The Dalai Lama has, in recent years, been telling the world he has stopped
seeking "Tibetan independence" and turned towards a "middle way".
By this, he says, he means "high-level autonomy" or "real autonomy" in Tibet
and other Tibetan-inhabited areas within the framework of the Chinese
Constitution. Only by doing so, he has argued, can Tibet best protect its unique
traditional culture, religion and eco-environment, and can the unification and
unity of China be maintained. (On March 10, 1959, the reactionary upper class in
Tibet staged a counter-revolutionary armed rebellion. When it was suppressed,
the Dalai Lama and his men fled to India, where he made March 10 as a
remembrance "Resurrection Day".)
On March 10, 2006, he followed his usual practice of delivering a speech, in
which he said: "Making the Tibetan race become the real masters of their own
fate and enjoy real autonomy constitutes my only wish. And this wish could be
materialized as the PRC Constitution contains special stipulations for this."
What the Dalai Lama says sounds reasonable at first glance; and he has given
up the "independence of Tibet" and turns to work for the interest of the
Tibetans. However, if one takes a closer look at the background of what the
Dalai Lama has put forth regarding this "middle way", its major contents and the
Dalai Lama's explanation, and then compares this with the PRC Constitution, one
will instantly find nothing new, only old wine in a new bottle.
People who know Tibetan history well know that the Dalai Lama stands for the
"independence of Tibet" when he has fled to India in 1959. On June 20, 1960, he
held his first press conference in India, and vowed to "restore freedom and the
special status Tibet enjoyed before the Chinese invasion in 1950". Thereafter,
he made speeches on March 10 each year, vowing to win the "independence of
Tibet".
Moreover, the Dalai Lama set up his "government in exile" overseas and worked
out a "Tibetan constitution" (later renamed the "constitution for Tibetans in
exile"). He built up a rebel army in Nepal for border harassments in the ensuing
years. In the name of "organizing armed troops to fight their way back into
Tibet", he collaborated with the Indian military and American CIA to organize
the "Indian Tibetan special border troops", set up "representative offices" in
some countries, and organized the "Tibet youth congress", "Tibet national
democratic party" and "Tibet women's federation." All these organizations have
engaged in separatist activities overseas.
From the 1970s to the mid-1980s, the international situation underwent
changes with India and the United States all working to improve ties with China.
As a result, the Dalai clique got less public support internationally. It faced
economic difficulties and was riddled with internal feuds. It was against this
background that the Dalai clique told the Central Government it could "give up
efforts seeking Tibetan independence and return to China".
In 1987, the Dalai Lama delivered a speech to the US Congressional Human
Rights Committee, putting forth his "five-point scheme for Tibetan peace"; in
1988 he tried but failed to address the European Parliament in Strasburg, and
instead spoke in the hall of the parliament, where he declared his "seven-point
new schemes" (hereinafter referred to as the "five points" and "seven points").
In the two speeches the Dalai Lama made his statement with regard to the "middle
way", and the two speeches served as the most authoritative explanation of this
approach.
It is the "five points" and "seven points", as well as other explanations
made by the Dalai Lama and his like that show the world the "middle way" goes
against the Chinese Constitution and law. Here are four aspects related to this
conclusion:
The first is that the Dalai Lama still refuses to recognize the fact that
Tibet is part of China. The PRC Constitution stipulates in its preface that the
PRC is a multi-national country founded by peoples of various ethnic groups in
the country. Article 4 of the Constitution goes further to say that various
regions exercising national regional autonomy in China are an inalienable part of
the country. However, the Dalai Lama said in his "five points" that "Tibet was a
completely independent state in 1949 when the PLA entered". In his "March 10"
statement of 1995, he said: "The reality of today is that Tibet is an occupied
country under colonial rule". At an Indian seminar called "support for Tibet",
he declared: "Buddhism entered Tibet from India, and so did many other aspects
of Indian culture. From this point of view, I hold that it is more reasonable
for India to own sovereignty over Tibet than China." In recent years, the Dalai
Lama has changed his tune by saying that the issue can be turned over to
historians for discussion; we should refrain from talking about the past, and
instead focus on the future.
It is an historic fact that Tibet has since the ancient times been an
inalienable part of the Chinese territory, and the Central Government of China
has exercised indisputable and effective rule over Tibet. During the Yuan
Dynasty (1271-1368), the Central Government set up the Xuanzhen Yuan to take in
charge of the Buddhist affairs in the whole country and the military and
administrative affairs of the Tibetan region. It exercised effective rule over
Tibet by conducting census, setting up post stations, collecting taxes,
stationing troops, appointing officials, and introducing the Yuan Dynasty
criminal law, astronomy and calendaring to Tibet. During the Qing Dynasty
(644-1911), the 5th Dalai Lama and the 5th Panchen Erdeni of the Gelug Sect of
Tibetan Buddhism all received honorific titles from Emperor Shunzhi and Emperor
Kangxi. From then on, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni of the future
generations all got the honorific titles and established their political and
religious leadership in Tibet. And it becomes a historical precedence for the
Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni to receive honorific titles during the
Republic of China (1912-1949). The 14th Dalai Lama himself was confirmed and
enthroned with the approval of the Central Government of the Republic of China.
Governments of various countries in the world declare that "Tibet is part of
China". This constitutes the common knowledge of the international community and
the political basis for China to develop bilateral ties with other countries. We
see that the Dalai Lama publically refuses the fact that Tibet has since the
ancient times been a part of China, and then says that he does not have to talk
about this issue. He does all these to impress the others he has made
concession. As a matter of fact, however, he is turning a known-to-all
historical fact and a political principle related to state sovereignty into a
historical and academic question that exists and does not have to be discussed.
Admitting what the Dalai Lama has said means acknowledgement regarding his
statement that Tibet has been an occupied country after 1949. Legally speaking,
the so-called "Tibetan issue" will not then be an internal issue of China; it
will then be related to "colonial issues" whereby the Tibetans could enjoy the
right to independence through "national self-determination" according to
international convention. This, of course, goes against the historical fact that
China enjoys sovereignty over Tibet and the principle set forth in the PRC
Constitution that areas exercising national regional autonomy are inalienable
parts of China. The Central Government naturally is staunch in attitude and all
people with a sober mind can see that what the Dalai Lama does is his plan to
dish out his "Tibetan independence" when conditions ripen again according to his
own standards.
The second point is that the Dalai Lama attempts to refute the current
political system followed in Tibet according to the Constitution which states
that the socialist system is the fundamental system of the PRC; no organization
or individual is allowed to undermine the socialist system; in the PRC, all
power belongs to the people, and the NPC and the People's Congresses at various
levels are the organs of power through which the people exercise State power.
And the PRC Law on National Regional Autonomy stipulates that national regional
autonomy is the basic political system of the CPC to solve China's ethnic issues
using Marxism-Leninism. The above legal stipulations undoubtedly apply to Tibet.
However, the Dalai Lama declared that "the autonomy China follows is not real
autonomy". According to what he has said, Tibet should achieve "high-level
autonomy" or "real autonomy" according to the "one country, two systems"
principle, and the scope of "autonomy" should be larger than that for Taiwan,
Hong Kong and Macao. In his "seven points", meanwhile, he argues that "a Tibetan
government should be set up in Lhasa and should have an elected administrative
chief and possess a bicameral legislative organ and an independent judicial
system". In November 2005, the Dalai Lama said in the United States: "The
Central Government should take care of defense and foreign affairs, because the
Tibetans have no experience in this regard, but the Tibetans should have full
responsibility for education, economic development, environmental protection and
religion". In a nutshell, the CPC leadership, the socialist system, the people's
congress system and the national regional autonomy in Tibet, which have been in
place in Tibet for decades in accordance with the PRC Constitution, should all
be refuted, and a whole new system introduced according to what he says "real
autonomy". This is obviously different from what he claims for Tibet to work
"within the framework of the Chinese Constitution." The PRC government white
paper entitled National Regional Autonomy in Tibet issued in 2004 made it clear
that, unlike Hong Kong and Macao, Tibet is not faced with question related to
the exercise of sovereignty and the possibility of re-introducing another social
system. Any endeavor to destroy and change the current political system in Tibet
runs counter to the PRC Constitution and law.
It is known to all that the "one country, two systems" refers to the fact
that the mainland follows the socialist system while Hong Kong and Macao
continue to follow the capitalist system they had followed before. However, no
capitalist system existed in Tibetan history; what was followed in the region
was a feudal serfdom featuring temporal religious administration. In its own
"constitution of Tibet in exile", the Dalai Lama advocates the reintroduction of
the old system featuring "temporal religious administration". According to the
system, the Dalai Lama is the government and religious leader enjoying the final
say on major matters. In old Tibet, the Gashag set up by the Qing Dynasty in
region, or the local government of Tibet, was composed of four Galoons. When the
Dalai Lama had fled overseas, his government in exile continued to follow the
system, with the role of chief Galoon of the government in exile continueing to
be assumed by a high-ranking lama. These are the people who are advocating the
"one country, two systems" approach for Tibet. What they can do? Only restore
the feudal serfdom, and nothing else!
The third point is that the Dalai Lama sticks to "Large Tibetan Areas"that,
however, does not exist in history. Articles 14 of the white paper on national
regional autonomy says that matters concerning areas following the regional
national autonomy, such as the title and regional border line, should be
determined through full consultations among the State organs and local relative
power organs and representatives of ethnic groups concerned in accordance with
the law, and result of the consultations be submitted to departments concerned
according to procedures set forth in the law; the areas following the system
should not be disbanded or annexed without going through proper legal
procedures. The Dalai Lama, however, persists in bringing together the areas
where people of the Tibetan ethnic group live to form an "enlarged Tibet
autonomous region" which would cover one-fourth of Chinese territory. People
with knowledge of Chinese history know that, during the Yuan Dynasty, the three
areas where the Tibetans lived saw the establishment of three pacification
commissioner's offices for governance. The three areas refer to U-Tsang-Ngari
(the bulk of the Tibet Autonomous Region today), Amdo (mainly southern Gansu,
Aba of Sichuan Province and the bulk of the Tibetan-inhabited areas in Qinghai
Province), and Kham (largely Yushu of Qinghai Province, Garze of Sichuan
Provinice, Deqen of Yunnan Province and Qamdo of Tibet). The three areas became
the basis for the division between Tibet and other Tibetan-inhabited areas in
China. The ensuing Ming Dynasty followed the Yuan approach in ruling Tibet.
During the Qing Dynasty that followed, the Central Government supported the 5th
Dalai Lama, leader of the Gelug Sect of Tibetan Buddhism, to build up a regime
in Tibet. Thereafter, further efforts were made to delineate the border between
Tibet and the Tibetan-inhabited areas in Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan.
From this we see the Tibetan-inhabited areas outside Tibet had never been put
under the rule of the local government of Tibet. So, there is no ground for the
establishment of an "enlarged Tibet".