Opinion
What Tibetans Want
by Tsering Topgyal
On April 25, China offered to hold “contact and consultation
with Dalai Lama’s private representative.” Western governments heaved a
collective sigh of relief. The 2008 U.S.-EU Summit declaration, for
instance, welcomed China’s gesture, calling for a “results-orientated
dialogue.” Experience has taught the Tibetans to be more guarded. The
Dalai Lama welcomed “serious” talks, not empty gestures. Tibet’s Prime
Minister in-exile Samdhong Rinpoche, called China’s original offer a
“good sign,” but on June 8 he saw “very little chance of an agreement
with China on core issues.”
Circumspection is warranted. Beijing keeps stating preconditions
that the Dalai Lama has repeatedly addressed. He denied seeking
independence, opposed violence and supported the Beijing Olympics.
Meanwhile, on April 30, the state-run China Daily said the Dalai Lama
“is spewing lies.” On June 7, the Communist Party’s People’s Daily
claimed he “planned” the Tibetan uprising and infected monks who
allegedly caused explosions in Chamdo with “separatist thoughts.”
Further, Beijing has delayed the seventh round of talks scheduled for
June 11, citing earthquake relief work. Yet Beijing just hosted Russian
President Medvedev, among others, so it’s something of a mystery why
three or four Tibetans in Beijing would get in the way of relief work
in Sichuan.
Is Beijing interested in serious dialogue? This is an important
question because when raised expectations are dashed, dialogue becomes
dangerous. When talks are on the horizon, Tibetans think that
deliverance from political powerlessness, cultural depression and
economic marginalization is close. The possibility of being united with
the Dalai Lama lifts their sunken spirits. Past experience suggests
that failed dialogue provokes Tibetan protests.
Between 1987 and 1992, Lhasa was rocked by 140 protests and
riots; martial law was imposed in Lhasa in 1989. Many Tibetans paid
with their lives, others spent years in prison or labor camps. The
protests took place after the Sino-Tibetan dialogue that began in 1978
collapsed.
Four exile fact-finding missions and two exploratory talks took
place between 1979 and 1985. Dialogue failed as a result of widely
divergent positions, but the balance of compromise favored Beijing. The
Dalai Lama controversially gave up independence for autonomy, while
Beijing simply denied the existence of a Tibet issue.
The euphoria of renewed links with the Dalai Lama and promise
of greater autonomy, palpable in the early 1980s, gave way to despair
and anger as talks floundered and Beijing saw economic development as a
panacea for Tibetan grievances. In 1984, Tibet was opened for Chinese
migration despite the reservations of leading Tibetan cadres. The
influx of Chinese caused great resentment. More fundamental political,
cultural and economic reasons existed, but the failure of talks and the
dashing of hopes clearly contributed to the protests.
The recent and ongoing round of over 100 riots and protests is
no exception. A sense of political hopelessness and cultural depression
had gripped the Tibetan psyche in the face of hard-line policies,
Chinese migration and the continued exile of the Dalai Lama. Even in
heavily censored blogs and popular media from Tibet, the Dalai Lama’s
exile and the fate of Tibetan identity under Chinese political and
cultural imperialism are lamented at great risk.
Against this backdrop of despair, dialogue resumed in September
2002, raising Tibetan hopes again. Immediately, Beijing indicated that
it was not interested in meaningful negotiations. The Dalai Lama’s
representatives were not formally recognized and his scaled-down Middle
Way policy was derided. In 2005, Zhang Qingli, Tibet’s Party Secretary,
stepped up the anti-Dalai lama campaign calling him a “false religious
leader.” On Sept. 30, 2006, Chinese troops shot dead two Tibetans
escaping across the Himalayas.
On July 18, 2007, Beijing announced “Order No. 5” prohibiting
Tibetan lamas from reincarnating without “prior approval” from Beijing.
As ludicrous as this sounds, it’s clear that Beijing has the selection
of the next Dalai Lama in mind. Not surprisingly, Tibetan resentment
grew.
After six rounds of dialogue, which the Tibetans handled with
great delicacy, nothing was achieved. The Dalai Lama conceded on March
10, 2008, that “on the fundamental issue, there has been no concrete
result.” For the next several days monks and nuns in Lhasa demonstrated
peacefully, but were beaten up and arrested.
On March 14, some protestors turned violent and attacked
symbols of Chinese colonialism (not of capitalism or modernity as
leftist pundits are trying to portray), including Chinese migrants.
Through their actions and written and verbal slogans, the
protestors were reinforcing and reiterating the Dalai Lama’s positions.
Clearly, the stalled dialogue with Beijing was in their minds. Sadly,
due to the Chinese authorities’ brutal crackdown, many paid with their
lives and livelihoods.
In light of such suffering, it would be extremely irresponsible
for Beijing to initiate another round of dialogue without honestly
addressing longstanding Tibetan grievances. As things stand, dialogue
appears to be little more than a PR gimmick to improve Beijing’s image
in the world. Beijing needs to understand that failed dialogue is as
explosive as no dialogue at all. Remember the protests of March,
President Hu. Remember the Tibetans and Chinese immigrants who died.
Dialogue must now be received with as much trepidation as relief.
(This article is reproduced from Far
Eastern Economic Review. Tsering Topgyal, a Tibetan, is writing a
doctoral dissertation on the Sino-Tibetan conflict at the London School
of Economics. The views expressed here are solely those of the author,
they do not reflect those of the Central Tibetan Administration)