Published on YaleGlobal Online Magazine (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu)
Home > Divergence Grows Between China and the West – Part II

Divergence Grows Between China and the West – Part II

The West expresses increasing concern as China seems bent on hewing its own course, even on domestic matters such as handling unrest in Tibet, while China naturally resents foreign interference in domestic affairs. In the second of this two-part YaleGlobal series on divergence in foreign policy between the West and China, law professor Michael Davis addresses the rising tension over Tibet as demonstrated by Chinese cancellation of the summit with the European Union. He notes that Chinese talks with Tibetan exiles have fallen by the wayside. After a violent crackdown on Tibet protests in March, some in the West considered boycotting the Beijing Olympics. China since has threatened to shun any international leaders who meet with the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibet. Tibetans aspire for autonomy in 11 policy areas, including language, religion, education, environmental protection, utilization of natural resources, and trade. Despite questions over different treatment for areas like Hong Kong, China is intent on maintaining unity in what it regards as its sovereign territory. Punitive actions like boycotts of European goods will only invite retaliation, and isolation of Tibetan exiles only makes the demands and difficulties more pronounced. Coordinated international efforts aimed at convincing China to acknowledge the Dalai Lama and Tibetan desires could actually sooth a festering domestic challenge. – YaleGlobal

Divergence Grows Between China and the West – Part II

A coordinated international response might soften Chinese intransigence over Tibet
Michael C. Davis
YaleGlobal, 23 December 2008
Spiritual encounter: French President Nicolas Sarkozy's meeting with the Dalai Lama, which angered China, is not backed by any policy on Tibet

HONG KONG: After years of talking to Tibetan exiles about conditions in their homeland, Chinese officials have made it clear that they were not serious about it. Unless the international community adopts a coordinated position on Tibet’s autonomy this may not bode well for either Tibet or for China’s relations with the world.

During the March uprising in Tibet, Chinese officials were pushed to reopen six-year old discussions with the Dalai Lama. Deng Xiaoping had years ago said “anything was negotiable except independence,” and Tibetans had long ago abandoned their earlier claim to independence in favor of autonomy. With no progress after six rounds of discussions, Deng’s words rang hollow and the Dalai Lama had largely given up on Beijing. The tragic March crackdown moved him to try again in talks in May, July and November.

After the Olympics, however, the Chinese remained indifferent and the talks broke down. In the past couple weeks, Chinese public pressure to stop European leaders from meeting the Dalai Lama has created a problem that will surely not go away. Though European leaders ignored such pressure this time, the international community needs to develop a coordinated response to reject such bullying and encourage a Chinese rethink.

Chinese indifference was on display in the recent breakdown. After a July Chinese request that Tibetans outline under the PRC constitution the autonomy they seek, Tibetan representatives produced a “Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People.” The memorandum elaborates Tibetan “aspirations” for autonomy in 11 policy areas, including language, culture, religion, education, environmental protection, utilization of natural resources, economic development and trade, public health, public security, population migration and cultural, educational and religious exchanges with other countries. All of these are covered by existing unfulfilled national ethnic autonomy policies enacted under Article 4 of the PRC Constitution, except those relating to public security, migration and external exchanges, which appear instead to track the Article 31 “one country, two systems” Hong Kong formula.

The Chinese government has long refused to apply Article 31 to Tibet, though the language of the article offers no justification for this. Such model is believed to have been fashioned after the failed 1950 Sino-Tibetan “17-point Agreement,” under which China originally committed to Tibetan autonomy. Though a few outside critics have criticized the Tibetans for demanding too much, no reason is offered as to why they should accept less than genuine autonomy. Because of China’s refusal to provide any significant degree of autonomy under its national ethnic minority laws, Tibetans have proposed a hybrid combining elements of both formulas.

Similar to Hong Kong, their proposal includes a specification that local laws within the scope of autonomy not be subject to central approval – as now required in minority areas – and that the terms of their agreement with the Central Government not be subject to the Central Government’s unilateral amendment. They further seek Hong Kong–style control over immigration into the Tibetan areas and local public security, as well as control over external relations in non-sensitive commercial and cultural areas. Such autonomy is typically expected for indigenous peoples under international practice, as is spelled out in the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Tibetans have also proposed to unify contiguous Tibetan areas. Chinese officials frequently emphasize that this would constitute one quarter of the landmass of the present day PRC. These large, mostly mountainous, and often arid areas are in fact already designated as Tibetan areas by the PRC – being divided into 13 contiguous areas instead of one. This proposal, like all others, is subject to negotiation, which China has so far refused.

To everyone’s dismay, the Tibetan memorandum only met with Beijing’s derision and became the basis for the worldwide campaign of isolation. It seems the discussions were only designed to smoke out and block Tibetan aspirations. In the Chinese official statement issued on November 10, 2008, the Tibetan request for “genuine autonomy” is treated as a request for “a high degree of autonomy,” as promised to Hong Kong. China accuses Tibetans, in seeking such “high degree of autonomy,” of seeking “half-independence” and “covert independence.” No explanation is given why the exact same language applied to Hong Kong means only autonomy.

The Tibetans are further accused of continuing to “collude with such dregs as ‘democracy activists’, ‘falunkun (falun gong) elements’ and ‘Eastern Turkistan terrorists,’” though no evidence of this is given. In seeking control over Chinese migration into Tibet, the Dalai Lama is accused of “ethnic cleansing.” The exile government is characterized as a “small group of splittists,” and the meetings are cast as private meetings designed to persuade the Dalai Lama to “give up his splitting activities.” The statement declared, “We never discussed the so-called ‘Tibet issue” and will “never make a concession.”

Despite China’s dismissive attitude, a large mid-November Tibetan exile meeting in Dharamsala, India, decided to continue efforts at genuine autonomy – determined to suspend this fruitless series of talks and find more effective nonviolent strategies.

That this problem will persist is made clear by recent Chinese bullying of foreign leaders not to meet the Dalai Lama. To dissuade French and current EU President Nicolas Sarkozy from meeting the Dalai Lama, China called off a December Sino-EU summit slated to discuss the financial crisis. Similar bullying tactics have targeted Germany, the UK, the US, the Vatican, Poland, India and the Czech Republic – the latter being next scheduled to take up the EU presidency.

As with the fiasco over the Olympic torch last summer, Chinese bloggers have again called for a boycott of French goods. While Chinese officials cautioned people to react “calmly,” their tendency to manipulate such nationalist outbursts is transparent. They may, however, be cool to a Chinese boycott of French goods, given the risk that Europeans could react in kind or Tibetans could react by calling for a global boycott of Chinese goods – probably a more daunting prospect for the Chinese than for the other side.

The Dalai Lama is clearly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the West. A recent public opinion poll on the popularity of world leaders, commissioned by the International Herald Tribune, found the Dalai Lama was the most respected world leader among Western Europeans and Americans. The Chinese leader languished near the bottom. Perhaps Beijing has not fully considered the cost of their unseemly attacks on this revered Tibetan monk.

Of course, Western business leaders concerned about Chinese trade sanctions stand on the other side, posing a difficult dilemma for Western leaders. Do they have the moral integrity to meet with the Dalai Lama in the face of China’s condemnation and possible commercial sanctions?

Coordinated effort by national leaders worldwide may be the only way to cut the cost of such political virtue. This should not be conceived as conspiracy, but rather as a coordinated effort to maintain an open door to the Dalai Lama and reject Chinese efforts to isolate him. This should be accompanied by constructive efforts to help China to better understand its international obligations to this indigenous national minority.

Michael C. Davis is a professor of law at Chinese University of Hong Kong. For further analysis of this issue see Michael C. Davis, “Establishing a Workable Autonomy in Tibet, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol 30, 227-58, May 2008.
Click here to read the article.

Rights:© 2008 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Comment on this Article Discuss in our Forums E-Mail Print

Comments on this Article

17 September 2009
Report this Post
http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=CKsteVTUbmsC&source=gbs_navlinks_s http://www.jstor.org/pss/2672333 The outlook for U.S.-China relations following the 1997-1998 summits pp. 192-195 Chapter 10 Year of the Yak: The Tibet Question In Contemporary U.S.-China Relations By Barry Sautman …After officially abandoning the Strasbourg Proposal in 1990, the Dalai Lama refused to say whether he was reverting to support for independence.76 The exile parliament, however, endorsed “complete independence” as the official goal in 1992.77 Many of the Dalai Lama’s subsequent statements indicate that he has not wholly abandoned a pro-independence stance. In the mid-1990s, the Dalai Lama stated that “Our stand is still for independence”; “Tibet is not part of China”; “Tibet is independent in cultural, geographical, linguistic and racial terms”; “experience shows that independence is the only real answer”; and “independence remains our goal.”78 He also remarked that “Tibet is not part of China”: “[T]he entire international community should speak out in support of Tibet independence”; and “Of course we have the right to regain our independence.” 79 In the late 1990s, the Dalai Lama, while speaking often of attaining “genuine autonomy,” has shown a continued identification with the cause of independence. He has, for example, stated that “we Tibetans have every right to independence”80 and “independence is our historic right.”81 These statements might be interpreted as mere assertions that, although Tibetan independence has been usurped, the exiles are willing under the proper conditions to waive their right to re-establish it. Other actions, however, belie this interpretation. The Dalai Lama has been quoted as telling a Barcelonia audience that “he would be willing to renounce in the short term the cause of Tibetan independence, if Beijing would guarantee the establishment of an autonomous Tibetan government.”82 This approach recalls the frank statement made by the Dalai Lama’s younger brother (and longtime exile leader) Tenzin Chogyal to a French reporter “Let us first of all achieve autonomy. Then we can throw out the Chinese!”83 Not surprisingly, P.R.C. spokesmen concluded that “the high degree of autonomy advocated by the Dalai Lama is in essence a two-step strategy for Tibet independence.84 The Dalai Lama, moreover, expresses solidarity with pro-independence exile activists and their supporters. In May 1997, he received particiapants on a “March for Tibet’s Independence” in Fishkill, New York. The March from Toronto to New York City was sponsored by the International Tibet Independence Movement (ITIM), an organization led by two Indiana University professors, one of whom is Thubten Jigme Norbu, the Dalai Lama’s eldest brother. 85 An internationally publicized ITIM report quotes the Dalai Lama as telling the marchers: “People must talk about independence. That is good. We have the right to ask for independence, but we need to think of our methods to struggle for independence, and only slogans will not get independence. “ The marchers’ report added that “His Holiness stressed that Tibetans must carefully and systematically construct and implement a method to pursue independence.”86 No objection to this report was offered by the exile administration. In April 1998, the Dalai Lama visited six Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) hunger strikers in New Delhi. The TYC seeks “complete independence”. [page 194 is not accessible on Google Books at the time of typing this passage] …Thus, they have no incentive to discourage pro-independence activism among their American supporters by pointing out the nonviability of that option. In fact, the Dalai Lama’s representatives are convinced that international support would diminish were the Dalai Lama explicity to renounce independence. 94 They often praise and encourage members of Congress who are plus royaliste que le roi in insisting that China grant Tibet independence. Moreover, there is some evidence that the Dalai Lama’s representatives themselves are pro-independence. 95 Thus, the idea of “complete independence,” rather than an autonomous Tibet within China, has carried the day within organizations that make up the Tibet Lobby. Correlatively, most U.S. politicians who are concerned with the issue are influenced to cling to the notion of establishing a “Free Tibet,” a scenario for which a “peace process” between the exiles and P.R.C. government would seem otiose.
-MatthewTan , Singapore
17 September 2009
Report this Post
Chinese peoples all over the world - Note what the Dalai Lama said in 1997 below, and do not be fooled by his sweet (and bitter and soul) talks. Dalai Lama said: “People must talk about independence…we need to think of our methods to struggle for independence.” (Blog writer) Buxi: “If many Chinese are still skeptical about cooperating with the Dalai Lama, it’s not because we’re unaware he claims to have rejected independence; it’s because we question whether he really means what he says.” (This is a pro-Dalai Lama website. Year was 1997, ten years after his “Five-Point Proposal” and “Middle-Way Approach” were solemnly declared in U.S. Congress). http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1997&m=6&p=3-2_2 Marchers’ Private Audience with His Holiness The Dalai …[The Dalai Lama] added that many people, Tibetans and friends of Tibet, think that the middle path is not right. Instead, Tibetans need to struggle for independence and talk about independence. For this reason, His Holiness explained the need for Tibetans to discuss what they want and to make a decision. “People must talk about independence,” He said. “That is good. We have the right to ask for independence, but we need to think of our methods to struggle for independence. Only prayers will not get independence, and only slogans will not get independence.” His Holiness stressed that Tibetans must carefully and systematically construct and implement a method to pursue independence.
[In his office during this year 10 March commemoration, there was a big poster with the BIG letterings "TIBET ONE PEOPLE ONE NATION". http://media.economist.com/images/na/2009w11/Tibet.jpg That tells you something! And his TIBET ONE NATION is MUCH BIGGER than Tibet. His Tibet has always included the Arunachal Pradesh, until last year. China and Tibet should move just move on without the Dalai Lama. He is quite IRRELEVANT for the past 50 years, and will soon be TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The new 15th Dalai Lama will definitely be MADE IN CHINA. ]
-MatthewTan , Singapore

Post new comment

Enter verification code before submit