The Tibetan Administration packs-its-bags in preparation for the trip to Geneva to attend the forthcoming International Sino-Tibetan Conference, August 6 to 8, at which Tibetan and Chinese academics, former communist party officials, advocates and writers will search for a commonality, to create a understanding, between what is being increasingly described as two communities, and to explore options for a peaceful solution of the Tibetan issue. It all sounds very reasonable of course, distinguished and experienced authorities, honoured by a key-note speech from the Dalai Lama, converging to determine that a resolution can be found. Beyond the warm and reassuring reasonableness however it may prove more accurate to think of this event, not as an open and democratic forum or a crucible for creative exchange and dissent, but a highly polished public-relations exercise, designed to endorse and promote the prevailing orthodoxy of the Tibetan Administration. In all likelyhood there will be a number of key absences, which could seriously invalidate its credentials as a representative forum, including no place for Tibetan public opinion, or discussion on Tibet’s rights to statehood. Yet in entertaining possible solutions delegates must surely accept that if any eventual settlement was to have integrity or political gravity it would need to address that issue, and more importantly require the authorization and participation of the Tibetan people, a fact long recognized by the Dalai Lama:
“I have always stated that the central issue is that the Tibetan people must ultimately choose their own destiny. It is not for the Dalai Lama, and certainly not for the Chinese to make that decision. It should ultimately be the wishes of the Tibetan people that should prevail” (The Dalai Lama, Yale University, 9th October 1991)
Yet those reasonable and just words appear to have been consigned to history by an Administration which no longer seeks to accomodate and respect the political will of its people, but is determining a solution that would deny Tibetans any genuine decision or involvement. It has autocratically decided what solution will meet the political demands of Tibetans by imposing, upon an inceasingly frustrated and disillusioned population, a strategy of appeasement and compromise. Tibet’s future status will no longer require the assent of the Tibetan nation but will be determined by an elite who have surrendered any prospect of either self-determination or independence. These individuals favor so-called meaningful autonomy, which concedes that Tibetans are not a distinct people, with all the political, territorial and cultural rights which flow from that definition, but a Chinese ‘nationality’, a so-called ethnic-minority with only the dubious assurances of communist China’s laws on regional autonomy as any guarantee! Perversely it is that authoritarian capitulation, barely concealed behind the conference slogan of ‘Finding Common Ground’, which will be presented in Geneva as a hopeful solution for the issue of Tibet.
More importantly where is the common ground between the Tibetan Administration and its own people, who are struggling, not for so called ‘meaningful autonomy’ but for Tibet’s independence. As witnessed during the Uprisings in 2008 Tibetans, though obviously loyal to the Dalai Lama, share a profound and longstanding desire for a free and independent nation. This has been recognized by the Dalai Lama:
“I also know that every Tibetan hopes and prays for the full restoration of our nation’s independence” (HH The Dalai Lama March 10-1994)
If the Tibetan leader does not know the political hopes of his own people who does? Others have recognized the nature of the political struggle inside Tibet and reached similar outcomes, the prestgious and authoritive Conference of International Lawyers on Issues Relating to Self-Determination and Independence For Tibet (London January 6 to 10 1993) concluded that the Tibetan people possessed an “abiding desire” for:
“The establishment of an independent Tibetan state” Paragraph 4.10
That appetite has not abated, if anything as the suppression and exploitation of Tibet’s culture has increased so has the demand for Tibet’s independence, along with widespread protests supporting that objective. Such facts however do not seem to have informed the inane and vacuous strategy of the Tibetan Administration, as evidenced by the appeasing conclusions of its so-called Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People See Here
“Whereas, we are committed, therefore, to fully respect the territorial integrity of the PRC, we expect the Central Government to recognise and fully respect the integrity of the Tibetan nationality and its right to exercise genuine autonomy within the PRC. We believe that this is the basis for resolving the differences between us and promoting unity, stability and harmony among nationalities.” (emphass added)
That same document concludes by asserting that:
“The objective of the Tibetan Government in Exile is to represent the interests of the Tibetan people and to speak on their behalf.”
In what sense of the word ‘interests’ are the people of Tibet in any way served by an administration that ignores the political aspirations of its own people, ordains a policy of appeasement which would commit Tibetans to a parlous and uncertain future as an ethnic-minority under the tender mercies of communist Chinese law? Not that we can expect that to be debated in the comforts of Geneva.
