After
the latest round of talks between representatives of the Dalai Lama
and the Chinese Government (which both sides regard as a futile exercise),
the Head of the Chinese delegation told the Dalai's envoys that the
Essence of his "Middle Way Approach" is a Vicious Attempt
to Divide the Nation and the People of China. The Dalai's proposal for
a "Greater Tibet" would include 25% of China's surface area
and be ethnically cleansed of everyone who wasn't Tibetan.
On Nov. 10, 2008, Mr. Zhu Weiqun, the executive deputy head of the United
Front Work Department (UFWD), Mr. Sitar, the deputy head of UFWD, and
Mr. Baema Chilain, the Deputy Chairman of Tibetan Autonomous Region
(TAR), held a joint press conference in Beijing. On reviewing the recent
talks with the Dalai Lama's private envoys, they set out the consistent
policy of the central government toward the Dalai Lama.
After the talks Mr. Zhu Weiqun's addressed the media as follows:
So-called "Tibetan Issues" are definitely not Under Discussion
by the Central Government. From Oct. 31st to Nov.5th, 2008, the Dalai
Lama's private envoys Lodi Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen, together with
the other three delegates, returned to China to have talks with the
central government. This has been the ninth round of talks since 2002
and the third this year. Mr. Du Qinglin, head of UFWD of the CPC Central
Committee and deputy Chairman of CPPCC, met with them during their stay.
I, together with Mr. Sitar and Baema Chilain, joined with them to have
a whole day of talks.
Deputy Chairman Du Qinglin emphasized three key points in his
talk as follows:
Firstly, respect for the dignity of the constitution and law of China
is of first and foremost significance and must be maintained by all
organizations and individuals in China. Any activities planned and executed
by organizations and individuals must strictly follow the rules and
regulations contained in the constitution and the law. No one has any
exemption in this regard. In detail, the constitution makes clear the
persistence of the leadership of the Community Party of China (CPC),
the persistence of socialism that retains the salient characteristics
of China, and the persistence of the system of ethnic regional autonomy.
Any infringement of the constitution and law of China and any denial
of the "three persistence" must fail.
Secondly, the ethnic regional autonomy system should be correctly understood.
All regions in China applying the ethnic regional autonomy system are
inalienable parts of the whole territory of the People's Republic of
China. The ethnic regional autonomy system is one of the forms of autonomy
provided under the unique system of our national structure, which differs
from the federal/bicameral government structure of other countries around
the world. The ethnic regional autonomy system is the successful and
precise integration of ethnic autonomy and regional autonomy. It is
clearly different from the "one country two systems" approach
in place in both Hong Kong and Macao. We would never allow any group
to deliberately promote secession and sabotage national unity under
the flag of so-called "genuine autonomy".
Lastly, the policy offered by the central government to the Dalai Lama
is consistent and clear. The central government also adheres to honest
talks with the Dalai Lama's envoys from time to time. On many occasions,
the central government drove home to them that "Tibetan independence"
will not be allowed by the central government, their concept of "semi-independence"
is impossible, and any other "roundabout way to pursue to independence"
(or "covert independence") is absolutely out of the question.
The key issue is the Dalai Lama must think profoundly and then thoroughly
reform his political outlook and tactics as well. He must strive to
make his words and behavior consistent. Only by doing this, will the
circumstances to improve relations between the Dalai Lama and the central
government be achieved.
When we first talked with Lodi Gyari and his colleagues, we clearly
stated: "During the talks in July, you had already made a commitment
to stick to the "four items not-to-support" which was brought
to the table during the talks by the central government (i.e. not to
support any activities which will disrupt and undermine the upcoming
Beijing Olympic Games, not to support plots inciting violent criminal
activities, to constrain and not to support any kind of violent terrorist
activities conspired in and executed by the "Tibetan Youth Congress
Party", and not to support any deliberate attempt, statement or
activity which contributed to the "Tibetan Independence" conspiracy
and attempted to split Tibet from its motherland). You clearly said
that to adhere to these "four not-to-support" undertakings
was not a big problem. However, your subsequent practice was totally
inconsistent with your words. In reality, you not only tried hard to
disrupt and sabotage the upcoming Olympics in Beijing, but also accelerated
your violent activities and attacked the central government while giving
full support to the "Tibetan Youth Congress" and others to
publicly proclaim "Tibetan independence". In addition, in
various ways, you incited and organized violent criminal activities
and incessantly promoted the so-called "Tibetan problem" in
the international media, attempting to exert pressure on the central
government by manipulating some foreign individuals. Moreover, you continually
plotted with such social scum as the so-called "democratic activists",
"Fa Lun Gong activists" and "East Turkistan activists",
to create a purported "alliance" against the central government
to realize the secession of Tibet from the motherland. Nevertheless,
your immoral behavior has provoked people from all over the country
and even exasperated overseas Chinese, including overseas students,
to rally against you".
When private envoys of the Dalai Lama arrived at Beijing, they submitted
the "Memorandum of all Tibetans to enjoy genuine autonomy".
Apparently, the main purpose of Lodi Gyari and the other four envoys
in coming to Beijing was to present this memo to the central government.
As to the fallacies of their claims in the memo, which declares that
the "Tibetan government in exile is the representative of all Tibetans
and their interests", we solemnly and justly point out that only
the central government of China and also the local government of Tibetan
Autonomous Region (TAR) (under the leadership of the central government)
can represent all ethnic Tibetan people. The so-called "Tibetan
government in exile" is a handful of secessionists who participated
in the failed uprising of 1959 and afterward escaped to foreign countries.
These secessionists have conspired overseas for decades and tried hard
to organize sabotage-related activities. The existence of such a "government"
is thoroughly illegal, and no country in the world recognizes it.
All we accept is that Lodi Gyari and the other four are the private
envoys of the Dalai Lama to have talks with us and the topic for discussion
is simply that the Dalai Lama must completely give up any claims and
activities related to separatism. He must ask the forgiveness of the
central government and also the forgiveness of the people all over the
nation. The talks also relate directly to the issue of the personal
future of the Dalai Lama and those persons who are working close to
the Dalai Lama. We have not and will not discuss the so-called "Tibetan
issues".
In order to give the Dalai Lama further understanding of the policy
and attitude of the central government and enable him to reassess his
own mistakes, we could listen their position so that we could determine
if the Dalai Lama has given up the cause of separatism and is intentionally
drawing closer to the central government. This does not mean something
new, and we are holding the same position as we held on the previous
several talks. This is the policy that we have, at the very earliest
stages of previous talks with them, already precisely expounded to the
Dalai Lama.
We responded to them saying: "Though the 'memo' intentionally adopts
enormously ambiguous language, it is clear that you do not give up your
separatist position. The 'memo' lists various items regarding 'genuine
autonomy' which sets out your stance in opposition to the leadership
of the central government and the system of ethnic regional autonomy,
and seeks to subvert, deny and thereby weaken the authority and power
of the central government. You disavow the highest legislative authority
of the national people's congress, and even attempt to change the existing
constitution by your actions as a separatist clique so that you could
hold authority and power equivalent to that of an independent country".
The 'memo' strives to borrow individual words and phrases from the constitution
and the law of ethnic regional autonomy to dress up its contents. Phrases
like "greater Tibetan-inhabited area" and "high degree
autonomy" still frequently appear in the title and contents of
the "memo". All of these obviously resemble what we have already
pointed out. For example phrases like "semi-independence"
and "covert independence" are in reality all virtually compliant
to your fundamental objective of "Tibetan independence". Achievement
of this objective is out of the question because it goes against the
existing constitution of China. What I am saying now is actually our
statement to everyone here and also to those around the world who are
paying attention to relations between the central government and the
Dalai Lama.
As to the request to "annex all Tibetan inhabited areas as one
autonomous region", we have clearly expressed our position, to
whit; the establishment and partition of the Tibetan Autonomous Region
at the very beginning did, in fact, rely on the principles of the constitution
with full regard to history, while giving full consideration of the
political and economic status quo. The so-called "greater Tibetan-inhabited
area" never existed throughout history and the concept draws nothing
from the current situation. Indisputably, it is an irrational and not
in the least a pragmatic claim - which in reality could never be put
into effect.
The "Law and legislation of ethnic regional autonomy" stipulates:
"On the establishment of the ethnic regional autonomy system, it
cannot be abolished or amalgamated with others without legal procedure.
Once the rim demarcation of the ethnic autonomy region is determined,
it cannot be amended if a legal procedure does not apply. If there is
an intention to abolish, amalgamate or make any changes to this ethnic
autonomous region a proposal, which has been fully discussed by local
organs of the ethnic autonomous region (and related governmental organs
at the upper levels), must be properly drafted and then submitted through
legal channels in order to get approval."
During the talks, we advised the private envoys of the Dalai Lama: "You
were neither 'upper-level governmental organs' nor 'the local organs
of the ethnic autonomous region', let alone having any legal status.
To be polite, it is really inappropriate that you brought this topic
to the table for discussion. In other words, you have no credentials
to speak on this".
Prior to this talk, we reviewed the records regarding previous talks
between the governors of the central government (together with related
departments) and the visiting delegation dispatched by the Dalai Lama
in the early 1980s - in which Lodi Gyari was one of the members. During
that period, Xi Zhongxun and other governors from the central government
sternly indicated: "There are no grounds to turn Tibet into a country
- which is implied in your so-called 'high degree autonomy'; your concept
of a 'greater Tibetan-inhabited autonomous region' is fundamentally
impractical and is also absolutely illegal. Now that twenty years has
passed, you come again to beat about the bush with the central government.
All of these claims of yours clearly indicate that you are deficient
of even the very basics of honesty and sincerity. These talks have actually
made no progress at all and the blame for that lies completely with
your lack of reason."
When we talked we have stated most firmly that national unity, territorial
integrity, respect for the dignity of the people are of the utmost concern
to the people of China. We will never compromise on these principles
at anytime, in any place, and for anybody. The central government declares
its door is always open to the Dalai Lama if he adopts a more patriotic
view of the motherland. This door is open today and in the future. However,
for those advocating "Tibetan independence", "Semi-independence"
and "covert independence", we never opened the door before,
and will surely not open it in the future.
The Fundamental Essence of the "Middle Way Approach" Is to
Force Secession on the Nation and its Nationalities. In the 1980s, the
Dalai Lama raised his political theory of the "middle way approach".
Literally, it means that the Dalai Lama and his clique have dropped
their demand for "Tibetan independence", in the meantime they
disagreed with the principles that the central government had proposed,
but rather choose to seek a tradeoff scheme between the two positions.
Once this tradeoff scheme became public, some overseas interests gave
considerable support in favor of this claim. They encouraged the Dalai
Lama on one hand, and argued that the central government must work with
the Dalai Lama to reach a consensus on solutions to any problems on
the other hand.
Speaking of the "middle way approach", the Dalai Lama has
come up with various kinds of rhetoric. For example, in 1987 he spoke
of a "five-point peace scheme" in the congress of the United
States. In 1988, he raised the "seven-point new proposal"
in Strasbourg, France. All of these are the "authoritative explanation"
by the Dalai Lama of his "middle way approach". Again, in
this most recent round of talks, Lodi Gyari presents us with the 'memo';
from which the Dalai Lama's "middle way approach" can be precisely
and clearly figured out.
I cite herewith the implications of the Dalai Lama's current rhetoric
as follows: all of the following five implications can be found in full
from his words as appearing in his aforementioned speeches, as well
as in the 'memo'. Firstly, he disagrees that Tibet is one part of the
territory of China since ancient times. Repeatedly, the Dalai Lama claims
that Tibet was a totally independent county before the People's Liberation
Army marched into Tibet, and argues that Tibet is still an independent
country that is currently illegally occupied. Anyone who has a basic
knowledge of history understands perfectively that Tibet has historically
been one part of the territory of China. Since the Yuan Dynasty, central
governments have executed indisputable and effective administrative
jurisdiction in Tibet. The sovereignty is the fundamental problem. The
Dalai Lama's denial of the sovereignty of China over Tibet is virtually
seeking for a rational and legal warrant implementing his vision of
"Tibetan independence", or "semi - independence"
or "covert
independence".
Secondly, the Dalai Lama and his clique schemes to "re-establish"
the never existing "greater Tibetan inhabited area". Many
people assume that the Dalai Lama wants the area of the current Tibetan
Autonomous Region of China. On examining requests like this, we can
easily observe that our assessment underestimates the ambition of the
Dalai Lama. The truth is that his "greater Tibetan inhabited area¡±
refers not only to the Tibetan Autonomous Region, but also to the bulk
of Qinghai Province, Gan Nan Autonomous Prefecture in Guan Su Province,
Garzi Autonomous Region and Ngaba Autonomous Prefecture of Si Chuan
Province, Dechen Autonomous Prefecture of Yunnan, and other places,
accounting for a total of one fourth of the total territory of the People's
Republic of China! Does this "Greater Tibetan inhabited area"
have any historical basis? No, absolutely not! Since the Yuan Dynasty,
the rulers have already divided the Qinghai-Tibet plateau into three
plots - ?-Tsang, Amdo and Kham - to execute administrative jurisdiction.
Besides, having gone through the Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty and the
Republic of China, these areas (though the original administrative zones
have slightly changed) have in general survived until today. Throughout
history, the Tibetan inhabited areas, other than the Tibetan Autonomous
Region, were never administered by local Tibetan regimes. Prior to the
peaceful liberation, the area that was administered by local Tibetan
regimes never exceeded that of today's administrative jurisdiction of
the TAR.
The Dalai Lama's request really contains a disguised ambition. That
is, to set up an autonomous location based on one single ethnic race.
China is a country made up of multi-ethnic minorities. In fact, this
is one of the great virtues of our nation. Assuming if we allowed each
single ethnic group to establish its own autonomous region, China would
be thrown into total disarray, as you would appreciate even if you have
only a very basic understanding of the history and national situation
of China.
Thirdly, by adopting the term "high degree autonomy", the
Dalai and his clique deny and are even attempting to overthrow the current
social and political system in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. What does
this so-called "high degree autonomy" refer to? The Dalai
Lama and several of his prominent followers repeatedly state that "high
degree autonomy" means, other than foreign affairs and national
defense, all matters related to political, economic, cultural, education
and religion must be administered by ¡°Tibetans¡±. This is what their
"high degree autonomy" means. In his speech in France regarding
his "seven-point new proposal", the Dalai Lama observed "Tibetans
were authorized in the final wording to determine every matter".
This is his "high-degree autonomy". If we follow his design,
it means the leadership of the Chinese Communist Part, the socialist
system, the system of the people's congress and the system of ethnic
regional autonomy, all of which we have built and refined for almost
60 years in this one-fourth of our territory, are all going to be pulled
down and replaced by their government under their new political system.
What is their new political system? Obviously, that is their obsolete
system of feudal serfdom that is a combination of religious and autocratic
rule.
Fourthly, the Dalai Lama and his clique ask us to disband and withdraw
the People¡¯s Liberation Army (PLA) from the "greater Tibetan inhabited
area", meaning we have to evacuate our forces from our own territory
(which accounts for one-fourth of the territory of modern China!). In
the Dalai Lama's "five-point peace scheme" mentioned in the
United States: "The Chinese Communist Party must withdraw its army
force and demolish its military facilities. Only by doing so completely,
will the genuine reconsolidation process be complete." From then
on, the Dalai Lama will hold an "international peaceful conference"
and then declare this one-fourth territory to be an "international
peace zone". Prior to this round of talks the major political figure,
Living Buddha Sangdong of Dalai's "government in exile", addressed
the media: "A military force must not reside in TAR, and to us
this is the key issue." I guess everybody knows that a military
force is an issue of a national sovereignty and is the fundamental guarantee
of the unity of a territory, the safety of the nation, and social stability.
The fact is no country concerned about its sovereignty agrees to disband
and withdraw its own armed forces from its own territory. China will
definitely not allow the establishment of the so-called "international
peaceful zone" on our own territory.
Can you believe that the Dalai Lama did not thoroughly think this over
before he presented us with such an irrational request? He is not a
simple man. He knows perfectively well that if the PLA pulled back,
he could surely and easily practice his "Tibetan independence".
In his talk of "high-degree autonomy", he observed, "the
future national defense and foreign affairs could be handed over to
the central government." If we withdraw our armed forces, how could
it be possible for the central government to provide national defense?
Obviously, this is a deliberate lie!
Fifthly, the Dalai Lama and his clique request, in his so-called "greater
Tibetan inhabited area", to purge all other ethnic groups other
than ethnic Tibetans. The Dalai Lama frequently claims in public "I
never said to deport Han Chinese from of our land". Notwithstanding,
I would like to tell everybody here that the first item in his "five-point
peace scheme" clearly demands that China "Must stop migration
into Tibet and all Han Chinese must return to China". Living Buddha
Sangdong, one of the leaders of Dalai's "government in exile",
spoke to the media and said: "Those non-Tibetan people residing
in TAR will not enjoy any autonomy rights, and all posts such as officials
and governmental employees in the ethnic autonomous region must be undertaken
by ethnic Tibetan people".
As is well known, within the area of the Dalai Lama's so-called "greater
Tibetan inhabited area", for thousands of years, various ethnic
groups (such as ethnic Tibetan, Han Chinese, ethnic Hui and ethnic Mongolian)
have lived, flourished, inter-married and finally formed an integrated
and harmonious culture. To date, these different ethnic groups have
been living on the same land while enjoying their freedom and all basic
human rights. Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama will intentionally expel
and purge these civilians affecting thousands who have been living there
from generation to generation. Such a vicious initiative indicates to
us that if one day the Dalai Lama held power and authority in "Greater
Tibet", he would immediately, without any hesitation or mercy,
exercise racial discrimination, isolation and ethnic cleansing.
Of the aforementioned five points, every one is about "Tibetan
independence". To review these five points as a whole exposes his
claim of "Tibetan independence" more completely. At the same
time he tries to dress up this claim in more fancy language, such as
"greater Tibetan-inhabited area" and "high-degree autonomy".
I do not know any Chinese citizen sitting here that would like to accept
the above-mentioned points or any of these five. I also do not know
any foreign people here who, if somebody put such immoral requests to
your governments, would agree with it. If our foreign friends would
not agree to such requests asked by others, why should the Chinese people
accept such a "middle way approach" that in fact exposes a
ruthless ambition and a vicious intention to divide our nation and our
people?
How Should the Dalai Lama Behave?
The Chinese ethnic regional autonomy system has been confirmed and expressed
in our Constitution, and "the law of ethnic regional autonomy"
intensifies and further consolidates this constitution in a concrete
and explicit way. We dare to say this is a very comprehensive system
that has stood the test of time and has been quite successful. This
is also our pragmatic way of exercising ethnic regional autonomy in
China. No other approach can be as successful as this and what they
claim is "genuine autonomy" cannot approach this success.
In concrete practice, we will continue to examine and test all the the
contents in our Constitution and the Law of ethnic regional autonomy.
Accompanied with the assistance of the central government, as well as
the nation as a whole, we will continue to accelerate the development
of areas under the ethnic regional autonomy system and rapidly enhance
the living standard of the people living there. All of this is completely
different from what the Dalai Lama describes as "genuine autonomy".
Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama can do something useful. For example, our
central government, at the outset, has already explicitly stated that
the Dalai Lama and his clique must sincerely abandon their policy of
dividing the nation and cease all activities calculated to undermine
it. They must not only make public recognition of Tibet as but one part
of the inalienable territory of China, but also publically admit that
Tai Wang (Taiwan?) is also an indivisible part of China. Moreover, they
must publically accept that the People's Republic of China is the only
legal government of China. From then on, we may continue the conversation
with him and talk about the issues concerning his future. All these
are the conditions he must fulfill. The Dalai Lama should devote his
efforts to this rather than dream about his so-called "high degree
autonomy" and "greater Tibetan inhabited area" and/or
any other fancy phrases which are designed to dress up his "Tibetan
independence", "semi-independence" and "covert independence".
All of these decorations conceal his strategy of empty talk and playing
games with the central government.
We are perfectively aware that the Dalai Lama is aging, together with
declining health. Nevertheless, it seems he still appears very active.
Recently, he went to Japan. No matter what his health situation is,
we sincerely wish he could correct his mistakes and move closer to the
central government to achieve something before his death of benefit
the nation, as well as the people (including the Tibetan people), rather
than leaving a legacy of a debased and infamous title forever. In fact,
the honorific title of the Dalai Lama throughout history was granted
by the central governments and every individual Dalai Lama had their
confirmation approved by central governments. If the current Dalai Lama
refuses to take our advice and insists upon his course of the past 60
years, he will not only leave a notorious name to last for generations
but he will also bring shame on the Dalai Lama lineage which in the
past people have always respected.
In addition, I notice that some persons in the Dalai Lama's clique,
together with some foreigners, suggest that when the Dalai Lama passes
away, Tibetans might react in violent way, in an attempt to intimidate
us. Some of them may really believe this. I believe that most of the
Tibetan Diaspora will not support violent behavior. Even today, most
Tibetans in foreign countries disapprove of violent criminal activities.
I believe that most of the Tibetan Diasporas will not agree to anyone
carrying out violent and terrorist activities in China or TAR.
Of course, violence and terrorist activity will not intimate us at all.
We are experienced in hand to hand fighting with people like this. But
what would be the result of such conflict? I believe everybody knows
that very well. In recent years, there have been those who were continually
threatening us with violence. What have been the results? I also believe
these persons know that better than any other. If violence is used in
the future, not only will it fail, but also that the perpetrators will
bear that infamy forever. Moreover, such behavior will only accelerate
their political destruction.
|
