SECOND INTERNATIONAL TIBET SUPPORT GROUPS CONFERENCE

Panel Session I

Sino-Tibetan Dialogue

Statement Of Kalon Tashi Wangdi

Tibetan Government-in-Exile

Wasserwerk, Bonn 14-17 June 1996

The motivating force in all our actions individually and collectively is the desire to overcome suffering and to achieve a state of perfect well-being and happiness. Since time immemorial, this has been the evolutionary pattern of human history and civilization. Tribal communities joined together to form nations, states and empires. Mighty empires which seemed indestructible at certain times decayed and disintegrated. These great historical events were in a way a result of experiments by people trying to achieve the best solution. One can see from the past that there is obviously no one system or solution to secure the state of perfect well-being and happiness to which we all aspire to. However, what is absolutely clear in all the process of alignments and disintegration is that the relationship based on mutual respect and benefit succeeds and any relationship based on inequality and coercion leads to conflict and disintegration.

The same is true in the case of Sino Tibetan relations. There were times when the relations were friendly and there were times when wars were fought. Over the long period of 2000 years of our recorded history, there were many more conflicts with our eastern neighbour China than with our southern neighbour India. This is precisely because-of the reasons I have just stated above.

The problem of Tibet is essentially a political problem. There must necessarily be a political solution. In order to have a full understanding of the Tibet problem one will have to take into account three important facts, a) History b) Consequences of the Communist Chinese military invasion and occupation, c) Future solution. We have made it clear to the Chinese government that although we are fully prepared to discuss all these, we should not get bogged down in the past. What is important is the future and for this we are willing to discuss all possible options. This position was restated in His Holiness' 1 0 Mar(-.h statement of 1 995 when he said, "in the past I have deliberately restrained myself from emphasizing the historical and legal status of Tibet. It is my belief that it is more important to look forward to the future than dwell in the post. Theoretically speaking it is not impossible that the six million Tibetans could benefit from joining the one billion Chinese of their own free will, if a rela

tionship based on equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect could be established. "This has been the consistent and principled stand of His Holiness the Dalai lama and the Tibetan government-in-Exile. Concrete steps to realize this objective were taken by the Tibetan leadership as soon as direct contacts were established with the Chinese leadership in Beijing in 1979. In 1979 the Chinese government invited Mr. Gyalo Thondup, the elder brother of His Holiness the Dalai lama and Mr. Deng Xiaoping told him that the new Chinese leadership was willing to discuss all the issues relating to Tibet except the question of independence. The Tibetan leadership responded to this positivelyby sending a number of fact-finding delegations to Tibet through Beijing. Based on the actual findings of the delegations of the prevailing appalling conditions in Tibet, specific suggestions for improvement were made to the Chinese government. The offer of assistance, such as sending volunteer teachers from among the Tibetans in exil

e were made in good faith and in sincerity. The Tibetan leadership believed that these steps will not only help to improve the conditions in Tibet but will also be important confidence building measures to create a conducive atmosphere for a meaningful dialogue. With this in mind, His Holiness wrote to Mr. Deng Xiaoping on March 23, 1981, stating, "Now taking into account the experiences of past mistakes, there is a new policy of "Seeking Truth from Facts "and a policy of modernization. With regard to the Tibetan issue, I am pleased with and applaud Comrade Hu Yaobang's efforts to make every possible attempt to right the wrongs by frankly admitting to the past mistakes after his visit to Lhasa ". His Holiness went on to say: "in order to do this, we must improve the relationship between China and Tibet as well as between Tibetans in Tibet and outside Tibet. With truth and equality as our foundations, we must try to develop friendship between Tibetan and Chinese through better understanding in the future. The

time has come to apply, with a sense of urgency, our common wisdom in a spirit of tolerance and broad mindedness in order to achieve genuine happiness for the Tibetans. "On my part, I remain committed to contribute my efforts to the welfare of all human beings and in particular the poor and the weak to the best of my ability and without any distinction based on natural boundaries. "His Holiness concluded the letter with these words, "I hope you will let me know your views on the foregoing points. "The first disappointment in this new contact was that there was not even an acknowledgment of the receipt of His Holiness' letter. Inspite of this, His Holiness and the Tibetan leadership continued to pursue the policy of contact and dialogue. It will be useful to recall briefly at this stage the various peace initiatives undertaken by the Tibetan leadership over the lost 17 years. This is perhaps necessary since there seems to be some confusion and ambiguity in the minds of even our friends regarding the stand of

the Tibetan leadership. Although there was no response to His Holiness' above letter to Mr. Deng Xiaoping, the following year a very highlevel three-member delegation was sent to Beijing to start an exploratory dialogue. There was a sincere intention to start a dialogue within the framework of His Holiness' "middle way "approach and the assurances given by Mr. Deng Xiaoping in 1979 that all questions except that of independence could be discussed. Our willingness to discuss options other than the issue of independence as a possible solution for the future was made abundantly clear to the Chinese government. To ensure the success of this highly sensitive and complex negotiation, it was also suggested that the substance of discussion should be kept confidential to avoid public incrimination before any headway was made. Unfortunately, the Chinese official publications carried reports of not only distorted version of the points raised by the Tibetan delegation but outright rejection of these by the Chinese gove

rnment soon after the Tibetan delegation left Beijing. The Tibetan Review a periodical in exile said in its editorial of July 1982, "The agreement to maintain silence, as on previous occasions, does not seem to be mutually binding. Even beforeDharamsala issued its apology for a statement, Peking informed foreign correspondents that the delegation had asked for Tibet a status similar to the one promised to Taiwan, and that they flatly rejected the request... So the question arises what did Dharamsala hope to achieve by making this extraordinary proposal. The idea of treating Tibet and Taiwan as identical cases is highly ludicrous; and when such an idea emanates from Ministers of the Tibetan government-in-exile, no one can be blamed for doubting their sanity. "This had understandably stirred up a great deal of criticism and debate amongst Tibetans. The Tibetan leadership was criticized by a certain section of the Tibetan community for selling out the Tibetan national rights. In the meantime, a major crackdown

was imposed in Tibet in the name of anti-spiritual pollution campaign. Tibetan opposition was becoming more defiant and the situation in Tibet was getting worse. In an effort to improve the worsening relations and to discuss a possible visit by His Holiness to Tibet, the same highlevel delegation of 1 982 was sent again to Beijing in 1984. The Chinese leadership showed no real interest in solving the real problem through serious and meaningful negotiations and it narrowed down the issue to the question of the return of His Holiness and that also to Beijing and not Lhasa. The glimmer of hope for a negotiated solution through direct contact was fading away but continued efforts were made to salvage it by sending individual Tibetans as personal emissaries of His Holiness to Beijing. In each case it was becoming increasingly apparent that the leadership in Beijing was not sincere and serious and were trying to buy time to further tighten their grip on Tibet through various measures, including the transfer of Chi

nese population into Tibet. The lack of any progress in direct negotiations and the fast worsening of situation inside Tibet was fueling the already tense situation inside Tibet. It was under these circumstances that His Holiness was compelled to appeal directly to the international community for help by making public the proposals he had been putting forward to the Chinese leadership directly since 1979 in the form of the Five Point Peace Plan in 1987 and the Strasbourg Proposal of 1988. The broad ideas of these proposals were discussed with the Chinese government in 1982 and 1984. Instead of responding to these initiatives positively the Chinese authorities once again resorted to the use of force to deal with the problem by imposing martial law in Tibet in 1989. I must therefore say here that it was Very unfair on the part of the Chinese leadership to accuse His Holiness the Dalai lama and the Tibetan leadership of internationalizing the Tibet issue. The appeal to the world community was made when all atte

mpts at direct contact and dialogue with the Chinese leadership failed. The International community saw the stand taken by His Holiness the Dalai lama as being pragmatic and reasonable. His Holiness was awarded the Nobel Peace in 1989.

Not only an increasing number of parliaments and governments have applauded His Holiness' efforts but even the Chinese people living in the free world, especially intellectuals and students, have expressed their full support for His Holiness' bold peace initiatives. The rejection of these proposals by the Chinese government on one pretext or the other without any reasonable and constructive counter proposal from their side made things unnecessarily difficult. However, the first preference of theTibetan leadership has always been direct negotiations with the Chinese government. In October 1 991 in a major speech at Yale University, His Holiness put forward another proposal to break the deadlock. He said "The Chinese government's refusal to reciprocate my efforts to start negotiations has increased the impatience of many Tibetans, especially young Tibetans in Tibet, with the nonviolent path we follow. Tension in my country is increasing as China encourages demographic aggression in Tibet, reducing Tibetans to

a second class minority in our own country. The harsh repression and intimidation of Tibetans is increasingly polarizing the situation. I am extremely anxious that, in this explosive situation, violence may break out. I want to do what I can to help prevent this. "in view of these developments, I am considering the possibility of a visit to Tibet as early as possible. I have in mind two purposes for such a visit.

"First, I want to ascertain the situation in Tibet myself on the spot and communicate directly with my people. By doing so I also hope to help the Chinese leadership to understand the true feelings of Tibetans. It would be important, therefore, for senior Chinese leaders to accompany me on such a visit, and that outside observers, including the press, be present to see and report their findings. "Second, I wish to advise and persuade my people not to abandon nonviolence as the appropriate form of struggle. My ability to talk to my own people can be a key factor in bringing about a peaceful solution. My visit could be a new opportunity to promote understanding and create a basis for a negotiated solution. "Later that year His Holiness the Dalai lama sought a meeting with the Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng -when he was in India on a state visit. The negative response from the Chinese did not help to break the ice. Leaving no stone unturned in the search for a peaceful solution, His Holiness took two more impor

tant steps, firstly, by suggesting the start of negotiations without preconditions and secondly, by sending a very highlevel delegation to Beijing in 1 993 with a personal letter and a detailed memorandum to Mr. Deng Xiaoping and President Jiang Zemin. In the memorandum, His Holiness restated most clearly His willingness to negotiate a compromise solution and I quote, 'if China wants Tibet to stay with China, then it must create the necessary conditions for this. The time has come now for the Chinese to show the way for Tibet and China to live together in friendship. If we Tibetans -obtain our basic rights to our satisfaction, then we are not incapable of seeing the possible advantages of living with the Chinese. "However when this last attempt by His Holiness to reestablish contact was spurned by the Chinese government, His Holiness said in his annual 10 March statement 1994, "I must now recognise that my approach has failed to produce any progress either for substantive negotiations or in contributing to t

he overall improvement of the situation in Tibet... I have left no stone unturned in my attempts to reach an understanding with the Chinese. We have had to place our hopes on international support and help in bringing about meaningful negotiations, to which I still remain committed. if this fails, then I will no longer be able to pursue this policy with a clear conscience. I feel strongly that it would then be my responsibility, as I have stated many times in the past, to consult my people on the future course of our freedom struggle... I continue to remain committed to finding a peaceful and negotiated resolution to the issue of Tibet with the Chinesegovernment directly. "The preparations for the referendum as indicated by His Holiness has started in all earnestness. However, it will be important to point out here that there will be no change in the present "middle way "policy until the final verdict of the Tibetan people on the future policy direction is made clear. An early solution to the Tibet problem w

ould be in the interests of both China and Tibet. If there is peace and friendship between the Chinese and Tibetans on the basis of mutual respect and benefit, it will not only be in the long-term interest of both, but also for peace and stability of the whole region and the world. If the Chinese government policy is to achieve sustained economic development, the precondition for this is political stability and genuine peace. The surest guarantee for a lasting peace and stability is genuine respect for human rights. On the other hand, if the current stalemate continues and the situation in Tibet becomes increasingly desperate, the Tibetan people will be pushed further into a corner from where they will 'be forced to take equally desperate steps both in and outside Tibet. The decision by Tibetans to undertake mass peace march into Tibet, fast unto death in front of the UN headquarters in New York, persistent reports of widespread protest in Tibet, and increasing incidents of small bomb explosions are clear sy

mptoms of the underlying source of frustration and desperation in the minds of the Tibetan people. It is clear from the above that there is a common ground and shared interests for the representatives of the Chinese and Tibetan leadership to come to the negotiating table to resolve the problem peacefully. The Tibetan side has made its consistent and unambiguous stand clear on numerous occasions. But the present Chinese leadership in Beijing has taken a rigid position. The Chinese government wants the Tibetan leadership to declare that Tibet has always been a part of China and that Tibetans will never demand independence as a precondition before any negotiations can start. No Tibetan leader can honestly and truthfully make such a statement on the historical status of Tibet now or in the future. Tibetans have never considered themselves as a part of China. The fact that Tibet was not a part of China in 1950 and that Tibet was invaded is obvious from the following three cases.

A) The Indian Foreign Ministry's letter to the Chinese government on 26 October 1950 states, "Now that the invasion of Tibet has been ordered by the Chinese government, peaceful negotiations can hardly be synchronized with it and there naturally will be fear on the part of the Tibetans that negotiations will be under duress. In the present context of world events, invasion by Chinese troops of Tibet cannot but be regarded as deplorable and in the considered judgment of the Government of India, not in the interest of China or peace.

B) The Irish representative, Frank Aitken, speaking in the UN General Assembly when debating on the Tibet resolution, stated, "For thousands of years, or for a couple of thousand years at any rate, Tibet was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here.

C) In 1949, when Nepal applied for UN membership, it cited its diplomatic relations with Tibet to prove that it was a sovereign nation. The UN accepted this argument and thus effectively recognized Tibet's status as a sovereign nation.

In the light of these facts the Tibetan leadership's position hasbeen that we should not remain fossified in history, although the Tibetan people have a strong historical case for complete independence. Both sides should have the courage and wisdom to consider various options for a amicable and mutually acceptable solution for the future. To enable both sides to do this, the Tibetan proposal has been to start negotiations without any restrictive preconditions. Meaningful negotiations can begin by discussing the most immediate problems relating to education, socioeconomic development, the environment, and the most serious problem of Chinese population influx in Tibet. If satisfactory solutions to these problems can be found the larger political questions can be addressed in an atmosphere of trust and friendship. Until and unless the Tibetan leadership has a viable alternative to offer to the Tibetan people, it will have no moral and political justification to persuade them to abandon their independence moveme

nt. We con not ignore the fact that there is also very strong opinion for complete independence within the Tibetan national movement. However, it will be true to say that the start of any serious negotiation itself will help to reduce the current heightened tension and create a more relaxed atmosphere. Mr. Deng Xiaoping said one must seek truth from facts.

Our seeking support for the cause of Tibet from the international community is neither anti-China nor pro-Tibet. It is simply protruth and projustice. In order to draw a fair and objective conclusion from the claims and counterclaims of the Chinese and Tibetans, one must address the following questions,

a. Was Tibet not an independent nation before the 1949 invasion?

b. From whom did the Chinese Communist forces liberate Tibet?

c. Is Chinese rule in Tibet legally justifiable?

d. Is the Tibetan government in exile the legitimate representation of the Tibetan peoples?

e. Do Tibetans have the right to self-determination?

f. Have the liberators brought more benefit or sugerings and destruction's?

g. Are there not serious violations of Human Rights in Tibet?

h. Are there not serious long-term consequences of the ongoing environmental destruction's and nuclear pollution?

i. Which party is responsible for the deadlock in finding an amicable solution over thepast 17 years?

The international community has the moral and political responsibility to stand up for truth and justice. It must support the voices of reason and nonviolence if we want to make the world a more peaceful and happy place to live in. If these fundamental questions are raised, the very raison d'ętre of the Chinese claim will be exposed and it will have no grounds to accuse others of interference in their internal affairs. We have no doubt that if the international community takes a strong and principled stand it will have a very positive influence on Chinese attitude and policy as China becomes more open and more democratic. TASHI DELEK !