April 14, 2008
Transcript: 'We are not anti-Chinese'
Read the full transcript of the interview with NBC's Ann Curry
NBC News
updated 7:59 a.m. ET, Sat., April. 12, 2008
NBC News' Ann Curry talked today with the Dalai Lama upon his arrival into Seattle for a five-day conference. The interview aired this evening on "Nightly News" and will continue Monday on "Today." Below is the full transcript
ANN CURRY:
You've come to America to encourage compassion, and yet it seems, you come as you are suffering, Tibet is suffering.
In the recent hours you have been troubled, yes?
DALAI LAMA:
Yes. Yes.
ANN CURRY:
Tell me why? What is the burden for you, to see what you are seeing?
DALAI LAMA:
Now, reason be it, after 10th of March-- I had for-- the same experience-- that was-- 10th-- after 10th of March in 1959. It was a week in Lhasa. A lot of sort of anxiety-- a lot of fear.
ANN CURRY:
You felt anxiety--
DALAI LAMA:
At that time, at that time.
ANN CURRY:
--and fear?
DALAI LAMA:
Uh-huh (AFFIRM). So, similar experience now, this time also, after 10th of March. Afternoon, 10th of March, I received information. People in certain area of Lhasa, now moving for demonstrations. As soon as I heard this and that information, then I-- felt, oh, now, our people-- are going to suffer. That's a definite. So, then eventually, not only in Lhasa area, but entire Tibetan sort of area. That means-- beside autonomous region of Tibet, but other four Chinese provinces. My own-- birthplace, Qinghai, and Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan. Actually, in these four Chinese provinces, around 4 million Tibetans usually exi-- live in this area. So, almost now entire Tibetan population now expressed their deep resentment and angering those student in Peking (PH). They also-- expressed that way. So, sorry, and anyway, I really, eh, uh, feel uh of course, fear, much anxiety, anguish. And the also feeling of helplessness. Only pray.
ANN CURRY:
Helpless?
DALAI LAMA:
Uh-huh (AFFIRM).
ANN CURRY:
China says you're not helpless. China blames you for it. (LAUGHTER) It calls you, "A wolf in monk's clothes. A devil with a human face. A terrorist." Are you a terrorist?
DALAI LAMA:
(LAUGHTER) You should judge. (LAUGHS) Is sometimes you see uh the wolf with Buddhist robe during Cultural Revolution, now these words is used. So, now again, you see they use these uh also they-- these old words. Okay, doesn't matter. But one thing I really consider is-- (SNIFF) uh because of official propaganda, millions of innocent Chinese in mainland China, who have no sort of, I would call access to know through sort of third information or some more, I think realistic information. uh they're only relying, they have to rely on their own, how to say, government sources. So, if those innocent Chinese, very sincere Chinese brothers, sisters-- millions of these people really feel-- how-- is something uh demon. (LAUGHS) Then I feel really sad. But otherwise no problem. Whatever you call me-- people call me-- I'm still a human being. (LAUGHTER) I'm still a simple Buddhist monk, and that's all. No problem. And in fact, as a Buddhist practitioner, this is-- now, this is real sort of test period that I sincerely practicing, sort of Buddhist teaching. Teaching of compassion, tolerance, and these things. If because of such sort of circumstances, if I lose my temper, heated. Then that means I'm not really sincere Buddhist practitioner. So, these are for practitioners, (UNINTEL PHRASE) Golden Period.
ANN CURRY:
A Golden Period?
DALAI LAMA:
Uh-huh (AFFIRM).
ANN CURRY:
Is this a period in which you are, as the Chinese government says, did you or your government encourage any of these protests in Tibet, in London, in Paris--
DALAI LAMA:
No.
ANN CURRY:
--in San Francisco?
DALAI LAMA:
No.
ANN CURRY:
And elsewhere?
DALAI LAMA:
In fact uh soon after crises happen. I express now, of course the expression of uh defeating is the freedom of expression or speech. However, we must carry these strictly non-violence. If people indulge violence, and violence become out of control, then my option is, my choice is, I resign.
ANN CURRY:
You resign as Dalai Lama?
DALAI LAMA:
uh, Dalai Lama I don't know. (LAUGHTER)
ANN CURRY:
Resign as what?
DALAI LAMA:
Resign from responsibility of our struggle. As early as-- '87, '88 I remember, is-- one of my close friend, Jonathan Mirsky. I think, London Observer, sort of correspondent. He, at that time, ask, "If things become more violent, then what do you do?" And I immediately responded, "If the violence become out of control uh there is no other choice except, resign." I told. So, this once more I repeated this. And it makes uh seems to some effect, some Tibetan. Uh then (pause) then also uh I appeal Chinese community all over the world, and particularly in mainland China. We are not anti-Chinese. We always respect and admire this Chinese civilization and Chinese people. And, as a Tibetan, almost 2,000 years we live side by side. Occasionally, some unfortunate event also there. But most cases we live happily. So, therefore, and also, as a Buddhist monk, I always consider our Chinese Buddhist brothers, sisters as a elder student of uh Buddha. We are younger. Whenever I give some teaching to our Chinese brother, sisters, I always firstly, sharing my respect. I'm junior, or younger student. Or, occasionally, I also make joke. Maybe as I knowledge is concerned, junior student may be little better. (LAUGHTER) So. So, emotionally, also you see, they very close. I always admire. And then, in-- as a matter of fact, some people from China-- most populated nation.
ANN CURRY:
Yes.
DALAI LAMA:
So, we must respect. We must accept that reality. Some kind of negative feeling towards them is useless, unjust. And then, also, they, what say they, what what call they uh Olympic Game. Right from the beginning, I support that ancient nation, most public nation, now, really deserve to host for this uh world famous Olympic game. And then after now this well, what do you want to call uh Olympic to, tore-- torch.
ANN CURRY:
Torch.
DALAI LAMA:
After some uh unpleasant, sort of event in happened in England and Paris, I sent a message to Tibetan in San Francisco area, please don't uh create any violent things. I sent a message.
ANN CURRY:
Is your message that the protests stop? Or, that the violence stop?
DALAI LAMA:
Violence. Violence--
ANN CURRY:
So, you are supporting the protests?
DALAI LAMA:
The protest? Firstly, I myself, fully committed about democracy, the right of expression, the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, among Tibetan. Those Tibetan who directly criticize me, I respect their expression. (PAUSE) It is part of practice of criticism. And part of, part of democracy. So, therefore, see, I cannot say, "Shut up." (CHUCKLES) Even as a critizi, criticism towards me, or criticism of do-- criticism about Buddhism now among Tibetan. Now, we can't stop these things.
ANN CURRY:
There is a strong feeling though, in China, specifically from its President Hu, who says you are fanning and masterminding the unrest in Tibet. And that you are trying to sabotage the Olympics. Do you want the world to boycott the Olympic--
DALAI LAMA:
No.
ANN CURRY:
--Games, to support your--
DALAI LAMA:
No.
ANN CURRY:
--efforts in Tibet?
DALAI LAMA:
No.
ANN CURRY:
Do you wish the President of the United States, and other world leaders might consider not attending the open ceremonies in support of your efforts in Tibet?
DALAI LAMA:
That's up to them.
ANN CURRY:
Do you wish they would?
DALAI LAMA:
I wish, basically, their world event, game event should be uh should take place smoothly. Uh but whether you see individual leader, go down or not, that also up to them. (LAUGHS) That individual right.
ANN CURRY:
Would it please you if world leaders say, "We care about Tibet, so we want to make a statement, and not attend the opening ceremonies"? Would it please you? Would it be important?
DALAI LAMA:
I heard there is some leaders already decided not to go there.
ANN CURRY:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain.
DALAI LAMA:
That...
ANN CURRY:
And Nicholas Sarkozy is considering--
(OVERTALK)
DALAI LAMA:
I tell you--
ANN CURRY:
--of France.
DALAI LAMA:
--it is very important that you see, make clear, not only just the Tibet case. But in China proper, the record of human right is poor. And religious freedom, also very poor. Oh, this reminds us the-- Tiananmen event.
ANN CURRY:
Tiananmen Square?
DALAI LAMA:
Thousands of people, particularly young people was crushed. So, I think that I think. I'm still-- you see, I think thousands of Chinese brother, sisters, particularly-- many ladies, who lost-- either their-- son, or-- or is it their husband, or their friend like that. So many of them still feel very, very sort of sad. I think, now, we should remind some of these things. And after all, the Chinese leaders, I think, last-- now last-- 60 years, if we watch carefully. I usually describe Mao's era, Deng Xiaoping's era, Jiang Zemin's era, Hu Jintao's era, if you look closely, the leaders at different time, I think, they had according to new reality. Now, there's Hu Jintao uh very much emphasis-- the importance of uh build harmonious society. That is, I think, very sort of I think, very-- I think, very right, according to new reality. Now, economy, prosperity, these things are-- and going well. Now, important is this get rich and poor, reduce. And then also, the different ethnic, including Tibetan, including national, I don't know, whatever you call, the unity, harmony is very essential. Now, for that, they equality. I think, the harmony, very much based on trust. Without trust, we fear. Harmony is impossible. A trust must develop. For trust, more freedom, more equality. Let them speak. Or, Chairman Mao, see, often used to say the Communist Party, without self-criticism, and criticism from other cannot survive. Like fish without water. Once, says Chairman Mao, only he himself not very sincerely practice these things. But I think, these are really wonderful. And that also (UNINTEL PHRASE) seeking truth from fact. These are scientific and very realistic. So basically, I think the leadership in these four periods, I think uh their approach, I-- I feel, more realistic. So therefore, now, under the leadership as-- Hu Jintao , present President Hu Jintao. I think China eventually may open more uh open society. I think, that's the interest for everyone. So, I think the people will outside world, in particular these present leaders of nations' leaders, I think, should remind, not only just Tibet case, but they must remind the sitting Chinese, uh People's Republic of China as a a whole. In China, mostly important, most important nation and very very important member of the humanity. Now, in order to carry more, sort of, what's responsibility, more effective responsibility, the Chinese moral authority must improve.
ANN CURRY:
So, to remind China of this, you think that the world must send a message to China--
DALAI LAMA:
That's important--
ANN CURRY:
--that you must rise, not only as an economic power, but one that supports human rights?
DALAI LAMA:
Yes.
ANN CURRY:
So, are you saying then, the answer is yes? That you would wish world leaders, in some way, to make a statement? Whether it's not attending the opening ceremonies, or in some way, you wish world leaders to make a statement to China on this? Is this correct?
DALAI LAMA:
Yes. It reminds them, in order to be a respected, important member of the humanity, in certain field, not only economy impro-- improvement, but in certain field, must improve. That's, I think, important. And Chinese people want that.
ANN CURRY:
Are you saying it would be significant, and that you could support world leaders boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games?
DALAI LAMA:
That I don't know. That I don't know. Generally, as I mentioned earlier, in principle, I fully support the-- the Olympic Game. And--
(OVERTALK)
ANN CURRY:
I meant the opening ceremonies.
DALAI LAMA:
--and opening ceremony, all part of that. (PAUSE) That, I feel up to that, those leaders individual. They also have wisdom. Should be, enough wisdom. (LAUGHTER) So, according their wisdom, they should judge.
ANN CURRY:
They should judge?
DALAI LAMA:
Yeah.
ANN CURRY:
But if they don't boycott the opening ceremonies, then you say, they should make some statement to China?
DALAI LAMA:
I think-- publicly or behind scene, I think, from time to time, others-- many leaders do that. I think that is very, very important. And then, not only the, these leaders. Be it, the media, as well as the uh student, and sort of scholar, or is the exchange scholarships, and also, professors, visiting professors. Everybody. And including businessman.
ANN CURRY:
But if not-- but if not to boycott the Olympic opening ceremonies, if you're not calling on world leaders to do that. If you're saying, "I leave it up to you," here's the question. For 50 years, you have wanted the world to pay attention to the suffering in Tibet. Now, the world is listening. What do you want the world specifically to do?
DALAI LAMA:
I think, for immediate, uh immediate, firstly, now, at least according, the-- up to date information. Of course, now, this information is difficult to crosscheck. But uh generally, seems to say, few hundred people kept. And a few thousands, I think serious injuries. But these injury - inside Tibet. Now, these, no medical facility. And there are very, very fear to approach the Chinese hospital or these things. So, I think, immense sort of suffering, callousness (UNINTEL PHRASE) injure, injured people. And in some cases-- the people, uh, re, escaped, escaped from the town or monastery, and remain in mountain, without any sort of, what's now, food-- food stuff and these things. So, they are really danger of starvation. I heard there is some starvation already is happen. So-- I-- right from the beginning, I appeal world community, please send some uh medical facilities, some doctors. And then also, media people go there, investigate, including their accusation about me, towards me that those Tibetan outside. Now, please carry terror investigation, on the spot, and including investigators, as a people, who investigate, including some Chinese. Come to Dansala (PH) . Most welcome. Please. Watch. Resources. Check. Investigate.
(OVERTALK)
DALAI LAMA:
Whether we created these problems or not. (LAUGHS)
ANN CURRY:
China--
DALAI LAMA:
So, these are immediate so necessary. Go. Some medical help. Then second, try to investigate, on the spot, what is the reason? What is wrong? Nobody want-- these troubles, Chinese government or Tibetan. We want peace. Peace life. Peaceful life. And stability. We really want stability. Through stability, the prosperity, or various activities regarding preservation of Tibetan culture. All these things. Stability is the basis. So, we must in order to avoid, how you say, crisis. We must-- know that-- that the reasons, the causes, and the conditions. So uh as as I had mentioned earlier, you see, I think, world community have the moral responsibility to help, fact finding, or seeking truth from fact. That's the reporter. I think, unfortunately, some local officials sometimes, I think, they are quite expert, pretend, hide the reality. Showing something artificial. Now, there's the problem. That's problem. Unlike India. They are huge country. Almost, South India and North India, in the different places, almost like, I see, different nation. Different language. There's a different culture. Different behavior. But these problems-- problems there-- and all problems immediately come out. Nothing is (UNINTEL PHRASE) height. In China's case, those totalitarian regions' case. So, officially things looks smooth. But underneath, a lot of resentment. Now--
(OVERTALK)
DALAI LAMA:
--this must come out. And accept that. And then, realistically approach these problem. So, therefore, I think for, to the central government, I think, there's some independent type of investigation. What is going on? What went wrong? I think it is very very useful to help central government, to know the reality.
ANN CURRY:
China says about 20 people were killed during the arrests in Tibet. You just said, hundreds, you believe, were killed? This is information you're getting?
DALAI LAMA:
Uh-huh (AFFIRM). Oh, I-- I mean, you see, the-- I-- I think, maybe when Chinese say, I can only, autonomous region of Tibet, maybe. I don't know. I don't know. But it seems, you see, they-- outside the the autonomous region of Tibet, this area very remote. And many don't, deh, what's it called, what's say, normantic (PH), very remote area. So, I really very much worry, as-- what's-- what is happening in this area?
ANN CURRY:
Let's talk about resolution. This week, President Bush said, quote, "It would stand the government of China, in good stead, if they would begin a dialogue with representatives of the Dalai Lama." What contact do you have with China? Are you now willing to go to Beijing?
DALAI LAMA:
That's (my part??). Anywhere, uh anytime, always ready--(OVERTALK)
ANN CURRY:
You're ready to go to Beijing?
DALAI LAMA:
--not busy. That's uh now, if without sort of proper preparation, just to go Peking. I think Tibetans, I think a Dalai Lama visit uh Beijing-- I think they may, I said, they put a lot of sort of hope, or whatever expectations.
ANN CURRY:
So, you're not resolved about whether you will go to Beijing?
DALAI LAMA:
So, I don't know. You see, if I my go Peking, and nothing happen? Then I think Tibetan I think it may get great disappointment. Therefore, visit to Peking, we need some preparation. But other, otherside, outside. no problem, anywhere, anytime.
ANN CURRY:
Let me put it this way, China is listening to this interview. What is your message to the Chinese leadership?
DALAI LAMA:
(LAUGHTER) I already, you see-- wrote a letter to Chinese leaders, and also I appeal with my whole....
DALAI LAMA:
(LAUGHTER) I already, you see--wrote a letter to Chinese leaders, and also I appeal with my whole--hopeful hand to the millions of Han brother, sisters already. My main point is, we are not-- the Chinese public, they are not against you. Always just respect you, admire you. And so these-- past mistake-- we feel sympathy-- with them.
CURRY:
You have sympathy for China?
DALAI LAMA:
Oh, yes, like Tiananmen event. Same! Now, also is-- I heard is-- some Chinese killed during this-- period. We pray together. No differences. Same human beings. So, now-- so-- the-- secondly, for Olympic-- right from beginning, I already support that. Still, I'm supporting. And I'm not seeking separation. I fully committed-- my-- I call, mid-riff (?) approach. And that means-- we want mutually a good solution. Because we are backward, Tibet area. Backward materially. Spiritually, very advanced. But as-- therefore, as far as material development is concerned, Tibet remains retained-- big country, big nation, people from-- China. We get greater benefit about economy development. But right at-- we must-- have certain subtle, or s-- system-- which can be full guarantee about preservation of Tibetan-- culture, including-- Tibetan language, and Tibetan Buddhist tradition.
CURRY:
You call it genocide, a cultural genocide--
DALAI LAMA:
Yes.
CURRY:
--is happening in Tibet? You describe enormous suffering. Be specific. I mean, you say, "cultural genocide". What is happening in your view, in Tibet, to cause this unrest?
DALAI LAMA:
I usually s-- always say, whether intentionally, or unintentionally, some kind of cultural genocide is taking place. Unintentionally, means because of overwhelming Chinese population, now in Lhasa for example. Lhasa, 2/3s of the population, out of 300,000, are Chinese. Shopkeepers, restaurant-- all these Han Chinese. So, the minority Tibetan in-- in same sort of area. All their daily life they have to speak-- they have to use Chinese more than Tibetan. So, Tibetan language become something useless. Therefore-- some-- or say these-- some parent or the student-- Tibetan, they, although they respect, you see, our language. But in practical reason, they advise their children not better to learn Han-- the Chinese language. Tibetan language is-- in order to seek jobs, or some better sort of-- or s-- opportunities--
CURRY:
Opportunities?
DALAI LAMA:
--the Chinese language is more important. But these are-- because of the overwhelming, sort of, condition, or sort of circumstances, the Tibetan language becoming insignificant, or sometimes deliberately negligent number one. Then also, you see, the-- I met one-- some Tibetan student, who can speak only Chinese, not Tibetan. Now they say, they-- in their native place, they say they-- no opportunity to study Tibetan. So, they ask Chinese authority-- "We want to study Tibetan." That-- authority, in some area-- responded, "Ah, no use learning Tibetan." So, that kind of s-- situation. Not necessarily deliberately. Some-- bad intention. Not necessarily. In meantime, the-- another factor, intentionally. That means-- few years ago, one party secretary in Lhasa, his name, I think, TunGunYa. He mentioned in a party meeting the real source of threat of Tibetan separation from China, is the Tibetan Buddhist faith. So, they consider Tibetan Buddhist faith is dangerous. So, they have political, sort of motivations-- starting, out of the fear. See, that kind of attitude. So, therefore, you see, they deliberately-- put restrictions on Buddhist study. And the student and officials-- banned to keep their Buddha-- in there-- or the others-- Buddha like that. But many of them which is secretly-- keep (LAUGHTER) some Buddhist statue like that. But their officials are like-- it's banning. The officials and the student. And the-- curriculum, text, there's some word which religious significant there. They actually, deliberately is-- removing these things since, I think, last-- a few decades like that. So, these are-- and then, in the monastery, or nunnery, political education. (LAUGHTER) So, these are deliberate sort of methods-- in order to diminish the Buddhist sort of faith, or Buddhist sort of, what is, study like that. So, that's part of intentionally. So, from both sides-- I-- I notice this as Tibetan, who born in India-- and Tibetan who come from Tibet. It clear sort of, what is-- what's the-- the differences. You see, those Tibetan who come from Tibet, from our own land, you see, they-- their behavior, even-- local Indian people are-- sometimes, you see, express. Those Tibetan who come in early '60s, they are very gentle, never quarrel with local population. And after '80s and '90s-- some new Tibetan-- some Tibetan-- new face. These are little bit different. (LAUGHTER) There's some locally there, you see--
(OVERTALK)
CURRY:
Because they've lost themselves?
DALAI LAMA:
Uh-huh (AFFIRM). Their--
CURRY:
They're lost?
DALAI LAMA:
--cultural heritage. More peaceful, more compassionate. Now that damaged, or degenerate. So, these are the sign of-- so-- disappearing Tibetan Buddhist culture-- Buddhist way of thinking.
ANN CURRY:
Throughout history, nations have been absorbed by bigger states. Often those nations which have stood and fight-- Often those nations that have stood and fight have won. What has non-violence given the Tibetan people?
THE DALAI LAMA:
Mahatma Gandhi has a certain method. And also the-- Luther King. Martin Luther King, I think, one of the real admirer of Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy. And he, himself, implement and also Nelson Mandela. Except his early part was different. So, the non-violent and any way, I think non-violent method is something, I mean, not something very unique, I feel non-violent is real human way struggle for our, for certain right. And also, very very realistic according to this reality.
ANN CURRY:
But some young Tibetans say--
THE DALAI LAMA:
Ah.
ANN CURRY:
--this is wrong.
THE DALAI LAMA:
Hmm.
ANN CURRY:
Some young Tibetans say, it is time.
THE DALAI LAMA:
Hmm.
ANN CURRY:
Because of the attention before The Olympics. The world is watching for real change to come to Tibet.
THE DALAI LAMA:
Hmm.
ANN CURRY:
Violence might be required.
THE DALAI LAMA:
Hmm.
ANN CURRY:
Your reaction.
THE DALAI LAMA:
This is too simplified. (CHUCKLES) And this, I think, ideas or talks come from emotion, not from intelligence. Even the United States, super power (CHUCKLES) too much using violence or force. Not really successful. (CHUCKLES) In Iran, or Iraq, and Afghanistan, not really successful. So this is the new reality. And China. Very strong army. This solution relying on using force. It's old-fashioned.
ANN CURRY:
Is violence ever justified?
THE DALAI LAMA:
No.
ANN CURRY:
Never.
THE DALAI LAMA:
No. In theoretically, yes. You can say in certain-- under certain circumstances. Provided your motivation is good. Your goal is larger interest for larger people and a just cause. Theoretically, a violent method can be permissible, but in practical level, I feel always better avoid using violence. So, those Tibetans, yes, like some Tibetan youth organizations. Other generally youth organization, they also see, agree non-violent method. But some individual, yes, they criticize about our approach. And very much so are including violent. And they prefer that. But then-- since-- what's it been, now I think, 20, 30 years. They say I have a lot of argument with them. Saying--violence, some kind of very rough sort of method. Words. What are called Mujahadeens. These, like Palestines or some--yes, Mujahedeens in Afghan or like that. It is a word. And a word can easily express. But implementation. Even you want violent method, very difficult. In our case, Tibet case, violent method is almost like suicide. Not only against our principle, but also practically. Suicide. No use. So, if you think then I--I feel, after all, Tibetan problem must of solved between Chinese and Tibetan. Han Chinese brothers and sisters. Their help is immense important.
For that reason, if we take bloodshed method, the laws of the Chinese they will feel something difficult. Because we already, now we prove, we follow sincerely, non-violent method, non-violent principle. And secondly, not seeking independence. Therefore, many Chinese scholars, many Chinese intellectuals, many Chinese history, artists and many officials, deep inside, very sympathetic to us. And very supportive. I feel that is-- a result of our approach. I feel like that.
ANN CURRY:
You are a realist. In your darkest moments, as you have suffered, you said at the beginning of this interview. You, yourself, have suffered, thinking of the suffering.
THE DALAI LAMA:
Hmm.
ANN CURRY:
That's going on. In your darkest moments, do you fear, as a realist, for the survival of Tibet? Do you fear the possibility that you might be the last Dalai Lama?
THE DALAI LAMA:
That's Okay. That is not a-- a problem.
ANN CURRY:
Why is that Okay?
THE DALAI LAMA:
It's not a problem.
ANN CURRY:
It might be a problem for the Tibetan people.
THE DALAI LAMA:
The Tibetan people-- as early as '69, I made clear, whether the Dalai Lama institution should continue or not for the Tibetan people. It doesn't matter.
ANN CURRY:
Then what does matter?
THE DALAI LAMA:
Tibetan nation. Tibetan culture. Tibetan Buddhist culture. I think culture of compassion.
ANN CURRY:
Compassion.
THE DALAI LAMA:
And Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. Or Buddhist-- Buddhist knowledge. I think-- I think one of the ancient treasure of India. Now not only ancient treasure of East, but also relevant to today's world. Now, the next few days here. How do you say--my program.
ANN CURRY:
Yes, Seeds of Compassion.
THE DALAI LAMA:
Actually, some kind of seminar or discussion. How to utilize some of these ancient in-- Indian treasure. You see, to improve our health. Health means not only physical health but also mental health.
ANN CURRY:
And--
THE DALAI LAMA:
And-- and through that way, how to-- how to-- how to become a happier human individual. Happy human family and human community. That is, I think, very, very important. Now-- now to the first century. Inspite of many material development, individual cases, human being, even billionaire or leaders mentally, emotionally, deep inside are not very happy. Very-- too much stress and unhappy person. I-- I can see it is so. Now, for example here-- I-- in spite many difficulties, many sort of anxieties, or fear, and feeling of helplessness. But, at least, since the 10th of March, into-- intellectual level or certain level, lot of worry. Lot of sort of suspicion or lot of sort of expectation. Lots of sort of imagination. Many, many things. Unrest. But-- among the intelligence-- certain intelligence. Now, for example, realistic, realize the situation. The suffering which we are facing. I am facing. We are facing. Including myself, I am facing. If there is way to overcome, then no need worry. If there's no way to overcome. no need worry. I really believe that. So some intelligence side is thinking these lines send some signal on my emotion. So emotion--inspite some sort of turmoil in intelligence side, but the emotional side still calm. As a result, now since tenth of March my sleep never disturbed. (CHUCKLES) So this is practical sort of a benefit!
ANN CURRY:
So you're saying, you realize that no matter what happens, worrying is useless. Fear is useless.
THE DALAI LAMA:
Right. That's right.
ANN CURRY:
No matter what happens, is what you're saying?
THE DALAI LAMA:
That--that's right. So be realistic and without confusion, look at the truth. And then try to find realistic approach. If that fail, no regret.
ANN CURRY:
No regrets. Hmm. Hmm.
THE DALAI LAMA:
That's my view. (LAUGHS)
ANN CURRY:
I think it's a good view. It's a very good view. Do you want when you-- are looking at-- I know you are a humble man. But when you-- but you have also an op-- a way to influence people. Do you want to be remembered as, in your life, when people are coming after you, do you want to be remembered as--
THE DALAI LAMA:
No.
ANN CURRY:
What do you want your life to have meant?
THE DALAI LAMA:
No.
ANN CURRY:
Nothing.
THE DALAI LAMA:
No concern.
ANN CURRY:
You don't want to think about this.
THE DALAI LAMA:
As a Buddhist practitioner, should not think that line. So long your life should be something meaningful.
ANN CURRY:
You want to be useful while you're alive.
THE DALAI LAMA:
That what people say.
ANN CURRY:
And what is the greatest use of your life?
THE DALAI LAMA:
To serve.
ANN CURRY:
To serve.
THE DALAI LAMA:
To help other people. You see I have three commitments. Three responsibilities, up to now. Number one, promotion of human value. Now next few days, this is the main sort of, my--interest in the field of interest how to improve human value in order to be better human being. Then, second, as a Buddhist-- promotion of religious harmony. So these two, till my death, I involve. So my death--how soon my death come, I don't know. Perhaps after five years, or ten years, fifteen years, 20 years, 30 years, I don't know. (CHUCKLES) But in any way, as long as I remain, I-- I survive-- alive. I fully committed. The third commitment is about the Tibetan res--Tibetan struggle. Now this is concerned since 2001. We already have elected political leadership. Since then my position is something like semi-retired position. So now I'm looking forward to complete retirement. (CHUCKLES)
ANN CURRY:
Do you think you'll ever see Tibet again?
THE DALAI LAMA:
Yes, I believe. I believe.
ANN CURRY:
Thank you.
THE DALAI LAMA:
Thank you.
ANN CURRY:
Thank you very much. Thank you for that. Thank you.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24073087/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2008 MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24073087/
Posted by google at 05:14 PM | Comments (0)
Tibetans just want autonomy, Dalai Lama says
Tibetans just want autonomy, Dalai Lama says
'Not seeking independence, nor separation,' from China, he insists
AP
The Dalai Lama addresses a news conference Sunday in Seattle, where he is headlining a five-day conference on compassion.
Interview
April 11: NBC's Ann Curry interviews the Dalai Lama during his first visit to the U.S. since the recent outbreaks of violence in Tibet.
Nightly News
Recent protests in Tibet against five decades of Chinese rule have been the largest and most sustained in almost two decades and have fueled protests that have disrupted the global torch relay for this summer’s Olympic Games in Beijing.
“Our struggle is with a few in the leadership of the People’s Republic of China and not with the Chinese people,” the Dalai Lama said in a statement released after the news conference. “If the present situation in Tibet continues, I am very much concerned that the Chinese government will unleash more force and increase the suppression of Tibetan people.”
He said that if the Chinese stop such suppression and withdraw armed police and troops, he would advise all Tibetans to stop their protests.
Monks detained
A Chinese official said Sunday that the government had detained nine Buddhist monks and accused them of planting a homemade bomb that reportedly detonated March 23 in a government office building in eastern Tibet, according to China’s official Xinhua News Agency.
There were no known deaths or damage from the first reported bombing since anti-government demonstrations by monks began March 10 in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa.
Xinhua reported that the monks from the Tongxia monastery fled after a bomb exploded March 23. They later confessed to planting the explosive, Xinhua said. The agency did not explain why the incident was not reported earlier.
The Dalai Lama, visiting Seattle for the five-day Seeds of Compassion conference, told journalists Sunday that there have been some talks between representatives of his government-in-exile and Chinese officials.
The talks date to 2002 and some progress was made, but by July 2007 the discussions had deteriorated, he said. He did not elaborate.
The Dalai Lama repeated his promise to resign should the violence in Tibet continue. But he criticized China’s attempt to suppress demonstrations and encouraged any Tibetan protesters to conduct nonviolent demonstrations.
The Olympic torch is scheduled to pass through Tibet and India in a few weeks, and he said that if demonstrations are carried out, more hardship might come to the Tibetan people.
Superpower status and trust
The Dalai Lama said he supports China’s ambitions to become a world superpower, saying that the country has achieved the economic and military might to do so but lacks transparency. If China wants to be a superpower, he said, it needs the world’s trust.
The economic rise of China has widened the gap between the rich and poor, he said. Along with issues coming from a “totalitarian regime,” China is seeing problems not only in Tibet, but also throughout the country.
“Particularly in China, everything is state secret; I think these practices are outdated,” he said.
The Dalai Lama fled to India after a failed uprising in 1959 in Tibet, but he remains the religious and cultural leader of many Tibetans. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.
In Beijing, Xinhua on Sunday denounced the Dalai Lama and his supporters as "anti-human rights," and slammed top U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as "the least popular person in China" for her stance on Tibet.
A Tibetan source with strong contacts in Lhasa said the city was also swirling with rumors of fresh clashes between monks and security forces at the important Drepung monastery. No one at the monastery or the local police station could be reached for comment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24097313
Posted by google at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)
April 01, 2008
AN APPEAL TO THE CHINESE PEOPLE FROM HIS HOLINESS THE 14TH DALAI LAMA
Today, I extend heartfelt greetings to my Chinese brothers and sisters round the world, particularly to those in the People's Republic of China. In the light of the recent developments in Tibet, I would like to share with you my thoughts concerning relations between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples, and to make a personal appeal to you all.
I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in the recent tragic events in Tibet. I am aware that some Chinese have also died. I feel for the victims and their families and pray for them. The recent unrest has clearly demonstrated the gravity of the situation in Tibet and the urgent need to seek a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution through dialogue. Even at this juncture I have expressed my willingness to the Chinese authorities to work together to bring about peace and stability.
Chinese brothers and sisters, I assure you I have no desire to seek Tibet's separation. Nor do I have any wish to drive a wedge between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. On the contrary my commitment has always been to find a genuine solution to the problem of Tibet that ensures the long-term interests of both Chinese and Tibetans. My primary concern, as I have repeated time and again, is to ensure the survival of the Tibetan people's distinctive culture, language and identity. As a simple monk who strives to live his daily life according to Buddhist precepts, I assure you of the sincerity of my motivation.
I have appealed to the leadership of the PRC to clearly understand my position and work to resolve these problems by "seeking truth from facts." I urge the Chinese leadership to exercise wisdom and to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Tibetan people. I also appeal to them to make sincere efforts to contribute to the stability and harmony of the PRC and avoid creating rifts between the nationalities. The state media's portrayal of the recent events in Tibet, using deceit and distorted images, could sow the seeds of racial tension with unpredictable long-term consequences. This is of grave concern to me. Similarly, despite my repeated support for the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese authorities, with the intention of creating rift between the Chinese people and myself, assert that I am trying to sabotage the games. I am encouraged, however, that several Chinese intellectuals and scholars have also expressed their strong concern about the Chinese leadership's actions and the potential for adverse long-term consequences, particularly on relations among different nationalities.
Since ancient times, Tibetan and Chinese peoples have lived as neighbors. In the two thousand year-old recorded history of our peoples, we have at times developed friendly relations, even entering into matrimonial alliances, while at other times we fought each other. However, since Buddhism flourished in China first before it arrived in Tibet from India, we Tibetans have historically accorded the Chinese people the respect and affection due to elder Dharma brothers and sisters. This is something well known to members of the Chinese community living outside China, some of whom have attended my Buddhist lectures, as well as pilgrims from mainland China, whom I have had the privilege to meet. I take heart from these meetings and feel they may contribute to a better understanding between our two peoples.
The twentieth century witnessed enormous changes in many parts of the world and Tibet, too, was caught up in this turbulence. Soon after the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet finally resulting in the 17-Point Agreement concluded between China and Tibet in May 1951. When I was in Beijing in 1954-55, attending the National People's Congress, I had the opportunity to meet and develop a personal friendship with many senior leaders, including Chairman Mao himself. In fact, Chairman Mao gave me advice on numerous issues, as well as personal assurances with regard to the future of Tibet. Encouraged by these assurances, and inspired by the dedication of many of China's revolutionary leaders of the time, I returned to Tibet full of confidence and optimism. Some Tibetan members of the Communist Party also had such a hope. After my return to Lhasa, I made every possible effort to seek genuine autonomy for Tibet within the family of the People's Republic of China (PRC). I believed that this would best serve the long-term interests of both the Tibetan and Chinese peoples.
Unfortunately, tensions, which began to escalate in Tibet from around 1956, eventually led to the peaceful uprising of March 10, 1959, in Lhasa and my eventual escape into exile. Although many positive developments have taken place in Tibet under the PRC's rule, these developments, as the previous Panchen Lama pointed out in January 1989, were overshadowed by immense suffering and extensive destruction. Tibetans were compelled to live in a state of constant fear, while the Chinese government remained suspicious of them. However, instead of cultivating enmity towards the Chinese leaders responsible for the ruthless suppression of the Tibetan people, I prayed for them to become friends, which I expressed in the following lines in a prayer I composed in 1960, a year after I arrived in India: "May they attain the wisdom eye discerning right and wrong, And may they abide in the glory of friendship and love." Many Tibetans, school children among them, recite these lines in their daily prayers.
In 1974, following serious discussions with my Kashag (cabinet), as well as the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the then Assembly of the Tibetan People's Deputies, we decided to find a Middle Way that would seek not to separate Tibet from China, but would facilitate the peaceful development of Tibet. Although we had no contact at the time with the PRC - which was in the midst of the Cultural Revolution - we had already recognized that sooner or later, we would have to resolve the question of Tibet through negotiations. We also acknowledged that, at least with regard to modernization and economic development, it would greatly benefit Tibet if it remained within the PRC. Although Tibet has a rich and ancient cultural heritage, it is materially undeveloped.
Situated on the roof of the world, Tibet is the source of many of Asia's major rivers, therefore, protection of the environment on the Tibetan plateau is of supreme importance. Since our utmost concern is to safeguard Tibetan Buddhist culture - rooted as it is in the values of universal compassion - as well as the Tibetan language and the unique Tibetan identity, we have worked whole-heartedly towards achieving meaningful self-rule for all Tibetans. The PRC's constitution provides the right for nationalities such as the Tibetans to do this.
In 1979, the then Chinese paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping assured my personal emissary that "except for the independence of Tibet, all other questions can be negotiated." Since we had already formulated our approach to seeking a solution to the Tibetan issue within the constitution of the PRC, we found ourselves well placed to respond to this new opportunity. My representatives met many times with officials of the PRC. Since renewing our contacts in 2002, we have had six rounds of talks. However, on the fundamental issue, there has been no concrete result at all. Nevertheless, as I have declared many times, I remain firmly committed to the Middle Way approach and reiterate here my willingness to continue to pursue the process of dialogue.
This year the Chinese people are proudly and eagerly awaiting the opening of the Olympic Games. I have, from the start, supported Beijing's being awarded the opportunity to host the Games. My position remains unchanged. China has the world's largest population, a long history and an extremely rich civilization. Today, due to her impressive economic progress, she is emerging as a great power. This is certainly to be welcomed. But China also needs to earn the respect and esteem of the global community through the establishment of an open and harmonious society based on the principles of transparency, freedom, and the rule of law. For example, to this day victims of the Tiananmen Square tragedy that adversely affected the lives of so many Chinese citizens have received neither just redress nor any official response. Similarly, when thousands of ordinary Chinese in rural areas suffer injustice at the hands of exploitative and corrupt local officials, their legitimate complaints are either ignored or met with aggression. I express these concerns both as a fellow human being and as someone who is prepared to consider himself a member of the large family that is the People's Republic of China. In this respect, I appreciate and support President Hu Jintao's policy of creating a "harmonious society", but this can only arise on the basis of mutual trust and an atmosphere of freedom, including freedom of speech and the rule of law. I strongly believe that if these values are embraced, many important problems relating to minority nationalities can be resolved, such as the issue of Tibet, as well as Eastern Turkistan, and Inner Mongolia, where the native people now constitute only 20% of a total population of 24 million.
I had hoped President Hu Jintao's recent statement that the stability and safety of Tibet concerns the stability and safety of the country might herald the dawning of a new era for the resolution of the problem of Tibet. It is unfortunate that despite my sincere efforts not to separate Tibet from China, the leaders of the PRC continue to accuse me of being a "separatist". Similarly, when Tibetans in Lhasa and many other areas spontaneously protested to express their deep-rooted resentment, the Chinese authorities immediately accused me of having orchestrated their demonstrations. I have called for a thorough investigation by a respected body to look into this allegation.
Chinese brothers and sisters - wherever you may be - with deep concern I appeal to you to help dispel the misunderstandings between our two communities. Moreover, I appeal to you to help us find a peaceful, lasting solution to the problem of Tibet through dialogue in the spirit of understanding and accommodation.
With my prayers,
Dalai Lama
March 28, 2008
Posted by google at 11:54 PM | Comments (0)
March 29, 2008
The Politics of the Dalai Lama’s New Initiative for Autonomy
The Politics of the Dalai Lama’s New Initiative for Autonomy
Phayul[Sunday, October 09, 2005 00:32]
Baogang He & Barry Sautman
(Draft of 15 June 2005)
In recent years, the Dalai Lama has pursued a dialogic approach to the Tibet Question. He has significantly modified his views of autonomy and made a number of fundamental concessions. His present position should now clearly be distinguished from the stance he had from the late 1980s until recently. The Dalai Lama’s views from that time are still fixed in the minds of many people, but in the main they no longer constitute his approach.
From the late 1980s until recently for example, the Dalai Lama had refused to even imply Tibet is part of China. He stated in 2000 that “The Beijing government often puts pressure on me and wants me to declare that Tibet is a part of the Chinese territory. However, this is not a fact. I will not make such an erroneous statement.” He also maintained until recently that Tibetans and (Han) Chinese have no common bonds. In 1987, the Dalai Lama said that “Tibetans and Chinese are distinct peoples each with their own country, history, culture, language and way of life” and in 1995, he put it that “the Chinese and Tibetans are very fundamentally different peoples . . . We speak different languages; are of different civilizations, have different customs; our religion and culture, and even our written languages are completely different.” The Dalai Lama, as we will show, now no longer excludes Tibet from the Chinese state or the possibility Tibetans can be part of the supra-ethnic Chinese nation; at least he has indicated a willingness to confirm these views if negotiations with the Chinese government go forward.
From the late 1980s until a few years ago, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile (TGIE) maintained that for an accommodation to be reached, China would have to renounce all control over affairs in Tibet except those involving foreign affairs and defense. We will also show that the Dalai Lama has altered the focus of the autonomy he seeks for Tibet by downplaying enhanced political and economic power and pursuing greater power as to religion and culture. Even in those spheres, he no longer claims an exclusive domain, but acknowledges a willingness to have the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “govern and guarantee to preserve our Tibetan culture, spirituality and our environment.”
The change in the Dalai Lama’s view is linked to prospects of negotiations for greater autonomy being pursued as a result of regular visits by his special envoys to China. Three visits were made in 2002-2004, creating a quasi-institutionalized forum at which both sides meet, discuss, and address issues in a regular manner. A fourth visit, for discussions of autonomy with officials of the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will take place in 2005. The visits are seen by the TGIE both as part of a way to “’create atmosphere’ in a ‘long, drawn-out process’” and as setting the stage for resolving differences within a set period.
It is the expression of greater flexibility on key issues of the Tibet Question, together with a push to regularize contact between the parties that constitute the Dalai Lama’s new initiative for autonomy. The prime minister of the Tibetan Government-in-exile (TGIE) Samdhong Rinpoche has indicated as much:
Ever since the envoys of the Dalai Lama began meeting the Chinese government officials on three successive trips over the last three years, we are trying to create a congenial atmosphere to pave the way for starting formal negotiations between the two sides. We do not regard China as an enemy anymore, but more as a party with which we will have to negotiate. They have sought a reassurance from us on this.
Through recent statements on the relationship between Tibetans and China, the Dalai Lama has tried to provide that reassurance, as a result enduring unusually sharp criticism from Tibet independence supporters. When PRC premier Wen Jiabao paid a visit to India in April, 2005, moreover, Samdhong Rinpoche welcomed it, the first time the TGIE had ever welcomed the visit of a Chinese leader. In what follows, we examine the background to the Dalai Lama’s new initiative, outline recent developments, discuss obstacles to a breakthrough dialogue on autonomy, and suggest ways to overcome them.
Changing Wind
In the late 1980s, the 14th Dalai Lama proposed that the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) could remain responsible for Tibet’s foreign policy, while Tibet would be governed by its own liberal democratic constitution A decade later, he expressed disappointment that “the Chinese government has not responded positively to my proposals and initiatives over the past 18 years for a negotiated resolution of our problem within the framework, stated by Deng Xiaoping”; that apart from the question of total independence of Tibet, all other issues could be discussed and resolved.
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have pressed PRC leaders to hold talks with the Dalai Lama and in 2001 the US Congress passed a Tibetan Policy Act with the same prescription. European Union (EU) External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten and Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes called on China in 2002 to begin dialogue with the Dalai Lama. A European Parliament (EP) delegation to China that year did the same, but were told by Beijing leaders that they were not ready for talks with the Tibetan leader. Indeed, Hu Jintao, CCP General Secretary and PRC President, stated "it is essential to fight unequivocally against the separatist activities by the Dalai clique and anti-China forces in the world, vigorously develop a good situation of stability and unity in Tibet and firmly safeguard national unity and state security."
In the late 1980s and 1990s, the collapse of the USSR brought a ray of hope to the Dalai Lama. He declined a 1989 invitation from the Chinese Buddhism Association to attend the Beijing funeral of the second highest figure in the Tibetan Buddhism, the 10th Panchen Lama, and he won the Nobel peace prize. The US Congress passed a non-binding resolution in 1991 stating that “Tibet is an occupied country” and urging the US to recognize the TGIE as the legitimate government of the Tibetan people.
Times have changed since then. Western and Indian media observers now write about a notable decline in support for the “Free Tibet movement” among political leaders and in wider circles. It now appears the disintegration of China hoped for by Tibetan exile leaders is unlikely. Instead, China has become an ever-greater regional power, a hub for world manufacture, and a catalyst for East Asian integration. Meanwhile, support for independence has seemingly diminished in Tibet, with both exile leaders and foreign supporters acknowledging there is no visible opposition movement there. The growing middle class, fostered by PRC government subsidies to the region, has not panned out as a force for separatist nationalism, but is inclined to seek stability; staying with China is seen as the best guarantor of Tibet’s interests and prosperity.
As a growing power, China has gained support from the international community for the maintenance of its recognized territorial boundaries. During his 1992 electoral campaign, Bill Clinton openly supported the Tibetan exile cause, but changed his policy toward Tibet as soon as he entered the White House. In 2000, George W. Bush said that US would defend Taiwan if the mainland attacked it, but in 2003-2004, he opposed Chen Shui-bian’s referendum proposal and has provided no meaningful support for the Tibetan exile cause. In the 2004 presidential campaign, Democratic candidate John Kerry even endorsed China’s “one country, two systems” proposal for Taiwan. A year 2000 EP resolution called for appointment of an EU Special Representative for Tibet and recognition of the TGIE as the legitimate representative of the Tibetans, if Beijing refused to hold talks with the Dalai Lama within the next three years. Meeting with the Dalai Lama a month before the three-year deadline was to expire, Anders Fogh Rassmussen, prime minister of Denmark, an EU country with longstanding ties to the exiles, stated he did not believe there was a need for new initiatives by the EU or Denmark. When the sixth EU-China Summit was held in October 2003, Tibet was not even mentioned. The EU is now contemplating lifting its arms embargo against China and has asked the PRC to meet four human rights conditions for that to happen, but none of them involve Tibet.
The Dalai Lama’s two major traditional allies have changed their position on Tibet. Britain, which had since 1906 spoken in terms of China’s “suzerainty” in Tibet, in an attempt to turn Tibet into a neutral buffer between India and China, now acknowledges PRC sovereignty. During the 2003 visit to China of Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee, the Indian government, which had inherited the British “suzerainty” notion, stated that the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is a part of China. In return, China recognized Sikkim as a part of India. Although Indian officials argued their statement represented no change in policy on Tibet, the pronouncement proved a disappointment to Tibetan exiles, with the largest exile organization, the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), stating that “Vajpayee’s signing of the declaration amounted to obliterating Tibet.” TGIE Kalon Tripa (prime minister) Samdhong Rinpoche said after Vajpayee’s visit that “the reality is that Tibet is China’s autonomous part” The affirmation of PRC sovereignty by Vajpayee’s right-wing regime, which might have been expected to be hostile to China on the Tibet question, was likely a factor in causing the TYC president to speculate that it may take 500 or 1,000 years to make Tibet free and in inducing exile leaders to come closer than ever before to meeting the prime PRC condition for negotiations -- a public statement by the Dalai Lama that Tibet is an inalienable part of China. During a November 2003 trip to the Vatican, he reportedly stated “We accept Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China.”
The Dalai Lama is entering his 70s and is sometimes ill. Indeed, his life was thought to be in danger in 2002 and the question of his reincarnation was inevitably raised. In an interview with a Taiwanese journalist in 2000, he had already stated that the Tibetan theocracy, based on a reincarnation system, should be abandoned, and that he would not take part in politics if he returns to China. In a speech to Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan, he again expressed his preference for ending the system. Many Tibetans in exile disfavor this option, viewing it as an abandonment of Tibetan tradition. The most that the Dalai Lama would concede however is his intention to not be reincarnated in PRC territory.
Even if the Dalai Lama dies outside the PRC, it is likely that two 14th Dalai Lamas will emerge, one outside China, and the other chosen within China and affirmed by PRC authorities. Such an outcome will weaken the 14th Dalai Lama’s power, undermine Tibetan tradition, and increase tensions among Tibetan exiles, China, and the country where the reincarnation is found. The TGIE thus may now prefer that the Dalai Lama dies and is reincarnated within Chinese territory. The 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, the next most prominent Buddhist leader in exile, has stated that “’If in his wisdom the Dalai Lama decides to take rebirth in China-held territory, one should not be surprised.” Many Tibetans want the Dalai Lama to die in Tibet because if he dies on foreign soil, his “head” and “body” will be separated. This is an important reason why the Dalai Lama is pressing China to speed up the dialogue process.
Given these conditions, as US Tibet specialist Melvyn Goldstein points out, the Dalai Lama and TGIE have three, not mutually exclusive options: 1. maintain the status quo by continuing the campaign of enhancing international support; 2. escalate the conflict by encouraging and even organizing violence in Tibet; and 3. compromise by sending Beijing a message that the Dalai Lama is ready to scale down his political demands in order to preserve a more homogeneous Tibetan homeland. Evidence indicates that the Dalai Lama has chosen the third option and made significant concessions.
The Dalai Lama’s Concessions
New Thinking about Autonomy
The Dalai Lama’s Five Point Peace Plan, presented on Washington’s Capitol Hill in 1987, and his 1988 Strasbourg Proposal before the EP, laid out his initial positions on autonomy. Under the Proposal, the PRC would remain responsible for Tibet’s foreign policy, while Tibet would be governed by its own constitution or basic law. The Tibetan government would comprise a popularly elected chief executive, a bicameral legislature and an independent legal system. It would have a special duty to safeguard and develop religious practice. The Proposal’s inclusion of a directly elected chief executive and independent judiciary represents a fundamental rupture in the current Chinese political system and makes no room for the CCP, implying an end to party leadership. Given its authoritarian system, Beijing will not accept a proposal of this kind.
In 1992, the Dalai Lama demanded that Chinese leaders allow Tibet, Inner Mongolia and East Turkestan [Xinjiang] “to become free and equal partners in a new world order.” In recent years however, the Dalai Lama has emphasized cultural autonomy, played down political autonomy, and shown respect for the Chinese constitutional framework. There was an internal discussion among Tibetan exiles in 1999 about the possibility of proposing a power sharing mechanism. It is also suggested that the TGIE recognize the reality of CCP leadership in Tibet and the role of the central government in a transitional arrangement. While the central party organization would have the right to appoint Tibet’s party secretary, Tibet would have the right to elect its governor. Learning from the practice of India, it is suggested the center would have the right to remove the governor if necessary. If China lists convincing reasons for an appointed chief executive, the TGIE would agree to postpone direct elections for ten-years.
In a 2005 interview, the Dalai Lama presented a substantially changed view of Tibet’s relationship with China and prospects for governance in Tibet. He recognized that PRC Tibetans are in some measure Chinese, because Tibetan culture and Buddhism are part of Chinese culture and Tibet is part of China's 5,000 year history. He also affirmed that Tibet gains materially from being part of China. His previous view was that Tibet might benefit in the future from being part of China, but that it does not presently, because China exploits Tibet, so that it benefits from having Tibet and not the other way around.
It was also reported that a TGIE official stated that the Dalai Lama now only wants autonomy as to religious and cultural matters, not political, economic and diplomatic affairs. This position was pre-figured by a 2004 statement of Thubten Samphel, the TGIE’s spokesman, that Tibetans “should be allowed genuine spiritual and cultural autonomy, and a degree of political space.” In terms of religious and cultural autonomy, the Dalai Lama reportedly has been concerned he be able to live year-round in Lhasa’s Potala Palace, travel in and out of China and to all Tibetan areas, have full control over the publication and editing of religious texts, and have undisputed authority to appoint abbots of monasteries and supervise the choice of reincarnations of important lamas. Such concerns are vastly different from those reflected in past assertions that Tibet must have a liberal political system. The Dalai Lama now speaks of enhanced autonomy under the PRC constitution and the need to remain in China to foster economic development.
The borders of an autonomous Tibet
Its conception of Tibet’s borders is one of the most sensitive aspects of the Dalai Lama’s 1988 Autonomy Proposal: Tibet would take in the whole Tibet Plateau, encompassing the traditional Tibetan areas of U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo, an area one-fourth of PRC territory. Besides the TAR, “greater Tibet” would include most of Qinghai province and parts of Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan, areas where 53% of PRC Tibetans live amidst Han Chinese and other ethnic groups. Greater Tibet would become a self-governing democratic political entity.
Although before the 1950s, Tibet’s boundaries and political status were not determined by modern standards, “greater Tibet” is at the core of modern Tibetan nationalism. Since 1959, Tibetan nationalists have sought to create a pan-Tibetan identity, fueling antagonism with PRC leaders, for whom Tibet is confined to today's TAR, the area previously ruled by the Dalai Lama. By 1996, the Dalai Lama had already acknowledged that much of the eastern Tibet Plateau had not been under Lhasa’s rule and expressed an interest in cultural preservation, rather than political control of the area. While the TGIE until at least 2003 still insisted that “The whole of Tibet inhabited by the Tibetan people should be given genuine autonomy,” the Dalai Lama no longer uses a concept of greater Tibet in the sense of insisting on unification of all Tibetan areas, but focuses on cultural protection within a Tibetan cultural zone. He avoids emphasizing political boundaries, has stated that “my concern is culture, and spirituality, and environment,” and seems to accept there will be no boundary question under the constitutional framework of China.
In a forum on Tibetan autonomy, Prof. Ezra Vogel of Harvard University asked whether re-drawing boundaries to include Tibetans outside the TAR would be acceptable to China. Zheng Shiping, a US political scientist originally from China, replied, "I don't think it would be possible to change the boundaries. It would just be a waste of time." Bhuchung Tsering, director of International Campaign for Tibet, stressed however that "We should look at this issue from a different perspective. Let's put the emphasis on the survival of the Tibetan people. I don't see why this can't be accommodated within Chinese limitations. To the Chinese, the idea of a 'Greater Tibet' seems very sinister. But the survival of the Tibetan people would be acceptable." The provision to Tibetans outside the TAR of any social and cultural benefit accorded TAR Tibetans may be a suitable way to realize this goal. For example, for a quarter century TAR Tibetans have not had to pay regional taxes on farming and herding income. In 2004, Sichuan province exempted its autonomous area minorities (mostly Tibetans) from paying such taxes. By the same token, TAR Tibetans would be allowed rights accorded Tibetans elsewhere; for example, the right to publicly display photos of the Dalai Lama.
The withdrawal of Chinese troops
The Dalai Lama’s 1988 Autonomy Proposal demanded withdrawal of Chinese troops, to transform the whole of Tibet into a zone of peace. Only with the withdrawal of troops could a genuine process of reconciliation begin. China would have the right to maintain a restricted number of military installations in Tibet, solely for defensive purposes, until a peace conference is convened and demilitarization and neutralization achieved.
In 2003, the Dalai Lama stated that the number of paramilitary People's Armed Police should be reduced in Tibetan cities, implying his acceptance of the deployment of Chinese troops. The Dalai Lama no longer demands a complete withdrawal of the Chinese army, nor does he insist on any withdrawal as a precondition for negotiations.
The Hong Kong Model of Autonomy
The Dalai Lama has demanded that Hong Kong’s one country two systems policy be applied to Tibet and many commentators have considered its suitability for Tibet. Under it, Beijing would be responsible only for Tibet's foreign affairs and defense, while Tibetans would be free to make their own decisions as to other matters. To endorse a Hong Kong model for Tibet however, the Dalai Lama must be aware of its political implications. Under it, China’s sovereignty includes a Hong Kong garrison, Beijing’s appointment of all high-level officials, and executive dominance through the tight circumscription of legislative power. This set-up differs fundamentally from what the Dalai Lama demanded in his original autonomy proposal, which was essentially an American-style system of governance. The Dalai Lama does seem impressed however with Hong Kong’s ability to control the movement of population from mainland China. Though it will not totally end migration of Han into Tibetan areas, a Hong Kong model would slow the process. Tibetan autonomy could then focus on preservation of culture and religion, with Tibetans having a greater say about such matters.
Three Visits
In late 1978, the Dalai Lama established his first direct contact with PRC leaders since 1959. That came to an end in 1993, but indirect contacts via private persons and semi-officials continued. In January, 2002 a face-to-face meeting between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and PRC officials responsible for Tibet policy took place outside China. This paved the way for a September 2002 visit to Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu and Lhasa by a four-member Tibetan exile delegation, headed by the Dalai Lama’s special envoys, Lodi Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen, and including their special assistants, Sonam Dagpo and Bhuchung Tsering. The same delegation visited Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Yunnan provinces from May 25-June 8, 2003, soon after changes in the CCP and PRC leaderships. In a third trip of the same four-member team, from September 12-29, 2004, they met Minister Liu Yandong, Vice Chairperson of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and leader of the CCP United Front Work Department [UFWD], Zhu Weiqun, a Vice-Minister, Chang Rongjun, head of the UFWD Nationalities and Religion Department, and other Beijing officials. The three visits have given Tibetans in exile the opportunity to re-establish contacts, explain the Dalai Lama's approach, and engage extensively with new Chinese leaders and officials responsible for Tibet policy.
There have been positive effects from the three visits. The TGIE first ordered exile officials abroad to not organize protests against PRC leaders who visit Western countries. It then asked Tibet support groups and NGOs to not be very aggressive in staging such demonstrations and, according to the TYC, demanded that pro-independence activists in India not hold processions or shout anti-Beijing slogans on the occasion of the March 10 commemoration of the 1959 Lhasa uprising. During a 1984 visit to China by Tibetan exile officials, they encountered cadres who complained of the Cultural Revolution and their suffering, but the recent delegations were impressed by self-confident officials empowered by China’s development and were overwhelmed by the development itself, thus strengthening the idea Tibet is better off staying in China than seeking independence. As the Dalai Lama said, “the best guarantee for Tibet” is to “remain within the People’s Republic of China,” and “more union, more cooperation is in our best interest.” In 2003, an exile special task force discussed how Sino-Tibet relations could be enhanced, with Lodi Gyari consulting with specialists on whether the Dalai Lama should visit China.
On China’s side, TAR leaders regarded the first visit as purely private, but Beijing did acknowledge the second visit and the existence of “official” contact between the two sides. Harsh criticisms of the Dalai Lama as a “splittist” were reduced and his positive efforts to create a constructive environment were explicitly recognized. In 2003, the TAR governor told foreign journalists that China welcomes the Dalai Lama to visit Tibet if he comes as a PRC citizen and recognizes Tibet as an inalienable part of China.
The three visits were aimed at building confidence by dispelling misconceptions and distrust. A lack of sincerity and mutual trust remains. In addition, there are fundamental differences in the two sides’ conceptions of autonomy. Indeed, the Tibetan exile delegation stated that “there are major differences on a number of issues, including some fundamental ones. Both sides acknowledged the need for more substantive discussions in order to narrow the gaps and reach a common ground. We stressed the need for both sides to demonstrate flexibility, far-sightedness and vision to bridge the differences.”
Why the Absence of Dialogue?
There are several reasons for the absence of a formal dialogue between the exiles and Beijing. First, some Chinese hardliners believe the Dalai Lama’s death will be a grave blow to the Tibetan independence cause and that migrants will create a multi-ethnic community in Tibetan areas that will weaken the demographic basis for an independence movement. They even prefer the Dalai Lama die outside of China, as that may create religious divisions, as has been the case with the designation of the reincarnation of the 17th Karmapa. Most exiles do not deny that the Dalai Lama’s passing will sharply set back their cause: one pro-independence member of the Tibetan parliament-in-exile has stated that “As long as he is alive, he will be the foremost motivating factor. After his passing away, for the next 50 years Tibetans will not be able to bring any sort of momentum for their struggle and the Tibetan issue will be lost.” Others contend that the Dalai Lama’s passing will not mean an end to the Tibet Question.
Second, to Beijing, Tibet already enjoys autonomy. In visits to China in 2002 and 2003, Lodi Gyari, the delegation head, confronted Chinese cultural and ideological opposition to the 1988 Autonomy Proposal. Many PRC officials told him that China has already developed a sound system of autonomy, implying it does not need the Dalai Lama’s proposal. Lodi Gyari would like the Chinese to revise their view of autonomy, taking it as an intrinsic value that provides citizens with inalienable rights, rather than using it as an instrument for national unity and social control, demonstrated for example through Tibet being accord the right to elect its governor.
Third, there is fear the CCP will lose control if the Dalai Lama returns to Tibet. A senior PRC official has stated that “The Dalai Lama’s return to China will bring a great risk of instability. We will then not be able to control Tibet.” Reportedly, officials in the TAR fear that with the Dalai Lama in the Potala Palace, “he will inevitably become the source of all authority. Any theoretical separation of church and state will be impossible to maintain and the [CCP] will lose its influence over Tibetans.” One might argue however that if the Dalai Lama returns to Tibet with a PRC passport and TV stations show this passport, this will strengthen China’s stand.
Fourth, a key reason is Beijing thinks the Dalai Lama has not met its preconditions. Then-President Jiang Zemin stated in 1998 that before dialogue could begin, the Dalai Lama must “publicly make a statement and a commitment that Tibet is an inalienable part of China” and “must also recognize Taiwan as a province of China.” Premier Wen Jiabao reaffirmed that in 2003 and noted that “regrettably” the Dalai Lama had not met the preconditions and had not genuinely given up independence and separatist activities. PRC government spokespeople continue to uphold the preconditions, indicating that they believe the Dalai Lama has not actually forsaken independence and separatist actions.
Many exile officials also refuse to commit to the idea that Tibet is an inalienable part of China and in interviews in 1999 in India gave several reasons for not stating that Tibet is an inalienable part of China. First, the Dalai Lama has already announced he would not seek independence. Second, the Dalai Lama’s public declaration should be linked to China’s promise to grant genuine autonomy, but exile officials argued that PRC leaders will not do so even if the Dalai Lama makes this declaration. Third, Tibet’s history as an independent country is bargaining power for greater autonomy; a public announcement will deprive Tibetans of this power. Fourth, Tibetans want independence, not autonomy; a public declaration would mean giving up the goal of independence, which should never be renounced.
Another position was also mentioned: that Tibet was not an inalienable part of China in the past, but is now a part of China, a position the Dalai Lama now seemingly follows. Thus, the TGIE has stated that the Dalai Lama has “acknowledged the de facto status of Tibet” as part of China, but that “the issue of Tibet is yet to be resolved.” Queried about whether he is ready to acknowledge that Tibet is an integral part of China, the Dalai Lama replied, “Not that one sentence. Since 1950-51, as far as the central autonomous region of Tibet is concerned, after the seventeen-point agreement was signed, then Tibet became part of the People's Republic of China … But then in the past, that's up to history.”
The Dalai Lama’s statements on Tibet being a part of China thus far have not been seen by the PRC as sufficient because he has not used the term “inalienable.” Beijing does not think the Dalai Lama has met its precondition because he has not repudiated his 1991 statement that “Tibet was an independent country before its occupation by China. It had its own government, now in exile…There is no justification claiming that Tibet was ‘part of China’ as Peking claims today.” In response to a PRC offer to return the Dalai Lama to Tibet if he becomes a PRC citizen and acknowledges Tibet is an inalienable part of China, TGIE Department of Information and International Relations secretary Sonam Dagpo said the latter pre-condition was not acceptable, since Tibet had always been an independent nation until China occupied it forcibly. The PRC and Tibetan exiles may however set aside the issue of whether Tibet was independent before 1951, as Britain and China eventually did with the question of the validity of “three unequal treaties” that were the basis for British rule in Hong Kong. In any case, the Dalai Lama’s 2005 statement that Tibet is part of China’s 5,000 year history of tradition excludes an insistence that Tibet has always been independent, while the Chinese government does not demand the Dalai Lama affirm that Tibet has always been part of China.
The TGIE has quoted only the Dalai Lama’s statements that the Taiwan issue “is not my business” and “mainly depends on the people of Taiwan.” For Beijing, Tibet and Taiwan must adhere to the one-China policy and recognize each other as a part of China. For the Dalai Lama, it is thought his image would be damaged if he publicly opposed Taiwan independence in response to political pressure. Taiwan independence forces have moreover been allies with a goal similar to his own; an acknowledgement that Taiwan is part of China would weaken an alliance enhanced by Chen Shui-bian’s presidency.
The Dalai Lama reportedly said in 1998, however, that “’Taiwan’s future should . . . be viewed under the one China policy . . . My stand is: I don’t support or encourage Taiwan’s independence movement.” Kelsang Gyaltsen affirmed at the time -- a moment of hope for a breakthrough to negotiations -- that “the Dalai Lama has never doubted the ‘one China’ policy.” The Dalai Lama may revert to that position if it appears that little has been gained from his de facto alliance with Taiwan independence forces. In 2000, he denied a report that “Tibetans and Taiwanese would form a common front to press for independence from China.” He may come to view the Taiwan independence forces as taking advantage of the Tibet issue, adding obstacles to creating conditions favorable to a dialogue, especially as other allies, most notably the Bush administration, have disapproved Taiwan pro-independence moves.
Beijing sees the Dalai Lama’s advocacy of autonomy for Tibet as a smokescreen for independence because he fails to stop separatist activities, yet TGIE spokesman Thubten Samphel has claimed to have “no idea what China means by ‘separatist activities.’” TGIE/TYC relations are an example of such activities, however: the TYC goal is an independent Tibet headed by the Dalai Lama. It has launched campaigns like “Boycott Made in China” and “No Olympics 2008 in Beijing,” efforts blessed by the Dalai Lama's oldest brother, Professor Thupten Norbu and by his prime minister, who addressed a 2004 Tibetan youth leadership training program organized by the TYC, an organization that announced in the same year its plans to train for “guerrilla activities” and in 2005 said “We are opposed to the Dalai Lama’s stand” and “We do not support the Dalai Lama at all.” Another example is TGIE participation in the pan-separatist Allied Committee of the Peoples of East Turkestan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia, founded in 1985 and still being promoted in 2005. The history of negotiating processes to reach agreements aimed at settling major ethno-territorial disputes shows that no progress is possible if the two sides do not decisively break with nationalist extremists in their midst.
Tibetan Exile Perspectives
The Dalai Lama, TGIE and pro-Dalai Lama Western scholars have provided several reasons for Beijing to start a dialogue as soon as possible.
View the Dalai Lama as an asset
The main problem lies in the PRC leader’s negative perception of the Dalai Lama. If they change their view, the Tibet problem can be solved. Lodi Gyari argues that Beijing sees the Dalai Lama as used by the USA to “split” China: to reduce the chance of his being used by outsiders, the best solution is to let him live in China. As long as the Dalai Lama lives outside China, Tibetan loyalty will follow suit. Kelsang Gyaltsen has said that “the Dalai Lama is the only person who would persuade Tibetans to accept an agreement with the Chinese government that would recognize Tibet to be part of the PRC.” Orville Schell, dean of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, has advised Beijing to view the Dalai Lama as an asset who could serve the interests of Han and Tibetans alike, rather than as a die-hard "splittist," and to return him to Lhasa as a religious and cultural avatar. John Kenneth Knaus, a Harvard researcher, has asserted that “for China, it would be a loss of an opportunity to benefit from the presence of the one person who is best able to guarantee peace….”
Consequences of Denying Dialog
Kelsang Gyaltsen warns that failure to reach agreement with the Dalai Lama could inspire generations of Tibetans to resistance. Lodi Gyari argues that the longer the PRC waits, the greater will be the resentment, the difficulty in convincing Tibetans to accept a solution short of independence, and the danger extreme leaders will emerge.
Preventing Political Violence
Currently, the Dalai Lama and TGIE are pledged to a nonviolent strategy, which most Tibetan exile leaders are dedicated to realizing. If that strategy cannot work, however, radical groups such as the TYC will gain the confidence needed to launch violence, as was the case for the Irish Republican Army and Hamas in recent decades. The ideal of peace-loving among Tibetans is a contemporary development. There have been many instances of mass violence in Tibetan history and Tibetan youths still protested against Jiang Zeming’s visit to the US, despite a good-will gesture ban by the TGIE.
To prevent radicals from gaining influence, the Dalai Lama insists that China begin a dialogue sooner rather than later. He warned in 2003 that violence may occur that he is unable to stop, if peaceful dialogue does not produce results within two or three years. History shows when moderates fail, radicals take over and when they do, even more hardline elements emerge to outbid them for support. It is shortsighted to imagine exile violence will favor China because it goes against the Dalai Lama’s strategy, damages his reputation as a peacemaker, and serves to justify suppression. Israel adopted that approach in facilitating the emergence of Hamas as a counter to the Palestine Liberation Organization and now faces dire consequences.
Benefits for China’s Unity
The Tibet problem directly threatens China’s unity, but also has implications for Taiwan and Xinjiang. The Dalai Lama has stated that if China were to address the Tibet issue properly, it could only have positive implications for Hong Kong, Taiwan and the PRC international image. With many Taiwanese moving away from a Chinese national identity in recent years, peaceful resolution of the Tibet issue will help China to strengthen its national identity and persuade Taiwan leaders to come to negotiate.
Difficulties from Democratization
The Dalai Lama praises democratization among Tibetan exiles, who in 2001 directly elected the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies. Samdhong Rinpoche was elected Kalon Tripa by over 84 per cent of the vote. Exile democracy is characterized however by the overriding power of the Dalai Lama, who gave instructions for direct elections and an increase in the parliament’s power. Samdhong Rinpoche has said of the Dalai Lama that “we can’t do anything without him.” Indeed, even a move by the TGIE to close down its Budapest office in 2005 required approval by the Dalai Lama. The exile political system integrates political institutions and Buddhism and the very top positions are held by monks (the “head of state” and “head of government,” so to speak). There are no party politics and criticism of the Dalai Lama is treated as illegitimate in the exile community. Will top-down democratization ensure that moderates wield power or will it empower radicals?
When the Dalai Lama dies, exile democratization may deepen, but that would make it more difficult for Beijing to strike a deal with the TGIE, as a pact will be subject to the will of diverse exiles. The lesson from East Timor is that an early grant of autonomy is an effective way to prevent future independence. If Indonesian strongman Suharto had offered autonomy, the East Timor issue would likely have been resolved. When his successor Habibie offered autonomy in 1999, rapid democratization was already underway in Indonesia and it was too late. If China had made a deal with Taiwan’s then- President Jiang Jinguo in 1986, before Taiwan’s democratization, the one China principle would have become entrenched there.
Preparing Groundwork for Breakthrough
Cognitive and ideological gaps between Tibetan exile and PRC perspectives have been so great the two sides have been unable to sit together at a negotiating table. While China sees the Dalai Lama as advocating “disguised independence,” the TGIE sees Beijing as playing games. Both sides need to take steps to reduce animosity and increase familiarity with each others’ positions; for example, the Tibet exile delegation has attempted to prove the Dalai Lama’s autonomy is not equivalent to independence. Both sides need to develop a non-zero-sum game, re-examine tendentious claims, drop recriminations, and create a roadmap to negotiations. Instead of being preoccupied with talk of “fake” or genuine” autonomy, for example, the focus should be on improving the existing autonomy system.
The Dalai Lama Side The Dalai Lama needs to reconsider his strategy. The TGIE has had international successes, but has had little impact within China, where it invites suspicion. It views internationalization as overcoming Beijing’s winning position in politics, by making it a loser in the moral battle, as reflected in Samdhong Rinpoche’s statement that “We have a unique source of strength, which puts us in a position to negotiate with China on equal terms. We have the strength of truth and non-violence, which, if anything, makes us more powerful than China.” The sense of international success, measured in terms of politicians, cultural figures, and NGOs favoring the TGIE position, obscures its view of the realities of the politics of creating expanded autonomy for Tibet.
The Dalai Lama should adopt a gradual strategy starting from cultural autonomy, before moving on to other forms of autonomy. There is reason to believe that he is willing to do so. He stated in 2004 that China had to accept three things in order to solve Tibet’s problems: “’Tibet’s unique cultural heritage and compassionate spirituality, and delicate situation of environment.’” Both sides could cooperate in building the Tibetan economy. While it is legitimate and appealing to hold to a Buddhist green vision of economic development, it is unproductive for the TGIE to reflexively oppose China’s economic development projects, especially given that the Dalai Lama has recognized that “all Tibetans want more prosperity, more material development.”
Autonomy is not created full-blown, but involves an on-going process of learning and mutual adjustment. Patience is the key to progress, as it is impossible to remove fifty years of distrust through a few visits. China has reason to be suspicious, due to the historical involvement of the CIA, the internationalization of the Tibet Question, TYC support for Tibetan independence, etc. Moves such as deadlines for negotiations moreover have led nowhere, but have only proved the ineffectiveness of those who set them, when no action was taken after the deadline passed. Finally, there is a need to contain rejectionists on both sides. As long as moderates are in power and work towards a cooperative, interactive future, there is hope for a peaceful settlement in the long run.
Beijing Side In January 2005, the TGIE, guided by Dalai Lama, added a new unit, “the Task Force on Negotiations.” To respond to this initiative, the CCP UFWD should not host Tibetan exile delegations, as that may be misconceived as merely an effort to persuade the world of the Party’s beneficent inclusiveness. Rather, the PRC government should rename the working group now composed of officials from the UFWD, the Department of Public Security, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a Tibet Commission or create such a commission to concentrate work on the issue. It should also extend the scope of official Tibetan exile visits beyond the Dalai Lama’s representatives. Moreover, the Tibetan exiles’ visits and meetings with PRC officials should be institutionalized, as a forum to be held once a year, with a working group focusing on education and culture, and an exchange program between Buddhist schools and institutions established.
To facilitate a settlement Beijing needs to create political space for the TGIE to take the actions needed for negotiations to begin, such as granting the inalienability of Tibet. If the PRC addresses issues of importance to Tibetans, the TGIE can work around its previous objections to preconditions for negotiations. For example, both sides frame the issue of Tibet’s status as a question of history. Émigré leaders claim the PRC insists that they recognize that Tibet has always been part of China, while the TGIE holds “Tibet has always been an independent nation.” Recently however, Samdhong Rinpoche has said that Tibet’s administrations from 1640 to 1951 were local governments in relation to China. That goes some way toward circumventing the historical issue.
Before the Cultural Revolution, PRC leaders urged Chinese to fight against Han chauvinism (da hanzu zhuyi). Since then, attention in minority areas has been on fighting “local nationalism.” To restore the balance in Tibetan areas, the government could finance a program to educate non-Tibetans who migrate there about the achievements of Tibetan culture. An anti-racial discrimination law, similar perhaps to the one planned for Hong Kong, would also address a key issue that creates ethnic tension and could be important in combating employment discrimination. While even a vigorously enforced law will not change the ethnic distribution of labor in Tibet, it would empower jobseekers who face ethnic and “home place” (lao jia) nepotism.
Tibet has never had a Tibetan Party Secretary. That may be because of a tradition from imperial times to not employ officials in their home areas. Exceptions to this policy now exist however; in 2003, 18 of the 62 “provincial chiefs” (governors and party secretaries) were serving in their birth provinces. Because there has not been a Tibetan Party Secretary, many believe Beijing does not regard any Tibetan as competent and loyal enough to hold the office; yet there are doubtless Tibetans qualified to do so: a disproportionate number (6 of 198 full members) of the current CCP Central Committee are Tibetans. A Tibetan Party Secretary would be regarded an indication that the CCP trusts Tibetans to lead Tibet.
It is often argued that Han benefit more than Tibetans from development in Tibet, not surprisingly as they heavily concentrate in favored urban areas, while most Tibetans are peasants or herders. Although there is growing Tibetan migration to cities, ethnic disparities are significant there as well and will persist as long as there is an educational and experiential gap between Han and Tibetans. To compensate for this tendency, preferential policies in the state economy should be reinvigorated and extended to the private sector, including mandates, such as job and shareholding quotas, that favor Tibetans. Wide-ranging affirmative action in Malaysia resulted in greater equality and reduced ethnic tension: in 1970 ethnic Malays owned 2.4% of corporate wealth, but by 2003 had about 20%, yet wealth shares of ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians rose from 30% to 40%, while average per capita income in Malaysia jumped from RM 1,132 in 1970 to RM13,683 in 2003. Results of affirmative action in Malaysia have been mentioned favorably in official PRC media.
The government could restrict migration to Tibet. To curtail or even ban migration to minority areas of a country is not uncommon: India bars the movement of “mainland Indians” to Nagaland, Kashmir and the Andaman and Nicobar islands; Vietnam prohibits “spontaneous migration” to the ethnic minority Central Highlands. For Tibetans to be at the center of Tibet’s economy, they need higher-level skills, but in rural areas especially, there is not much incentive for education, because Tibetan children contribute to family labor resources. The government could pay every Tibetan child who attends school a stipend equal to the child’s contribution to the family’s income. It would be well worth the expense, as most Tibetans can only become prosperous if education levels rise sharply. A decade ago, N. Ireland was a disadvantaged part of the UK, but today is said to have better schools, higher healthcare standards, and more cultural amenities than “mainland Britain.” The gap between Ulster’s communities has been narrowed through subsidies, fair employment legislation, affirmative action, greatly expanded educational opportunities and the adoption by Catholics of education as the main avenue of upward mobility.
Concerns are expressed about the ban on public display of Dalai Lama photos in the TAR that began in 1996. The ban is not enforced in Tibetan areas of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan however and no untoward consequences have followed, indicating that displays in a religious context can be accommodated without compromising anti-separatism.
Finally, international law entitles states to punish separatism, but those punished must be well-treated. Abusers of prisoners do sometimes face severe consequences elsewhere in China. That seems rare in Tibet, despite many credible reports of torture, yet harsh punishment for abusers should diminish sympathy for separatism.
Current global and national trends favor peaceful dialogue as a means of resolving the Tibet issue. The international environment is ripe for dialogue. Bush needs China’s support for the war against terrorism, so the US is likely to support China in an effort to solve the Tibet Question in a way that does not threaten China’s security and unity. Dialogue with the Dalai Lama will neutralize critics in Western parliaments and help convince many of the Chinese government’s good will.
With China’s increasing power, the so-called Tibet issue no longer threatens China’s national security; and the Dalai Lama’s new initiative and statement about Tibet’s history and status provide a further reassurance. The visits of Taiwan’s opposition parties to China in April and May 2005 have eased the tension across the Taiwan Strait and opened a door for a peaceful dialogue. New peace efforts elsewhere in the world, for instance, between the Indonesian government and independence forces in Aceh and between Israel and the newly-elected Palestine leadership, strengthens a global trend toward dialogue in resolving seemingly intractable conflicts.
While the Dalai Lama would have to adopt tough but persuasive measures to ensure that the growing opposition among young Tibetans in exile to his concessions would not derail his new autonomy process, it is now up to the Beijing leadership, in particular, President Hu Jintao. If Hu Jintao with his determination, commitment and wisdom can grasp this golden opportunity to take a decisive decision to engage in direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama and to make a number of concessions, there is a possibility that Hu Jintao and the Dalai Lama might share a Nobel Peace Prize one day. The Chinese and world community should be encouraged to think the unthinkable in this matter despite many rocks and steep hills remaining on the road to dialogue and a noble peace.
This story has been read 5530 times.
Posted by google at 01:59 AM | Comments (0)