open Democracy News Analysis - China and Tibet: the true path, Wang Lixiong - Comments

chen on "China and Tibet: the true path"

chen — Sat, 10 May 2008 13:13:43 +0100

while many Tibetans, especially the young who are the future of Tibet, are struggling for total independence.

I think it's a joke to say that. how do u treat your young Tibetans living in Tibet now? They are the majority to represent the future of Tibet, not those young Tibetans living in other countries.

Tsongi on "China and Tibet: the true path"

Tsongi — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:48:17 +0100

THE QUESTION OF AUTONOMY FOR TIBET
by Tsoltim N. Shakabpa

Some Tibetans are asking for autonomy for Tibet from Communist China while many Tibetans, especially the young who are the future of Tibet, are struggling for total independence. Why would some Tibetans ask for considerably less freedom than those of us in exile currently enjoy? Why would some Tibetans seek an agreement that denies us the right to manage our own foreign and military affairs, travel freely anywhere in the world and freely voice our opinion of political leaders? Under the sovereignty of an autocratic communist regime we certainly wouldn't have those rights. What use is autonomy under Communist China if it means denying the intrinsic values we cherish?

By asking the communists for an official agreement to have autonomous status for Tibet, we will be surrendering to marxists and atheists many of the rights we are now entitled to and locking ourselves into a constricted and precarious situation from which we cannot withdraw.

If we enter into an official agreement on autonomy under the sovereignty of a tyrannical communist regime some of the restrictions, including firm restrictions on all foreign and military affairs, we will face are:

1. Practice of Tibetan religion, culture and traditions within "autonomous"
Tibet will be under strict Chinese scrutiny.
2. Promotion of Tibetan culture, religion and traditions abroad will either
be prohibited or restricted as it concerns foreign affairs.
3. Restrictions on all foreign travel.
4. If ever the Dalai Lama is allowed to travel abroad, he will be
accompanied by Chinese agents, who will dictate what he may say or
do.
5. Tibetans will have to carry Chinese passports when traveling abroad.
6. Tibet can never be represented in any international body or agency as it
concerns foreign affairs.
7. Foreign investments in Tibet will be controlled by China as it concerns
foreign affairs.
8. China will have the authority to impound or export from Tibet any
valuable Tibetan resources as they can claim it affects Tibet's foreign
welfare and affairs.
9. China will have full control over the flow of the Drichu and Machu
Rivers in Tibet as China will claim they affect the Yangtse and Huang
Ho Rivers in China since the Drichu becomes the Yangtse in China
and the Machu becomes the Huang Ho in China. Any such activity will
gravely affect the Tibetan ecological and environmental system.
10. Tibetans, within Tibet, will never be permitted to record for history all
the misdeeds that China inflicted upon Tibet.
11. Tibetans will never be permitted to claim restitution from China for all
the misdeeds (killings and torture) inflicted upon them.
12. China will never agree to having the whole of ethnic Tibet under one
Tibetan administration. Thus autonomous Tibet will simply be a
miniscule semblance of what independent Tibet was.
13. The Chinese will always deceptively impose their own puppets on a
Tibetan administration under an agreement for autonomy.
14. Tibetans will never be allowed to raise their national flag.
15. China would be free to continue flooding autonomous Tibet with Han
Chinese as they would be the sovereign rulers.

The above are just a few of the restrictions Tibetans will face if an agreement on autonomy is signed. And, furthermore, who is to say that the Communist Chinese will not tighten the noose around the necks of the Tibetans as they did after the first signing of an agreement on autonomy in 1951, which they themselves dictated?

Even if Tibet ever realizes autonomy under the sovereignty of Communist China, Tibetans will never truly trust the situation. Tibetans will set one foot outside Tibet and the other foot in Tibet. And unlike Hong Kong, which is mostly made up of Chinese, Tibetans will never completely assimilate with the Han race because of the Han's superiority complex nor accept a communist regime as their ideologies differ completely.

The Tibetan Government-in Exile's chief envoy in his negotiations with China proclaims "we must not look at the past" in order to avoid upsetting the Chinese with the touchy subject of our history of independence. But the very intrinsic values of Buddhism teach us that our future depends upon our past. The past is what makes us Tibetans and the past is what will make the future. Even the Dalai Lama's own elder brother, the honorable Taktser Rimpoche, despite his age and physical disability, is valiantly fighting for independence, not for autonomy. My own late father, the historian, statesman and former Finance Minister of independent Tibet, Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa, steadfastly stood for an independent Tibet all his life.

With autonomy under the sovereignty of Communist China, Tibetans will go the way of American Indians with even far less freedom. For real freedom, the only option is to continue the struggle to regain Tibet's independence or have an agreement for genuine autonomy with a truly democratic state. The fall of empires through the ages, as well as the fall of the Spanish
and British Empires, the Nazi Rule and the Soviet Union is proof that impermanence is the constant in nature. Dictatorships in Burma, Kenya and Zimbabwe may yet fall. Therefore, the Chinese tyranny and power over Tibet and its other colonies will too one day soon come to an end. Just like India, the Philippines, many African nations and eastern European countries, one day Tibet too will be free and independent if Tibetans continue their struggle for freedom no matter how long it takes.

Why would the Tibetan Government-in-Exile sign "another" agreement on autonomy with Communist China when under communism China has already flagrantly reneged on the 17 Point Agreement of 1951, which they themselves dictated? An agreement is like a "paper tiger" to communists. They feel they can easily tear it up when and if it doesn't suit them and use it in a predatory manner when it does.

Further, communists believe that religion is poison, as Mao himself told the Dalai Lama, while Buddhism is a sacred religion to Tibetans. Also, since communists believe that religion is poison, they logically believe that the religious head of an institution is "lethal" poison, which the Tibetans can never accept because to Tibetans the Dalai Lama is not only the supreme head of their religious institution but also the reincarnation and emanation of the God of Compassion.

Moreover, communism is fraught with dictatorship and totalitarianism while Tibetans fervently believe in democracy.

I firmly oppose any gesture or effort to enter into an agreement with communists for autonomy for Tibet, in this case with Communist China.

Communism is faltering and failing worldwide. Millions of Chinese who have fled their own country are clamoring for democracy in China. Chinese intellectuals and students within China are demanding democracy. The silent majority in China is wishing for democracy. There is a growing split between the hardliners and pragmatic progressives within the Communist Party in China. The country is no longer ruled by one man. She is ruled by consensus within the Communist party and every day the liberals within the party are gaining strength. Finally, China will have to embrace democracy if she is to be accepted within the ranks of nations that uphold human rights and if she is to compete fairly with its equally populous neighbor, India, which is rapidly progressing economically within a free and democratic environment.

Having said the above and as a Tibetan who longs to return to a free Tibet, it is my secondary hope and prayer that our hardline position to gain complete independence for Tibet will strengthen His Holiness the Dalai Lama's hand to achieve "genuine" autonomy for Tibet under a single, democratically-elected Tibetan administration over the whole of ethnic Tibet within the framework of a truly democratic China. Treaded carefully and calculatingly, this may well be a stepping stone to total independence.

We must ignite the flames of freedom and follow the star of Tibet to seek the fountain of bliss.

Long live His Holiness the Dalai Lama!

WHAT HATH COMMUNIST CHINA WROUGHT?

The Potala, the seat of the mighty Dalai Lamas,
Is just a tourist attraction now
The Jokhang, the holiest place in Tibet,
Is a mere travesty now
The three great monasteries
Have just symbolic monks now
The sacred ancient relics
Are sold in international antique markets now
In their own country
Tibetans are second class citizens now
The voices of freedom
Are smothered now
The once happy people of Tibet
Are in tears now
The quaint old streets of Lhasa
Are filled with bars and Chinese prostitutes now
The elegant wild animals
Are going extinct now
The majestic snow-capped mountains
Are melting now
The crystal blue lakes
Are filled with atomic waste now
The pristine environment
Is completely polluted now
Lhasa, God's earth,
Is the devil's paradise now

What hath Communist China brought?
Only pain and destruction
What hath Marxist China wrought?
Only strain and abduction
What hath atheist China sought?
Only reign and seduction

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAG LINE: A passionate political activist for a free Tibet, Tsoltim N. Shakabpa is a retired senior Tibetan-American international investment banker turned a recognized poet with 5 acclaimed books of poems to his name.

China and Tibet: the true path, Wang Lixiong

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:59:11 +0100

Wang Lixiong is a Beijing-based writer. He was the organiser of the twelve-point statement on Tibet by twenty-nine Chinese intellectuals, released on 22 March 2008. This article was published in the Wall Street Journal. It was translated from the Chinese by Perry Link of Princeton University.

The recent troubles in Tibet are a replay of events that happened two decades ago. On 1 October 1987, Buddhist monks were demonstrating peacefully at the Barkor - the famous market street around the central cathedral in Lhasa - when police began beating and arresting them. To ordinary Tibetans, who view monks as "treasures", the sight was intolerable - not only in itself, but because it stimulated unpleasant memories that Tibetan Buddhists had been harbouring for years (see Tubten Khétsun, Memories of Life in Lhasa Under Chinese Rule [Columbia University Press, 2008]).

A few angry young men then began throwing stones at the Barkor police station. More and more joined in, and then they started fires, overturned cars and began shouting "Independence for Tibet!" This is almost exactly what was witnessed in Lhasa on 14 March 2008.

The fundamental cause of these recurrent events is a painful dilemma that lives inside the minds of Tibetan monks. When the Chinese government demands that they denounce their spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, monks are forced to choose between obeying (which violates their deepest spiritual convictions) and resisting (which can lead to loss of government registry and physical expulsion from monasteries).

From time to time monks have used peaceful demonstrations to express their anguish. When they have done this, an insecure Chinese government, bent on "annihilating unstable elements" in the "emergent stage", has reacted with violent repression. This, in turn, triggers violence from Tibetans (see Robert Barnett & Shirin Akiner, Resistance and Reform in Tibet [C Hurst 1994]).

Also in openDemocracy:

Gabriel Lafitte, "Tibet: revolt with memories" (18 March 2008)

Jeffrey N Wasserstrom, "The perils of forced modernity: China-Tibet, America-Iraq" (27 March 2008)

Donald S Lopez, "How to think about Tibet" (28 March 2008)

George Fitzherbert, "Tibet's history, China's power" (28 March 2008)

Dibyesh Anand, "Tibet, China, and the west: empires of the mind" (1 April 2008)

Robert Barnett, "Tibet: questions of revolt" (4 April 2008)

Wenran Jiang, "Tibetan unrest, Chinese lens" (7 April 2008)

Ivy Wang, "China's netizens and Tibet: a Guangzhou report" (8 April 2008) In recent decades, the Chinese government's policy for pacifying Tibet has been to combine the allure of economic development on the one hand with the threat of force on the other. Experience has shown that this approach does not work (see "Skewed gains", Economist, 10 April 2008).

The most efficient route to peace in Tibet is through the Dalai Lama, whose return to Tibet would immediately alleviate a number of problems. Much of the current ill-will, after all, is a direct result of the Chinese government's verbal attacks on the Dalai Lama, who, for Tibetan monks, has an incomparably lofty status. To demand that monks denounce him is about as practical as asking that they vilify their own parents.

It should be no surprise that beatings of monks and closings of monasteries naturally stimulate civil unrest; or that civil unrest, spawned in this way, can turn violent.

The solution within

Why aren't these simple truths more obvious? Phuntsog Wanggyal, a Tibetan now retired in Beijing who for years was a leading communist official in Tibet, has observed that a doctrine of "anti-splittism" has taken root among Chinese government officials who deal with religion and minority affairs, both in central offices in Beijing and in Tibet. These people, having invested their careers in anti-splittism, cannot admit that the idea is mistaken without losing face and, they fear, losing their own power and position as well (see Isabel Hilton, "Ditch the tatty flag of nationalism", Guardian, 12 April 2008).

Their ready-made tag for everything that goes wrong is "hostile foreign forces" - an enemy that justifies any kind of harsh or unreasoning repression. When repeated endlessly the originally vacuous term "anti-splittism" does take on a kind of solidity. Careers are made in it, and challenging it becomes impossible.

I am a supporter of the Dalai Lama's "middle way" - meaning autonomy for Tibet in all matters except foreign affairs and national defence. This arrangement eventually would have to mean that Tibetan people select their own leaders - and that would be a major change from the way things are now. Tibet is called an "autonomous region", but in fact its officials are all named by Beijing, and are all tightly focused on their own personal interests and the interests of the Communist Party. Tibetans can clearly see the difference between this kind of government and self-rule, and there is no way that they will support bogus autonomy.

It follows - even if this is a tall order - that the ultimate solution to the Tibet problem must be democratisation of the Chinese political system itself. True autonomy cannot come any other way.

It is time for the Chinese government to take stock of why its long-term strategy in Tibet has not worked, and to try something else. The old problems remain, and they are sure to continue, perhaps in places like the "Uighur Autonomous Region" of Xinjiang, if a more sensible approach is not attempted.

Average rating

(5 votes)