By Yedor
The Dalai Lama has, in recent years, been telling the world he
has stopped seeking "Tibetan independence" and turned towards a
"middle way". By this, he says, he means "high-level autonomy" or
"real autonomy" in Tibet and other Tibetan-inhabited areas within
the framework of the Chinese Constitution. Only by doing so, he has
argued, can Tibet best protect its unique traditional culture,
religion and eco-environment, and can the unification and unity of
China be maintained. (On March 10, 1959, the reactionary upper
class in Tibet staged a counter-revolutionary armed rebellion. When
it was suppressed, the Dalai Lama and his men fled to India, where
he made March 10 as a remembrance "Resurrection Day".) On March 10,
2006, he followed his usual practice of delivering a speech, in
which he said: "Making the Tibetan race become the real masters of
their own fate and enjoy real autonomy constitutes my only wish.
And this wish could be materialized as the PRC Constitution
contains special stipulations for this."
What the Dalai Lama says sounds reasonable at first glance; and
he has given up the "independence of Tibet" and turns to work for
the interest of the Tibetans. However, if one takes a closer look
at the background of what the Dalai Lama has put forth regarding
this "middle way", its major contents and the Dalai Lama's
explanation, and then compares this with the PRC Constitution, one
will instantly find nothing new, only old wine in a new bottle.
People who know Tibetan history well know that the Dalai Lama
stands for the "independence of Tibet" when he fled to India in
1959. On June 20, 1960, he held his first press conference in
India, and vowed to "restore freedom and the special status Tibet
enjoyed before the Chinese invasion in 1950". Thereafter, he made
speeches on March 10 each year, vowing to win the "independence of
Tibet". Moreover, the Dalai Lama set up his "government in exile"
overseas and worked out a "Tibetan constitution" (later renamed the
"constitution for Tibetans in exile"). He built up a rebel army in
Nepal for border harassments in the ensuing years. In the name of
"organizing armed troops to fight their way back into Tibet", he
collaborated with the Indian military and American CIA to organize
the "Indian Tibetan special border troops", set up "representative
offices" in some countries, and organized the "Tibet youth
congress", "Tibet national democratic party" and "Tibet women's
federation." All these organizations have engaged in separatist
activities overseas.
From the 1970s to the mid-1980s, the international situation
underwent changes with India and the United States all working to
improve ties with China. As a result, the Dalai clique got less
public support internationally. It faced economic difficulties and
was riddled with internal feuds. It was against this background
that the Dalai clique told the Central Government it could "give up
efforts seeking Tibetan independence and return to China". In 1987,
the Dalai Lama delivered a speech to the US Congressional Human
Rights Committee, putting forth his "five-point scheme for Tibetan
peace"; in 1988 he tried but failed to address the European
Parliament in Strasburg, and instead spoke in the hall of the
parliament, where he declared his "seven-point new schemes"
(hereinafter referred to as the "five points" and "seven points").
In the two speeches the Dalai Lama made his statement with regard
to the "middle way", and the two speeches served as the most
authoritative explanation of this approach.
It is the "five points" and "seven points", as well as other
explanations made by the Dalai Lama and his like that show the
world the "middle way" goes against the Chinese Constitution and
law. Here are four aspects related to this conclusion:
The first is that the Dalai Lama still refuses to recognize the
fact that Tibet is part of China. The PRC Constitution stipulates
in its preface that the PRC is a multi-national country founded by
peoples of various ethnic groups in the country. Article 4 of the
Constitution goes further to say that various regions exercising
national regional autonomy in China are an alienable part of the
country. However, the Dalai Lama said in his "five points" that
"Tibet was a completely independent state in 1949 when the PLA
entered". In his "March 10" statement of 1995, he said: "The
reality of today is that Tibet is an occupied country under
colonial rule". At an Indian seminar called "support for Tibet", he
declared: "Buddhism entered Tibet from India, and so did many other
aspects of Indian culture. From this point of view, I hold that it
is more reasonable for India to own sovereignty over Tibet than
China." In recent years, the Dalai Lama has changed his tune by
saying that the issue can be turned over to historians for
discussion; we should refrain from talking about the past, and
instead focus on the future.
It is an historic fact that Tibet has since the ancient times
been an inalienable part of the Chinese territory, and the Central
Government of China has exercised indisputable and effective rule
over Tibet. During the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368), the Central
Government set up the Xuanzhen Yuan to take charge of the Buddhist
affairs in the whole country and the military and administrative
affairs of the Tibetan region. It exercised effective rule over
Tibet by conducting census, setting up post stations, collecting
taxes, stationing troops, appointing officials, and introducing the
Yuan Dynasty criminal law, astronomy and calendaring to Tibet.
During the Qing Dynasty (644-1911), the 5th Dalai Lama and the 5th
Panchen Erdeni of the Gelug Sect of Tibetan Buddhism all received
honorific titles from Emperor Shunzhi and Emperor Kangxi. From then
on, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni of the future
generations?both got the honorific titles and established
their political and religious leadership in Tibet. And it becomes a
historical precedence for the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni to
receive honorific titles during the Republic of China (1912-1949).
The 14th Dalai Lama himself was confirmed and enthroned with the
approval of the Central Government of the Republic of China.
Governments of various countries in the world declare that "Tibet
is part of China". This constitutes the common knowledge of the
international community and the political basis for China to
develop bilateral ties with other countries. We see that the Dalai
Lama publicly refuses the fact that Tibet has since the ancient
times been a part of China, and then says that he does not have to
talk about this issue. He does all these to impress the others he
has made concession. As a matter of fact, however, he is turning a
known-to-all historical fact and a political principle related to
state sovereignty into a historical and academic question that
exists and does not have to be discussed. Admitting what the Dalai
Lama has said means acknowledgement regarding his statement that
Tibet has been an occupied country after 1949. Legally speaking,
the so-called "Tibetan issue" will not then be an internal issue of
China; it will then be related to "colonial issues" whereby the
Tibetans could enjoy the right to independence through "national
self-determination" according to international convention. This, of
course, goes against the historical fact that China enjoys
sovereignty over Tibet and the principle set forth in the PRC
Constitution that areas exercising national regional autonomy are
inalienable parts of China. The Central Government naturally is
staunch in attitude and all people with a sober mind can see that
what the Dalai Lama does is his plan to dish out his "Tibetan
independence" when conditions ripen again according to his own
standards.
The second point is that the Dalai Lama attempts to refute the
current political system followed in Tibet according to the
Constitution which states that the socialist system is the
fundamental system of the PRC; no organization or individual is
allowed to undermine the socialist system; in the PRC, all power
belongs to the people, and the NPC and the People's Congresses at
various levels are the organs of power through which the people
exercise State power. And the PRC Law on National Regional Autonomy
stipulates that national regional autonomy is the basic political
system of the CPC to solve China's ethnic issues using
Marxism-Leninism. The above legal stipulations undoubtedly apply to
Tibet. However, the Dalai Lama declared that "the autonomy China
follows is not real autonomy". According to what he has said, Tibet
should achieve "high-level autonomy" or "real autonomy" according
to the "one country, two systems" principle, and the scope of
"autonomy" should be larger than that for Taiwan, Hong Kong and
Macao. In his "seven points", meanwhile, he argues that "a Tibetan
government should be set up in Lhasa and should have an elected
administrative chief and possess a bicameral legislative organ and
an independent judicial system". In November 2005, the Dalai Lama
said in the United States: "The Central Government should take care
of defense and foreign affairs, because the Tibetans have no
experience in this regard, but the Tibetans should have full
responsibility for education, economic development, environmental
protection and religion". In a nutshell, the CPC leadership, the
socialist system, the people's congress system and the national
regional autonomy in Tibet, which have been in place in Tibet for
decades in accordance with the PRC Constitution, should all be
refuted, and a whole new system introduced according to what he
says "real autonomy". This is obviously different from what he
claims for Tibet to work "within the framework of the Chinese
Constitution." The PRC government white paper entitled National
Regional Autonomy in Tibet issued in 2004 made it clear that,
unlike Hong Kong and Macao, Tibet is not faced with question
related to the exercise of sovereignty and the possibility of
re-introducing another social system. Any endeavor to destroy and
change the current political system in Tibet runs counter to the
PRC Constitution and law.
It is known to all that the "one country, two systems" refers to
the fact that the mainland follows the socialist system while Hong
Kong and Macao continue to follow the capitalist system they had
followed before. However, no capitalist system existed in Tibetan
history; what was followed in the region was a feudal serfdom
featuring temporal religious administration. In its own
"constitution of Tibet in exile", the Dalai Lama advocates the
reintroduction of the old system featuring "temporal religious
administration". According to the system, the Dalai Lama is the
government and religious leader enjoying the final say on major
matters. In old Tibet, the Gashag set up by the Qing Dynasty in
region, or the local government of Tibet, was composed of four
Galoons. When the Dalai Lama had fled overseas, his government in
exile continued to follow the system, with the role of chief Galoon
of the government in exile continuing to be assumed by a
high-ranking lama. These are the people who are advocating the "one
country, two systems" approach for Tibet. What they can do? Only
restore the feudal serfdom, and nothing else!
The third point is that the Dalai Lama sticks to "Large Tibetan
Areas "that, however, does not exist in history. Articles 14 of the
white paper on national regional autonomy says that matters
concerning areas following the regional national autonomy, such as
the title and regional border line, should be determined through
full consultations among the State organs and local relative power
organs and representatives of ethnic groups concerned in accordance
with the law, and result of the consultations be submitted to
departments concerned according to procedures set forth in the law;
the areas following the system should not be disbanded or annexed
without going through proper legal procedures. The Dalai Lama,
however, persists in bringing together the areas where people of
the Tibetan ethnic group live to form an "enlarged Tibet autonomous
region" which would cover one-fourth of Chinese territory. People
with knowledge of Chinese history know that, during the Yuan
Dynasty, the three areas where the Tibetans lived saw the
establishment of three pacification commissioner's offices for
governance. The three areas refer to U-Tsang-Ngari (the bulk of the
Tibet Autonomous Region today), Amdo (mainly southern Gansu, Aba of
Sichuan Province and the bulk of the Tibetan-inhabited areas in
Qinghai Province), and Kham (largely Yushu of Qinghai Province,
Garze of Sichuan Province, Deqen of Yunnan Province and Qamdo of
Tibet). The three areas became the basis for the division between
Tibet and other Tibetan-inhabited areas in China. The ensuing Ming
Dynasty followed the Yuan approach in ruling Tibet. During the Qing
Dynasty that followed, the Central Government supported the 5th
Dalai Lama, leader of the Gelug Sect of Tibetan Buddhism, to build
up a regime in Tibet. Thereafter, further efforts were made to
delineate the border between Tibet and the Tibetan-inhabited areas
in Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan. From this we see the
Tibetan-inhabited areas outside Tibet had never been put under the
rule of the local government of Tibet. So, there is no ground for
the establishment of an "enlarged Tibet".
Recent years have seen the Dalai Lama admit the fact that the
former government of Tibet had never ruled the Tibetan-inhabited
areas outside today's Tibet Autonomous Region. However, he argued
that "it is hard to retain the features of the Tibetan race if
there are people of the Tibetan ethnic group living outside Tibet".
He then declared the need to establish "a Tibetan entity where all
people of the Tibetan ethnic group live". However, it is the fact
that one ethnic group in China may be found in different
administrative regions and one administrative region may be home to
several ethnic groups. This is the result of historical changes and
constitutes a salient feature of the relations between different
ethnic groups in China. While people of the Tibetan ethnic group
living in various Tibetan-inhabited areas in China retain the same
Tibetan characteristics and maintain close ties especially in
religion and culture, they speak different languages and have
different habits. In the meantime, they maintain close ties
politically, economically and culturally, especially economically.
Following the founding of the PRC in 1949, eight Tibetan autonomous
prefectures, one Tibetan-Qiang autonomous prefecture, one
Mongolian-Tibetan autonomous prefecture, and two Tibetan autonomous
counties were established. Such administrative division is made in
accordance with the features of various ethnic groups and with the
aim of seeking future development; it embodies factors related to
ethnic groups and regions as well, the integration of political and
economic factors; hence it is good for the ethnic groups concerned
to seek common development within the big Chinese family.
From this we see the so-called "enlarged Tibet autonomous
region" runs counter to the law that governs the development of
various ethnic groups in China. If all of the 55 ethnic minorities
founded their own unified autonomous areas, there would be
conflicts between various ethnic groups and social disorder in
China. All these would be a bane for the economic and cultural
development of these ethnic groups. One cannot see much
relationship between the "enlarged Tibet autonomous region" and
efforts to protect the Tibetan features. However, it is easy for
one to see the Dalai Lama's ulterior motive: eventually seeking
Tibetan independence.
The fourth point is the Dalai Lama's distortion of the meaning
of the autonomous region. At the end of last year, when the Dalai
Lama was interviewed by reporters, he said: "Tibet enjoys the right
to special treatment in accordance with the Law on National
Regional Autonomy", but "this right has not been really enjoyed."
Sangdong, the chief Galoon of the Tibetan government-in-exile
recently said that "the policy of the national regional autonomy is
very important, but the Chinese Government lacks fairness in
following the policy, which does not conform to the Law on National
Regional Autonomy". They impress people that the Dalai Lama favors
the national regional autonomy but wishes to see the fulfillment of
various rights specified in the law.
What is the Dalai Lama up to? Here are two examples: In the
"five points", he said: "The course of real peace can only begin
when the Communist troops have all pulled out". In his "seven
points", he said: "A regional peace conference should be convened
to guarantee demilitarization in Tibet". Recently, the Dalai Lama
entrusted a professor in Hong Kong to draft a document called
"limitations and possibilities of achieving 'high-level autonomy'
within the framework of the Chinese Constitution and the Law on
National Regional Autonomy", which outlines a Tibetan "peace zone"
where "no troops should be deployed". But it is well known in the
world that deploying troops in its own territories is a requirement
of national defense and also a symbol of sovereignty. Withdrawing
its troops from its own territory so as to turn that part of its
territory into a "peace zone" will not be approved by any country
upholding its sovereignty and dignity in the world. Neither will
China. From this, we see the "high-level autonomy" the Dalai Lama
pursues is empty-worded.
The other example is one related to the relations between
various ethnic groups in areas following the national regional
autonomy system. Article 4 of the PRC Constitution says all ethnic
groups in the PRC are equal, and no one is allowed to discriminate
against and suppress any ethnic group, sabotage national unity, and
engage in national separation. Article 48 of the Law on National
Regional Autonomy also stipulates that the organ responsible for
autonomy in areas exercising national regional autonomy shall work
to guarantee all local ethnic groups enjoy equal rights. However,
the Dalai Lama said in his "five points" that the Central
Government "must stop moving people into Tibet and Han people
already in Tibet must return to China". Sangdong also said last
year that, "the areas where the Tibetans reside should have
Tibetans exercising regional national autonomy, and the Han and
other ethnic groups should act like guests and Tibetans' rights
should not be restricted in any form". All people with knowledge of
Chinese history know the areas at the rim of the so-called
"enlarged Tibetan area", especially the rim of the Qinghai-Tibet
Plateau, formed a region witnessing considering movement of peoples
and where Tibetans, Han, Hui, and Mongolians eventually came to
live together and rely on each other. They are all masters of the
areas where they live. Making non-Tibetans move away from where
they have been lived for many centuries so as to satisfy the Dalai
Lama goes against the PRC Constitution and the Law on National
Regional Autonomy, and shows that, once the Dalai Lama becomes
leader of Tibet again, he will follow policies featuring national
discrimination and national purge. Such a policy caused heavy
deaths in the mid-20th centuries in some countries and the Dalai
Lama should know this.
From the above analysis, we see the Dalai Lama is talking about
seeking a way out "within the framework of the Chinese
Constitution" but, at the same time, he sticks to his principles
that run counter to the PRC Constitution. This shows that what he
pursues is a swindle and nothing stands between his "high-level
autonomy" and "Tibetan independence". When the Dalai Lama made
public his? "five points" and "seven points", the Central
Government immediately made it clear that this showed he had not
given up his stand for "independence of Tibet". Any form of
"independence of Tibet" won't do. In 1987, a US congressional
source declared: "The United States has not shown any support for
the Dalai's five points geared to turn Tibet into a peace zone, as
behind them is the obvious intention to promote Tibetan
independence". The Tibetan Bulletin operated by the Dalai clique
carried a signed story in 2004 saying: 'Elements who stand for
independence think the five-point peace proposal and the Strasbourg
proposal are a kind of betrayal, because they have failed to read
between lines. So long as conditions are ripe, they will play a
role geared to gaining real independence.
The five and seven points are what the Dalai Lama first proposed
some 20 years ago. Some may say he did so at that time because he
was under the strong influence of foreign anti-China forces; but
what he proposes as the "middle way" is something different. This
writer has been examining a "publicity pamphlet" on the middle way
issued in June 2005 by the "foreign affairs and news relations
department of the Tibet government-in-exile". Highlights of the
"manual on the middle way" show it to be closely related to the
five and seven points. The manual says the Strasbourg proposal was
put forward by the Dalai Lama and determined in a democratic way
and hence should not be altered. Sangdong told Tibetans who went to
India from China for Buddhist rituals in 2005 that "all the work
should be done on the basis of the 1987 five points and 1988
Strasbourg proposal of the Dalai Lama. They are our political
program".
It is true that when Dalai dished out his five and seven points,
he was under foreign influence. In June 1987, US House of
Representatives proposed a revision regarding human rights in
Tibet, which was the first Western resolution against China related
to Tibet in the 1980s. In September the same year, the Dalai Lama
visited the United States ostensibly as a religious leader. He
dished out his "five points" at a US human rights group meeting on
September 21. Some reported that the "five-point" speech was
drafted by people within the US group according to the US document
entitled "Revised Scheme on Human Rights in Tibet". The American
scholar Goldstein pointed out in his work Dragon and the Snow Lion
that the new offensive launched by the Dalai government-in-exile
and its friends in London, New York and Washington DC was meant for
Western audiences, instead of the Chinese.
A few years ago, this writer met a former official with the
Dalai side. He mentioned a discussion among them on Dalai's speech
to the US Congress in 1987. Some said then that turning Tibet into
a peace zone was a strategy used by the British invaders in the
past and the Qing emperor had rejected it; therefore, the Chinese
Government would not agree. Obsessed with the support from the
West, no one had a sober mind.
As a matter of fact, Dalai himself changes his attitude with the
changing tide in international affairs. In September 1990, Dalai
told a Dutch reporter: "Changes in the Soviet Union bring new hope
for Tibetan independence and give us courage and force to continue
seeking Tibetan independence". In April 1991, he attended a welcome
party held by the US Congress, where he said that "if Beijing gives
me a cold shoulder on this proposal" he would then return to
seeking independence. In October 1991, Dalai Lama gave a lecture at
Yale University in which he stated that he believed the Tibetans
would win independence soon just as the three Baltic states had
done so [from the Soviet Union] and remained as determined as ever
to attain the goal as throughout "42 years of occupation"; "the
Strasburg statement obviously could no longer play its role, and
this is why I had to declare recently that I have given up abiding
by these terms". Misjudging the international situation, Dalai Lama
declared in 1993 that he would not make contacts with a
"destabilizing Chinese government", and cut off all channels for
arranging a meeting with the Central Government. Seeing China
enjoys continued peace and stability, as well as sustained economic
development, Dalai Lama ventured to demand contacts with the
Central Government again. In 2003, he told a French reporter: "If
no results can be achieved in two or three years of negotiations, I
would find it hard to explain to the young that the 'middle way' is
more effective than seeking independence"; "if I fail, these young
people would raise torches and cry for independence". Given the
fact that Dalai Lama gives out different signals at different times
and even at the same time, one can hardly agree his "middle way" is
different from "Tibetan independence."
As a matter of fact, the "middle way" is a philosophy, according
to which one should not take extreme actions. But the Dalai's
"middle way" has nothing to do with the "middle way" philosophy.
The Central Government has made public its views on the Dalai's
"middle way" over the past 20 years, but the Dalai Lama still hates
to say bye to his proposals which are "independence of Tibet" in
nature. It left no stone unturned to bargain with the Central
Government by changing words. This writer holds that the Dalai Lama
is in a blind alley. We Tibetans value highly the Sagya Sayings,
which says: "One should refrain from thinking to do things one
could not do; and eat food which can hardly be digested;" "a fool
takes a wrong way, simply because he is a fool; when a wise man
takes a wrong way, he needs to?find out the right way." If the
Dalai Lama is sincere in improving ties with the Central
Government, he needs, first and foremost, to have an objective
understanding of the political reality in Tibet and, on this basis,
re-think his political propositions. Only by truly giving up his
"Tibetan independence" policy, can the Dalai Lama win the
confidence of others and create conditions for him to do something
in the interest of Tibet.
(China Tibet Information Center, July 26, 2006)