via:
peking duckthe post is about the latest "spit war" between chinese government and Dalai Lama. in the following comment section, i got involved into a conversation with a tibetan, presumably living overseas and speaking fairly nice english, on tibet issues. might be interesting stuff for some readers. here are the conversations:
me:
the problem with DL is that he lost credibility in front of chinese government.
i truely believe that tibetans should regain the rights of autonomy and that han chinese are willing to give that to tibet as long as the security concerns of the "core china" are answered. theese two goals are not mutually exclusive, but there must be some trust between the two sides, and the "free tibet" represented by DL seems not the right one to talk to.
Tenzin:
As a Tibetan what I liked about this latest Chinese propaganda is that it confirms that there is serious discussions going on between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government.
Since His Holiness has said he was not asking for the restoration of Tibetan independence but the rights of the Tibetan people under the "Constitution of PRC" the Chinese side finds it difficult to challenge this. Therefore, they are resorting to the media to create confusion, distortion and divert the issue.
Take the case of CIA involvement, for example. The Dalai Lama, as someone has rightly pointed out, does not deny past involvement of the CIA with a Tibetan Guerilla group. But that involvement ended in the early 1970s when the Tibetan group was left high and dry. Today, even if the CIA extends a hand the Tibetans will not accept it.
me:
Tenzin,
one thing i am very interested in is how much of the "other side" of the tibet issue tibetans know. for example, have you read books like Wang Li-xiong's "the fate of tibet"?
the current proposal of DL's autonomous "greater tibet" will occupy almoust 50% of chinese territory, a lot of which are inhabited by han chinese and other minorities. do you think that is fair.
after 1979, the chinese government made a lot of compromise in tibet and but situations soured there, sometimes i have to ask if it's the "free tibet" that cause the deadlock.
Tenzin:
I look at some of the issues raised here this way.
If the Chinese government and people who subscribe to its view about Tibet want to hide the problems under the carpet under the pretext of not giving in to "Free Tibet" activists that is their call. But that will not make the Tibetan problem go away.
One of the charges of the Chinese side against His Holiness the Dalai Lama is that he is asking for a sizable portion of the territory of China for Tibet (it is more than 50 per cent). To say the least this is a distortion of the Dalai Lama's position.
When the Dalai Lama has chosen not to raise the issue of Tibetan independence, where is the question of separating the area, even if the Chinese claim is correct, from China. What the Dalai Lama is asking for is the rights of all the Tibetan people who live in China today. That is guaranteed even in the Chinese Constitution, but is not implemented.
If you choose to describe "Tibet" as just being the Tibet Autonomous Region, then the Dalai Lama is not from Tibet because he comes from Qinghai. Then more than half the Tibetan population are not from Tibet.
I think the Chinese Government is merely finding excuses not to address the problem in Tibet.
Today the excuse is greater Tibet and the CIA, tomorrow it will be something else.
me:
Tenzin,
"When the Dalai Lama has chosen not to raise the issue of Tibetan independence, where is the question of separating the area, even if the Chinese claim is correct, from China."
i am sure that not all overseas tibetans are as smart as DL, what if 50% of current chinese territories ask for independence 5 years after DL passes away?
"What the Dalai Lama is asking for is the rights of all the Tibetan people who live in China today."
the claim is justified, however, there are different opinions as how to protect the rights of tibetan people. 21.89 of Qinghai population are tibetans, another 25% are other minorities and 53% of Qinghai populations are han people.
DL's "greater tibet" plan thinks that Qinhai should be part of the "greater tibet" so that 21.89% of the population's rights can be protect, i don't think that is fair.
"I think the Chinese Government is merely finding excuses not to address the problem in Tibet."
maybe, part of the reason is that "free tibet" movement lost credibility when chinese government wants to make compromise and make things move, the same is also true in the chinese side, and this becomes a vicious cycle
Tenzin:
Bingfeng,
You raise a pertinent issue. Your citation of the population statistics in Qinghai actually supports the concerns that Tibetans are expressing about the possible loss of their identity. Even if there is no agreement on the past independent status of Tibet no one can dispute that historically Qinghai was a Tibetan area, predominantly populated by Tibetans.
Today, Tibetans are fast becoming a minority there because of the migration of Han and other people through the past many decades.
As for the issue of guarantee, no one can guarantee the future of anything, least of all of a nation. However, a great deal depends on the Chinese Government policies of today on how Tibetans of the future will approach the issue of their status. That can be certain.
me:
Tenzin,
as i can remember, qinghai (plus ando?) and western part of sichuan, although have a lot of tibetan dwellers, are never under the rule of Dalai Lama. correct me if i am wrong.
as for the issue of population, statistics says that the largest population increases of tibetans in history occured during 1950-1960s and 1980s-1990s. and if you are honest enough, you will admit that chinese government has never adopted a policy to make tibetan people extinct, on the contrary, the official "one-child policy" is not applicable to tibetan people, which is obviously intented to encourage the share increase of tibetan populations.
there are many reasons why tibetans become minority in qinghai and are losing their identity. even if tibet is ruled by DL, these problems will still remain as long as tibet is not closed (geographically, culturally and economically), and in 21st century, it's impossible for tibet to be closed and untouched by the outside world.
it has some political values for "free tibet" movement to accuse chinese government for all these problems, but such politics doesn't help understanding and solving these problems.
no one and no excuse can deny tibetan people's right of determining their own fate, and in the meantime, tibetan issue need to be resolved in a bigger framework that answers the concerns and protects the interests of the rest of china.
personally i find it very difficult for the current two sides to build up a trusting relationship and develop a foward-looking "frame" that can move things on.
Tenzin:
I am responding to Bingfeng in good faith.
Iit is a historical truth that the Amdo region formed part of Tibet for several centuries. You just have to read history. It is also a truth that prior to coming under the Chinese Communists, Amdo areas were separated from Lhasa and were being ruled by local warlords.
What we are talking about is not what belongs to Tibet, but the rights of the Tibetan people.
I will come to population and other statistics later.
Bingfeng,
Before I am accused of indulging in propaganda let me expand on my statement that Amdo was once part of Tibet. By this I do not mean when the Communist Chinese invaded Tibet, Amdo was part of Tibet. As I mentioned earlier, by the late 19th century the Amdo areas were not under the control of Lhasa.
But during the time of the Tibetan Royal Kings, Amdo was definited part of the Tibetan empire. This identification with Lhasa continues to this day even though different political rulers have held sway over the area.
Let me also say that even though Amdo areas were not part of Tibet in 1949, neither was the area under the complete control of the KMT, the precursor of the CCP.
me:
Tenzin,thanks for the clarifications.i hope you don't mind that i have re-posted the comment exchanges between us in my blog. such conversations are rare and might be interesting to readers from china and other places.here is my thoughts on your latest comment:your last paragraph could fairly summerize the nature of tibet-china relationship. the opposite is also true - amdo has both tibetan and han chinese influences. as a matter of fact, in qing dynasty, tibet enjoyed a highly autonomous status at the same time it was part of china. some researchers indicated that both sides were happy with such ambiguous arrangements because both could get what they want from such a "framework".when british empire first encountered tibet, they were puzzled by such arrangements and found it difficult to fit tibet into their world of nation state with absolute sovereignty.i am sure amdo's way of existence is equally incomprehensible to modern(western) minds.one opinion (Wang Lixiong) thinks that tibet only becomes a problem after modern day concept of sovereignty is introduced and both chinese government and tibetans want to clearly define the boundaries of sovereignty for tibet. both have pushed the other sides too hard and there is no possibility for a solution with ambiguous arrangements (or, autonomy).it's a cul-de-sac. according to various documents in history and connectins and existence, china has the sovereign rights over tibet and in the meantime, tibet has many characteristics of an independent state.
it's quite obvious to every one that "free tibet" movement will ask for more as soon as their demand for autonomy is satisfied. considering this, it's quite understandable that chinese government refuses to talk with "free tibet" movement.
in my view, both sides place the politics above the well-beings of tibetan people and forget what their politics for. and playing politics of the modern day language of sovereignty state makes the whole issue a deadlock without any hope of settlement.
Dalai Lama has great wisdom and has been trying to "think out of the box" and to find other "frame" to move things on. if i am correct, DL bet on china's democratization and hoped that a more democratized china will find a way out. the weakness of this plan is he bet on the wrong persons, overseas chinese democracy movement are out of touch with china's reality and momentum and has no influence in the short or longer term over the route of china.
some overseas tibetans suggested to launch terrorist attacks to get more bargain powers, which in my opinion is very stupid.
my impressions are that the energies and wisdom of overseas tibetans are all channelled into the current "frame".
in my own experience, the most dangerous factor that could ruin a business is the strong desire to make money. sometime i asked my partners to relax a little bit and forget about return and just enjoy the process, and usually it turns out that such approach is much better than working hard for short-term profitability.
is it possible that you guys do something to help the development of tibet, to get involved into the dynamics of today's tibet, in this way to build up trusting relations with chinese government, and in this way reduce the confrontational attitute of both sides?
i don't know.
Tenzin: Bingfeng,
No problem in reposting this discussion on your blog. Let me know the link, too.
I think people will understand the set up existing in Tibetan areas prior to 1949 a little better if they know the general situation in that part of the world. The political system and concept that was engrossing the political leadership in the rest of the world were foreign to the Tibetan leaders. On account of the isolationist policies of the Tibetan leaders, led by the monks and other conservative groups, Tibetans had a frog-in-the-well view of the situation. Everyone was complacent with the situation. People had freedom even though there was not much of a material development. Local officials were using their authority at whim without there being any system of real accountability in place. To Tibetans it did not matter that rulers in far-off China were claiming Tibet as their territory for many years. In real terms there was no Chinese influence in their day-to-life.
The relationship between Tibet and China through the years before 1949 is somewhat similar to the relationship that Bhutan, Ladakh and Sikkim had with Tibet. Just as China laid claims over Tibet, Tibetan rulers had this idea/impression/opinion that Bhutan, ladakh and Sikkim had some sort of allegiance to Tibet. In fact there were annual trips by Bhutanese and Ladakhis to "pay homage" to the Tibetan ruler in Lhasa. Does that not ring a bell about a similar tradition with the Middle Kingdom?
Similarly, the chiefdoms in Amdo and Kham area had a loose relationship with Lhasa. If asked people in these areas might defend their independence (in fact many of these areas are referred to as kingdoms and the leaders as kings and queens.) but at the same time they will show affinity with Lhasa.
As for the issue of what some people might do in the future about a free Tibet, we should realise that the world is changing. In some time in the future, may be even people of Shanghai will demand to be separate if it suits their economic and material interest. Compared to the people in Shanghai the Tibetans have a far greater case for independence.
I feel the Chinese leaders of today lack enough courage to take steps. They always tend to suspects the Tibetans are upto something. We Tibetans have a saying, "Tibetans are duped by hope, Chinese are duped by suspicion." The saying holds true.
me:
Tenzin,sorry for my late reply.i have to disagree with your analogy of tibet-china relations to bhutan-tibet relations. one of the most frequently cited document regarding the china-tibet relationship is the "29 rules of dealing with tibet made by imperial order", which is approved by the emperor and lhasa in 1793. i translated some of the specific items as fellows: item 1 - (the central government has the right) to establish the identities of Dalai Lama and Panchan Lama
item 2 - to administer the immigration and emigration affaris
item 3 - to supervise the coinage in tibet
item 5 - to appoint military officers in tibet
item 6 - tibetan soldiers are paid by “tibet ministers” of the central government in tibet
item 8 - to examine the incomes and expenses of Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama
item 10 - the "tibet minister" has the same rights with Dalai in tibet adminsistration, and all tibetan monks and non-monks need to comply with the "tibet minister"
item 11 - to appoint tibetan officials in each region
item 14 - to take the responsibilities of diplomacy
item 15 - to decide the borders
item 20 - to decide the taxation
item 21 - to relieve the labor service
item 25 - to punish criminals
there are counter-arguments, like this commentator from peking duck blog says, "Suzerainty is not the same thing as sovereignty, as defined by current international law."well, if the central government of china in Qing dynasty failed to carry out most of the powers listed in the document above, then it is no doubt a suzerainty, otherwise, it's more like a sovereignty than a suzerainty. i’m sure these powers are not fully carried out but how much have been done there by the central government, there are different interpretations. and today, morality aside, chinese government has obviously sovereign rights in tibet.i have been trying to convince myself that chinese government is totally wrong in saying that china has the sovereignty in tibet, but i find the claim quite problematic. and i'd rather believe that the relationship can not be summarized by just one word or one model.arguing over history makes both sides defensive and closed to new "frameworks" and "roadmaps" and forget we can work for the future rather than for the past, and like what i said be3fore, whaqt all these are related with the well-beings of the tibetan people? they both suffered in hte hands of Lhasa and beijing, and they have much better lives today under the "communist" chinese rule than they had under any tibetan rule in history.the right for nationality autonomy is self-evident and no excuse can deny it, and if we live in a black-and-white world, i will support the self-determination of tibetan people, but there are many other factors intertwined with tibet issue.
Tenzin：
Bingfeng,
For a moment I had this vision of the hands of Beijing reaching out to your blog, too, because in the past few days we are hearing about the closure of websites and blogs, including one on Tibet being run by a Tibetan writer in Beijing.
As for the issue of 1793 edict or regulation concerning Tibet by the Qianlong Emperor, this is something that the Chinese government documents always point out as indication of Tibet being part of China. I lay no claim to being a historian, but from the little that I know I think the argument is faulty on three counts.
1. As you yourself point out western political concepts cannot be applied to the situation prevailing in Tibet and China of the past.
2. I am giving below the Tibetan point of view on the 29 regulations (http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white1.html). The "regulations" were suggestions made in the context of the Emperor's protector role, rather than an order from a ruler to his subjects. This emerges clearly from the statement made by the Imperial envoy and commander of the Manchu army, General Fu K'ang-an, to the Eighth Dalai Lama:
?The Emperor issued detailed instructions to me, the Great General, to discuss all the points, one by one, in great length. This demonstrates the Emperor's concern that Tibetans come to no harm and that their welfare be ensured in perpetuity. There is no doubt that the Dalai Lama,acknowledging his gratitude to the Emperor, will accept these suggestions once all the points are discussed and agreed upon.However, if the Tibetans insist on clinging to their age-old habits, the Emperor will withdraw the Ambans and the garrison after the troops are pulled out. Moreover, if similar incidents occur in the future, the Emperor will have nothing to do with them. The Tibetans may, therefore, decide for themselves as to what is in their favour and what is not or what is heavy and what is light, and make a choice on their own.? [Quoted from Ya Han Chang's Biography of the Dalai Lamas in Bod kyi Lo rGyus Rag Rim g-Yu Yi Preng ba, Vol 2, Published by Tibet Institute of Social Science, Lhasa, 1991, p.316]
Rather than accepting or rejecting the Emperor's points, Tibetans adopted some of the 29 points which were perceived to be beneficial to them, and disregarded those they thought to be unsuitable. As Panchen Choekyi Nyima, the predecessor of the Late Panchen Lama, said: "Where Chinese policy was in accordance with their own views, the Tibetans were ready to accept the Amban's advice; but ... if this advice ran counter in any respect to their national prejudices, the Chinese Emperor himself would be powerless to influence them. [Diary of Capt. O'Connor, 4 September 1903]
Among the important points of this "29-point edict" was the Emperor's proposal for the selection of great incarnate lamas, including the Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas, by drawing lots from a golden urn. This important task, however, was the responsibility of the Tibetan Government and high lamas, who continued to select them according to religious traditions. Thus, already on the first occasion when the golden urn should have been employed, namely for the selection of the Ninth Dalai Lama in 1808, Tibetans disregarded it.
3. The regulations were announced by a Manchu Emperor, whose area of control included both China and Tibet then. It was not a Chinese ruler. If we were to accept the Chinese interpretation then it would permit Great Britain of today to exercise claim over Burma because at one time British India had control over Burma.