashful, he is surrounded by a tough but very friendly contingent of female mill-workers in Lancashire who are giving him a rousing welcome. These were people driven to unemployment by Gandhi’s boycott of English textiles. Yet they are cheering Gandhi and raising their fists in solidarity with him. Whenever I hear from middle class types that the working class will not respond to overtures about human rights and freedom, but only their self-interests, I wish I could shove this photograph against their faces.

To ensure peace we must ensure a world where democracies prevail. There is really no getting away from that. The oft quoted truism that democracies do not go to war with other democracies, but that dictatorships do -- still holds good. Right now in the world China is the biggest and fast-growing military threat to America is China. With the removal of the Soviet threat on its northern borders and its own explosive economic growth, China has begun to see America as its number one rival, and future enemy in war.