Published by: World Tibet Network News Saturday, November 15, 1997

John Kennedy: Given China's embrace of capitalism, its gradual openness to the world, and its warming relationship with the U.S., do you expect any substantive changes to materialize?

The Dalai Lama: It's difficult to say. Generally, I believe a change in the Chinese economy has already taken place but without much change in their propaganda. That is why the Chinese government is considering a closer relationship with the U.S. They still say they are Marxists, and they are still an authoritarian regime. Yet even if they are still very much in control, they have far less influence than they used to. It has become a Marxist regime without Marxist ideology. I also feel the Chinese government is deliberately trying to project an image of the United States as an antagonizing force in the world. The Chinese authorities may fear that if relations become very cordial with the West, particularly the United States, it will compromise their ability to maintain an authoritarian government.

JK: What are you hopeful for in the short term for Tibet?

DL: In the short term? [Chuckles] Nothing! Beijing has closed the door completely on any negotiations. So we can do nothing except appeal to our friends in the U.S.-- the government and some individuals-- for help. But in the long run, I am optimistic. More and more Chinese are aware of the Tibetan situation. In the past, their knowledge was based on the wrong information-- from government propaganda. Yet intellectuals have the facility to inquire, to search for correct information. As a result, there are more Chinese showing sympathy and concern. These people are very critical of the government's policy regarding the Tibet issue. As time passes, with a more open society the truth will be harder to hide. Sooner or later, a mutually agreed upon solution must be found in the interest of the Chinese themselves. The present situation benefits neither the Tibetans nor the Chinese. For the Chinese, the top concern is stability and unity in the motherland. This cannot be achieved by force. Up to now, superficial st

ability has been achieved through immense force, but this cannot solve the real problem. I think my approach has the best chance of succeeding, which is to neither ask for nor seek independence and show a willingness to remain with China so long as we have genuine self-rule in the fields of education, culture, and particularly religion. How can a communist regime govern religion?

JK: Are there preconditions that the Chinese have laid down for resuming communications with them?

DL: Yes. Publicly, they say as soon as the Dalai Lama gives up the struggle for Tibetan independence, they are prepared to talk. First of all, it's quite clear in my mind that although we are separate nations and we Tibetans have every right to demand independence, in reality this will be difficult to achieve. Second, Tibet is a huge, landlocked country with a small population -- economically backward yet with rich natural resources. If we joined another big nation, we might get greater benefits for our people. As I stated five years ago and repeat today, I would not carry any responsibility or have an official or governmental position. The Tibetan government should be a democratically elected government. Now, regarding democracy, it will take the education of the majority of the people to persuade them of the worth of democratic institutions. This is very important, and I think it will be difficult. No Tibetan would say they wanted to restore autocracy if the Chinese allowed us to be responsible for everyth

ing. We want a genuine democratic government. But judging from experience and from events in neighboring Nepal, Ladakh, and Arunachal, elections only come after fighting. Recently, and Italian friend who had been in Nepal told me about the elections there. Everyone goes to the polling stations as if they were going to a war. So I feel it is in our own interest to have law and order in the hands of the Chinese, provided Tibetans have complete freedom in the other areas I mentioned. I think the middle way I suggest, genuine self-rule is in our best interest.

JK: How confident are you that the Tibetan people will be able to develop a functioning democracy? When you left, Tibet was semifeudal, and for the last 38 years it has been under an authoritarian regime. What is there to suggest that the country will have a stable, democratically elected government?

DL: There is no other choice. The democratic system is the best, though it has many defects and faults. In the refugee community, I think there are people with democratic experience. In the monasteries, there was always a democratic principle. So if we properly explain things, the people will be able to handle democracy. This is my feeling.

JK: You are both a political and a religious leader. If you had to choose one role over the other, which would it be?

DL: Oh, the religious role, definitely. I feel my way of thinking is better suited to the spiritual role, not political. Politics is only one element of the life of a society. Religion provides the right kind of motivation, the right kind of mental attitude. This is the basis of our survival, the basis of a happy society or happy individual. It doesn't just mean some ceremony in a monastery, or rituals. In order to produce good politicians, you need healthy human life, and a good upbringing is key. In the eyes of some, my role seems political, but that's because my Buddhism is so closely linked to the Tibetan freedom struggle. Once we return to Tibet, and a democratic government has been installed, I would not want to involve myself in politics. I sometimes dream I am just an ordinary monk, not the Dalai Lama. So perhaps this is one indication.

JK: If you look at the conflicts in Northern Ireland and the Middle East, there are negotiations between the opposing sides because all the parties have engaged in violence. They remained a threat to each other while pursuing a peaceful settlement. Because you are an apostle of nonviolence, your campaign will never threaten China. Does this make you less effective?

DL: Yes and no. [Laughs] One Chinese official actually said that Tibetans in Tibet are less likely to be violent because they are Buddhist. So I think he should have gone on to say that this is because the Dalai Lama always emphasizes the principle of nonviolence.

JK: They didn't even want to give you credit for that?

DL: Yes! Recently, a Chinese official expressed the view that so long as Tibet is Buddhist and has its own culture, there is always the threat of Tibetan separation. It is not surprising that the Chinese carry out political indoctrination campaigns in the monasteries and nunneries, in schools and offices. So our campaign has less to do with me and more to do with all Tibetans.

JK: How do you reply to young people who believe there is little to show for your advocacy of nonviolence? In the movements led by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., there were always people who grew impatient. how do you keep these more extreme elements calm?

DL: I disagree with radicals who say the Chinese only know force and do not know compassion or nonviolence. I argue with them about [how effective the] violent way would be. We have few guns and little ammunition, but where can we get more? We can buy some on the open market, but then how can we send them to Tibet? Even if we have 100,000 rifles and sufficient ammunition, to the Chinese this is nothing. if we involve 100,000 Tibetans, several thousand people will be killed, and for the Chinese, losing a few thousand people is nothing. Even 20,000, 30,000 people is nothing to them. Suppose 100,000 Chinese are killed. Then the Chinese immediately bring in another 200,000 soldiers. The result is more suppression, more oppression, some publicity and headlines in major newspapers for a week or two, and that will be all. It is very easy to say we want to fight the Chinese, but in reality the implementation is not easy. They often make comparisons with the Palestinians, who have the support of many governments -- s

ome publicly, some behind the scenes. The Palestinians have the support of all Arabs. Their opponent, Israel, is very efficient but otherwise very small. So we cannot compare our situation with theirs. That is what I tell them.

JK: Even China's critics concede that China has in some ways modernized Tibet. do you think modernization would have occurred if the Chinese had not invaded?

DL: Certainly! There is no doubt.

JK: How would it have occurred? Tibet was really an isolated and underdeveloped country.

DL: It's difficult to say. I don't know what would have happened if we had stayed in Tibet. but I believe that after I took on the responsibility [of being the Dalai Lama], most probably we would have come in contact with the outside world, and then automatically change would have come. Since my childhood, I have had a keen interest in technology, and from the time I was 13 or 14, I have had a keen desire to build a road between India and Lhasa. in 1950, when I escaped on horseback from Lhasa to Yatung on the Indian border, I watched every part of the road on my way and felt we could expand it at certain points by several feet so that a jeep could pass. So I had this kind of desire and feeling the whole way. Sometimes, I want to say to the Chinese that we have been refugees for the last 38 years, and in education and other fields we have become quite a successful refugee community. This proves that if we Tibetans have the opportunity, we can carry on quite satisfactorily without Chinese help.

JK: There are a lot of reasons America seeks better relations with China, most of them economic. Why should American politicians risk relations with China over the issue of Tibet when most Americans have so little contact with Tibet?

DL: The United States has to be involved. Not as a world policeman, but because it is a big nation and has an important responsibility. Although Tibet is physically far away from America and materially backward, it is situated between China and India, the two most populous nations in the world. Two of the fine points of my proposal for Tibet directly affect interests of the United States. One is that Tibet become a zone of peace, a buffer between India and China. The second is that we control the amount of ecological and mineral exploitation of Tibet. A good relationship on the basis of mutual trust between India and China is in the interest of world peace. All the major rivers that flow through Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and China originate in Tibet. If there is a dramatic change in the environment, it will affect millions of people on this continent.

JK: The Clinton administration recently created a special post to oversee U.S. relations with Tibet, though it doesn't have ambassadorial rank. Some say this is an empty position, while others say that it's a step in the right direction. How do you feel?

DL: Oh, I think it is very positive to have someone appointed to facilitate a dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. This is certainly an important step.

JK: You are the envy of many American politicians because you have a coalition of supporters ranging from archconservatives to Hollywood liberals. Not many people can count both Jesse Helms and Richard Gere as friends. How do you do that?

DL: [Laughs] Jesse helms, isn't he a conservative? He is my great friend. Really, it just happened. I have no motivation and made no special effort to bring about a closer relationship. To me, of course, it makes no difference whether someone is a leader or a beggar, as long as they have good human feeling. This is my firm belief. I feel this kind of attitude-- an openness, an extended hand -- is most important irrespective of one's belief, religion, or way of thinking. On a personal level, Jesse Helms seems like a very good human being, at least to me. I don't know how he is with other politicians. [Laughs]. The same goes for Richard Gere. I look at all of them as human beings, so for me, there is no problem.

JK: You have many roles to play: religious leader, political leader, world advocate for Tibet. Your life is not easy. If you weren't the Dalai Lama, have you though of what you might have become?

DL: If I had stayed in my own small village, then most probably a farmer or a mechanic or, say, the driver of a bulldozer or a tractor. After that, I don't know. If I were not the Dalai Lama, I would prefer to remain in an isolated area and spend more time in meditation. I expressed my desire to take a three-year retreat in complete isolation. I feel if the opportunity comes to return to Tibet, I would like to go to as many places there and in mainland China as I can. But I do not want to discontinue or neglect my connections with friends in the outside world. I consider the friendship, support, and help we have received during our difficult period very, very precious. It is absolutely wrong to forget these friendships, so until my death, I want to keep these close relations. In the meantime, I want to spend more time in some remote place in meditation. That is my wish.

JK: You keep a very busy schedule. you once remarked jokingly that Jewish people get Saturdays off, Christians get Sundays off, so even the Dalai Lama should get a Sunday off every now and then. If you had a week off, what would you do?

DL: Read and study mainly Buddhist texts. On Sundays, I try to be more relaxed and just do my daily prayers -- about four and a half hours in the morning and another two hours in the evening. But I often I have to cut back on these times -- like today, when I had to be here an hour earlier because of this interview. [Laughs]

JK: How do you relax?

DL: Oh! Meditation.

JK: Nothing else? Reading a book, watching sports?

DL: No sports. Of course, some exercise and prostrations in the morning. In my own experience, if your mental state remains calm, alert, and fresh, that in itself is a form of relaxation. There is no anxiety, doubt or tension inside you.

JK: So you are free from doubt?

DL: When I say doubt, I mean a lack of self confidence. I think I have almost no doubt. As far as my motivation is concerned, as long as it is generally sincere and I try to sustain it and then do my work with confidence, even if my work doesn't achieve its goal, it doesn't matter. No regrets. So again, as far as my motivation is concerned, as far as my effort is concerned, I am done. So there is no need for any anxiety or mental burden.

JK: Some years ago, you said you had two cats, but you didn't want them because they represented too much attachment. What did you mean by that?

DL: Cats or dogs, of course, are very good for someone who looks after them. But when they suffer and die, it causes a lot of disturbances. [When I was a boy,] my senior tutor was very fond of dogs, but when I asked him if I should keep a dog, he... told me that when the dog gets sick or dies, it's an extra burden or worry. [Laughs].

JK: So you have no pets?

DL: I have two parrots, but I feel both parrots escaped from some cage somewhere. One parrot's legs are not very good. Somehow they reached here, and I kept them. On my side, there was no effort. Similarly, one cat was around my kitchen, and then there were a few kittens. One of the kittens was paralyzed, and it was brought to my room, and I took care of it. So in the future, if a paralyzed cat or dog is brought to my place, then I will keep it. Otherwise, I do not want to go in search.

JK: One of the principles of karma is that if you do good deeds, they will come back to you. Why do you think all this misfortune has befallen the Tibetan people? What happened in a previous time that could have led to this?

DL: That is, of course, basically due to karma. but this does not mean that Buddhism is wrong or these people are wrong. Circumstances change. Times change. Sometimes it happens. But I don't believe it's because we did anything wrong.

JK: This fall you and your work will receive a lot of attention because of the two films coming out about your life. How do the films about you affect your diplomatic efforts? Do they hurt or help your cause?

DL: They are definitely helpful. The reason I believe this is because if you look at the support we received in the early 1960s, it was mainly from governments with certain reasons. As far as America is concerned, at that time support for Tibet was part of a grand strategy against communism and Eastern power. The support we are receiving now is because of growing sympathy and concern. It is a reflection of the media-- practically every place I have visited, the media have been very supportive. This has had an effect of governments that have been reluctant to say or do something about the Tibet issue. Therefore, these films will certainly increase the public's awareness, and as a result, more sympathy and more concern will come. not necessarily an immediate big change, but in the long run that information will... reach the minds of the Chinese intellectuals and the Chinese people. Earlier this year, during my visit to Washington, D.C., I was meeting with ten or 12 Chinese intellectuals-- writers, artists, Mar

xist theologists. Afterward, I met with each individual, and there was one Chinese who I as told was a famous writer. He approached me and said that what the Chinese have done to the Tibetans cannot be justified by just saying we are sorry. He then held my hand and started weeping. Once people get a clearer picture of the nature of the struggle, certain feelings arise. So I feel that more publicity, more awareness about Tibet, is eventually very, very helpful. I believe that basically the Tibet issue is a moral issue and also a justice issue. Tibet is small and China is big, and immediately one gets the impression of a bully. Between Pakistan and India, or the Palestinians and Israel, you may not have that kind of feeling, but in the case of Tibet, this is very obvious, and that also makes a difference in the minds of people.

JK: The last point I want to address before our talk ends regards a controversial article in the October issue of George. It focused on the CIA's involvement in your escape from Tibet, and whether the intelligence agency persuaded the Buddhist oracle to tell you to leave Tibet in 1950 and how to do it.

DL: There was no connection between the oracle and the CIA. I think, among some who were involved with the CIA in the early 1960s, there is the impression that my escape was entirely planned by the CIA. This is not true. The escape was initiated by us. Later, the CIA somehow got involved in Tibet, gave some material, some aid. But it's not true that the CIA persuaded me to leave.

JK: Do you ever regret that perhaps you did not have a choice in the life that you have had to lead?

DL: Perhaps. I don't think about preferring this or that. If there is real opportunity for choice, then of course it is right to think. Otherwise, there is no use thinking about it. Now I realize that if I utilize this position properly, it will be a good opportunity for me, as a Buddhist monk, to create a lot of positive merit, and obviously I can serve more people. Also, as a human being, if there is a challenge, it is a good opportunity to utilize the meaning of your life. After all, the purpose of our life is to do something good for others.