Through the Eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult Heritage and Memory Intibet

Home , Potala Palace, Tibet Museum (Lhasa)

Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory in Tibet

Jordan Vetter

Abstract :

The Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet serves as an important religious symbol and an embodiment of Tibetan culture. Ever since Chinese troops invaded Tibet in the 1950s, the Chinese government has attempted to control Tibet, including converting the Potala Palace and its rich material culture into a secular institution on display for tourists. Now void of the Dalai Lama and most of its contents, the Potala has become a façade for public consumption of Chinese state-led narratives and a symbol of cultural oppression. Through their approaches to heritage management and tourism, and with the aid of the Potala’s listing as a UNESCO World Heritage site, China is capitalizing on Tibet’s cultural heritage, undermining the Ti- betan people and their culture, and controlling the narrative of Tibetan history to alter the collective memory of Tibetans.

Keywords: Tibet, memory, cultural oppression, heritage management, UNESCO

DOI 10.33137/ijournal.v6i1.35270

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 1 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet Introduction

Situated within a tumultuous history, the Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet serves as an evolving and important symbol, for the people of Tibet and for the Chinese government. Dating back to the 7th Century, the Potala is an iconic part of the region, a hub for Buddhists around the world, and an embodiment of the Tibetan culture (Wei, 2018). Ever since Chinese troops invaded Tibet in the 1950s and the Dalai Lama, the religious leader of Tibetan Buddhism, fled to India, the Chinese government has controlled Tibet, attempting to assimilate the region and turning the Potala into a museum and World Heritage site (Baculinao & Cumming, 2018; New World Encyclopedia (NWE), 2019; Perryer, 2019). In this way, the Potala is a symbol of cultural oppression and the Tibetan struggle for independence, and a façade for public consumption of Chinese state-led narratives.

The Potala Palace is implicated in the academic and public conversations surrounding the portrayal of difficult history. The concept of difficult history refers to stories of oppression, violence, and trauma (Rose, 2016). In the case of Tibet, it is a subjugated history, where stories are told by the victors, silencing or marginalizing other voices, and there is intentional altering of material records at the hands of the Chinese government, resulting in a collective loss or ‘social forgetting’ (Rose, 2016, p. 31-33). The Potala Palace, as a museum and World Heritage site, is not neutral and cannot be immune to politics. As has been argued by scholars like Robert Shepherd (2007), Clare Harris (2012, 2013), and Lynn Meskell (2018), this paper takes a similar stance that heritage management work is political, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultur- al Organization (UNESCO) is complicit in furthering strategic state-led narratives and destructive development.

Through their approaches to heritage management and tourism for the Potala Palace, and with the aid of its UNESCO listing, China is capitalizing on Tibet’s cultural heritage to control the narrative of Tibetan history, while commodifying, undermining, and suppressing the Tibetan people and their culture. This report examines the influencing factors in the portrayal of Tibet’s difficult history through the Potala Palace, and the resultant impact onT ibetan society. iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 2 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet Methodology

To develop this case, I examined existing scholarly literature on heritage management, history and memory, and tourism in Tibet. I further researched official publications from various United Nations bodies related to heritage and human rights, as well as North American and Chi- nese news sources on developments in Tibet and on Tibet-China relations since the early 2000s. Information from tourism-related sites gave additional perspectives, as did exploration of related work of cultural institutions inside and outside of Tibet. It is important to note that some information is reportedly difficult to find, unavailable, or its accuracy is in question, given the strict control on information within and outside of China (Xu & Albert, 2017). For this reason, I am con- scious of the fact that the information presented might be incomplete or misrepresenting certain facts, realities, and perspectives. This further exemplifies the ideas presented in this paper, of the political influence on and manipulation of difficult histories facingT ibetans.

Background: Decades of oppression, centuries of existence

To understand the present day Potala Palace, one must first understand its history. On top of the Red Hill in the heart of Lhasa and the centre of pilgrimage routes, the Potala Palace has served as the traditional residence of the Dalai Lamas, the administrative base of the Tibetan government, and the institutional heart of Tibetan Buddhism (Harris, 2013; International Campaign for Tibet (ICT), 2018; NWE, 2019). Built in the 7th Century by the Tibetan King for his marriage to the Princess of the Chinese Tang Dynasty, the Palace was later converted into a residence for the Da- lai Lama with the end of dynastic rule and the emergence of the system of rule by Lamas (Choe- don, 2015; NWE, 2019; Wei, 2018).

In 1950, Chinese troops invaded Tibet, declaring a peaceful liberation to free Tibet from the “tyranny of religion”, ending serfdom, and bringing prosperity to “a backward region” (Har- ris, 2013, p. 61; Reuters, 2018). Tibet signed the 17-Point Agreement, which recognized China’s sovereignty but affirmed that China would not alter Tibet’s political system (Perryer, 2019). When

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 3 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

China broke its commitments, Tibetan resistance forces led a full-scale uprising in 1959 (Choe- don, 2015; Perryer, 2019). After the uprising failed, the current and Fourteenth Dalia Lama fled Tibet and sought exile in India (Perryer, 2019; Reuters, 2018). The Tibetan government was abol- ished, and the Potala Palace was effectively closed and taken into the hands of the Chinese government, gaining state-level protection in 1961 (Harris, 2013; Nowakowski, 2019; Perryer, 2019). The government gradually removed the Potala’s contents, putting most of them in the national exchequer (Harris, 2012, 2013). In 1965, China drew new boundaries and split ethnic homelands to establish the Tibet Autonomous Region (ICT, 2018; Perryer, 2019). The Cultural Revolution in China between 1966 and 1976 resulted in the banning of displays of faith, sending monks to pris- on or to work in the fields, and the destruction of thousands of monasteries, historical documents, and works of art (The Guardian, 2002; NWE, 2019). An estimated 200,000 to 1 million Tibetans were killed (Perryer, 2019).

In the 1980s, China returned a certain degree of freedom to Tibetans, restoring and re- constructing religious sites as it opened Tibet to foreign and domestic tourists (Choedon, 2015; Harris, 2013; Nowakowski, 2019). Between 1989 and 1999, the remaining contents of the Potala were designated as ‘Cultural Relics’ by the Chinese state and over 30,000 objects were transferred to the Tibet Museum in Lhasa (Harris, 2013, pp. 65-68). In 1994, China acquired the UNESCO World Heritage listing for the Potala Palace as a cultural heritage site, further opening it up for tourism and development (Harris, 2013). The site includes the Palace and its ancillary buildings, and is said to contain gold stupas (tombs) of eight Dalai Lamas, along with thousands of shrines, statues, murals, painted scrolls, carpets, carvings, historical documents, and objects of porcelain, jade, silver, and gold (NWE, 2019; World Heritage Convention (WHC), 2018).

Buddhist practices and individual freedoms became increasingly restricted again in 1996 with the introduction of a science-based curriculum in monasteries and the Chinese government forbidding Tibetans from receiving teachings from the Dalai Lama (Baculinao & Cumming, 2018; The Guardian, 2002; Sinding-Larsen, 2016). Although Tibetan protests have been mostly peaceful, Tibetans staged large-scale demonstrations in 2008 when China hosted the Beijing Olympics, and in the early 2010s monks attempted self-immolation to draw attention to their repression, re- iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 4 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

sulting in arrests, imprisonment and torture for charges of separatism or obstructing modernization (Choedon, 2015; Human Rights Watch, 2018; Marvin, 2013). Unaccompanied travel to Tibet for foreigners has been restricted, denying entry for many diplomats, journalists, non-governmental organizations, and independent evaluators (ICT, 2018; Perryer, 2019). The Dalai Lama continues to promote the Tibetan cause around the world and attempt negotiations with the Chinese government while in India, but proposals for peaceful agreement are quickly dismissed (The Guardian, 2002; Harris, 2013). As Tibetans face ongoing oppression, China continues to promote tourism and modernize the city of Lhasa, threatening the structural integrity and unique atmosphere of the Potala and its surroundings (ICT, 2018; NWE, 2019).

Analysis

The Chinese government’s attitudes towards Tibet, China’s approaches to heritage management and tourism, and the international context of the United Nations all play a role in contributing to China’s portrayal of Tibet’s history through the Potala Palace. Leveraging these strategies, China is benefiting from Tibet’s cultural heritage to control the state-led narrative of the region and affect collective memories.

Attitudes towards Tibet

Despite documented historic accounts, China and Tibet view their roles in these events differently. This has created dissonant heritage, or a lack of agreement over the interpretation and meaning of their shared history, a concept introduced by Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) (John- son, 2014). The ruling Communist Party of China is officially atheist, while simultaneously bound to protect and preserve sites of Tibetan Buddhism (Baculinao & Cumming, 2018). China actively denies repression of Tibetans. Since the 1980s, China has spent $450 million to renovate religious sites, provided health insurance and social security for 46,000 monks and nuns, and further proposed investments in infrastructure and the economy to safeguard Tibet (Baculinao & Cumming, 2018). However, officials have also described Buddhism as a “long-term obstacle to the transfor-

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 5 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet mation of Tibet” (The Guardian, 2002), and see the Chinese national identity as bringing moder- nity to minority cultures (Harris, 2013). This points to the symbolic nature of China’s actions to protect Tibetan heritage, while Tibetans continue to advocate for their freedom.

Heritage management

Under the guise of protection and preservation of Tibetan heritage, China has made signifi- cant efforts to control the Potala Palace, diminishing the Tibetan culture and altering the collective memoryscapes of its people.

Development as preservation

Money put towards heritage management in China ultimately contributes to the development of built environments to support tourism, activities through which China financially benefits. Robert Shepherd (2006) has accused UNESCO of being “a complicit partner in the reworking of culture as a development resource” (p. 249). With the Potala’s World Heritage listing and designation as a Priority Protected Site in China, the Chinese government has identified the Lhasa region as an area of economic potential in their long-term tourism strategies and infrastructure projects, creating a tension between development and preservation (ICT, 2018; Su & Li, 2012). Despite plans for sustainable development of the region being made in the name of preservation, there is scarce mention of conservation or heritage (ICT, 2018). Instead, the result has been massive expansion, demolition of historic buildings and traditional houses, introduction of high-rises and inauthentic architecture, and the construction of roads, tourist facilities and other commercial infrastructure (ICT, 2018; Perryer, 2019; WHC, 2018). In 1948, Lhasa was a small town of 700 traditional Tibetan homes; in 2018 there were only 50, and the original ancient holy city now covers less than 2% of Lhasa (ICT, 2018; Marvin, 2013). The elimination of traditional architecture is not only removing Tibetans from their homes and sites of worship but is also wiping out the memory and culture of an entire group of people (ICT, 2018). The government is commercializing Tibet at the expense of the local environments and ways of life, downplaying the spiritual significance of the region.

Preservation efforts benefitting the Chinese economy are largely disenfranchising the Tibet- iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 6 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

an population from leveraging its own resources and economic potential (Sinding-Larsen, 2016). Most of the tourism business within Tibet is controlled by the rest of China, with only about 30% of commercial enterprises run by Tibetans, and very little of the region’s income from tourism trickling down to the local economy (Perryer, 2019). The use of the Chinese language or English throughout the tourism industry in Lhasa prevents many Tibetans from working at heritage sites (ICT, 2018; Marvin, 2013; Sinding-Larsen, 2016). Top-down management and insufficient regulations promoting local participation further alienate community members (Su & Li, 2012).

Monumentalization and design of space

Through a strategy of monumentalization of the Potala Palace, China is defining space to create specific collective memories, stripping the Potala down to a façade and visual display. Our memories and perceptions of the past are defined by space and communication networks, not by history itself (Kapralski, 2011). These memoryscapes contribute to collective memory, but their fluidity allows them to be subject to political influences (Kapralski, 2011). The Potala Palace is part of building the frame of memory for Tibetans, Chinese citizens, and foreign visitors, onto which the Chinese government has imposed certain sanctioned meanings.

The Chinese government has attempted to control memories and understandings of what has happened in Tibet through building certain monuments and structures, and removing others (Harris, 2013). They are erasing traditional architecture throughout Lhasa and have banned photos of the Dalai Lama in public places (The Guardian, 2002), while re-inventing the Potala as a monument to be consumed by non-Tibetans. Now void of the Dalai Lama and most of its contents, what was once a building of living beauty in a centre of Tibetan religious and political power is now an empty shell presented as a museum for the viewing of others, thereby controlling the memories and meanings it can elicit (Harris, 2012, 2013). Harris (2013) has equated the monumentalization of the Potala with a state-led agenda of organized forgetting – the displays cultivate state-ap- proved ‘memories’ that Tibetans should embrace, while preserving personal histories and possessions as ‘cultural relics’ outside of the Palace (p. 74).

Architecture has been used to define and control the space surrounding the Potala Palace.

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 7 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

The construction of a large plaza at the base of the Potala, featuring a Chinese flag, encourages visitors to view the Potala as a monument of Chinese Democratic Reform (Marvin, 2013) and a reminder of freedom within limits (The Guardian, 2002). The Chinese government has further used built space to facilitate state-sanctioned viewing and consumption of the Potala (Harris, 2012). Plazas, streets, and monasteries have been reframed to concentrate viewing on the Potala’s exterior, rendering its human and human-made contents superfluous (Harris, 2012). The Potala is now a prop, a backdrop for perfectly framed, unobstructed photos and patriotic ceremonies to further national imagery, suggesting Tibetanness in a city that has otherwise largely been made Chi- nese (Harris, 2012, 2013). The emphasis on the façade of the Potala eliminates opportunities for ‘intimate encounters’ between visitors and Tibetan culture, preventing acknowledgement, learning and personal connections (Bonnell & Simon, 2015).

Controlled display of culture

A final strategy of heritage management and the construction of memoryscapes in China is the display of Tibet’s culture in controlled, secular institutions. Museums, identified as neutral spaces by the Chinese government, were deemed as appropriate locations to display contents of the Potala and facilitate touristic encounters with Tibet (Harris, 2013). This, however, meant that the objects were disconnected from their historical context and their narratives could be controlled. Objects put into the Tibet Museum in Lhasa became de-sacralised relics, and lost the power and meaning that their home in the Potala gave them, causing living culture to become dead relics designed for the enjoyment of others (Harris, 2012, 2013). The objects on display, including personal possessions of the Dalai Lama and other Tibetans, have been re-classified and labelled according to Chinese curatorial principles as “relics”, “ethnographic specimens” and “objects of utility” (Harris, 2013, p. 67). The Tibet Museum explains their duty as illustrating the history of Tibet’s incorporation into the motherland, while deeming Tibet’s heritage “worthy” of preservation in “a grand museum” (Harris, 2012, p. 191). This is a clear instance of the Chinese government imposing their perspectives on the narratives provided to tourists to Lhasa. It is evident the Chinese authorities do not feel any moral responsibility towards creating accurate and sensitive representations of a living history and culture. iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 8 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

Tourism

Tourism is a powerful economic contributor in China. In 2017, tourism to Tibet generated more than $5.5 billion, or one third of Tibet’s income, and the number of visitors has been on the rise for decades (Baculinao & Cumming, 2018). There were 2.7 million domestic tourists to Tibet in the first four months of 2018, up 63.5% from the same period in 2017 (ICT, 2018). The design of the Potala’s experiences for these visitors ultimately contributes to diminishing and commodifying the Tibetan culture.

Before visiting, the information available to tourists helps paint a picture of the Tibet that China wants to convey. Lhasa is described by China as “a famous national historical and cultural city and an international tourist city with snow-covered plateau characteristics and ethnic characteristics” (ICT, 2018, p. 11). This completely downgrades the spiritual significance and the vibran- cy of the Tibetan culture, reducing the people to “ethnic” characteristics. One tour company refers to the Potala as a “museum of the very finest Tibetan architecture, artwork and religious relics,” and refers to its political history in the sense of “historic preservation” and “serenity” (Selective Asia, n.d.). In no context does the word ‘serenity’ describe a history of oppression. The Potala has been further undermined and turned into a spectacle for visitor entertainment when a scaled-down model was created as a tourist attraction in 1989, and in 1999 when the Potala was put on the back of the fifty-yuan banknote to promote tourism (Harris, 2012). The Potala has been endlessly repro- duced, using cheap materials, turning it into a commodity (Marvin, 2013).

Moreover, visitor access to the Potala is highly controlled. No photographs are allowed inside of the Palace (Wei, 2018), which keeps an aura of intrigue that encourages visitation but also hides some truth of what remains inside. It is unclear what aspects of the history are told on tours, whether any oppressive details are explained. From examining TripAdvisor reviews of the Potala Place, the façade of the Potala seems to be successfully communicating the regime’s narrative as intended. Eighty percent of visitor reviews gave it five stars, largely heralding the architecture, the views, or the fact that it is a UNESCO site (TripAdvisor, 2020). The number of visitors has been controlled in recent years to prevent deterioration of the site and overburdening

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 9 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet its structural capacity (Harris, 2012; WHC, 2018). Tourists are restricted from visiting during the month of March, as March 10 marks the anniversary of the Tibetan uprising and authorities do not want documentation of anticipated commemorative protests to reach the international community (Perryer, 2019).

Tour groups are used as a form of managing where and how tourists spend their time (Mar- vin, 2013). You must visit the Potala in a group, having obtained the appropriate Tibet Tourism Bureau permit in advance, and there is a one-hour limit to tours (Selective Asia, n.d.; Wei, 2018). Chinese tour buses have been said to drop visitors off at the gift shop instead of the main entrance, feeding the narrative that Tibet has desirable objects readily available for sale (Harris, 2012). By contrast, Tibetans often only visit when invited as part of a school group (Harris, 2012), and enter through a different entrance than tourists (Marvin, 2013). In 2007, a set of displays opened at the entrance used by Tibetans, using life-sized clay figures to reconstruct aspects of Tibetan life prior to 1950, depicting scenes of poor monks, abuse of servants, and other offensive imagery intended to remind locals of the modern amenities that they now enjoy because of China (Harris, 2013). The displays encouraged Tibetans to view their past as distasteful (Harris, 2012).

The United Nations

The UNESCO World Heritage designation has done little to benefit the Potala Palace, instead giving China authority on an international stage to propagate their narratives of Tibet’s history with little consequence. UNESCO and its World Heritage Program have been highly criti- cized over the last several decades for their shift away from the original goals of international cooperation, education, cultural exchange, and conservation of heritage (Shashkevich, 2018). Lynn Meskell, anthropologist and scholar, claims that most countries now want their sites on the heritage list to benefit from its brand, using the international arena as a tool for economic and political gain (Shashkevich, 2018). China is no exception. Listing the Potala under China’s name puts the state in control of heritage decisions in Tibet, and enables the government to reach strategic economic objectives and strengthen their claims of authority over Tibetan culture, all while projecting national narratives of the past (ICT, 2018; Shepherd, 2006). To further China’s agency, the current iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 10 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

Deputy Director-General of UNESCO is Chinese, suggesting that China will be able to increase its influence over the World Heritage Committee to support its broader political aims (ICT, 2018)

Despite being an international regulatory body, UNESCO has very little authority over member states. There are no penalties for breaking signed agreements, and biased individual member states all have authority as decision-makers (Shashkevich, 2018). Multiple State of Conservation reports published by UNESCO on the Potala Palace since 1994 have indicated the “deliberate destruction of heritage” at the site (WHC, 2018). Despite continued recommendations from the World Heritage Committee on the need for improved documentation, management, planning, and cooperation, China has failed to uphold its responsibilities, putting Tibet’s precious remaining cultural heritage at risk (ICT, 2018; WHC, 2018; Winter et al., 2008). With China’s unwillingness to allow monitoring missions or outside reviews, the Committee can only continue to make recommendations based on what China chooses to report.

The United Nations similarly has little hold as an authority for global human rights, point- ing to a systemic issue within the United Nations. Despite acknowledgement and ongoing investi- gation by the Human Rights Commission of the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of the Tibetan people, no country wants to challenge China, resulting in insufficient follow-through at the international level (Choedon, 2015; Reuters, 2018). If one United Nations body is examining human rights violations in a nation, how can another United Nations body allow this same nation to uphold their commitments to preservation? Validation from the United Nations under UNESCO is only contributing to China’s power in other international arenas.

The phrasing of the UNESCO listing furthers the narrative of Tibet that China wants to convey, omitting mention of its difficult history. The Potala Palace’s “outstanding universal value” is derived from its original architecture, rich ornamentation and integration into a striking land- scape, as well as the structure’s embodiment of the administrative, religious and symbolic func- tions of the Tibetan theocratic society (WHC, 2018). Recognizing the site primarily for its architecture overlooks its significance as the home and burial place of the Dalai Lamas, the centre of the Tibetan government and the heart of Tibetan Buddhism (Harris, 2012). The listing has turned

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 11 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet a structure of religious devotion and living history into a museum – an immovable piece of architecture displaying historic objects (Harris, 2012). The listing also avoids reference to the Dalai Lama’s exile, which is ultimately what allowed the Chinese government to gain the World Heri- tage designation in the first place (Harris, 2013). By suppressing the difficult parts of the history that are embedded within the Palace, UNESCO is assisting China in manipulating the narrative of Tibet that is communicated around the world.

Tibetan memory

The Potala Palace is a powerful symbol for Tibetans in the construction of their collective memory. It is both a shrine and physical representation of the constancy of enlightened beings and the Buddhist religion, while also serving as a painful memorial to the Dalai Lama’s absence from the homeland (Harris, 2013). Many locals resist the idea of it as a museum or a secular heritage site (Harris, 2012), seeing China’s strategy of injecting money into infrastructure as superficial and “increasing its control and limiting the personal freedom of the Tibetan people” (Baculinao & Cumming, 2018). Several Tibetan residents have remarked that by focusing all the attention on the exterior of the Potala as a tourist destination, a setting for patriotic pride, and a monument meant to be admired from the outside, future generations may no longer remember the Potala’s original purpose, or who and what it had previously housed (Harris, 2012, 2013). Continued control of the Potala could mean that one day, aspects of the rich living culture might be forgotten in local and international perceptions of Tibet and Tibetans (Sinding-Larsen, 2016). Without tangible evidence, will the memories of new generations of Tibetans be the real, lived, difficult history of their ances- tors, or the narratives the Chinese government has communicated through the Potala and the city of Lhasa? The fear is that when the current Dalai Lama passes away, China will choose the next one, going against the Buddhist beliefs of reincarnatory lineage and sealing away the entire history of the Lamas’ rule in a beautiful yet empty monument to its obsolescence (Baculinao & Cum- ming, 2018; The Guardian, 2002; Harris, 2013).

Conclusion

Cultural institutions are inherently not neutral. This is evident in the Chinese government’s iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 12 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

purposeful propagation of state-led narratives regarding Tibetan history and culture. China has intentionally leveraged the UNESCO World Heritage listing of the Potala Palace and its heritage management strategies to construct and erase memories, manipulating perceptions of events and contributing to the oppression of the Tibetan people. In the process, the difficult history and plight of Tibetans is being forgotten.

While there are risks to telling difficult histories, Julia Rose also discusses the importance and benefits, which include engendering hope and advocating for social justice (Rose, 2016). In the case of Tibet, continuing to uncover the real stories of the difficult history is vital in building international concern and awareness, in order to show solidarity with the Tibetans who continue to hold on to their faith and peacefully resist the Chinese force. The rest of the world has the opportunity to advocate alongside Tibetans as their history is still unfolding, to help ensure the difficult stories remain in the past. By opening Tibet for tourism, awareness of Tibetan existence and positive impressions of what remains of its unique culture are increasingly accessible to international audiences (Sinding-Larsen, 2016). Cultural institutions outside of Tibet are also drawing attention to the stories of Tibetans. This includes The Tibet Museum in Dharamshala, India, which exists to inform visitors about the ongoing abuses against the Tibetan people, to educate the Tibet- an community in exile in India on the values of democracy and human rights, and to strengthen the Tibetan spirit and collective pride in its rich culture (The Tibet Museum, 2020). Additionally, a 2019 photo exhibition on the grounds of the United Nations in Geneva, curated by eleven representatives of the Tibetan community, used personal stories to reinforce the human rights violations (Bureau Reporter, 2019). Non-governmental organizations like the International Campaign for Tibet, the International Tibet Network, and the Canada Tibet Committee are continuing to gain international attention and support by educating and providing activism resources to the general public, petitioning governments and discussing policies with officials, conducting research and capacity building activities, and pressuring UNESCO to take action (Canada Tibet Committee, 2020; ICT, 2018; The International Tibet Network, 2020). As these initiatives play out from a grassroots level, scholars turn to discussing the nationalistic interests and politics at play within UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee (Meskell, 2013). Ultimately, a restructuring of these

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 13 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet organizations is necessary, towards a collaborative, intergovernmental approach that gives outside experts the authority to intervene and act on recommendations for state parties. For example, Rao has proposed a system of cooperation and collaboration from inscription to conservation for the World Heritage Committee, based in existing operational guidelines, that does not allow those with more representatives or financial or political power to dominate decisions (Rao, 2010). Spe- cifically addressing heritage management in China, scholars Su and Li discuss the importance for collaboration among diverse stakeholders at all levels, particularly promoting local participation through targeted government policies, regulations, and education, including equal benefit-sharing mechanisms and standards for management and service quality (Su & Li, 2012). All these efforts can engender hope and keep the Tibetan memory alive.

For decades, international non-governmental organizations, human rights groups, journalists, the United Nations, and foreigners have grappled with their relations with China. The immense power of the Chinese government feels impenetrable, with recommendations from even the highest authorities having little impact. Nevertheless, while Tibetans seem to be on a path of oppression into extinction, the persistence of the Tibetan religion and culture through years of control remains a threat to the Chinese authorities. The Potala is not only a symbol of dominance by the Chinese government, but also one of resilience of Tibetans and a reminder that the power of Buddhism can persist.

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 14 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

References

Baculinao, E., & Cumming, J. (2018). China spends big in Tibet to avert a crisis when the Dalai Lama dies. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-spends-big-tibet- avert-crisis-when-dalai-lama-dies-n904676 Bonnell, J., & Simon, R. (2015). ‘Difficult’ exhibitions and intimate encounters.Museums and Society, 5, 65-85. Bureau Reporter. (2019). Tibet Museum holds travelling exhibition titled ‘A Long Look Home- ward’ in Geneva. Central Tibet Administration. https://tibet.net/tibet-museum-holds-travelling-exhibition-titled-a-long-look-homeward-at-place-des-nation-in-geneva/ Canada Tibet Committee. (2020). Mission and Policies. Canada Tibet Committee. http://www. tibet.ca/en/about_us/mission_and_policies Choedon, Y. (2015, May 5). The Tibet Issue at the United Nations. Tibetan Review. https://www. tibetanreview.net/the-tibet-issue-at-the-united-nations/ Clark, I. (2016). Exhibiting the Exotic, Simulating the Sacred: Tibetan Shrines at British and American Museums. Ateliers d’anthropologie, 43. Frangville, V. (2009). Tibet in Debate: Narrative Construction and Misrepresentations in Seven Years in Tibet and Red River Valley. Journal of Global Cultural Studies, 5, 1-24. The Guardian. (2002). Cultural clash in land on the roof of the world. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/08/china Harris, C. (2012). The Museum on the Roof of the World: Art, Politics, and the Representation of Tibet. University of Chicago Press. Harris, C. (2013). The Potala Palace: Remembering to Forget in Contemporary Tibet. South Asian Studies, 29(1), 61-75. Human Rights Watch. (2018). China: Allow UN Rights Experts into Tibet. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/03/08/china-allow-un-rights-experts-tibet International Campaign for Tibet. (2018). Destruction, Commercialization, Fake Replicas: UN- ESCO must protect Tibetan cultural heritage. SaveTibet.org. https://secureservercdn. net/198.71.233.163/4vo.170.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/lhasa-letter-d. pdf The International Tibet Network. (2020). Campaigns. The International Tibet Network. https:// tibetnetwork.org/campaigns/ Johnson, L. (2014). Renegotiating dissonant heritage: the statue of J.P. Coen. International Jour- nal of Heritage Studies, 20(6), 583-598. Kapralski, S. (2011). (Mis)representations of the Jewish Past in Poland’s Memoryscapes: Nation- alism, Religion, and Political Economies of Commemoration. In E. Lehrer, C. Milton, & M. Patterson (Eds.), Curating difficult knowledge: violent pasts in public places (pp. 179- 191). Palgrave Macmillan. Marvin, C. (2013). Presumptive Space and the Tibetan Struggle for Visibility in Lhasa. Interna- tional Journal of Communication, 7, 1464-1489. Meskell, L. (2018). A Future in Ruins: UNESCO, World Heritage, and the Dream of Peace. Ox-

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 15 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

ford University Press. Meskell, L. (2013). UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40: Challenging the Economic and Political Order of International Heritage Convention. Current Anthropology, 54(4), 483- 494. New World Encyclopedia. (2019). Potala Palace. New World Encyclopedia. https://www.new- worldencyclopedia.org/entry/Potala_Palace Nowakowski, M. (2019). History of the Potala Palace. Castles.today. https://castles.today/castles/ castles/china/lhasa/history/ Perryer, S. (2019). The ethics of visiting a region in dispute. Business Destinations. https://www. businessdestinations.com/destinations/the-ethics-of-visiting-a-region-in-dispute/ Pitt Rivers Museum. (2018). Tibetan Objects in Transition. Pitt Rivers Museum. https://www.prm. ox.ac.uk/event/tibetan-objects-in-transition Reuters. (2018, July 29). Tibet inseparable part of China’s ‘sacred’ territory, says Chinese premier. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/tibet-inseparable-part-of-china-s-sacred-territory-says-chinese-premier/story-3sspMKCROjnET9JbMr- wLpK.html Rao, K. (2010). A new paradigm for the identification, nomination and inscription of properties on the World Heritage List. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(3), 161-172. Rose, J. (2016). Defining difficult history: risks, reasons and tools. InInterpreting Difficult History at Museums and Historic Sites (pp. 1-24). Rowman & Littlefield. Selective Asia. (n.d.). Visit Potala Palace, Tibet. Selective Asia. https://www.selectiveasia.com/ experiences/visit-potala-palace-tibet Shashkevich, A. (2018). Stanford anthropologist calls for change at UNESCO and its World Her- itage program. Standford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2018/11/19/stanford-scholar-examines-unescos-world-heritage-program/ Shepherd, R. (2006). UNESCO and the politics of cultural heritage in Tibet. Journal of Contem- porary Asia, 36(2), 243-257. Shepherd, R. (2016). Faith in Heritage: Displacement, Development, and Religious Tourism in Contemporary China. Routledge. Sinding-Larsen, A. (2016). Lhasa community, world heritage and human rights. In S. Ekern, W. Logan, B. Sauge, & A. Sinding-Larsen (Eds.), World Heritage Management and Human Rights (pp. 85-94). Routledge. Su, M., & Li, B. (2012). Resource Management at World Heritage Sites in China. Procedia Envi- ronmental Sciences, 12, 293-197. Thomas, L. (1959). The Silent War in Tibet. Doubleday & Company, Inc. The Tibet Museum. (2020). About Us. The Tibet Museum. https://tibetmuseum.org/about-us/ TripAdvisor. (2020). Potala Palace. TripAdvisor. https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowUserReviews-g 294223-d319162-r555094744-Potala_Palace-Lhasa_Tibet.html Tunbridge, J., & Ashworth, G. (1996). Dissonant Heritage: the Management of the Past as a Re- source in Conflict. Wiley. iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 16 Vetter, Through the eyes of the Potala Palace: Difficult heritage and memory inTibet

UN News. (2008). Tibet: Ban Ki-moon urges restraint by authorities amid reported violence, deaths. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2008/03/252832-tibet-ban-ki-moon-urges- restraint-authorities-amid-reported-violence-deaths UN News. (2008). UN experts urge full access for independent observers, media in Tibet. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2008/04/255432-un-experts-urge-full-access-independent-observers-media-tibet UN News. (2012). China must urgently address rights violations in Tibet - UN senior official. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/11/424662-china-must-urgently-address-rights-violations-tibet-un-senior-official Wei, C. (2018). Discover Tibet’s Breathtaking Palace in the Clouds. National Geographic. https:// www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/destinations/asia/china/tibet-autonomous-region-lhasa-potala-palace-world-heritage/ Winter, T., Teo, P., & Chang, T. (2008). Asia on Tour: Exploring the Rise of Asian Tourism. Rout- ledge. World Heritage Convention. (2018). Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa. UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/707 World Heritage Convention. (2020). China. UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/CN Xu, B., & Albert, E. (2017). Media Censorship in China. Council on Foreign Relations. https:// www.cfr.org/backgrounder/media-censorship-china

iJournal, Vol 6, No. 1, 17