Image:tibetcoins
Prior to China invading in 1950, Tibet’s independence was a common currency held in the hands of Tibetans, as shown by this coin called Karchung, with Tibet’s Snow Lion symbol and Tibetan letters that carry the motto: dga’-ldan-pho-bran-phyod-las-rnam-rgyal. ‘The Ga-den Palace, victorious in all directions’
Hoping For Autonomy While Tibetans Are Struggling for Independence
Image:imageproxy
Tibet’s political leader, called upon the international community to undertake an independent assessment of the situation in his country and pressurize communist China to end the “oppression”.
“Please, international community, judge whether there is a problem or not. Go there and investigate.” he told Dutch parliamentarians on Friday June 5 .
“In the case the majority of people genuinely are happy, then our information is wrong … and we will have to apologise to the Chinese government. If, on the other hand, there is real resentment to China’s … oppression, then tell the Chinese government they should accept the reality and should start a realistic approach. Force is not a solution.”
The Dalai Lama also informed MPs that his faith in the communist Chinese authorities was becoming “thinner” as efforts to seek negotiation continue to falter. He again stressed that he was not seeking independence for Tibet, a message that is in stark contrast to the political aspirations of his own people, who continue their struggle against Chinese occupation in the hope of a free and independent Tibet.
Paris Protests For Tibet-April 2008
Image: SaveTibet
Viewing today’s televised feeds of protests in London invited some reflection upon the unrest and opposition, which accompanied the Olympic Torch during last year’s controversial parade. Recall too the French President’s brief resistance to China and his stance on attending the Games in Beijing. France’s position caused outrage in China, leading to a number of carefully orchestrated protests and boycotts of French goods. The diplomatic tensions carried on for some time.
In France it was for some a moment to be savoured, here at last was a politician honouring France’s rebublican principles and prepared to place equality, justice and freedom before interests of trade. One contributor to the China Daily forum http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?gid=2&tid=629146 reflects that feeling:
“France will not kowtow to China. France, my beautiful France is a proud country.
We, the French people, will not kowtow to China. We will continue to fight for freedom and equal rights and equal votes, and free elections, all over the world, especially in China.
The Chinese people are not free. They have no freedom of speech, no free elections. China will be free, one day”.
Supporters of Tibet may have, albeit for a fleeting moment, been forgiven for hoping that Nicolas Sarkozy would carry such convictions through, particularly when he ignored Chinese demands not to meet the Dalai Lama, and met the Tibetan leader in Poland. An act which caused fury within the Chinese leadership. However, in the furnace of realpolitik such ambitions were destined to be consumed by the cynical flames of national self-interest. It was of course ever thus, as former Secretary General of Amnesty International, Pierre Sané, noted:
“The French Government is more concerned with selling Airbus than women being given forced abortions”. (March 18, 1996 at the Foreign Correspondents Club-Japan)
So it was no great surprise to note today’s announcement that France and China are committed to resolving their diplomatic differences and decision to restore “high level contacts”, Mr Sarkozy is reportedly to have arranged a meeting with Hu Jintao on Thursday April 2. Beijing has consistently demanded that France express some form of apology for its actions, and froze regular diplomatic visits to the French capital. Both countries issued a joint-statement today agreeing to “strengthen their global strategic partnership”.
France Abandons Tibet To Normalises Relations
Image: TF1/LCI
Of significant interest to Tibetans was the seeming insistence demanded by Beijing that France issue a declaration concerning Tibet.
“France fully appreciates the importance and sensitivity of the Tibet question and reaffirms its commitment to a One China policy and to its position according to which Tibet is an integral part of Chinese territory, in conformity with the decision taken by General de Gaulle, which has not changed and will not change,” the statement said “In this spirit and in respect of the principle of non-interference, France rejects any support for the independence of Tibet under any form.”
First Rule Of Diplomacy When Dealing With Communist China
The French President has no difficulty at all with kowtowing to the dictates of communist China, as long as it serves the strategic games of La Belle France. Mr.Sarkozy’s most difficult challenge will be to get to the front-of-the-line ahead of other world leaders currently on their knees.
As world leaders descend upon London in a desperate G20 effort to appear united in the face of the disintegration of free-market economics, Tibetans and their supporters have embarked upon a twenty-four hour ‘hunger’ strike outside the palatial oppulence of the appropriately named Mandarin Oriental Hotel. Where it is reported Chinese President Hu Jintao will be indulging his taste for decadent western delicacies during his UK visit.
Mandarin Hotel-Location of Protest Towards Chinese President Hu Jintao
Image: LondonBeats
The event is being promoted as a joint Tibetan-Chinese protest, not only in support of Tibet but to mark 20 years since the Tiananmen Massacre, the ongoing suppression of Falun Gong and to oppose the Chinese Communist Party will have wielded power for 60 years.
No doubt this collaboration would please the Dalai Lama, who during last year’s visit to the British capital was keen to encourage the development of what he hoped would become ‘Chinese-Tibetan friendship associations’. Given his government’s determination to accept Chinese rule and abandon any notion of independence, some have wondered if calls for greater contact between the two communities was part of a wider political effort, to appease Beijing and to soften Tibetan opinion, which remains deeply suspicious and hostile towards China.
Image: The Province
While recognizing the importance of the issues raised by the bloody massacre of Tiananmen Square and the oppression of religious sects within China, which rightly are the focus of political campaigns, it is hard not wonder what Tibetans inside Tibet would feel about today’s partnership on the streets of London. Since they are fighting for nothing less than independence for Tibet, and paying a terrible price for such dissent, could they feel any meaningful solidarity with an event which in all likelyhood will not feature Tibetan independence as its central objective.
Inside Tibet The Message is Clear-Amdo March 2008
Image: TCHRD
There will be an absence of any banner or literature supporting the political aspirations of the Tibetan people, instead the prime stated demand, published by the organisers, which includes the Tibetan Community in Britain, the Tibet Society (no friend of Tibetan independence) and Students for Free Tibet-UK, notes:
“China’s illegal occupation of Tibet must end now. The past 50 years of Chinese rule has seen the destruction of over 6,000 Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and important learning centres; this has put the Tibetan national heritage and traditions at severe risk. China’s illegal invasion of Tibet in 1950 has resulted in the loss of over one million Tibetan lives. China must let Tibetan people govern their own homeland”.
Fine and agreeable sentiments of course, that all supporters of Tibet would agree with, but take a closer look, and once again no reference to the wishes of the Tibetan people, Tibetan independence is it would appear once more too hot to be included. Instead we have diluted and confused references to China permitting Tibetans the enjoyment of self-governance. In other words ‘autonomy’!
Who has responsbility for drafting these statements, is it the Tibetan Community in Britain, the Tibet Society or perhaps it’s authored by the exiled Tibetan Government, which in the face of widespread uprisings in Tibet demanding independence, is blindly following a course of appeasement aimed at accepting autonomy as a solution.
There are many Tibetans in Britain who are strongly supportive of Tibetan independence, some will be actively involved in this event, yet in agreeing to the aforementioned demands, and promoting such a message to the public, they are unwittingly misrepresenting the political goals of their compatriots inside Tibet.
The Tibetan people are not facing bullets, torture and prison for ‘autonomy’, or any other weakened form of self-government. They are standing up to such tyranny because they have one dream, a free and independent nation.
Surely Tibetans in Britain can support that goal?
Turning A Blind-Eye On Tibet
A number of supporters of Tibet are under the impression, wrongly as it happens, that Britain has changed its policy towards Tibet’s status. First point of note here is that not too many people beyond the secrecy obsessed corridors of Whitehall have seen any policy document on Tibet, if indeed there is a formalised policy in existence! The origins of this misunderstanding, which began as a fiction and became a ‘fact’ can be traced back to an item written by a Mr Robert Barnett,which featured in the New York Times (NYT) on 24th November 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/opinion/25barnett.html
Despite his former sanctified position amongst some Tibetans, he is no genuine friend of Tibet. Ask the brutalised women of Tibet, whose lives have been forever scarred by forced sterilisation what Robert Barnett, or his beloved Tibet Information Network , ever did on that issue. More recently his writings on Tibet display a worrying similarity to communist China’s official propaganda, certainly his NYT feature, which carefully distorts and conceals the true political aspirations of the political struggle waged by Tibetans inside Tibet, exposes his colours. Those wishing to examine his motivation for involvement in the Tibetan scene perhaps, as has been speculated on a number of previous occasions, may find some answers within the British Foreign Office or China’s propaganda Ministry?
Mr.Robert Barnett-Barefoot Expert on Tibet
Like those bodies, he would appear to indulge in careful reconstructions of the facts, take for example his comments regarding the statement given by David Miliband (former UK Foreign Secretary) on Tibet. Which Barnett asserts in his NYT piece (24/11/08) signals a cataclysmic shift in UK policy. One he insists has immense consequences for Tibet and its cause; however, it would seem that he has once again satiated his appetite for misrepresentation. Anyone who has read his previous writing on the uprisings in Tibet during March and April, in which he misreported the true nature of the political objectives of those protests, will recognise the trademark distortions and omissions.
His more recent output in relation to the Tibetan struggle appears to specialise in stitching articles of despair and defeat that either warp or conceal the facts. The NYT article is a further example. Far from suggesting a major reform of UK policy on Tibet, the duplicitous words penned by the Foreign Office display a movement in terms of cosmetics only as opposed to a radical change of position. Here are the key words that formed the basis of Barnett’s opinion:
“Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China’s special position in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China” (David Miliband Former British Foreign Secretary 29th October-2008)
A short outline of historical context is required, before examining more closely Miliband’s words. The key point here is that ’suzerainty’ suited the political interests of Britain very nicely indeed and served its presence in Tibet. Emerging from Britain’s military invasion of Tibet during 1903/4, and refined via the tangled complexities of the Lhasa Convention (1904) and the Simla Agreement (1914) the UK formally and diplomatically acknowledged Chinese ’suzerainty’ over Tibet, whilst providing Britain’s patronage of ‘autonomy’ for Tibet. Such recognition however was little more than a diplomatic device to suit British intentions, whilst superficially addressing Chinese sensibilities towards Tibet. In a practical sense, it was British political influence and presence in Tibet that ensured British, rather than Chinese, ’suzerainty’ over Tibet.
A similar political perfidy continues to characterise Britain’s position towards Tibet and its relationship with communist China. The substantive detail of such policies rarely see daylight, and remain under the control of Foreign Office ’mandarins’, who are psychotically devoted to appeasing Beijing and ensuring issues such as Tibet or East Turkestan do not interfere with Britain’s commercial or diplomatic relations with communist China. The occasional statements of political Ministers however can be revealing. Miliband’s comments were no exception and adhere to Britain’s self-serving tradition of exploiting and manipulating the issue of Tibet, for its political interest and Chinese political consumption. It is perhaps of significance to note that the timing of Miliband’s remarks coincided with the final stages of a hugely lucrative trade deal between Hainan Airlines Co Ltd and Rolls-Royce Plc totaling $1.2 billion. (Rolls-Royce is to provide 20 engines for the Airbus 330 of the Hong Kong fleet, in addition to a 15-year service support) which was being engineered behind-the-scenes.
Business as usual for Britain's Trade Secretary Lord Mandelson with China's Commerce Minister Chen Deming in London February 27, 2009-Courtesy of Xinhua
Significantly, his statement itself does not express a formal repudiation of any previous policy Britain may have held; it is more a re-assemblage of its former position on Tibet. Whitehall’s dust-coated treaties that recognised China’s suzerainty, although in an obtuse legal sense could be debated to have implied some form of ’sovereignty’ for Tibet, never in any genuine political context was it considered by successive British governments to confer meaningful independent status to Tibet (notwithstanding the important assertions made by the great Hugh Richardson). One only has to recall Britain’s shameful role at the United Nations in 1959, in which it callously ignored Tibetan appeals for support, to understand that in real terms Britain always placed its recognition of Chinese control (suzerainty) over Tibet before its museum-like responsibilities concerning ‘autonomy’.
That condition was violently destroyed following the invasion of Tibet in 1950, and apart from isolated periods of so-called liberalisation during China’s occupation, Tibetans have been brutally denied all of the political and civil rights that defines ‘autonomy‘. Therefore Britain’s policy in recognising China’s ’special position’, on the basis of Tibetans enjoying autonomy, was a nonsense, the microscopic and ageing details of which proved of interest largely to academics only. Meanwhile the oppression and destruction inside Tibet made a complete mockery of any notion of Tibetan’s enjoying autonomy.
In actively pursuing, a policy which has ignored the suffering of the Tibetan people and their claims to self-determination and independence Britain has since 1950 effectively endorsed and acknowledged that Tibet has no basis for territorial or political independence. Nor has it since that period stated or recognised that Tibet is a separate political or sovereign region.
Taking the above factors into account one must surely have serious questions on policy with respect to Barnett’s interpretation that Britain has changed its policy on Tibet’s status. It has never for example denied “..Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory”. Moreover, the Foreign Office has never implied or asserted that Britain supports Tibetan independence; it remains implacably opposed to those who advocate that. Moreover, in not declaring that Tibet enjoyed any political or territorial rights Britain has long regarded Tibet as “part of the People’s Republic of China”.
Note too that Miliband’s comments were a written Ministerial statement on Tibet presented to the House of Commons on 29th October 2008. They were addressing recent discussions between representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government, not as an announcement to the House of any formal changes of policy with respect to Britain’s position on Tibet‘s status. (Note also that Ministerial details on policy changes are presented usually to the Members of Parliament via an oral statement). Perfidious Albion is alive and well while actively extending its cancerous tentacles across the Tibetan scene.
Why should Robert Barnett choose to illustrate Ministerial comments of David Miliband as constituting some form of defining moment, signifying an official policy transformation of historic proportions? Surely Professor Barnett was aware that the British Foreign Secretary was simply re-stating, albeit in a slightly amended form designed to appease Beijing, a position that Britain has long held, namely it will issue platitudes on autonomy within Tibet, whilst not recognising Tibet‘s right to self-determination and independence! Perhaps an answer may lie, in the erroneous nature of Barnett’s article, which suggest that another nail has been firmly driven into the Tibetan cause and it being further isolated and without; however Britain’s archaic and theoretical recognition of a distinct Tibetan political entity.
The only party that benefits from such an assessment would the communist leadership of China, which would applaud any suggestion that Tibet’s position is undermined, in terms of negotiation, or facing some critical moment. Perhaps too those who advocate the open surrender of Tibetan nationhood in exchange for a dangerous future as an ‘ethnic minority of China’ would interpret the assertions in Barnett’s article as further ‘proof’ that in light of this supposed development, the only option is negotiation for some form of autonomy as opposed to Tibetan independence.
In light of such consideration, one wonders if the speculation regarding Robert Barnett’s motivation has substance? What is certain is that it would appear that his literary forte, notably when addressing the political status of Tibet, or the political aspirations of Tibetans, is constructing a message of despair. His NYT comments, whilst emphasising China’s economic colossus invites, through implication, the reader to conclude that the struggle for Tibet is over, hinting perhaps that the only exit for Tibet’s people is to submit to Chinese rule. Asserting that this supposed volte-face by the Foreign Office will actually enhance prospects for a solution!
“Britain’s change of heart risks tearing up a historical record that frames the international order and could provide the basis for resolving China’s dispute with Tibet” (‘Did Britain Just Sell Tibet?‘ Robert Barnett New York Times 24th November-2008)
Yet as far as I am aware there has been no official policy statement published by the Foreign Office that documents details of any changes in policy, yet Barnett appears so keen to create that impression that he blatantly misrepresents what Miliband actually stated. Compare for example the following:
“Mr. Miliband said that Britain had decided to recognize Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China”. (‘Did Britain Just Sell Tibet?‘ Robert Barnett New York Times 24th November-2008)
“Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China” (David Miliband British Foreign Secretary 29th October-2008)
Britain has not suddenly taken a unilateral action to decide upon now recognising Tibet as being part of communist China. It is reasserting its position within a collective European framework, and even then Miliband employs a term (‘regard‘), no doubt chosen with minute attention to diplomatic meaning by his Foreign Offices advisers, that implies a previously held position, whilst leaving space for interpretation and manoeuvre, as opposed to ‘recognize’ which defines a more legal and final acceptance.
As noted by a number of contributors on this forum, the comments of ‘barefoot’ experts, who hold influential media positions, can obscure and disfigure any genuine understanding of the nature and objectives of the Tibetan struggle. Whenever a newspaper, journal seeks some ‘informed’ opinion on Tibet it often turns to Robert Barnett. Who has no hesitation to announce to the world that Tibetans are not seeking independence, that China does not have a policy of forcibly sterilising Tibetan woman, or that the uprisings in Tibet do not spring from a deeply rooted desire for national liberation but are the product of economic hardship. Such distortions (which bear a remarkable similarity to the propaganda of China‘s Xinhua news agency), and his recent offering in the New York Times, should be rigorously challenged by anyone supportive of accurate reportage and an independent Tibet.
Statement from Independent Tibet Network on the 50th Commemoration of the Lhasa Uprising of 1959. This declaration has been released to Tibetan organisations world-wide in recognition of the many thousands of Tibetans who lost their lives fighting for Tibetan independence and in solidarity with the people of Tibet, who continue their rightful struggle for nationhood, justice and freedom.
With the courageous sacrifices and inspiring actions that witnessed widespread uprisings for Tibet’s independence during March and April 2008 fresh in the memory, the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE) is intensifying its appeasement of communist China, through ever more conciliatory overtures. Having abandoned any notion of a separate political or territorial identity for its people the TGIE is now desperately seeking to resolve matters by accepting the dubious assurances within Communist China’s law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy. The ‘Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People’ (released on 16th November 2008 by the TGIE) is a breathtaking demonstration of surrender which casts a disgraceful stain upon the political aspirations of the Tibetans inside Tibet. A manifesto of stealthy capitulation, it arrogantly notes that: “To a very considerable extent Tibetan needs can be met within the constitutional principles on autonomy“. Praising the potential of China’s law on regional and ethnic autonomy it goes on to state that a number of discretionary powers within the regional framework “can be exercised to facilitate genuine autonomy for Tibetans” and happily describes Tibetans as an ‘ethnic minority’. Which flag will be flying over the Tibetan Assembly this March 10th?
Clearly the strategists of the TGIE consider that justice, prosperity , self-rule and freedoms can be achieved within communist China’s constitution, such ‘reasoning’ would equally have suggested that the occupied people’s of Europe would enjoy political and civil freedoms under Nazi occupation! In an effort to pursue this ‘strategy-of-the-madhouse‘, it proposes solutions wholly to the advantage of Beijing, and offered in a language saturated in dangerous compromise. Meanwhile it is painfully oblivious to the fact that achieving ‘genuine autonomy’, that most nebulous of conditions, whilst posing as much a challenge as obtaining independence, presents a number of immense risks and offers no guarantee of maintaining a distinct Tibetan cultural and territorial identity. Such considerations do not appear on the radar of those tasked with advancing negotiations with Beijing, who repeat the official mantra of autonomy.
The executions, torture and imprisonment that was waged upon Tibetans inside Tibet for daring to demand their independence during last year’s protests has not stirred the conscience of Tibet’s exiled administration, who have proved contemptuous and indifferent towards any voice which does not conform to its orthodoxy of capitulation. Meanwhile, adhering to an established pattern Beijing refuses to shift its position, unless ever more severe demands are conceded by the TGIE, whilst flatly rejecting the ‘autonomy proposals’ offered by the exiled Tibetan administration.
Despite such a public, formal rejection, voices urging surrender to China’s conditions remain, articulated most notably by Samdhong Rinpoche amongst other prominent Tibetans. Stumbling with eyes wide-open towards the abyss, the momentum to accept Chinese domination and to extinguish a sense of Tibetan political distinctiveness, tramples uncaringly over the common desire of ordinary Tibetans for nothing less than full independence. This is not the transparent democracy envisioned by the Dalai Lama, but the calculated application of traditional cultural and societal mechanisms in which the leadership is seen, in public at least, as without failings, whilst a carefully dispensed official propaganda, manipulates long established social perceptions and values, and ensures public conformity to the status quo.
Yet the pressure is growing upon the TGIE from within, the sense of disillusionment increases, particularly from younger Tibetans and those communities far removed from the suffocating deferential conventions which stifle any genuine dissent within Tibetan communities in India. Evidence of such frustration appears on chat-rooms and forums across the Internet as Tibetans express a profound dissatisfaction with their Exiled Government’s vacuous and fruitless policy of appeasement. This stagnant failure to produce any meaningful progress is viewed against the events of 2008 when Tibetans rose against Chinese occupation and demanded with one voice that Tibet be free and independent.
Such factors may well have sharpened minds within Dharamsala’s elite to produce the recent Special Meeting of Tibetans, partly public relations, mostly an exercise to endorse current efforts to encourage negotiations at any price. It was a curious gathering, with a somewhat slanted demographic, its participants, mostly middle-aged and uncritical loyalists of the TGIE. Its findings were seized upon by the Kashag, whose Statement (Issued 10th December 2008) selectively avoided any reference to the fact that there was a forceful opinion expressed within the meeting to return to the goal of Tibetan independence should no progress be shortly forthcoming. Instead it used the conclusions reached at the meeting to trumpet an emphatic endorsement of the ‘Middle Way’.
In reaching this judgement perhaps they failed to note the findings of their own ’census’ conducted inside Tibet, in which from a total of some 17 000 Tibetans only 2000 openly stated support for the ‘Middle Way’. The breakdown of the results revealed those favouring Independence as more than 5000, those following the Dalai Lama as some 8000, whilst the number of Tibetans supportive of autonomy numbered 2000. Even the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile reportedly agreed that few in Tibet are in favour of that policy (Indian Express 18th November 2008).
Interestingly, the Special Meeting of Exile Tibetans was convened under Article 49 of the Tibetan Charter, a document which is very clear in its description of what constitute fundamental objectives: “The future Tibetan polity shall uphold the principle of non-violence and shall endeavour to be a Free Social Welfare State with its politics guided by the Dharma, a Federal Democratic Republic…”.(Article 3) That being so the question is raised as to how exactly the current policy of seeking so-called ‘genuine autonomy’ within the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China conforms to the formal objective detailed in the above Article of the Tibetan Charter.
Unless possessed of a thinking similar to the TGIE it is difficult to conceive that communist China’s constitution on Regional Ethnic Autonomy can accommodate principles of federalism, or democracy! Indeed communist China’s statutes on regional autonomy oppose any notion of separation of ‘nationalities’ through what is described as ‘local nationalism’, whilst Beijing forcefully rejected any suggestion of a federalist solution along the lines of Hong Kong. Can it be that in rushing to accept the draconian conditions of communist China’s law on regional and ethnic autonomy, which would in practice and law prevent any genuine enjoyment of democracy and federalism for Tibetans, the Central Tibetan Administration is now in conflict with a central objective of its own Charter? Or having surrendered Tibetan nationhood has the TGIE now discarded too its democratically agreed principles of seeking a democratic and federal Tibet, comprising all three regions? If so perhaps the exiled Tibetan authorities would care to provide details of when this was decided, an amendment to Article 3 requiring two thirds majority support from the Tibetan Assembly and the assent of the Dalai Lama. If no such amendment has been formalised through due democratic process, in accordance with the procedures detailed in the Charter, then the TGIE has not only violated its own state document, but grossly failed its people by undermining democratic process.
Despite the visionary commitment by the Dalai Lama to democratise Tibetan society in what genuine, accountable and transparent process are Tibetans assured of any truly democratic participation? Their aspirations of nationhood surrendered by a presiding cabal, whose inane orthodoxy would abandon Tibet’s political and territorial freedoms for a settlement completely to the advantage of communist China.
Yet the TGIE ignores the lesson that history has written large, that there is no meaningful negotiation with tyranny. Incapable, as communist China is, of seeking an accord of understanding, mutual respect, tolerance and compromise, only one outcome is possible, unreserved submission.
The alternative carries formidable choices bearing inherent hazards and possibly suffering, yet no people have regained their nation’s freedom by offering compromise and abandonment to their oppressors. Unless communist China experiences some form of economic, social and political cataclysm, similar to that of the former Soviet Union, it is challenging to envision how Tibetans can break free (or operate a more forceful campaign of resistance) without having to examine questions of grave dimensions. As Tibetans assemble under the banner of their national flag to commemorate the events of 1959 they will be aware that the Tibet movement has reached a Rubicon moment, which if not responded too with acute political and strategic examination, plus an urgent replacement of present policies with a commitment to the political aspirations of the Tibetan people, will result in the cremation of Tibet’s historic and just claims in exchange for minority status under the brutal over-lordship of communist China.
|
