Image:archivenet

No matter how devoted to the cause of Tibet supporters of Tibetan national freedom may be, the distracting currents of confusion, resulting from conflicting statements issued by Tibet’s, now only spiritual leader, continue to generate puzzling diversions. Take the latest comments, reported April 22 by Voice of Tibet, in which the Dalai Lama is claimed to have made the following request

‘Instead of independence, I plead other freedom fighters to adopt middle way’:

For anyone not familiar with that term, ‘middle way’ refers to a set of proposals put to China by the Tibetan leader, in which he abandoned aspirations for Tibet’s rightful independence, in exchange for seeking a form of autonomy under China’s national and regional laws. Here’s the confusing part. In 2009 during an NBC television interview the Dalai Lama conceded that his ‘Middle Way’ proposals had proved a failure, which he again repeated during a BBC interview in 2012 , where he affirmed that:

“Our approach [has been] more or less failure to get some kind of cross understanding with the Chinese government and some kind of improvement inside Tibet. In that aspect [it has] completely failed,”

This somewhat contradictory circumstance is difficult to understand, a situation in which inside occupied Tibet courageous Tibetans are resisting China’s vicious occupation to demand independence for Tibet, yet in exile their spiritual leader is asking them to forgo that struggle and embrace a policy, which he himself has conceded has proved a singular failure. Beyond this troubling contradiction however lie even darker waters, the consequences and challenges of which can only be fully understood or felt by Tibetans themselves, arising from their deeply profound and historically established faith and reverence towards the Dalai Lama.

In making such an appeal the Tibetan leader is unwittingly placing a colossal burden upon the shoulders of those who are actively seeking Tibet’s national freedom, as his words speak directly to the heart of each Tibetan, forcing an impossible dilemma upon individuals to honor and respect the wishes of the Dalai Lama, at the expense of surrendering Tibet’s just cause, for a condition in which Tibetans would remain under China’s draconian grip, with at best cosmetic improvements and limited religious or cultural freedoms. It is nothing less than asking Tibetans to give up their decades old struggle and endorse a ‘solution’ which not only has been consistently rejected by China’s Regime, but one in which the very author of that proposal, the Dalai Lama, has admitted has failed.

What is going on behind the scenes which may help to explain this remarkable appeal? Is it simply the words of an enlightened Buddhist who wishes to see an end to the suffering of his people and feels the surrendering of their struggle would best serve that objective? Alternatively, are his words constructed to send a positive signal to China, in a bid to encourage negotiations between his representatives and their counterparts from the Chinese government? Without doubt the ongoing self-immolations and violent oppression inside occupied Tibet have focused minds within the exiled Central Tibetan Administration, yet as their compatriots defy the tyranny of China’s paramilitary forces, to demand national independence, such an appeal not only undermines their efforts and sacrifices but generates confusion for a people who would follow their leader over the edge of a precipice.

Image:gonpokyab

March 18, 2012 Malho in occupied Tibet’s eastern region of Amdo a massive protest against China’s tyranny, with Tibetans demanding  independence for Tibet and calling for the return of the Dalai Lama.China’s paramilitary hard earlier made some arrests, an action which resulted in an estimated two thousand Tibetan laying siege to the nearby Chinese police center. The building was stormed and the arrested Tibetans released. We await reports of the inevitable violent crackdown by China’s body-armored thugs. Appreciation to Dossier-Tibet

Image:loveposters

When the United Nations last commemorated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) signed in Paris December 1948, it should have reflected that the Tibetan people, have since 1950, endured a series of violations, which are in gross contravention of the commitments, principles and freedoms enshrined in the UNDHR. Furthermore, it should have acknowledged that Tibetans constitute a distinct people and therefore possess the right to self-determination and independence. A fact reflected in UN Resolution 1723.

Meanwhile, as efforts continue by representatives of the Dalai Lama and his exiled Administration to secure meaningful negotiations with China’s regime, Tibetans in occupied Tibet, and those in exile, should realize, that while individual human rights are of extreme importance, the collective right to self-determination remains for them a critical and irreplaceable truth. Moreover they should know that if the Exiled Tibetan Administration willingly accepts so-called ‘genuine autonomy’ under Chinese rule, then the Tibetan people will relinquish their current rights to self-determination and independence.

Within the United Nations and international law human rights are individual rights, with violations addressed within the context of a dominant authority or government that exerts political, civil and territorial control over a people. and ultimately charged with accountability for the enjoyment, or otherwise, of such rights. In that context, while of incalculable value, in terms of securing individual freedoms, or as a check against abuse, they do not protect a people against the expansionist oppression and cultural genocide which China is waging against Tibet. There is only one right, which Tibetans currently have, which if realized in practice, would offer such protection and that is self-determination and independence for Tibet.

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’

Image:archivenet/@tibettruth

Double Click For Larger View

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.

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.