Chinese views on Tibet: The Way to Resolve the Tibet Issue
Saturday, 17 May 2008, 6:47 p.m.
(Brief introduction of the
author) Zhang Boshu was born in Beijing in 1955. He received an MA in
economics from Zhongguo Renmin Daxue in 1982 and in 1985 passed the
entrance examination for the Institute of Philosophy of the graduate
school of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. His research has been
on critical theory in continental Europe in modern western philosophy.
He obtained MA and PhD degrees in philosophy in 1988 and 1991. He has
held a post in the Philosophy Institute of the Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences from 1991 to the present. In recent years he has
striven to understand the lessons of success and failure in the history
of the past century of China’s democratic transition and institutional
modernization. He has gradually settled upon criticism of 20th Century
Chinese despotism as his main research topic.
Ever since March, the issue of Tibet and the Olympics have been stirred
up together, drawing the attention of the entire world. Short sighted
politicians in our own country have been pleased that their petty
schemes to stir up nationalist sentiment have been so successful. This
not only manipulates domestic opinion but also uses so-called
“mainstream public opinion” to stand oppose the criticisms coming from
international society. On the other hand, this serves to push for the
consolidation of the situation in Tibet in the hope of getting through
the Olympics peacefully. They did not realize that the Tibet issue has
already become a major factor affecting China’s future. Solving the
Tibet issue will take courage and great wisdom. Petty scheming could
run Tibet and ruin China.
How did the Tibet issue arise?
The Tibet issue is first of all a human rights issue.
Although the authorities are not willing to admit it, I want to
say it plainly. This problem that plagues the leadership of the
Communist Party, if we look at its origin, was created by the Chinese
Communist Party itself as the ruler of China.
We don’t have to look too far back in history. Whether in fact
from the Yuan Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty the relationship between the
Tibet government and Beijing was one of relatives or of equals is a
matter of dispute among academics. For now, we don’t need to pay any
attention to controversy.What is most important as that from 1912
onwards, Tibet was for a long period in a de facto “state of
independence”. That situation continued until 1951 when the Tibet local
government signed an agreement with the Beijing central government —
the “Seventeen Point Agreement on the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”.
The document was moderate and constructive. The agreement stressed that
Tibet is part of China but also recognized that Tibet’s current system
would not change and that the Dalai Lama’s position would not change.
We can call that the earliest version of “One Country, Two Systems” in
contemporary China.
In 1954, the 19 year-old Dalai Lama and 16-year old Panchen
Lama both went to Beijing to take part in the First National People’s
Congress, attending as honored guests of Mao Zedong. They were
appointed respectively as the Vice Chair of the NPC and the Vice Chair
of the National People’s Consultative Congress. Tibet’s future seemed
bright. Problems began to appear in 1955. Mao Zedong’s utopian
socialist social transformation began to accelerate that year. Ripples
spread from the Chinese interior to Changdu and the Tibetan areas of
Sichuan, Yunnan, Qinghai, and Gansu Provinces. In these areas, which
were not bound by the 17 Point Agreement, “democratic reform” broke out
on a spectacular scale. Radical local Communist Party leaders sought to
carry out “democratic reform” and “socialist transformation”
simultaneously so as “to make spectacular progress in just one step”.
They struck hard against the masters of the serfs and their
“representatives”, confiscating the lands and property of monasteries
and forcing collectivization, slandering the religious beliefs of
Tibetan people, and forcing upper class people, lamas and monks to
“reform their thinking”.
The result was that they stirred up dissatisfaction and
resistance among the Tibetan people. During 1956 – 1958, armed
conflicts in the Tibetan areas grew larger and larger in scale. When
one died out another arose but were soon were put down by campaigns by
the PLA to put down rebellion and wipe out rebels. Ten of thousands of
Kham and Amdo region Tibetans fled across the Jinsha River into Tibet.
This sowed the seeds for the 1959 Lhasa “rebellion”. These historical
circumstances led to the “rebellion” and indeed were a necessary
condition for that event to occur.
There is no need to go into detail about what happened after
that. The victorious “suppression of the rebellion” at Lhasa showed
that the central government had achieved absolute control of all the
Tibetan areas including Tibet itself. It also marked the rapid move of
Tibet towards “socialism”. Chinese of my age grew up hearing songs like
“The Red Sun is rising about the snowy mountains” and seeing movies
like “Serfs”. In those days we really believed that under the
leadership of the Communist Party “the serfs have been liberated” and
were living happy lives. Later, after reading a lot of historical
materials, I learned that there were many untruths in the propaganda.
The dictatorship system of the Communist Party, the arrogance
and ignorance of leaders, and the extreme leftist policies pursued by
them in the Tibetan areas brought terrible disasters to both the
religious and lay people of Tibet. In 1962, the Panchen Lama, who was
ranked as a “national leader” wrote a letter to Premier Zhou Enlai
expressing his deep sorrow at what he had seen and heard of the
suffering of the Tibetan people. Since the Panchen Lama was certainly
not opposed to the leadership of the Communist Party, and was loyally
and faithfully reporting to the Party the actual situation in the
Tibetan areas, this letter called the “70,000 Character Document” can
be seen as a document that accurately reflects the difficult situation
of the Tibetan people during those years. I might as well quote from it
here:
–On “class struggle” in the Tibetan areas: “In most or in many
areas, the cadres didn’t care if the campaign was planned or carried
out well. They were intent on making a spectacular display that would
strike terror in people. They didn’t care if they attacked the right
people. The objective was to do the campaign on a big scale and achieve
numerical targets.” They attacked many people whom they shouldn’t have
attacked. Often “those who were the objects of struggle meetings had
not done anything particularly bad or committed serious errors. So they
had to make up many false and serious accusations. They exaggerated at
will, turning truth and falsehood upside down.” Many innocent people
were forced to flee abroad against their will. Those who stayed behind
lived in terror.”
— On the lives of the people in the Tibetan areas: “Because of
the rise in the agricultural areas of the five unhealthy tendencies
[Tr. Note: post Great Leap Forward Party critique of GLF excesses – (wu
feng)- over-egalitarianism, the common practice of exaggeration,
confused orders, too many compulsory orders, and special privileges.
End note] and excessively tight controls on grain, and the standards
for the amount of grain the people could retain was set too low, a
severe grain shortage resulted, …and many households had no grain. In
some areas some people even starved to death. ” In Tibet, there had
never been a shortage of grain like that, especially since Buddhism
permeated the society, everyone rich and poor, had the custom of
helping the poor and giving alms. People could easily support
themselves as a beggar, so we never of anyone ever having starved to
death.”
— Implementation of “dictatorship” resulted in the improper deaths of many prisoners:
After the “suppression of the rebellion”, the proportion of prisoners
in the Tibetan population reached several percent, something completely
unprecedented. ” In 1959, Chairman Mao set forth a policy that since
the population of Tibet was small, people shouldn’t be killed or at
most only a few people should be killed. But in fact, just the opposite
happened. Except for the somewhat better treatment of imprisoned
members of the upper classes, most people who were locked up in prison
endured very bad conditions. The prison wardens didn’t care about the
lives or health of the prisoners. They often verbally abused and
savagely beat prisoners. Moreover, wardens deliberately moved prisoners
back and forth between very warm and cold places so that the prisoners
could not adapt and their clothes were always unsuitable. Their clothes
could not keep them warm, their mattresses were not waterproof, and the
wind and rain entered their cells. They never got enough to eat, living
in miserable conditions yet they still had to get up early to do work.
The hardest work was always given to these people. Their became worn
out physically, often came down with diseases. As a result of no rest
and inadequate medical care, many prisoners died who they should not
have.
–On religion and nationalities issues: “Under the so-called
“elimination of superstition”, the first priority was opposing
religion. The second priority was destroying images of the Buddha,
Buddhist scriptures, and stupas.” When they demanded that monks and
nuns return to secular lives, they “first in all the temples and
monasteries, under the pretext of “study” and “mobilization”, they
brought all the monks and nuns together into a large hall or room, and
made them study nervously day and night, forcing them to criticize each
other in order to create a big wave of sharp struggles and attacks.
People who openly express their belief in religion were given labels
such as a superstitious element or someone who doesn’t like the
revolution. They were constantly attacked without rhyme or reason. Even
worse, in some places they made the lamas stand on one side and nuns
and lay religious women stand on the other. They were then forced to
chose each other in marriage. In Tibet, there were originally over 2500
temples. After “democratic reform” there were only 70 left. Originally
there were 110,000 monks and nuns. Ten thousand fled abroad, leaving
100,000 behind. After “democratic reform” there were only 7000 monks
and nuns left. What especially cannot be condoned is that in some areas
there was deliberate desecration and insults to religion such as the
Buddhist Canon used for compost. Many paintings of the Buddha and
scriptures were used to make shoes or other objects. There is
absolutely no reason for this. Because there were many insane things
done that even a lunatic wouldn’t do, people in all classes of Tibetan
society were deeply shaken. Their emotions were in chaos and they
became exceedingly sad and shed tears. They said “Our land has been
made into a dark place.” quoting a Tibetan proverb that means “a place
without religion”.
Alas, when I read these characters, my own heart bleeds and my face burns.
Most of these problems also existed in the Chinese interior as
well. But they were more serious in Tibet. They were more extreme and
more widespread there. No matter how well-meaning or noble the initial
motivation of those in power was to use their social ideals to
transform Tibetan society was, what its shocking results are all
crimes. These are crimes that resulted from ignorance, arrogance, rage
and violence.
Under these circumstances, the over 100,000 Tibetans who fled
to India and other foreign countries called upon the entire world to
support the human rights of Tibetans. Therefore the Tibet issue became
a symbolic issue for the entire world. What can be surprising about
that? Moreover, this was going on during the Cold War and so in the
minds of western people, Tibet became a focal point in the game of
competing national interests in which china, the Soviet Union, India,
the United States and other countries were engaged.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency did in fact provide
funding, technical and other support to Tibetans in exile. That was
part of the effort of the United States to contain the “spread of
communism”. Chinese can of course curse the damn Americans for plotting
to “split China” without revealing their real intentions. But on the
other hand, if the Communist Party had not done so many stupid things
in Tibet and forced Tibetans to flee into exile, what would other
people have been able to say? What pretext could they have to butt in?
I haven’t even mentioned the Cultural Revolution. That “historically
unprecedented” “revolution” because it was even redder and even further
left, it was even more extreme and more cruel. Of course it created
even greater disasters for the Tibetan people. I won’t discuss them
here.
Enlightened Communist Party Leaders Once Reflected on the “Leftist” Misfortunes that Brought Disaster to Tibet
Objectively speaking, there has been no shortage of enlightened
people within the Chinese Communist Party leadership. At different
times and in different positions they have opposed leftist work methods
in Tibet. However, under these historical circumstances, they could
achieve only limited results.
Xi Zhongxun, from northwestern China, was a Vice Premier and
Secretary General of the State Council in the 1960s. He was responsible
for contact with the Panchen. He made a very complete report to the
State Council about the how the “Seventy Thousand Character Document”
came to be written by the Panchen and so was charged with
“accommodating and not interfering with the Panchen. The Tenth session
of the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party dismissed Xi Zhongxun
and, in addition to the major crime of “using a novel to attack the
Communist Party” was also charged with “accommodating and not
interfering with the Panchen.”
Another dismissed, high level Communist Party official was Li
Weihan, who was an old communist who had been head of the United Front
Department since 1947. During April and May 1962, at a Nationalities
Work Conference held in Beijing, some of the nationalities religious
figures offered some sharp criticisms. Li Weihan remained calmly and
honestly said that he welcomed criticism from everyone. He praised the
talk of the Tibetan Buddhist Lama Xijiashenzhi [romanization of Chinese
name], saying that he was “open and above board, with a heart as clear
as a mirror” and stands as symbol of “patriotism in the area of
national minorities religious affairs”. Li Weiquan’s action was later
severely criticized by Mao Zedong who said that “The United Front
Department is neglecting the class struggle and is being
capitulationist.”
After the end of the Cultural Revolution, many issues in
Tibetan affairs were neglected. Nationalities policy and the
relationship between the Han nationality and the Tibetan nationality
needed to be adjusted and the lives of Tibetans needed to be improved.
In May 1980, just after Hu Yaobang had become General Secretary of the
Chinese Communist Party, Hu and Wan Li flew to Tibet for an inspection
visit. On the plane, Hu said to the accompanying Xinhua News Agency
journalists “In our policies in the national minority areas, we must
always seek truth from facts, and adjust measures to suit local
conditions so as to fully respect the autonomy the Tibetans have to
govern their minority area themselves. That is the crux of all the
Tibet issues.” On May 29, in the work report that Hu Yaobang presented
at the meeting with the cadres of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, he
stressed that the development of Tibetan must resolve “six big issues”.
The first is, under the unified leadership of the center,
fully implement the autonomy rights in the nationalities areas. “Any
document, order or regulation which is not suitable for the conditions
of Tibet should not be implemented.” “You should according to your own
characteristics, draft specific decrees, laws and regulations, and
rules to protect the special interests of your own nationality.”
The second is “Under the present difficult conditions of
Tibet, you should carry out a policy of recuperation and rebuilding and
considerably reduce the burden on the people.” “We have decided that
within several years required purchases by Tibetans will be abolished.”
Third, “Tibet should implement special flexible policies to promote the development of production.”
Fourthly, “Devote the resources that the state is providing to Tibet to
the development of agriculture and herding and the daily necessities
most needed by Tibetan people.”
Fifth, “With the condition that the socialist road be followed, develop science, technology and education in Tibet.”
Hu Yaobang especially stressed, “Looking down on Tibetan
history, language and art is totally wrong…Loving the minority people
is not a matter of empty words. Their social customs and habits must be
respected. Respect their language, respect their history, respect their
culture. If you don’t do that you are only speaking empty words.”
Finally, Tibetan cadres should manage Tibet. Within two
years, Tibetans should make up two-thirds or more of the cadres in
Tibet. “We have been here for thirty years. We have completed our
historical mission.” “Today there are 300,000 ethnic Han, including
military, in Tibet. How can that ever do?” The above can be summarized
in six characters “cut taxes, open up, and withdraw personnel”. These
were the “emergency measures” energetically promoted by Hu Yaobang to
resolve the Tibet issue.
These views, strong criticisms of social evils, were
enthusiastically welcomed in the Tibetan areas. Of course because of
historical conditions, the enlightened leaders of the Chinese Communist
Party were unable to discuss and consider institutional perspectives on
the problems that occurred in Tibet. Hu Yaobang in his May 29th speech
said that we should not look back on the past but rather “unify
ourselves and look to the future”.
This reflects Hu Yaobang’s experience and resourcefulness and
the frustrations of a generation of reformers in the Chinese Communist
Party. After all, the many of the tragedies in contemporary Tibetan
history are directly linked to the Communist Party system and the
social policies that the Party carried out. This is all a result of
these policies. If we do not reflect upon the origins of the Tibet
issue, then we will not be able to resolve it.
New Symptoms Arose in the Tibet Issue During the Years of Reform
With opening and reform, especially since the early 1990s and
the turn of the new century, the Chinese economy has grown very
quickly. The central government has also certainly invested a lot of
capital in Tibet and devised a series of special preferential policies
and measures to accelerate the development of Tibet. There have been
direct state investment construction projects, Chinese central
government financial subsidies, and support for projects from partners
around the country for the modernization and construction of Tibet. The
overall economic level of Tibet improved considerably as a result.
However the political structure remained the same as before with the
Party exercising control over political, economic, cultural, and
religious affairs just as before. An autonomous region in name, but in
actual fact, autonomy was in the same lamentable state as before. The
core of the Tibet issue has not been truly solved, and under the new
social conditions a variety of new problems have arisen.
The market economy has become the economy controlled by
influential people. It is that way in the Chinese interior, and it is
that way in Tibet. The blending of the system of Party dictatorship and
the policy of opening up created a new privileged stratum that includes
Han and as well as Tibetans who have positions in Party and government
institutions and cultural institutions. Faced with swarms of merchants
coming from the Chinese interior, many ordinary Tibetans in Lhasa and
other areas fell discriminated against and marginalized.
Even worse is the all encompassing control of religious
affairs. On the surface, religious life in Tibet has already been
restored. The state spent great sums repairing damage and protecting
symbolic Buddhist structures, the temples are filled with burning
incense. The Buddhist Canon will never again be used for compost. But
this is just the surface of things. There is a deeper reality that is
hidden behind these things as if beneath a mask.
The independent scholar Wang Lixiong, who has done much
research, including many research trips to Tibet. His conclusion: in
Tibet there is no true religious freedom. On one hand, the government
strictly controls the registration of religious activities in the
temples, limits religious personnel to a certain “authorized personnel
complement”, and forbids ties between temples. Religious activities
outside the temples are forbidden. On the other hand, spontaneous
religious activities outside government control are rigorously
suppressed so that they will not have any influence.
In the Kang region of [Tr. note: ethnographic] Tibet, not far
from the county seat of Sela County, is the mountain valley of Larong
with its Wuming Buddhist Institute. When founded in 1980, there were
only 30 or so people at the Institute. At the end of the 1990s, there
were nearly 10,000 Tibetan and Han monks there. This worried the
Chinese government. The authorities ordered that reduce the number of
its personnel from the authorized number of 4000 nuns to just 400 and
4000 monks to just 1000. All the 1000 Han who had come to study
Buddhism were forced to leave. This requirement was rejected by the
Living Buddha who ran the Institute because to make a monk return to
secular life involves a serious violation of vows. The government took
action, sending people to destroy the housing of the monks. On July 10,
2001 during the height of the destruction of monastic housing, 1700
monastic cells were destroyed in a single day. “I have heard people
describe that scene, the sounds of houses being destroyed, the dust
rising up everywhere, on one side one thousand nuns crying, as if the
world itself were shaking. In the area around the Wuming Buddhist
Academy were many nuns in groups in the countryside hiding out to avoid
pursuit by the government. ”
An even more deadly consequence of the strict control of
religion have been breaks in the transmission of Tibetan Buddhism.
Traditional Tibetan religion has an internal control mechanism. For
example, although their is a reincarnation system for the Dalai Lama
and the Panchen, but in the Geluga School, eminent monks and heads of
monasteries have a set term of office. They are chosen from among the
most learned lamas. The winners in the competition can become the head
of the Ganden Monastery — that is a natural teacher for the Dalai Lama
and the Panchen Lama. This system has continued for several hundred
years without a break, thereby ensuring the authenticity in the
transmission of the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism from generation to
generation and ensuring as well the excellent character of eminent
monks. But since 1959 this continuous process has been interrupted.
From the 1980s to the present, although on the surface religious
activities have been renewed, it has become hard to find a trace of the
very core of the religion — the pious beliefs of eminent monks, deep
research into Buddhism and teaching aimed at enlightening all sentient
beings.
The governing authorities operate a “reverse elimination”
selection system among the leaders of the monks. “Any monk leader who
insists on religious principles, refuses to be a tool of the
authorities, will be subject to pressure and purging or even sentenced
to prison as a warning to other clergy. Any monk with a relatively high
traditional rank who keeps silent, doesn’t cause trouble is a candidate
for recruitment by the United Front Department. He will be given
rewards but a club will be always beready to intimidate them. Any monk
willing to be personal advancement first, who is opportunistic, gives
up religious principles, and willing to be a tool of the government
will be given all sorts of advantages, membership in the National
People’s Congress, the National People’s Consultative Congress or even
higher government positions. The green light will be given for their
activities, resources will be provided so that they will be a model who
can draw in other leaders among the monks.” In sum, therefore, although
the Chinese Communists boast of religious freedom but their religious
policy is aimed at the destruction of Buddhism, no less than it was in
the days of Mao Zedong. Mao Zedong wanted to completely extirpate
Buddhism. In Tibetan history there were eras when Buddhism was
extirpated yet Buddhism still continued because the religion lived in
the hearts of believers and so could not be destroyed by an external
force.
Today the Communist Party religious policy aims at the
degeneration of the monk stratum of Tibetan society. “This is a mortal
danger to Buddhism.”
As a consequence of all this, although Tibet has made
considerable economic progress over the past thirty years and the lives
of ordinary Tibetans have improved, but Tibetans are still dissatisfied
and “events” occur over and over in the Tibetan regions. The Tibetan
issue is still “an issue” that is the focus of constant international
attention. Ever since that have occurred since March are just new
developments in the course of this ongoing transformation.
Demonizing the Dalai Lama is Extremely Stupid
After the “hitting, smashing, stealing and burning” event of
March 14, the Chinese government immediately announced that this was
instigated by the “Dalai Clique”. When in April there was interference
with the transmission of the torch, the authorities again asserted that
the “Dalai Clique” had instigated “Tibet independence elements”, with
the aim of destroying the Olympic Games, in order to further the cause
of “Tibet independence”.
The “human rights issue” was substituted for the “independence
issue” to serve the needs of people in authority. This is easy to see.
But in their effort put the blame on the head of the Dalai Lama, we can
see how preposterous the traditional political logic of the Chinese
communists is. This also reveals that the rulers lack a long term
strategic vision and political wisdom.
The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism. He
is also one of the most famous political figures in the world. The year
the Dalai Lama fled Tibet he was 24 years old. In half a century of
exile, this ethnic Tibetan sage has blended the essence of Buddhism,
magnanimity, liberal democracy and other universal values of
contemporary civilization. Already in 1987, the Dalai Lama proposed the
“Five Point Peace Proposal” which includes the suggestion that Tibet
become a “peace zone”, that “China end its policy of moving settlers
into Tibet”, “respect for the human rights and democratic rights of the
Tibetan people”, “Restore and protect Tibet’s natural environment”, and
“hold sincere talks about the future status of Tibet and the
relationship between the Tibetan people and the Chinese people”.
In 1988, the Dalai Lama also made the “Strasbourg Proposal” in
1988, which proposed that “Tibet should become a self-ruled democratic
political entity in union with the People’s Republic of China, in which
“the Chinese government would be responsible for Tibet’s external
affairs, but Tibet could establish offices overseas for the religious
and cultural aspects of foreign relations” etc.
During the last seven years, the Dalai Lama has at many times
and in many places stated clearly that he does not seek Tibet
independence, only real autonomy for Tibet. On the methods and ways of
achieving this he strongly calls for a peaceful “middle way”, which
would involve honest dialog with the central government and
negotiations to resolve issues. Ever since 2002, the Dalai Lama’s
special envoy has met with representatives of the United Front
Department in Beijing six times in order to explain to the ruling
Communist Party rulers the “middle way position” but have not gotten
any response to the proposal.
The rigid stance of the Chinese Communist Party is very easy
to understand from their political tradition: the institutional
arrangements for Tibet have already been decided. So what is there to
talk about? Accepting the so-called “autonomy” of the Dalai Lama would
shake the foundations of the party- state, so there can be no yielding
on this point. Therefore, “talks” are for the Communist side just a
perfunctory exercise and only done for show, and so of course there can
be no concrete results from them. Yet these delays cause more and more
difficulties for the Dalai Lama since he has to explain things to both
the Tibetan exiles and to believers within Tibet.
There are many different organizations and groups among the
Tibetans in exile with different political positions. There are radical
ones like the “Tibet Youth Congress” which has attracted a lot of
attention lately. It’s political position is very different from the
Dalai Lama’s “Middle Way”. The Tibet Youth Congress was founded in 1970
mostly by second and third generation Tibet exiles. Membership is now
several tens of thousands with organizations in 40 countries. At the
outset the Tibet Youth Congress stood for non-violence, but is has
changed its position over the past several years.
The Dalai Lama has stated clearly that he opposes any scheme
or action involving the use of violence. He said that if such an act
should occur, he may have to “resign” to show his true position.
Several days ago, the Dalai Lama during an interview with Asia Week
[Yazhou Zhoukan] said that he believes that giving up the Middle Way of
giving up efforts to achieve Tibet independence and seeking a high
degree of autonomy is still the mainstream view of Tibetans in exile as
well as the mainstream view of people in the Tibetan areas. As for the
Tibet Youth Congress, the Dalai Lama said that he can only admonish the
Tibet Youth Congress not to take the radical road. However, he has no
way to order the Tibet Youth Congress to shut up.
Beijing may not completely trust the statements of the Dalai
Lama because overcoming political enmity built up over a long time will
take time and face-to-face communication. However, indiscriminately
demonizing the other side, charging that the Dalai Lama is the
commander in the “Tibet independence camp” and should certainly be
punished by the entire nation, and reviled by everyone, can only put
the Dalai Lama in a difficult situation (while he is trying to put
pressure on radical forces among Tibetans) and put the Chinese
communists into a political dead end (frozen into the rigid face of the
dictator ), giving up the freedom of maneuver needed in political
negotiations. Isn’t this an extremely stupid way to behave?!
Yet, in the final analysis, this is the obstinate and stubborn
traditional political logic that haunts the Communist Party. According
to this logic, there can be no equal negotiating partners. There can
only be enemies locked in a life and death struggle. Even worse is how
the rulers are haunted by their own logic of interests — for according
to this logic, Tibet “autonomy” is intolerable. It would be a
fundamental threat to the party-state, and a threat to a large group
that benefits from this system. Considered in terms of these two
logics, the demonization of the Dalai Lama becomes easy to understand.
But where is justice? What are the prospects for the great family of
the peoples of China? Considering the puerile and shallow “patriotism”
and “nationalism” shown in the recent turbulent tide of meticulously
planned and instigated demonstrations in both China and abroad by the
new “Boxers”, as well as the very deep problems facing the country, one
is left with a bitter and confused taste in one’s mouth and troubled
deep into sleepless nights.
The Solution to the Tibet issue Should be Sought Within a Constitutional Framework
The Tibet issue is first of all a human rights issue. But it is
not only a human rights issue. Abuses of human rights are an “effect”,
not a “cause”. An irrational system of political dictatorship is what
caused the “Tibet issue.”
Didn’t the Communist Party initially seek to help the Tibetan
people and the million “liberated serfs”? I believe that this is true.
Yet the history of the world is full of examples of evil deeds done
with good intentions. During the late Qing, the court made great
reforms in Tibetan affairs and promoted reforms in order to prevent the
great powers from continuing to encroach upon Tibet. In 1907, Zhang
Yintang gave to the Qing Court “Twenty-four proposals for the
governance of Tibet”. During 1905 – 1911, in the the provinces of
Sichuan and Kang, a reform to “change from indirect control through
local chiefs to direct control by the central government”. The purpose
in addition to consolidating Qing rule was to transform social
traditions for the “good of” ordinary Tibetans. However, these
“reforms” were strongly resisted by Tibetan people. Half a century
later the Communist Party did the same thing in the Tibetan areas,
albeit more systematically and with more determination. The result was
larger scale harm to the people, religion and culture of the Tibetan
areas.
In fact, history has already shown that China’s 20th century
communist revolution was a mistake. It was a big wrong turn during a
century of social transformation. It not only brought misfortune to the
Han nationality, it also brought misfortune to the minority peoples.
Today, people are thinking deeply about that history. Things that are
past cannot be called back. But we should remember the lessons of
history, and look at the issues of today and tomorrow with a scientific
attitude. This is the responsibility of the present generation.
Respect for the fundamental rights of citizens, and respect
for the distinctive cultures and traditions must be implemented in a
constitutional political system. This is the basic path for solving the
Tibet issue.
Recently Taiwan successfully changed the ruling party for the
second time. This shows the superiority of the democratic system of
government. It also demonstrates the necessity and urgency of changing
the political system on the Chinese mainland. Clearly, the party
dictatorship system of the Chinese Communist Party cannot accommodate
unification between Taiwan and the mainland, just as it cannot
accommodate true autonomy for Tibet. Only by dissolving the present
system and creating a constitutional democratic system in accordance
with the universal values and principles of modern civilization can the
day come when Taiwan finally returns to the motherland, Tibet achieves
true autonomy, and Han and Tibetans get along with each other in
harmony.
From the beginning of the 1960s, the Tibetan
government-in-exile in Dharamasala, India started to experiment at
building a system of democratic government. In his Strasbourg Proposal,
the Dalai Lama said that “The Tibetan government should be composed of
an independent administration and legislature chosen by the vote of all
citizens and a court system.” The Dalai Lama even proposed changing the
Tibetan form of government that combines politics and religion. He
didn’t worry if he might become the “last Dalai Lama” in Tibetan
history. 10 Tibetans have already made preparations for a democratic
political system. Shouldn’t the central government in Beijing make
similar preparations?
Certainly for the Chinese Communist decision-makers who know
hold power, changing the present system and creating a new
institutional framework would take a great deal of courage and
wisdom.This would not be just for Tibet or for Taiwan; it would be for
all the 1.3 billion citizens of the People’s Republic of China. To be
honest, even after China has established a constitutional form of
government, finding the reasonable sharing of jurisdiction between the
central government and the nationalities areas will not be easy.
I once wrote an article entitled “Two Track Republican System:
A Proposal for the Reform of the Chinese System of Constitutional
Government”. In this article I pointed out that it is an uncontested
fact that the “division of powers” and “autonomy” strengthen the rights
consciousness of citizens and increases their participation in public
affairs (in the nationalities areas, autonomy also helps preserve the
cultural traditions of nationalities and protects their special
interests). Yet there is another aspect to this problem, that is the
tendency of interests to expand and the “logic of collective
interests”. The latter will certainly create some “problems of the
commons” which will have to be solved by the intervention of a public
power at a higher level that is above local interests, especially
intervention by the central government.
Returning to the present, there is still a chance for the
central government to solve the Tibet issue. That can be done by
conducting genuine negotiations with the Dalai Lama. Recently Beijing
has already said that it is willing to resume contact. That is good.
Even if it is just a pose, it is positive. Everyone hopes that the
takes can produce genuine results so as to create a harmonious bridge
between the Han and Tibetan peoples while the Dalai Lama is still
alive. If this issue is not handled well, then “splitting” might become
a real and present danger.
As a Chinese citizen, I naturally don’t want to see Tibet
split off from the household of our motherland. We should believe that
the trend of human civilization is towards unifying rather than towards
splitting. Unity is helpful for solving many of the problems that
humanity is faced with. As a Chinese proverb goes, the melon that is
grabbed roughly cannot be sweet — unity needs to be a voluntary unity
based upon a community of interests. Forced compliance cannot produce
good results. This simple truth can also be applied to politics.
(This article was written 22 – 28 April 2008 in
Beijing. The views expressed in this column are those of the writer,
not necessarily those of the Central Tibetan Administration)