Dear Comrades:

It may strike you as presumptuous for an uninvited outsider to address the

Standing Committee of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist

Party's Politburo. Through long experience in China, I am well aware of the

sensitive reaction to foreigners appearing to "interfere" in "internal

affairs."

It is said in your country that Americans and Chinese tongchuang

yimeng-"sleep in the same bed but dream different dreams." This is often

true. However, sometimes an independent view can help break a stalemate.

And so I offer an outsider's perspective on Tibet, not as interference but

as an effort to look pragmatically at this intractable problem in a

different way. As Deng Xiaoping reminded us some years ago, "Black cat,

white cat, what does it matter as long as it catches mice?"

I am aware that as Chinese officials, you view His Holiness the XIV Dalai

Lama as a die-hard "splittist" dedicated to "dismembering China." You see

his public advocacy of autonomy for Tibet as little more than a smoke

screen for independence. I am also aware of the fractious nature of

impassioned feelings on both sides of this divide -- and how they have

hopelessly deadlocked the situation.

But, cognizant of your own deep skepticism about the motives of the Dalai

Lama and his government-in-exile in Dharamsala, India, I nonetheless want

to suggest that insistently clinging to this bias is not in China's best

national interests, never mind the interests of Tibet and Tibetans.

Moreover, I would like to suggest that without bold thinking, Chinese and

Tibetans are unlikely to find the common ground necessary to make China a

multiethnic state that is comfortable with itself.

So what is to be done?

Since Beijing has just held a major celebration in Lhasa to mark the 50th

anniversary of "the peaceful liberation of Tibet," this is a timely moment

to look for a new approach.

As members of the most powerful governing council in China, it may strike

you as heretical, but in resolving the standoff with Tibet, the People's

Republic of China actually has no greater potential ally than the Dalai

Lama.

Instead of continuing to see him as an implacable foe and an impediment to

your efforts to maintain stability and create a better life for your

citizenry, you might ponder how he could be catalyzed into an asset who

could serve the interests of Han Chinese and Tibetans alike.

Moreover, he is the only person capable of convincing Tibetans to express

their disaffection nonviolently, thereby preventing further bloodshed and

suffering. His Holiness is the only leader with sufficient credibility,

stature and powers of persuasion to convince alienated Tibetans that it is

in their best interest to remain citizens of sovereign China.

One can, of course, argue the history of China and Tibet in many

contradictory ways. But the reality now is that if a fair and just

accommodation can be worked out between Tibetans and Han Chinese, it will

behoove Tibet to remain part of China.

Your challenge is to make Tibetans feel more comfortable within "the

Motherland." On the Tibetan side, only one man has the moral suasion to

effect such a partnership, and that is the Dalai Lama.

The greatest current danger is that cultural disenfranchisement and

political alienation will lead again, as in 1987 and 1989, to violent

demonstrations in Lhasa and elsewhere in the Tibetan Autonomous Region.

While substantial elements of the People's Liberation Army, Public Security

Bureau and the People's Armed Police have prevented large-scale incidents

over the past 12 years, constabulary control is not a long-term solution.

One has only to look at what is happening in Israel or Kosovo to see how

unhealed ethnic strife almost inevitably leads to eruptions of violence.

Now, you may object that the Dalai Lama is part of an unalterable

"antagonistic contradiction," to put it in the words of Mao Zedong.  In the

United States, those who believe in "engagement" argue sensibly that if the

People's Republic of China is treated as an adversary by hostile Americans,

it will become just such an adversary, possibly even an enemy. The same

dynamic holds true for Tibetans and Chinese.

If the Standing Committee is unable to find a way to cultivate the goodwill

of His Holiness-if it can't begin cautiously to trust his good intentions

and to experiment with his eagerness to work toward reconciliation-foes

will remain foes. Then, it is hard to imagine how the Tibetan impasse will

ever be resolved.

The most frightening prospect is that, as leaders, you will miss the

opportunity to avail yourself of the Dalai Lama's considerable acumen and

powers of conciliation. He is now 64. After his death, you will suddenly

find yourself deprived of a potential ally for whom there will be no

replacement. So, now is the moment to summon the wisdom, strength and

vision to attempt to turn what may look like a liability into an asset.

The hallmark of greatness in leadership is almost always the ability of new

leaders to cast aside old attitudes and policies when they no longer serve

the best interests of the people.

The challenge is to experiment with new ways of solving old problems:

to imagine the Dalai Lama as a constructive rather than a destructive

force, begin a dialogue with him, grant him a new dignity in the eyes of

your people and find a mutually agreeable way for him to return to Lhasa as

a religious and cultural avatar.

By doing so, not only would you begin to resolve one of the most dangerous

and debilitating problems confronting China today, but you would win the

immediate acclaim and gratitude of people everywhere in the world. What is

more, China would almost certainly find that unrelated issues that depend

on international trust-such as entrance into the World Trade Organization,

Beijing's bid for the summer Olympic Games and myriad other issues in

China's foreign relations, especially Sino-U.S. relations-would suddenly be

cast in a very different light.

The undeniable truth is that China's impasse with His Holiness

significantly harms China's acceptance as a great and respected power. And

so, if for no other reason than to help your country gain the kind of

stature it truly deserves, the Tibet problem must be solved.

What perplexes many American politicians is: Why does the Tibet situation

remain so intractable when a solution is so clearly in the interest of all

parties?

After all, this is an era of self-determination. Most colonies and

territories have been granted independence. Quebec is regularly allowed to

vote on secession from Canada. Scotland holds referendums on autonomy from

Great Britain. Why should Tibet not have the right to determine its future

relationship to China?

Is not Tibet geographically separate, ethnically distinct, linguistically

different and culturally unrelated to China? Of course, such talk makes you

nervous, even angry. But it should be emphasized that members of the Dalai

Lama's government in India are not now insisting on independence. And most

of his supporters applaud his efforts toward working out a truly

"autonomous" new status for Tibet under Chinese sovereignty.

Before it's too late, you should realize that despite your government's

considerable efforts to promote its policies through propaganda here in the

West, the battle is being lost. Unlike President Clinton, President Bush

just recently invited His Holiness for an official White House visit.

Even loyal "friends of China" find themselves ever more at odds with both

the theory and practice of your Tibet policies.  Dianne Feinstein, the U.S.

senator from San Francisco, is co-author (along with Rep. Tom Lantos of San

Mateo County) of the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001. The legislation would help

Tibetans "safeguard their distinct identity" and "initiate a dialogue

between the Chinese leadership and Dalai Lama."

The bill reflects growing frustration among politicians in the United

States.

For many years, Feinstein and her husband, financier Richard Blum, have

worked quietly behind the scenes to cut the knot that binds Tibet and China

in such a deleterious way. She has talked frequently both with the Dalai

Lama (with whom she became acquainted through her husband's long

association with the Himalayan region) and with the Communist Party General

Secretary Jiang Zemin (whom she came to know through a sister-city

relationship when she was mayor of San Francisco and he of Shanghai).

Now, she doesn't mask her disappointment.

"I have worked for the past 10 years to implore the Chinese leadership to

enter into a constructive dialogue with the Dalai Lama," she says, "but

Beijing has consistently ignored promises to preserve indigenous Tibetan

political, cultural and religious systems."

Like so many other global leaders who want nothing but the best for China

and Tibet, Feinstein sees the Dalai Lama not only as an eminently

reasonable man committed to the principles of nonviolence but also as a

powerful potential partner for you to team up with in a process of peaceful

reconciliation.

It is a great challenge. But it would be a great shame if, during this era

of reform and opening up, leaders of China don't find a way to "seize the

moment," as Chairman Mao once said. If you succeed, your political legacy

would be a Tibet at peace and a more unified China.

Orville Schell is dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley

and a longtime China observer.

 

Minnie Cancellaro

Executive Director

International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet

2288 Fulton Street, Suite 312

Berkeley, CA 94704

tel. (510) 486-0588

fax. (510) 548-3785

email: iclt@igc.org

www: www.tibeticlt.org

"In our struggle for freedom,

truth is the only weapon we possess."

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

 

 



For problems or questions, contact: Synthesis@agnt.org