PDA

View Full Version : Tibet exiles decide against independence



Ordie
11-23-2008, 01:47 AM
Tibet exiles decide against seeking independence -- for now

They agree to stick with the Dalai Lama's 'middle way,' but say they will be more confrontational if Beijing doesn't grant Tibet greater autonomy soon.
By Mark Magnier

November 23, 2008

Reporting from Beijing — Exiled Tibetans have agreed to continue with the Dalai Lama's accommodating approach toward China despite years of frustration and failed talks, their self-declared government said Saturday.

But for the first time, the exile group said it would pursue independence if Beijing doesn't grant more autonomy soon.

The "middle way" stance that Tibetans have followed for two decades acknowledges Chinese sovereignty over their homeland amid hope that they will gain greater say over religious and cultural affairs.

The decision to maintain the status quo capped six days of talks in which about 580 exiles from around the world met in the mountainous Indian town of Dharamsala to confront a central issue facing the group.

The Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader, is 73 and slowing down, as highlighted by a recent hospital stay for gallstone surgery. China, meanwhile, is getting stronger as its military, political and economic clout expands at home and abroad.

"Aside from the decision to continue with the middle-way approach, in a lot of other ways we suggested how to be less conciliatory toward the Chinese government," Tenzin Dorjee, a delegate to the meeting, said Saturday by telephone from Dharamsala.

"It's a wake-up moment, realizing that we can't afford to continue waiting for conciliatory dialogue," added Dorjee, the New York-based deputy director of the Students for a Free Tibet. "Although the results are anticlimactic, it's significant that we'll continue the middle way for a defined amount of time, maybe two or three years."

The Chinese military marched into Tibet in 1951, shortly after Communists gained control of China. Since then, Beijing has maintained tight control over ethnic Tibetan areas, seen most recently in the crackdown that has followed widespread riots in March.

Though the Dalai Lama said all points of view would be considered when he called the meeting, analysts and delegates said the outcome was almost a foregone conclusion, with the meeting aimed more at reaffirming support than finding a new direction.

At the same time, even those closest to the leader acknowledge growing frustration, with some seeing this meeting as the beginning of a course correction.

Dolma Gyari, deputy speaker of the Tibetan parliament in exile, told reporters that the group would not pursue a conciliatory line indefinitely, and that it was halting talks with Beijing, according to the Associated Press.

Amid the endorsement of the middle way, the meeting sent a strong message to the Chinese, said Kate Saunders, communications director for the International Campaign for Tibet. In particular, she said, many expressed anger over China's long-standing attempts to drive a wedge between Tibetans and their leader.

"So the approach by China, to undermine the Dalai Lama, is having the opposite effect," she said. "It's clear the Tibetan people are extremely angry about that, and the specter of independence is very much there."

Whether China cares is another question. Some Chinese acknowledge quietly that they've failed to win over many Tibetans despite a massive, decades-long spending campaign on roads, schools, railroads and other infrastructure and untold hours of "patriotic education" sessions designed to bind people to Beijing. But that viewpoint is difficult to express openly, given the current mantra to be tough.

"The China side is hobbled by internal contradictions," said Robert Barnett, a professor of Tibetan studies at Columbia University. "More reasonable voices are sidelined because of the riots, bringing to the fore the hard-line view that if you give them an inch, they riot, so we must control them."

Longer term, however, the hard-line tactics may be unsustainable, he said. Keeping nearly one-third of your country's landmass under intensive restrictions isn't consistent with being an emerging global player.

"It would be as if all of Texas and most of the South were off-limits," Barnett said. "You can't make it on the international stage with that sort of arrangement."

Source:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-tibet23-2008nov23,0,5663955,print.story

hskywalker
11-23-2008, 03:22 AM
When dalai lama dies, those tibetan in exiles will be forgotten by the world. And the tibetan government in exile will lost all influence on tibetans in tibet.They want a deal, they better be quick.If dalai lama want a hongkong, macau style autonomy, that's simply impossible.

China doesn't have much to offer to dalai lama's political idea, except something for himself, like back to tibet as religious leader, choosing his successor...The cuurent frame in tibet is overally actually quite good. Free travel, equalty between different people, no monks dictating politics, economy develops fast.

jokuvaan
11-23-2008, 04:53 AM
Giving large scale autonomy would be sensible move from China. If war breaks out it will be big mess and a tool for any potential foreign enemy to work against China. Never ending flow of body bags and web-videos.

Mynameischarlie
11-23-2008, 06:17 AM
^^ Hmm that's right.
Tibetans should look at Nepal's "foreign politics freedom" before they decide for independence.
There will be political freedom & religious freedom for everyone or for no one in China - totally impossible to introduce the HK & Macau solution given Tibet's current economy condition..
The Tibetan exiles community should fight on their own without Western support, because many people in the Chinese government currently see them as tools of the anti-China-group in the West.
Tibetan exiles should listen to the oldest Vietnamese proverb: "You have to with the Dragon."

sailun
11-23-2008, 06:29 AM
in the violence some one fight for independence ,others fight for territorial integrity .some die ~~~~~some hurt .who win ? maybe either mabe no one .you like take a AK-47 shoot the civilian for independence,i like drive a tank to hunt you for my people my country,you like you job i like my job too .so life is excitingroflwe are all hero ~~~our photo always in daily headline .we all just animal ~~mayberoflrofl
p-) sorry for my terrible English:roll:

Ordie
11-23-2008, 01:18 PM
If his holiness were to pass away, I think the next generation of exiles will be less compromising. I would expect a major public relations disaster for China if and when a successor is chosen.

If the selction of the Pachen Lama was bad enough, expect expect the selection of the Dalai Lama to draw more bad press for China.

At the same time, the CCP needs to review its policies within Tibet. Oviobusly the railway and economic devlopment was not enough to placate the Tibetians. Moreover, Han Chinese cheauvanist and patronizing attitudes within Tibet has caused tensions at the street level.

It would be a good idea if the Governor and Party Secretary of Tibet were to be Tibetian vs. Han Chinese appointed from Beijing. China needs someone to bridge the cultural, social and political needs of Tibet and Beijing.

Moreover, the CCP Central Committee membership needs to reflet the society its serves. This should include people who are women, Tibetians, Uighurs, and from Hong Kong.

Eventine
11-23-2008, 01:55 PM
Giving large scale autonomy would be sensible move from China. If war breaks out it will be big mess and a tool for any potential foreign enemy to work against China. Never ending flow of body bags and web-videos.

I don't think you understand the role of Tibet from the perspective of the PRC. It's a buffer zone. If a war should break out, they figure, better to fight it in sparsely populated Tibet than the densely populated Chinese interior. The destructiveness of modern warfare ensures that any war fought in China's interior would be catastrophic in terms of body count. So, the Chinese figure, we'll move the battlefield to Tibet, which forms a natural defensive barrier (lots of mountains, higher ground, etc.) and spares our cities and towns from attack.

Of course, this setup sucks for Tibetans, which is why the Dalai Lama has repeatedly called for Tibet to be demilitarized.

Sumadinac
11-23-2008, 08:47 PM
What does "greater autonomy" mean in concrete terms?

Ordie
11-24-2008, 01:08 AM
What does "greater autonomy" mean in concrete terms?

In China 'face' is everything.
Symantics is equated to "face". Full fledge independence is a no-starter for the Chinese. The only leverage the Tibetians have is worldwide public opinion. Especially if and when China captures attention as in the Olympics.

Now that the Olympics are over andglobal attention has shifted to the economy, the Tibetian have less leverage and are at the decision point.

Given the article, the Tibetians seems to have the attitude that getting something is better than nothing.

Hence 'autonomy' within the PRC vs. full independence.

Eventine
11-24-2008, 02:16 AM
What does "greater autonomy" mean in concrete terms?

All the actual negotiations are done behind closed doors and nobody publishes the details, so in that sense what I post below might not be the whole picture. That said, based on the Tibetan government-in-exile's public policy papers and broadly speaking, here's the current "Middle Way" approach referred to by the Dalai Lama and the TGIE:

E. Important Components of the Middle-Way Approach

Without seeking independence for Tibet, the Central Tibetan Administration strives for the creation of a political entity comprising the three traditional provinces of Tibet;
Such an entity should enjoy a status of genuine national regional autonomy;
This autonomy should be governed by the popularly-elected legislature and executive through a democratic process and should have an independent judicial system;
As soon as the above status is agreed upon by the Chinese government, Tibet would not seek separation from, and remain within, the People?s Republic of China;
Until the time Tibet is transformed into a zone of peace and non-violence, the Chinese government can keep a limited number of armed forces in Tibet for its protection;
The Central Government of the People?s Republic of China has the responsibility for the political aspects of Tibet?s international relations and defence, whereas the Tibetan people should manage all other affairs pertaining to Tibet, such as religion and culture, education, economy, health, ecological and environmental protection;
The Chinese government should stop its policy of human rights violations in Tibet and the transfer of Chinese population into Tibetan areas;
To resolve the issue of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai Lama shall take the main responsibility of sincerely pursuing negotiations and reconciliation with the Chinese government.

Source: http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=115&rmenuid=11

By contrast, the PRC has not put forth any sort of policy paper on how to resolve the Tibetan issue, so their stance is even more unclear. In fact, I think they don't even agree with the TGIE as to what "Tibet" refers to - the Chinese side thinks that it refers to the TAR, while the Tibetan side thinks that it refers to "Greater Tibet" (ie Tibet and its three traditional provinces, much of which was integrated into Chinese provinces).

There is also a significant amount of distrust between the two sides. The Chinese believe that the TGIE is using autonomy only as a temporary platform for future independence and objects to the TGIE's demand that China's existing provinces be redrawn to fit their definition. They also object to the TGIE's demand that Chinese immigration into the area be ceased (which, in the 1987 proposal, also included removal of existing Chinese settlers; not sure if that still holds).

Ultimately, though, I suspect that a good deal of the intransigence on the Chinese side is due to their fear of setting a precedent or appearing to be "weak." As the PRC often boasts, it is composed of 56 national groups and if they should all follow the Tibetans' example to demand their own regional autonomies, the PRC would be finished - it would be fragmented beyond repair, politically speaking, even if it's still one country in name. For this reason and perhaps others, the CCP has been excessively obtuse and refuses to give any legitimacy whatsoever to the TGIE and its demands. At least, that's part of how I interpret it, without knowing what goes on exactly during those negotiations.

Mynameischarlie
11-24-2008, 07:59 AM
Number 5 and 6 are contradicting eachother. If China is responsible for defence, it has to station forces (at least airforce squadrons) in Tibet.
Number 6 is already more than just autonomy - just look how much autonomy other ethnic groups allaround the world get from their central governments, e.g. the Catalanes in Spain.

Sumadinac
11-24-2008, 12:34 PM
So it would be like a State within the State...

Ordie
11-24-2008, 03:26 PM
So it would be like a State within the State...

Think of it as Scotland's association within the United Kingdom.

Calanen
11-24-2008, 04:26 PM
What does "greater autonomy" mean in concrete terms?

It means you can tell the West that Tibet now has greater autonomy, so they stop hassling you, while in reality everything stays the same.

Eventine
11-24-2008, 04:33 PM
Greater autonomy is something that Tibetans are seeking, so I doubt it has anything to do with Western perceptions of China.

Read my post on what it implies for the Tibetan government-in-exile.

[ KOOSHAB ]
11-24-2008, 05:29 PM
I wonder what side the Special Frontier Force of India would take
(peaceful or forcible)

jamber
11-24-2008, 10:07 PM
Number 5 and 6 are contradicting eachother. If China is responsible for defence, it has to station forces (at least airforce squadrons) in Tibet.
Number 6 is already more than just autonomy - just look how much autonomy other ethnic groups allaround the world get from their central governments, e.g. the Catalanes in Spain.


Yes,you got it.'Mid-way' here is another name of 'Independence'.It's much more than autonomy

jamber
11-24-2008, 10:43 PM
I don't think you understand the role of Tibet from the perspective of the PRC. It's a buffer zone. If a war should break out, they figure, better to fight it in sparsely populated Tibet than the densely populated Chinese interior. The destructiveness of modern warfare ensures that any war fought in China's interior would be catastrophic in terms of body count. So, the Chinese figure, we'll move the battlefield to Tibet, which forms a natural defensive barrier (lots of mountains, higher ground, etc.) and spares our cities and towns from attack.

Of course, this setup sucks for Tibetans, which is why the Dalai Lama has repeatedly called for Tibet to be demilitarized.


So you mean the United State move the battlefield to Miami,which forms a natural defensive barrier to Cuba and spares your cities ant towns from attack.?

Oh,I'm so sorry .I made such a big mistake.The USA and the United Kingdom have move the battlefield of the future war possible break out with Iran on Iraq,which forms a natural
defensive barrier(wide desert and many civilians as hostages) and spares
their mainland from attack.

None of chinese want a war and none of us would like to take
Tibetan as bullet-proof jackets.Will you impell your brothers forward as shields? The war lovers have formed a club named 'NATO' already.Enjoy
the party of dancing .

matthew.manhorn
11-25-2008, 11:51 AM
Tibetan is too dangerous to be granted autonomy due to cultural differences.

Just like Russia to Chechnya, grant them autonomy and other regions will also request autonomy.

China is not a geographically isolated continent like USA, do you guys think that the Russians will grant autonomy to the Chinese populated Siberian regions? Unlike Hong Kong, Tibet borders with India ffs.