It is easy to see how putting a political candidate's bumper sticker on your car might make a difference by influencing votes, but the Free Tibet stickers baffle me.
The ubiquitous nature of those proudly displayed bumper stickers supposedly demonstrates a desire for actual change to be undertaken in the East Asian region. This begs the question: How exactly will this be accomplished?
Like most revolutions, the use of military force could be employed. But in this case, the U.S. military would have to engage in some sort of military intervention against China. This would mean a war that would make Iraq look minor.
Many who want a free Tibet do not support this type of military action anyway, believing war is never the answer. Arms are for hugging, etc.
Another option would include invoking economic sanctions against China. That could get some real attention, but amid all of the trade with China, who is calling for it? Will the same people who opposed U.N. sanctions against Iraq support them against China?
There could be a call for the U.N. to condemn China. Does anyone think that would make a difference?
The essential question still remains: What action can realistically be pursued to get China out of Tibet?
Perhaps the Free Tibet bumper sticker is a way to feel good about oneself. zThrough being connected to a social cause, one has perpetrated a small bit of good in the world. As a result, one may feel the obligation to exhibit his or her altruistic inclinations for everyone to witness.
"Free Tibet" may be code language for "I'm a kind and caring person."
Other times, some of those who parade these bumper stickers do it only to follow a trend that started in the 1990s, and for whatever reason, continues today.
Those who advertise to free Tibet usually (but not always) lack the wisdom of which steps should be pursued or are unwilling to engage in any energetic action that could potentially bring about the desired change.
Paying a dollar for a bumper sticker and displaying it does not help the nation of Tibet achieve independence or cease the human-rights violations confronted on a daily basis by the Tibetan people.
Displaying a bumper sticker is not a strong enough stance to send a jolting message to stir anyone, including the president of the People's Republic of China - an oppressive dictatorship by the way - to pull out his troops.
Some argue the presence of the bumper stickers has served to get out the message of the Tibetan occupation. Still, it is critical for this message to be received by those who are in a position to implement change, not by those who believe it is merely "in style."
More importantly, from a practical standpoint, there has been no success in this movement. Tibet is as subjugated today as it was 56 years ago, when the Chinese invaded and began their occupation.
But in fairness to those with the Free Tibet stickers, as meaningless as the sticker is in practical terms, at least they care.
Hilary Wade is a political science junior. E-mail her your favorite sticker at: hilary.wade@asu.edu.
