Commentary: 'Middle way' does not hold water ( 2003-07-22 07:25) (China Daily)
On September 21, 1987, the 14th Dalai Lama delivered a speech to the Human
Rights Committee of the US Congress House of Representatives, putting forth the
so-called "five-point plan for peace'' for solving the Tibetan question.
He asserted that historically Tibet was a state , and laid out a proposal
"for the whole of Tibet to become a `peace zone' and `buffer zone' between China
and India.''
As a matter of fact, it was the British after WWII who first proposed turning
Tibet into such a buffer zone. Their underlying purpose was to turn Tibet into a
British colony.
During those post-war upheavals anti-China forces in India also tried to
swallow Chinese territory south of the McMahon line. Also at that time, the 14th
Dalai Lama worked out a plan for Tibet to be semi-independent during the
transitional period, on the condition that the central government was allowed to
retain defensive forces in Tibet, but eventually pull its troops and military
out of "this country,'' "take Chinese who have settled in the Tibetan areas back
to China,'' and, when all this was completed, sit down together with Tibet to
negotiate on the status of its future.
On June 15, 1988, the 14th Dalai Lama held a press conference in the European
Parliament in Strasbourg, during which he presented "a new seven-point
proposal.'' Under this proposal, before Tibet becomes a buffer zone as described
above, it should be a political entity dictating its "own democratic autonomy''
and capable of forging an alliance with the People's Republic of China. Under it
the central government could continue to be responsible for Tibet's diplomatic
affairs, and retain a limited defensive military presence in Tibet until such
time as a regional peace conference could be held for Tibet to become a neutral,
demilitarized state.
From this, we can see the 14th Dalai Lama's "middle way'' has become mature
in terms of content.
Right after 1989 when China had experienced political upheaval, however, a
third nationalist trend had become evident. Considering the time ripe, the 14th
Dalai Lama refrained from talking about "the middle way.'' His attitude became
tough on issues concerning negotiations with the central government. He even
went so far as to suspend contact with the central government on the grounds
that he would not negotiate with a "destabilized'' Chinese Government.
In October 1991, when the 14th Dalai Lama visited Yale University in the
United States, he delivered a speech in which he said, among other things: China
is the last dictator and the only communist imperialist power still alive; the
Soviet event shows it will not live long; freedom and democracy will come to
China.
Holding that Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union changed under pressure from
the international community, he called on international anti-China forces to
exert pressure on China so that it would effect similar change as early as
possible, smoothly and non-violently.
Meanwhile, speaking in Paris, he predicted Tibet would be independent within
three years.
In 1995, he again predicted that the day for Tibet to be independent was
close and he would soon declare to the whole world that Tibet had separated from
China totally and become an independent entity.
Recent years have seen the 14th Dalai Lama's assertions and ambitions
frustrated time and again. As a result he began to change tack telling Western
politicians he would not seek the independence of Tibet. Instead, he was working
for the materialization of high-level autonomy. To this end he tried to hold
negotiations, free of any pre-conditions, with the central government, with a
view to establishing a larger Tibet autonomous region. Here lies his "middle
way,'' lying between his clique's former demands for Tibetan independence and
the central government's efforts to defeat those seeking an independent Tibet.
In November 1999, the "Tibet parliament and policy research centre''
conspired with so-called experts in the field of international conventions to
produce evidence in support of Tibetan autonomy, and, under the title the US
"International Tibet Lawyers Committee'' it made public its "legal report on the
issue of the autonomy of Tibet.''
As a result, the "middle way'' becomes systematized in content. The report
divides power between the central government taking charge of autonomous Tibet
in this way: The autonomous government takes charge of cultural and educational
undertakings, with Tibetan as the official language; the autonomous government
controls independently or substantially the economic life of Tibet, while the
central government provides it with allowances; the autonomous government enjoys
full power to collect taxes and control the environment; the State (?)
participates in the construction of roads and eventually controls transportation
and communications; the autonomous government enjoys the power to formulate
policies.
It has been the practice for the 14th Dalai Lama to speak each year on March
10 in recent years. In his most recent annual address he spoke glibly of the
"middle way'' and argued that he was not seeking "independence,'' but instead
"real autonomy won through negotiations free from any attachments.'' He declared
that he was ready to come to Beijing for negotiations so long as the
negotiations would produce a result.
For his part, the 14th Dalai Lama attaches conditions to any such
negotiations.
First of which is that Tibet is recognized as an historically independent
state and not part of China, although the history may be shelved during the
negotiations so that the focus can be on the future, namely turning Tibet into a
non-militarized area and buffer zone between China and India.
Second, the 14th Dalai Lama called for negotiations on high-level real
autonomy of the Tibetan area which, according to him, would cover
Tibetan-inhabited areas in Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu and Yunnan Provinces.
Third, he demanded a policy on Tibet which he said should be more
preferential than the central government policy on Taiwan.
Fourth, he said Tibet would take control of national defence and foreign
affairs, while central overnment could send representatives and some of their
people to Tibet, but that Tibetans alone would handle Tibetan affairs.
As a matter of fact, his "middle way'' is a sidetrack to independence.
Tibet is part of China and this is an historical fact. The 14th Dalai Lama's
refusal to recognize this is actually a humiliation of Tsongkapa, founder of the
Gelug Sect. During the Ming Dynasty, Tsongkapa sent his disciple, Sagya Yeshi,
to visit the central government court where he was named Grand State Tutor and
Dharma Prince of Mercy. If Tibet was not part of China, could this have
occurred? It is an historic fact that the honorific title of the Dalai Lama was
bestowed by the central government.
The 14th Dalai Lama's "middle way'' aims for his "government-in-exile'' to
make a comeback to rule over Tibet. Once this goal is attained, his government
would take control of power in the fields of culture, education, economic
development, taxation, prospecting for natural resources, transportation and
communications and formulation of policies. Central government would then be
left in the position of providing Tibet with financial assistance and
participation in the construction of roads in the region. Both the central
government and the regional government of Tibet would handle foreign affairs,
judicial matters, customs management and border administration, and be jointly
responsible for medical care, environmental protection and immigration, and the
Tibet region would be designated a non-militarized area.
The 14th Dalai Lama does not mention anything about observing China's
Constitution and the fact that national regional autonomy has been followed in
Tibet for more than 40 years. His proposals would effectively turn the
relationship between central government and the regional government into one
somewhere between a suzerainty and dependency, and a protectorate and its
protector. From this we see the core of his "middle way.''
The 14th Dalai Lama is seeking so-called high-level autonomy not only of
Tibet, but also for the Tibetan-inhabited areas in the aforementioned four
provinces, with a view to organizing a "Greater Tibet'' of which he still
dreams.
According to his blueprint, "the map of Tibet'' should cover the whole of
Tibet and Qinghai,to form what he called Inner Tibet, one-fifth of present
Xinjiang, two-thirds of Gansu and half of Yunnan,to form what he describes as
Outer Tibet. This would occupy an area of 2.40 million square kilometres or
one-fourth of China's territory.
Historically, the Tibet-inhabited areas in the above regions have never
formed a unified administrative and economic region, and the former government
of Tibet has never exercised jurisdiction over them.
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, autonomous counties or
prefectures were established there to allow local people to handle their own
affairs. This won the respect and support of the people of the Tibetan ethnic
group.
Tibet is part of China and the 14th Dalai Lama cannot eradicate that historic
fact.
The 14th Dalai Lama expresses an interest in the "one country, two systems''
policy the central government follows in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, and
declares a wish to follow such a system as a "middle way.''
However, the history behind those territories is very different. In the past
century Hong Kong and Macao were under the administration of Britain and
Portugal, while Japan occupied Taiwan during the late 19th and early 20th
century. The central government pursued the "one country, two systems'' policy
to reunite Hong Kong and Macao with Chinese mainland, and is using a similar
policy to encourage Taiwan's return. From this we see the policy embodies a
respect for what has occurred historically.
Tibet is wholly different from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. It was
peacefully liberated from Kuomintang rule in 1951; in 1959, it underwent
Democratic Reforms; and in 1965, the Tibet Autonomous Region was founded to
enjoy autonomous rights according to the Chinese Constitution and the nation's
laws. Tibet has long been a part of China and it is apparent that Dalai is
seeking a back door route to independence by its pursuit of the "one country,
two systems'' policy.
In pressing ahead with his "middle way'' programme, the 14th Dalai Lama is
behaving disingenuously. On some occasions, he advocates the "middle way,'' on
others he speaks frankly of gaining independence for Tibet.
In 1991, he made predictions about what he would achieve in the next three
years.
In 1995, he predicted that the day when independence for Tibet would be won
was coming soon.
These facts demonstrate the 14th Dalai Lama's determination to seek the
independence of Tibet in two stages. First, by achieving high-level autonomy and
then archiving independence.
His so-called "middle way'' equates with the "high-level autonomy'' -- the
first stage of his seeking the independence of Tibet, a circumstance the central
government will never accept.
This piece was originally carried by the magazine China's Tibet.
