Can China Be Trusted?

(To be read in continuation of my article of November 3, 2008, titled StatusQuo Plus)

How trustworthy is China on Tibet? Do the words, promises and commitments ofits leaders have any value? What are the options available to the Tibetan peoplein dealing with an economic power, which the international community is notprepared to displease because of the perceived dependence on  Chineseco-operation for re-stabilising the global economy? Are the Tibetan peoplecondemned to extinction, with neither India nor the West prepared to supporttheir cause for autonomy? What after the Dalai Lama? Will his death also meanthe death of the Tibetan cause?

These were the questions and concerns that were uppermost in the minds 560prominent Tibetan personalities from the Tibetan diaspora in India and the restof the world, who participated in a  Special General Meeting convened by His Holiness the Dalai Lama at Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh " to hold anextensive discussion and debate with regard to the Tibetan cause in the light ofrecent emergency events in Tibet and the international scenario."

His Holiness himself did not attend the meeting, which was held from November17 to 22,2008. The meeting was held against the background of the ruthlesscrushing  of the uprising in the Tibetan majority areas of China in Marchand April last by the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the failure ofthe resumed dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the representatives ofHis Holiness to find a way forward for meeting the aspirations of the Tibetanpeople. The Chinese had agreed to the resumption of the dialogue earlier stalledby them under international pressure after the uprising. The two meetings heldin China by visiting representatives of His Holiness made it apparent that theChinese were merely buying time in order to prevent a boycott of the Olympics byworld leaders.

Hopes that after the Olympics, the Chinese leaders would adopt a softer lineon the future of Tibet have been belied. There was one  meeting before theOlympics and one after the Olympics. The meeting held after the Olympics ( 8thround from October 30 to November 5, 2008) made it painfully clear that theChinese stance has further hardened. During the seventh round of talks inBeijing on  July 1 and 2, 2008, the Vice Chairman of the Chinese People’sPolitical Consultative Conference and the Minister of the Central United FrontWork Department, Mr. Du Qinglin,  invited suggestions from His Holiness for the stability and development of Tibet. The Executive Vice Minister of theCentral United Front Work Department, Mr. Zhu Weiqun, further said they wouldlike to hear the  views of the Dalai Lama's representatives  on thedegree or form of autonomy they were  seeking as well as on all aspects ofregional autonomy within the scope of the Constitution of the People's Republicof China (PRC). In response to the  Chinese request, the Dalai Lama's team,which, as before, consisted of  Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari  and KelsangGyaltsen submitted to their Chinese interlocutors during the 8th round aMemorandum outlining the position of His Holiness on the autonomy issue. Totheir surprise, the Chinese contemptuously rejected the Memo and refused todiscuss the issue of autonomy. A summary  of the Memo as released by theTibetan delegation  is annexed.

The hardening of the Chinese stance after the Olympics can be attributed tothe following reasons: 

• First, the manner in which France and other Western countries eased their pressure on the human rights issue after the Chinese people threatened to boycott Western goods made Beijing realise the power of the economic card which it now wields against the West.
  
  
• Second, the economic melt-down in the West and its anxiety to secure Chinese co-operation and assistance for re-stabilising the global economy made it even more unlikely than in the past that  the West would extend any concrete support to the Tibetan cause apart from pro forma lip sympathy.
  
  
• Third, speculation about health problems faced by the Dalai Lama made them feel that it was only a question of time before he disappeared from the scene and that once he is dead they can have a Dalai Lama of their choice nominated and sound the death-knell of the Tibetan cause.

Taken aback by this denial which came on the eve of  the Special Generalmeeting, Gyalo Thondup addressed the international media, which had assembled atDharamsala, on November 19, 2008, to give his version. To quote him: 

"I am shocked to hear such a statement from the Chinese officials because it was myself to whom the late paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, said, "except independence all other issues can be settled through discussions,".Deng Xiaoping is no longer with us today. But to put the record straight I would like to clarify in front of international media that during my first visit to China in 1979 I met the paramount leader Deng Xiaoping on 12 March 1979. He told me "except independence all other issues can be settled through discussions."

Juchen Thubten Namgyal, who also addressed the press conference, said:"I am totally surprised to learn that Mr Zhu Weiqun recently denied Deng Xiaoping’s statement. As a member of the first Tibetan exploratorymission, we met with Vice-premier Yang Jireng, who was also the head of theCentral United Front Work Department and Nationality Affairs Commission andothers on 29 April 1982. I sought confirmation from Yang Jireng whether DengXiaoping had made such a statement. He did not deny this fact."

According to the advisers of His Holiness, on  March  1,1979,Ulanfu, Minister for Nationality Affairs Commission, told Gyalo Thondup: " TheDalai Lama and the Tibetans in exile are welcome to return to their home andcontribute towards the development and progress of the nation. Suitablearrangements could be made for everyone upon their return. The Dalai Lama hadnot made contacts with the Soviet Union. Therefore, apart from independence, wecan solve any problem."

The advisers of His Holiness pointed out that a record of statements made byformer Chinese leaders and official documents authenticated the statement madeby Deng  and Ulanfu. In an interview with the Xinhua News agency on May 19,1991, China’s then Premier Li Peng said: "All matters except Tibetanindependence could be discussed". His statement was later emphasised in anewsletter released by the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China inWashington DC, regarding the "Questions concerning negotiations between theCentral Government of China and the Dalai Lama."

According to the advisers, during a state visit to China from  May 18 to23, 1992, the then Indian President R Venkataraman was told by Premier Li Pengthat " … we are willing to talk to him about anything except the issue ofthe so-called independence of Tibet." A  White Paper released by theInformation office of the State Council of the PRC in September 1992 reiteratedthat  "all matters except Tibetan independence can be discussed".

Gyalo Thondup told the media: 

"Some hardliner communist officials, who hold high up position in the Chinese Government, treat Tibet as a personal belonging in their pocket and deliberately intend to scuttle the dialogue process to resolve the issue of Tibet.

The Tibetan people will continue to demand their legitimate and reasonable rights as given to other minority nationalities entitled in the constitution of the People’s Republic of China. The legitimate rights of Tibetans are rights to freedom, thinking, speech, religion, travel, to promote and preserve Tibet’s culture. We must not lose faith and plead to the Chinese Government for our legitimate rights. As a Tibetan, I'm convinced that we must all live together. Therefore it is very important for the Tibetan people not to lose hope and to keep a good relationship with people in China. We are sandwiched between China and India, both very important countries. I was always critical with the Chinese face to face in Beijing, and now I'm desperate, that's why I told people in the Chinese Embassy in Delhi that there's no choice [but to talk]. We must face the reality that we have to deal with China. The people of China will eventually realize that what we are asking is legitimate.

A commentary on Tibet disseminated by the official Xinhua news agency on November 21,2008, coinciding with the meeting, said: " Its purpose is to set up a 'half independent' or 'covertly independent' political entity controlled by the Dalai clique on one quarter of the Chinese territory.And when conditions are ripe, they will seek to realise 'complete Tibet independence'." Qin Gang, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, was quoted as saying as follows: "Our position on Tibet is clear and resolute. Any attempt to separate Tibet from China is doomed to fail.The so-called Tibetan government-in-exile is not recognised by any government in the world."

 In the light of the Chinese repudiation of their past commitments andstatements, the Special General Meeting discussed whether any useful purposewould be served by continuing with the dialogue with the Chinese and whether thetime had not come to call off the dialogue with the Chinese officials, abandonthe Middle Path of autonomy so far followed and start a full-fledged strugglefor independence. This view is particularly shared by the younger Tibetansbelonging to the Tibetan Youth Congress. A question posed by many during thediscussions was: When the Chinese are not even prepared to discuss autonomy,what is the point in continuing the dialogue with them?

There was  unanimity against accepting the status quo. The meetingreiterated its faith in the continuing leadership of His Holiness and decided tocontinue with the present objective of a Middle Path. It also stressed that theTibetans would continue to adhere to non-violence. The relevant portions fromthe final summary of conclusions of the meeting are given below:

(a). "The Central Tibetan Administration is the sole and legitimaterepresentative of the Tibetans in and outside Tibet, which the CTA has inheritedfrom many centuries. This historical experience of the Tibetan people proves thebaselessness of the recent rhetoric and propaganda of the Chinese Government,which says that His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Central TibetanAdministration have no right to represent Tibet and the Tibetan people. TheTibetans in and outside Tibet strongly oppose such remarks."

(b)."Based on the suggestions received to this Special General Meetingfrom in and outside Tibet and after frank and candid discussions held by thedelegates in regard to the future policy of Tibet, it came to an unanimousdecision to straightly follow the guidance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama basedon the prevailing situation from time to time. Majority decision was to continuethe policy of Middle-Way-Approach. Besides that, looking at the ChineseGovernment's behavior in the past, views to stop sending envoys and to pursuecomplete independence or self-determination if no result comes out in the nearfuture, were also strongly expressed."

(c)."The Middle-Way-Approach, independence or self-determination,whatever is pursued in the Tibetan struggle, we shall not deviate from the pathof non-violence to achieve our aims."

 (d)."His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Central TibetanAdministration in an effort to resolve the Sino-Tibetan problem, by adopting theMiddle-Way-Approach, a memorandum on genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people,within the framework of the constitution of the PRC, was recently presented tothe Chinese Government. Leave alone giving positive response, the PRC Governmentrejected every single clause of the memorandum and accused the CTA of seekingindependence, semi-independence or independence in disguised form. Therefore,the dialogue process did not produce any substantive result to the Sino-Tibetanproblem and the whole responsibility of this failure is solely with the PRCgovernment."

 (e). "Because the PRC had alleged that they have evidence to provethat the recent unrest in Tibet had been 'triggered, instigated, planned andorchestrated' by the 'Dalai clique', His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the CentralTibetan Administration insisted that an international investigating body beallowed to travel to Tibet to verify the PRC's claims. And that delegates fromChina can also visit Dharamsala to investigate and validate their allegation.However, the PRC did not have the gumption to accept both these suggestions.Moreover, the PRC could not even bring forth one single evidence in support oftheir claims before the world audience. This has clearly pointed to the factthat demonstrations and protests in Tibet since March this year are because ofthe repressive policies adopted by the PRC towards Tibet and Tibetans since itsoccupation. Therefore, the PRC government should accept responsibilities fortheir mistakes."

 (f)."This is to reiterate, through this Special General Meeting,that the cause of the Tibetan struggle is a struggle for the rights of Tibetans.It is a struggle against the wrong policies of the PRC towards  Tibet andTibetans. The Tibetan struggle is in no way  against the Chinese people, asit is being portrayed by the PRC."

 (g)."In order to destroy Tibetan Buddhism, the PRC instituted newregulations on measures for the recognition of incarnate lamas or 'LivingBuddhas'. We totally oppose any interference by a Government which is avowedlyatheist  in spiritual affairs for political advantage. We strongly opposethe 'Patriotic Education' campaign that is being increasingly forced down invarious monasteries in Tibet."

It is not clear whether His Holiness would take the initiative for anotherround of talks with the Chinese. The position seems to be that while the doorsare open for more talks, the initiative has to come from the Chinese. It needsto be noted that the post-Olympics hardening of the Chinese stand on Tibet hasbeen accompanied by what seems to be a post-Olympics hardening of the Chineseposition on the Sino-Indian border talks during which the Chinese continue toinsist on the transfer of at least Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh to China. It isunderstood that the Dalai Lama proposes to hold a meeting of the internationalwell-wishers of the Tibetan cause to brief them on the deliberations of theSpecial General Meeting, which was restricted to Tibetans and seek their views.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt ofIndia, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies,Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies.