A Tibetan response to Chinese allegations

The Xinhua news agency published an article on 17 April I997, entitled Dalai Lama"s Negotiations Offer "Trickery" Hiding Separatist Intent. The article is a gross distortion of reality and intended to mislead the international public. We, therefore, present the following factual accounts of relationship between the Tibetan and the Chinese leadership.

EARLY INITIATIVES SPURNED

The Xinhua article accuses His Holiness the Dalai Lama of not being interested in negotiating a solution to the Tibetan issue. In reality, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has made a number of proposals for negotiations since he first came into exile. More importantly, in the light of political changes in China after Mao"s death in 1976, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in his statement to the Tibetan people on 10 March 1978, said: "(T)he Chinese should allow the Tibetans in Tibet to visit their parents and relatives now in exile... Similar opportunity should be given to the Tibetans in exile. Under such an arrangement can we be confident of knowing the true situation inside Tibet."

Towards the end of 1978, Li Juisin, director of Xinhua News Agency in Hong Kong, invited Gyalo Thondup, elder brother of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, to visit China to discuss the Tibet issue. In late February 1979 Thondup visited Beijing with the approval of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Chinese leaders told him that the 1959 Uprising in Tibet had been inspired by a number of factors for which His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people could not be blamed. Deng Xiaoping personally assured Thondup that except for the issue of Tibetan independence, China was willing to discuss and resolve all other issues. His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government responded by sending three fact-finding delegations to Tibet in 1979 and 1980.

His Holiness followed this up with several confidence-building measures to pave the way for negotiations. On 21 July 1980 he reiterated his earlier suggestion that travel restrictions be eased on Tibetans willing to visit their relatives in and outside Tibet. In September 1980 the Tibetan Government-in-Exile offered to send 50 Tibetan teachers to teach in Tibet. The exile government also offered to open a liaison office in Beijing to foster closer contacts between the two sides. On 14 December 1980 the exile government asked the Chinese authorities to allow eleven Tibetan scholars from Tibet to attend a conference of Tibetologists in India.

On 23 March 1981 His Holiness the Dalai Lama wrote to Deng Xiaoping and said: "Time has come to apply our common wisdom in the spirit of tolerance and broad-mindedness to achieve genuine happiness for the Tibetan people with renewed urgency. On my part, I remain committed to contribute to the welfare of all human beings and, in particular, the poor and the weak, to the best of my ability, without making any discrimination based on nationalities. I hope you will let me know your views on the foregoing points." There was no reply to this letter.

In April 1982 His Holiness the Dalai Lama sent a three-member high-level delegation to Beijing for exploratory talks with the Chinese leadership. The Tibetan delegation put forward a number of broad proposals for consideration by the Chinese leaders. Also, both the parties agreed to keep the proceedings confidential. However, soon after the Tibetan delegation reached India on 8 June 1982, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman gave a distorted version f the meeting, alluding that the Tibetan delegates had asked for the same status for Tibet as had been promised to Taiwan. The Associated Press news despatch of 18 June 1982 quoted the Chinese spokesman of having remarked, "There simply does not exist the question of applying the nine-point policy to Tibet as in the case of Taiwan."

Despite all this, the Tibetan side strictly adhered to its agreement of confidentiality and did not divulge the content of the talks even when questioned by the press. As a result, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile came under strong criticism from Tibetans and their international supporters.

In February 1983 His Holiness the Dalai Lama expressed his desire to visit Tibet. In October 1984 a three-member delegation was sent to Beijing to ask the Chinese government to end its latest round of political repression in Tibet, to discuss arrangements for a possible visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and to explore possibilities for future talks.

APPEAL FOR INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT

The Chinese response to all these above-mentioned overtures werenegative. In fact, it was then becoming increasingly apparent that the leadership in Beijing was not sincere and serious about finding a negotiated solution to the issue of Tibet. Rather, it was only trying to buy time to further tighten its grip on Tibet.

His Holiness was thus left with no choice but to appeal directly to the international community for help, which he did by outlining the Five-Point Peace Plan for Tibet during his address to the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus on 21 September 1987. He followed this up by unveiling the Strasbourg Proposal during his address at the European Parliament on 15 June 1988. As a gesture of goodwill, the copies of the two statements were given to the Chinese government, through it New Delhi Embassy, before they were made public. The Strasbourg Proposal was so conciliatory that it disappointed many Tibetans who felt that the proposal compromised on the issue of independence of Tibet. In fact, a day after His Holiness unveiled the Strasbourg Proposal, the President of Tibetan Youth Congress was quoted in the international press as having said that "no one has the right to give up Tibet"s independence".

EXCUSES FOR STALLING NEGOTIATIONS

The Xinhua article claims that His Holiness the Dalai Lama vitiated the atmosphere for negotiations by advocating Tibetan independence in his Five-Point Peace Plan and Strasbourg Proposal. The truth is that His Holiness the Dalai Lama did not demand Tibetan independence in any of these two proposals, nor in any official document since 1979 when contacts with Beijing were first re-established. In both the Five-Point Peace Plan and the Strasbourg Proposal, His Holiness the Dalai Lama reiterated the obvious truth of Tibet"s independent historical existence. But this was a statement of historical facts rather than an official Tibetan demand.

In his Five-Point Peace Plan, His Holiness the Dalai Lama called for earnest negotiations between the Chinese and Tibetan governments on the future status of Tibet. Outlining the framework for negotiations in his address to the members of European Parliament at Strasbourg, he said that the whole of Tibet " Kham, Amdo and U-Tsang " should become a self-governing political entity "in association with the People"s Republic of China". His Holiness went on to say that "the Government of the People"s Republic of China could remain responsible for Tibet"s foreign policy" and that it "could maintain a restricted number of military installations in Tibet" for defence purposes.

The formal Chinese response to the Strasbourg Proposal came through their New Delhi embassy on 21 September 1988. The Chinese message said that the authorities were willing to have talks with the representatives of His Holiness Dalai Lama at a venue and time of His Holiness" choice. But the Strasbourg Proposal, they said, couldnot be a basis for talks as it sought "disguised form of independence". The Chinese message was conveyed personally to His Holiness the Dalai Lama"s representative in the morning. But in the afternoon of that day, the Chinese embassy made this communication public to the press in New Delhi. It was, thus, the Chinese government which unilaterally decided to make their stand public, contrary to its allegation against the Tibetan leadership.

The Tibetan leadership welcomed the Chinese willingness for talks on 23 September and said, "We hope this positive response to our suggestions is an indication that the Chinese sincerely wish to deal with the issue this time".

In the morning of 25 October 1988 the Tibetan Government-in-Exile informed Chinese government, through its New Delhi embassy, that the talks should begin in Geneva in January 1989. The Tibetan government pointed out that the Strasbourg Proposal was the most reasonable basis for talks as its central principle was to seek a relationship of association and not of separation or independence. Furthermore, the Tibetan government offered to discuss any proposals which the Chinese government may like to put forward. That afternoon the Tibetan government released this information to the press in New Delhi as had the Chinese embassy done on 21 September 1988.

The Chinese government, on 18 November 1988, rejected the venue and the six-member Tibetan negotiating team, including its legal advisor, a Dutch lawyer. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile replied by pointing out that Geneva is the most appropriate venue as it is a neutral place. Reminding the Chinese government of its commitment to negotiate with any representative appointed by His Holiness, the Tibetan message made it clear that it is the prerogative of His Holiness to appoint whomsoever he wants to negotiate on his behalf. As for the Dutch lawyer, the message clarified that he was only a legal advisor and not a member of the negotiating team. As suggested by the Chinese side, the Tibetan government included Gyalo Thondup as an advisor to the negotiation team.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama took further initiatives on 19 April 1989 and suggested through the Chinese embassy in New Delhi that he was willing to "send some representatives to Hong Kong in order to resolve the procedural issues with respect to the negotiations". This and all the earlier initiatives were either ignored or turned down by the Chinese government.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama was thus forced to declare in his 10 March 1991 statement that unless the Chinese government responded positively to his proposals without further delay, he would consider himself free from any obligation to abide by the concessions he had made in the Strasbourg Proposal. The Xinhua article misinterpreted this and accused His Holiness of having said in the late 1980s and the early 1990s that he was not keen on negotiations.

It is true that the Chinese government invited His Holiness the Dalai Lama to attend the funeral ceremony for the late Panchen Lama. The invitation letter, dated 7 February 1989 and delivered to His Holiness on 10 February, said that the funeral ceremony would take place on 15 February. The Tibetan Cabinet discussed the invitation in detail and requested His Holiness not to make the visit since five days were insufficient time to make all the necessary arrangements for the visit. His Holiness immediately informed the Chinese embassy accordingly and expressed his regrets. He, however, said he would like to visit China in the future during which he would also visit the sacred Buddhist sites there. On 1 March 1989 the counsellor of the Chinese embassy in New Delhi met His Holiness the Dalai Lama"s Representative in New Delhi to convey the Chinese government"s reply, which said, "The Central Government understands the Dalai Lama"s inability to come for the Panchen Lama"s funeral ceremony. The Dalai Lama will lat

er have the opportunity to visit China and the Central Government will welcome him."

However, prior to that, in January 1989, His Holiness proposed to send a ten-member Tibetan religious elegation to Jokhang in Lhasa, Tashilhunpo Monastery in Shigatse, and other areas of Tibet, such as Kubum and Labrang Tashikyil, to offer prayers and perform the Kalachakra for the late Panchen Lama. China rejected this request by saying that there was no precedence for a prayer ceremony of this scale and that it could not accept two leaders of the delegation since they were the members of the Kashag. The Tibetan government agreed to withdraw the two leaders and approached the Chinese government once again.

The Chinese response came through its embassy on 17 March 1989 said that only two or three lamas would be allowed to visit only Tashilhunpo Monastery, and that too if they travelled via Beijing. Since the Kalachakra ritual could not be conducted by only two or three lamas, the Tibetans saw no point in sending them.

On 21 March 1991 His Holiness informed the Chinese government through its New Delhi embassy that he would like to assist in the search for the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. His Holiness expressed his desire to send a religious delegation to Lhamoi Lhatso, the sacred lake near Lhasa, to offer prayers and observe visions in the lake. China rejected this proposal three months later by saying that there is no need for "outside interference".

In October 1991, while addressing the students and faculty members of Yale University, His Holiness said that he would like to make a personal visit to Tibet, accompanied by some Chinese leaders. Then in December 1991 he sought a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Peng during the latter"s visit to India. Both these proposals were cold-shouldered by the Chinese leadership.

The continued intransigence of the Chinese leadership prompted the Assembly of Tibetan People"s Deputies to pass a resolution on 23 January 1992, forbidding its government from initiating any new move for negotiations with China unless there was a positive change in the attitude of the Chinese leadership. The resolution, however, noted that Assembly would have no objections to any negotiations if the overtures came from the Chinese government, either directly or through a third party.

Thereafter, in April 1992 the Chinese ambassador in New Delhi called on Gyalo Thondup and told him that the Chinese government"s position in the past had been "conservative", but that it was willing to be "flexible" if the Tibetans were prepared to be "realistic". He invited Thondup to visit China. Seeing this as a very positive gesture, His Holiness and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile readily approved Thondup"s visit to Beijing. This was how the contact was renewed.

In the event, Thondup"s visit to Beijing turned out to be futile. When he reported to His Holiness and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile the substance of his meetings with leaders in Beijing, it transpired that far from displaying any flexibility, the Chinese leaders had merely reiterated the same hardline position. They had also made a number of very serious allegations against His Holiness.

In response to the Chinese government"s allegations, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in September 1992, sent a two-member delegation to the Chinese embassy with a personal letter and a 13-point memorandum, addressed to Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, in which he clarified his position and asked the Chinese authorities to come forward with their own proposals for negotiations since they had failed to accept the Tibetan initiatives. The delegation asked the Chinese Embassy for permission to visit Beijing to deliver His Holiness the Dalai Lama"s letter. The Chinese ambassador asked the Tibetan delegation for a copy of the documents, which the delegates gave.

However, the permission to visit Beijing did not come through for nearly a year. When a two-member Tibetan delegation finally did manage to go to Beijing in July 1993, no important Chinese leaders met them. Instead, the Tibetan delegation was told that the reply to the Dalai Lama"s communication would be transmitted to them in New Delhi by the Chinese ambassador, who happened to be in Beijing at that time.

In Augut 1993 the Tibetan delegates met the Chinese ambassador in Delhi to ask for the Chinese government"s response. The ambassador merely told them that there should be no problem in resolving the Tibetan issue if His Holiness the Dalai Lama stopped demanding independence. A few days later, a three-member Tibetan delegation visited the Chinese embassy with the text of all the statements made by His Holiness since 1979 and asked the ambassador to point out one statement where His Holiness had demanded independence for Tibet. The delegation also suggested a mechanism for having regular monthly meetings at the Chinese embassy in order to exchange views and ideas as a confidence-building measure.

Thereafter, in an interview given to Reuter"s Delhi correspondent on 25 August 1993, the Chinese ambassador had expressed his rejection of the Tibetan proposals. It is thus clear that, contrary to the Xinhua allegation, His Holiness had not announced any "decision to discontinue all contacts with the central government in the second half of 1993".

Again, on 27 April 1994 His Holiness the Dalai Lama, while addressing the New York Lawyers" Alliance for World Security and the Council of Foreign Relations, said he was willing to "meet any members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo in a third country" to "make a breakthrough in our relationship".

As recently as 10 March 1997, His Holiness said in his public address, "It is my sincere hope that the succeeding Chinese leadership (post-Deng) will find the courage, wisdom and vision for new openings to solve the Tibetan issue through negotiations."

DISTORTION OF HISTORY

The Chinese government has consistently sought to stall the negotiations by saying that His Holiness has not declared Tibet as part of China. This is tantamount to asking him to distort the history of Tibet. Tibet"s historical status as an independent nation cannot be denied. Even the last Chinese official Representative in Tibet, Shen Tsung-Lien, conceded that "since 1911 Lhasa (i.e. the Tibetan Government in Lhasa) has to all practical purposes enjoyed full independence," [Tibet and the Tibetans, Shen, T. and Liu, S., New York, 1973, p.62]. Mao Zedong himself, when he passed through the border regions of Tibet during the Long March and was given food and shelter by local Tibetans remarked: "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them," [Red Star over China, Edgar Snow, New York, 1961].

Until recently, Communist China based its claim to Tibet on the marriage of Tibetan king Songtsen Gampo to a Chinese princess in the seventh century, conveniently forgetting the Tibetan king"s senior queen, Princess Brikuti Devi of Nepal, and three other Tibetan queens. When Beijing could not sustain this position any longer, they shifted the period of their claim to the thirteenth century, basing it on the establishment of Mongol influence in Tibet. However, the Mongols are a different nation and the Chinese have always considered them as aliens. In 1911, when the Nationalist revolution toppled the Manchu dynasty, Sun Yatsen said that China had been occupied twice by foreign powers: the first by the Mongols and the second by the Manchus. In any case, the Mongol influence in Tibet came to an end in 1350, 18 years before China overthrew them.

In 1949, when Nepal applied for the UN membership, it cited its diplomatic relations with Tibet, especially its 1856 treaty 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.

During the 1960 UN General Assembly debate on Tibet, Irish Representative Frank Aiken stated: "For thousands of years, or for a couple of thousand years at any rate, (Tibet) was a 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".

The studies of International Commission of Jurists, the US Congress, the German Bundestag and many other independent bodies also testified to Tibet"s independent status at the time of its invasion by China. In a speech delivered in Islamabad, Pakistan, on 23 March 1996, Margaret Thatcher said, "China has occupied Tibet", which effectively meant Tibet had been an independent country in the past.

COLONIAL CLAIMS

China uses a classic colonial argument to legitimize its occupation of Tibet by saying that it liberated Tibet from "dark, feudal serfdom". The Tibetan people, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama, acknowledge that the traditional Tibetan society was by no means perfect. However, people lived a life of contentment and free from starvation for 2,000 years until the Chinese invasion of 1949. Moreover, His Holiness the Dalai Lama initiated far-reaching reforms in Tibet as soon as he assumed temporal authority. He continued the reforms after coming into exile in 1959. In 1960 the first representative form of government, with the popularly-elected Assembly of Tibetan People"s Deputies (Tibetan Parliament in Exile), was introduced in India. In 1963 he promulgated a constitution for the future Tibet, based on the principles of modern democracy.

In February 1992, he announced the Guidelines for Future Tibet"s Polity and the Basic Features of its Constitution, in which he stated that he would not play any role in the future government of Tibet, let alone seek the Dalai Lama"s traditional political position. The future government of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai Lama said, would be elected by the people on the basis of adult franchise. He said that the struggle of the Tibetan people is neither to restore the past traditional system nor to restore the status of a few individuals.

TITLE AND SELECTION OF THE DALAI LAMA

The Chinese government"s claim of having granted the title "Dalai Lama" and approved the selection of the Dalai Lamas is false. The title "Dalai Lama" was first conferred on the third Dalai Lama, Sonam Gyatso, by Mongol Prince Altan Khan in 1578.

It is absurd to claim that the Chinese government approved the selection of the 14th Dalai Lama through its envoy, Wu Zhongxin. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, like his predecessors, was selected according to the age-old religious beliefs and traditions of Tibet. The approval of the Chinese government was neither needed nor sought. The 14th Dalai Lama was confirmed by the Tsongdu (Tibetan National Assembly) in 1939, well before Wu ever set foot on Tibet.

When the enthronement ceremony took place on 22 February 1940, Wu was just a guest, like the representatives from other neighbouring countries, such as British India, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan. The Chinese claim relies chiefly on a photograph of the young Dalai Lama with Wu Zhongxin, which the Chinese propaganda describes as having been taken when Wu puportedly officiated the enthronement of the Dalai Lama.

According to Ngabo Ngawang Jigme, Vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People"s Congress, this photo was taken a few days after the ceremony, when Wu had a private audience with the Dalai Lama.

The official Chinese paper, Tibet Daily, on 31 August 1998, quoted Ngabo as having said, "Wu Zhongxin"s claim of having presided over the ceremony" is a "blatant distortion of historical facts. ... If we insist on saying ... that Wu Zhongxin had presided over the enthronement ceremony, we are contradicting historical facts."

OPPRESSION BEGETS PROTESTS

The Xinhua article accuses the Tibetan Government-in-Exile of having instigated the Lhasa demonstrations of 1988 and 1989. There is no need for any one to stir up unrest in Tibet. When people are subjected to oppression, suppression and tyranny, as the people of Tibet have been forso long, it is natural for them to react with resistance movements.

Similarly, peace marches and referenda are non-violent means of finding a solution to the problem of Tibet. All oppressed peoples have the right to fight for their legitimate rights. And these are non-violent means which the people of the world everywhere, including the Chinese people, admire and respect. It is worth noting that while preparations for the referendum have started in all earnestness, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has made it absolutely clear that there will be no change in his present "Middle Way Approach" until the verdict of the referendum decides otherwise.

TAIWAN VISIT

The recent visit by His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Taiwan was in keeping with his long-term desire to reach out to "Chinese brothers and sisters". He stated on 24 February 1997, "Although my visit to Taiwan will be religious in nature, there are some who wish to interpret it politically. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that the Tibetan struggle is neither anti-Chinese nor anti-China."

As a matter of fact, the visit was received very positively by the people of Taiwan, including many overseas Chinese. If the people of China had a free voice, they too would definitely welcome such a visit. It goes without saying that the visit has benefitted millions of Taiwanese: Buddhists, and even non-Buddhists.

THE BOMB BLASTS

Time and again, the Tibetan leadership has categorically denied the allegations that it has instigated the demonstrations and bomb explosions in Tibet. It has asked the Chinese government to produce substantive evidence to support these serious allegations and also allow an independent international commission to visit Tibet and determine the real causes. If indeed the Chinese government has evidences to back their claim, why does not it produce them? One piece of evidence is worth more than a million words.

In the end, we are confident that when China becomes comfortable with democracy and freedom, it will become comfortable with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his willingness to settle the Tibetan issue peacefully and to the satisfaction of both parties.