HCSS Centre for Strategic Studies

Accepting the outstretched hand: how to resolve fifty years of occupation?

by Christa Meindersma (Mar ‘09)

Tibet is one of the oldest conflicts the United Nations has touched but failed to resolve. Today, 10 March 2009, it is fifty years ago that the Dalai Lama fled to India. Today, fifty years later, he still lives in exile. His relentless efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Tibet-issue have earned him the Nobel Peace Price, the United States Congressional Gold Medal, the Netherlands Four Freedoms Award as well as worldwide recognition and sympathy. But a solution for Tibet is not in sight. Farther away then ever, some cynics say.

In 1988 I met the Dalai Lama for the first time in his simple residence in Dharamsala, situated in the foothills of the Himalaya in India. A man full of inspiration, hope and brimming with ideas for the future of his country and people. He had just launched his ‘Five-Point Peace Plan’ in Strasbourg, proposing that Tibet would be a zone of peace, a demilitarised buffer between world powers India and China. Since that time, the concept of ‘genuine autonomy’ has been central to his efforts to find a negotiated settlement for Tibet within China.

In November 2008, at the request of China, Tibetans detailed their ideas in a lengthy memorandum, explaining what they mean by ‘genuine autonomy.’ Basically, the Tibetans demand self-government for the Tibetan people as one people, one minority nationality within China, according to China’s autonomy laws, in those areas where Tibetans live and historically lived. This implies an autonomous and possibly democratically elected Tibetan government with far-reaching powers in internal (Tibetan) affairs in a quarter of Chinese territory. This would be the first time in history that all Tibetans would be united under a central Tibetan government in Lhasa. China reacted furious and accused the Dalai Lama of seeking disguised independence. The proposal would be aimed at undermining the power of the Communist Party and the Chinese State. Highly placed Chinese officials publicly accused the Dalai Lama of wanting to ethnically cleanse Tibet of all Chinese.

Worldwide, in Scotland and Acheh, regional autonomy offers a viable solution to conflict between different peoples within one state. Autonomy typically implies a regional government with more or less far-reaching administrative powers over internal affairs. There is no doubt the Tibetans constitute a people possessing the right to self-determination. Even the United Nations recognised this. Why is China rejecting this offer?

Tibet has great strategic significance for China. Historically, Tibet has constituted a buffer between China, India and Central Asia. The sparsely populated plateau offers space for Chinese settlers who are arriving in Tibet en masse, particularly since the world highest railroad connecting China and Lhasa was completed in July 2006. Tibet is also the ‘watertower’ of Asia: most of Asia’s major rivers, upon which more than a billion people and the growing economies of more than ten countries depend, find their source on the Tibetan plateau.

Last year late summer, after the Olympics had just finished, I met the Dalai Lama in Lerab Ling, a monastery in the south of France. He expressed his frustration and deep sadness at not having achieved a solution in the talks he has pursued with China for the past eight years. Cynics say that the next breakthrough in the talks will be the death of the Dalai Lama. Then the problem will resolve itself. This assumption is wrong. China’s presence in Tibet lacks any and all legitimacy. Tibet is a stain on China’s image. The only person who can provide legitimacy to China’s rule in Tibet is the Dalai Lama. And he is willing to do so. Even at the risk of alienating a younger and more militant generation of Tibetans in exile. It is in the interest of China, Tibet and stability in Asia that China accepts this outstretched hand.