Samdhong (Left) Striving For Communist Chinese Rule in Tibet
Image:tibetchinaconference
Ever considered what exactly you are supporting when expressing an advocacy of Tibet? What is it that you are in solidarity with? For some Tibet is synonymous entirely with the Dalai Lama and his exiled Administration, yet does endorsing the Tibetan leader’s efforts to resolve the issue of Tibet translate as necessarily as being supportive of the Tibetan people, and their hopes for the future status of Tibet?
It is common knowledge that inside Tibet the struggle is for a free and independent nation, while the objectives of the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE) is to preserve Tibetan culture within the framework of communist Chinese law, as another of China’s so-called national minorities. In other words the final abandonment of any prospect of self-determination for Tibet, which the Tibetan people retain a right to, as reflected by UN General Assembly Resolution 1723, which expressly refers to the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination. So, uncomfortable reading as this may appear, in promoting and supporting the policy and strategy of the TGIE as relating to resolving the question of Tibet, supporters are effectively championing the demise of Tibet as a distinct people and nation.
Of course there will be voices raised at this point seeking to argue that the critical nature of the situation in Tibet demands an urgent response, and that everything must be done to preserve Tibetan culture. including making compromises to secure negotiations, that include as a strategic objective, an acceptance of communist Chinese rule. Such myopic thinking has only one target, protecting the Tibetan way-of-life. Yet this position asks us to believe that under the totalitarian grip of communist Chinese occupation Tibetans will be able to enjoy civil, politial and religious freedoms. That is an optimism off any known scale, as recognized by the very Chinese dissidents that the TGIE has been courting recently.
During the Sino-Tibetan Conference one Chinese delegate questioned Samdhong Rinpoche on the realism of expecting so-called genuine autonomy under communist Chinese domination.
“The communist government won’t give you genuine autonomy. Negotiations with a communist government are useless. Only when China becomes a country of democracy, Tibet will have the chance to get real autonomy. Do you realize that?”
It is worth quoting in full Samdhong’s response.
“We wish China was a country of democracy, but we know it is not currently. I believe China is going to be a country of democracy some day in the future, and I also believe that things like Tibet issue could have greater chance to be settled in a democratic China. However, the issues of survival of Tibetan identity, culture, religion and environment are issues to be solved today. What we are asking is the Chinese government to implement the autonomous policies that are written in the Constitution of People’s Republic of China and related laws on regional autonomy for minorities. Therefore, it is not impossible to realize genuine autonomy for Tibetan people before China becomes a democratic state.” (August 6, Sino-Tibetan Conference, International Hotel Geneva).
Where does your compassion and support lie, with the Tibetan Adminstration’s strategy, or with the Tibetan people, in their resistance and aspiration for Tibetan nationhood?
