Engaging thought

The Tibetan exiles’ third general election of Kalon Tripa (Prime Minster) and Dalai Lama’s subsequent decision to relinquish centuries old Tibetan traditional practice of politics raised concerns among Tibetan people in and outside Tibet about the future trend of Tibetan political movement. The level of anxiety is particularly high in Tibet with growing repressions and continuous crack-downs on people opposing the Beijing’s policies on Tibet. The concern of Tibetan people reflects not only Tibetan people’s growing frustration under China’s military rule but it is also the ultimate symbol of our national unity. Beijing is known for its ingenuity and censorship of the information flow. Such censorship isolates the repressed people from seeing the world beyond the wall of propaganda that covers the shaky legitimacy of the communist party’s rule in China. Unfortunately, the post Tiananmen Square world no longer provides the same platform that the communist party used to silence the voices of people. Tibetan people inside Tibet closely monitor the election process and offer prayers for a successful political transition. This is a clear indication that while Tibetan people inside Tibet remain under Beijing’s iron fist, their hearts and minds are still with Dalai Lama and Tibetans outside Tibet. Beijing should rethink its Tibet policies and must wake up from the illusion that the Tibetan issue will just fade away someday.

China’s reaction to Dalai Lama’s decision to transfer his political power to the elected leaders is nothing more than the same old hardliner rhetoric; dismissing the existence of Tibetan people rights to self-determination. Ironically, Beijing starts to question the legitimacy of democratically elected new leaders and the legality of the Central Tibetan Administration. Recently hardliners in Beijing issued a statement about the political development in the exiled Tibetan community. Some of them even rejected talks with new leaders on the deflated claim that the CTA is an illegal organization. If Beijing is seriously concerned about the rule of law, they should ask this question to themselves first – what is the current status of Tibet under China’s occupation? Tibet had been a de facto independent country for centuries before China’s annexation and international law perspective; Tibet is a nation with a right to self-determination.

After the tragic incident of 9/11, China vowed to support American Global War on Terrorism. Although Beijing did not contribute militarily, but it extended both vocal and financial support behind the scenes. The intention of Beijing’s political move to support American global war on terrorism is becoming clear. The Beijing’s primary intention is to suppress political movements in Tibet and Xinjiang in the name of terrorism. China’s definition of terrorism based on the doctrine of three evils, namely, extremism, separatism and unofficial religious groups. This bleak definition of terrorism lacks legal standard. By 2003, China officially declared Xinjiang based East Turkistan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization. More recently, China started labeling Tibetan Youth Congress as a terrorist organization. In March 22, the communist regime’s forefront mouth piece daily news paper so called “People’s Daily” published an article under the name “Terrorist poised to rule “Tibetan government in-exile”? written by Li Hongmei even called the youngest candidate and Harvard trained Tibetan legal scholar Lobsang Sangay as a terrorist. This kind of hardline approach to Tibet only distorts the realities at ground, thus hindering the creation of a congenial atmosphere for a dialogue based on mutual trust. Until today, Beijing lacks the confidence to move forward to resolve the issue that shares concerns of both parties.

For more than five decades, His Holiness the Dalai Lama placed trust in communist leaders for a successful dialogue to resolve Tibetan issue based on mutual interests, benefits and respect. However, communist leaders failed to bring any concrete outcome and negotiation has almost reached a point of deadlock. Beijing continues to blame Tibet for the failure. If we carefully read the history of negotiation between Beijing and Dharamsala objectively, communist leaders should rethink about their hardliner approach. From the Tibetan side, we made the biggest concession in history; the surrender of our sovereignty in search of mutually satisfactory solution.

Tibetan exile government led by Dalai Lama has been boldly pursuing the “Middle Way” as reasonable political approach with regard to China. The Middle Way policy seeks a solution to Tibet within the political and legal framework of People’s Republic of China. This means that the Tibetans government, which is the most legitimate representative or the voice of Tibetan people, does not seek separation but rather seeks an autonomy which is a constitutional right within the legal framework of China as well as a right that China agreed to in the so called “Seventeen Points Agreement” of 1951. China has been using this document as a legal justification for its continued occupation of Tibet. China is not willing to talk with the new Tibetan leaders, which means it’s not obligated by terms of the Seventeen Points Agreement, under which the status of Tibet is autonomy. If this is the case, the so called “Seventeen Points Agreement” has no legal weight which has been the case from Tibetan side but China has repeatedly insisted on using it as a legitimate legal document.

Today, China is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the birth of “Seventeen Point Agreement” under its coercion and military force. If China does not comply with the terms of this document, the celebration does not amount to more than window dressing propaganda. In reality all these shows only fool their own people and make them prisoners of ignorance, blind to the changing reality of the world outside China. Communist leaders must be careful in handling these issues, the black and white legacy of communism will be recorded in the history even if communist party itself is buried in the sands of time. The inevitable fact is that both Tibet and China will remain and what we do today will have an impact on the lives of generations yet to come. Therefore, hardliners in China must rethink their policy on Tibet before it is too late.

Note: Originally published on Tibetan Political Review

Over the last few months, the issue of the Kalon Trip election has captured the attention of all Tibetan people scattered around different parts of the globe and has generated some intense debates. The public discussions and debates on the Kalon Tripa election were further intensified by the campaigning groups and supporters of each candidate, dedicated to promote their own candidate. I have been following the events and processes of the Kalon Tripa election since the beginning of its campaign. I was bit concerned about how the public would react to this event given the relatively short history of Kalon Tripa directly elected by people through the ballot system. The primary election result speaks more in depth about how well we are prepared and educated on politics of democracy. However, I was overwhelmed by the number of Tibetans who took the initiative in the process of the election campaign through news media, social networks and public gatherings. If we choose to live by democratic principles, this marks the begging of our movement towards democracy and what we do today will define the course of our political future.

Therefore, understanding the implications of this election is helpful in choosing a right person. I urge Tibetans of all walks of life to choose the right candidate who has the courage to take responsibility as well as the wisdom to guide our struggle for freedom, justice and human dignity. In this critical juncture of our history, we cannot afford to deceive ourselves by short sighted views of regionalism, emotional attachments and power struggle. Every single Tibetan shares this responsibility and must execute the duty of democracy by faithfully caste one’s vote to a person who deserves it.

If we give a thoughtful look at His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s historic statement on the 10th of March and his message to the Fourteenth Assembly of the Tibetan People’s Deputies, His Holiness’s vision is clear; the modernization of Tibetan political system must reach its full bloom. His Holiness’s vision to modernize the Tibetan political system is not unknown to our history but unfortunately, it is becoming a stranger to many Tibetans today. The modernization reform was first introduced by 13th Dalai Lama in 1913 to preserve Tibet’s sovereignty and put Tibet into the global orbit of modern civilization. However, much needed reform failed to occur due to internal resistances from both monastic and civilian bureaucrats and looming external occupying pressures from outsiders, particularly the British and the Chinese.

This unfinished task has been the main concern of the His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama since he assumed Tibetan spiritual and temporal role at the tender age of sixteen.  When Dalai Lama escaped Tibet in 1959, he sought guidance from the then Indian Prime minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and was allowed to establish the Tibetan community in India. With Dalai Lama’s unflinching determination and the Indian government’s supports, the Tibetan community in exile has become a fully functioning society with a democratic government at its heart and schools to impart modern education to young Tibetans. I am one of those young Tibetans who grew up in India and received a modern education in Tibetan schools in India. Like me every year, thousands of Tibetans receive education comparable to the 21st century global educational standards. According to the Tibetan Government in exile’s second demographic survey conducted by its Planning Commission in 2009, the literacy rate of Tibetans in exile above age 6 is 82.4 percent, which is higher than many countries around the world. This is a millstone achievement in education comparing to pre-1959 Tibet.

Given the rapidly shifting global political climate and current situation of Tibet, the time has come to put the His Holiness’s reform into practice. The careful reading of our exile history clearly suggests that His Holiness has been preparing for this critical political transition since the reestablishment of Ganden Phodrang Government on the charter of modern democracy in 1960s. His Holiness clearly asserted in his message to the Tibetan People’s Deputies, “Since I was young, I have been aware of an urgent need to modernize the Tibetan political system. However, I had a strong wish to introduce appropriate reforms in accordance with the changing times and was able to effect some fundamental changes. Unfortunately, I was unable to carry these reforms any further due to circumstances beyond my control”. His Holiness expressed his vision for political transition in many occasions and both Tibetan government officials and people remained deft or unwilling to answer his calls.

Over the years, His Holiness’s statements on this issue have been growing more and more assertive and on his speech given on the 10th of March 2011, His Holiness finally set a time line for this transition. However, government officials are still living in self-doubt and seem unwilling to take the political responsibility their offices demand of them. We should seriously consider His Holiness’s proposal and need to take necessary reform measures while the Dalai Lama is with us. Dissolving the political role does not mean that His Holiness evades his responsibility of a respected spiritual leader and simply as a Tibetan citizen. Therefore, His Holiness’s guidance and advices on important political matters will always be available to Tibetans regardless of His Holiness political power such as signing bills to pass legislation. In reality, this change in roles does not affect His Holiness’s guidance role to Tibetans, but it alters Tibetan people’s degree of commitment and responsibility. We have been regretting our failure to pursue His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama’s much anticipated modernization reforms in Tibet. The time will come when we are blaming ourselves again if we choose to walk away from this critical responsibility.

The implications of this political transition are something many people don’t take adequately into consideration. Firstly, the smooth political transition will slowly make our government self-reliant and less dependent on one man. Sooner or later, we have to face this political vacuum and we must prepare to face such a circumstance without losing hope.

Secondly, a successful political transition will force Beijing to rethink its ad-hoc policy on Tibet; reducing issue of six million Tibetans as a private matter of the Dalai Lam. It further weakens Beijing’s much politicized campaign to intervene in Tibetan spiritual matters, particularly the disputed matter of reincarnation of Tibetan Lamas.

Thirdly, it helps us to create a more secular society, where the flower of Dharma will blossom with its full fragrance of love and compassion without being tainted by cynicism politics. The purity of the Dharma teaching will be preserved when doctrine of faith does not dilute with affair of politics.  Moving towards secularism is a trend where contemporary world is aggressively heading with chaos and violence. We have to transform ourselves with the constantly shifting global order and continuous evolution of human civilization. Our inability to adapt to such changes in the past resulted in my opinion in the loss of our sovereignty and we became victims of modern politics.

Fourthly, it reduces the burden on His Holiness and will help him to realize his vision to promote religious harmony and world peace which are also foundational interests of Tibetan people. Given His Holiness’s role as a global spiritual leader, his popularity and message of peace and harmony will continue to reach further across this shadowed world. Unlike other countries, dispute between politics and religion is not an issue in our community, however the current condition of global political climate induces grave misunderstandings of the role of the Dalai Lama in Tibetan politics. China’s aggressive campaigns on old Tibet as a “fiefdom state” under the leadership of the Dalai Lama further cloud people’s vision to see His Holiness clearly.

Finally, if we are true follower of Buddha; we need willingness to serve in the realm of politics in order to give His Holiness a break from worldly issues so tainted with grime of politics. His Holiness is about to cross the age of seventy five and on the occasion of his seventy sixth birthday, we have to offer our best prayer (Chopha) by fulfilling his wish; a smooth transition of political power. Our centuries of old Lama- follower sacred relation with His Holiness will never cease to be end until the day when we lose our faith.

Note: Published on Tibetan Political Review

Thomas Jefferson, a revolutionary and a founding father of America once wrote, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Prophetic calls for liberty often come from the ruled, not from the ruler. However, decision makers in Washington have somewhat forgotten this message or have even misconstrued the meaning of liberty itself.

Over the last few decades, the West, led by the United States, has launched a campaign for the promotion of democracy as a vehicle for peace, liberty and stability in the regions torn apart by factional conflicts and civil war. It was welcomed and inspired by people over the world except within the minority of ruling elites in non-democratic regimes.

The pains of ruthless dictators were understandable when we hear their laments, criticizing the West on the grounds of imperialism, intervention and colonialism. Unfortunately the West has paid more attention to the laments of these few and ignored the applause of many. Deals have been made in the interests of a few in the exchange of vocal democracy, which is defined primarily by the ballot box and not liberty.

This is the paradox of democracy in the Middle East, South America, South Asia and Africa today. People live in fear of their own governments corrupted by wealthy few who own the nation’s wealth by exploiting the poor.

The colorful statistics about economic growth have been projected in daily televisions and newspapers. Beneath the illusion of doubling digits in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth lies the ever increasing gap between rich and poor, skyrocketing unemployment rate and degrading lands and polluted rivers.

Today nearly 40 percent of the world population lives on less than on two dollars a day and recent statistics from demographic surveys project that the global population will jump from the current 6.810 billion to 9.421 billion in the next four decades (by 2050).

If we fail to address the problem of poverty and hunger today, the situation will mutate into a massive disaster as the population increases. These problems cannot be easily solved by simply economic measures, maximization of the profits of those who own the global capitals.

The root of the problem is inherent in the institutional structure of governance and must be addressed by means of politics. The very meaning of the political institution is shifting its goal radically from the service of people to the agent of business corporations. I don’t think even Adam Smith could have imagined this radical transformation in the pursuit of materialistic goal and if he were alive today, he would be crying in grief.

However, these are the things that we seldom hear and see and more than often that not are the subject matter of concern. The occasional exercise of elections in the name of democracy is portrayed and seen as liberty and equality. This is the fallacy of imposition, as true democracy must come from human consciousness rather than external force and pressure.

The inflamed revolutions in the streets of yesterday’s Tehran to today’s Tunisia and Egypt are revelations to the myth of this imposition. The revolution has power to manifest itself beyond  borders, culture and faith. This is the beginning of the end of the tyranny and is shielded beneath the shallow skin of democracy and dawning of liberty that is prophesied by Thomas Jefferson. History holds the secret of insatiable human greed for wealth and power and so do the limits. The inability to behold the limits is the foundation and root of self-destruction.

From the downfall of the Roman and Ottoman empires to the collapse of the mighty Soviet Union, we have witnessed the fragile foundation and suicidal nature of systems mastered by a corrupted few. The time has come to question the legitimacy of those ruling few at the top of the hierarchical pyramid and the wisdom of the systems they have constructed. Revolution is the call for their surrender, death of the legacy they have inherited and the birth of democracy dictated by the conscience of people in the pursuit of liberty. It is time to make the government fear for their own oppressed people because democracy is the power of people by principle and by definition.

Published on the Earlham Word, February 11, 2011

The concept of democracy in exiled Tibetan community is as old as the history of exile itself. The parliamentary model of exile government is based on the principle of the “balance of power” that in one way manifests the maturity of Tibetan democracy. Unfortunately, the process of democratic evolution has been concentrated mainly on the structural reform of the government and has left little impact on the minds and thoughts of the people. This unabridged gap in maturity is largely the result of public education and political awareness. If we truly believe in the principles of democracy – a “government by the people, for the people and of the people”, then the evolutionary delay of democratic thought in public life exhibits the failure of our education policy. This is self-evident from the sudden explosion in public attitude and behavior regarding the ongoing campaigns for Kalon Tripa. The result of the preliminary election is indicative of our immature, embryonic democracy. As a matter of fact, media and educated Tibetans bear ethical responsibility that goes beyond the dogma of ideological battles. The failure to unite from the ideological hypes has long term consequences on the success of our political movement and national survival at large.

Considering the candidates’ commitment and dedication to service, each candidate bears equal responsibility for transparency and honesty in dealing with the public. At this critical juncture of our history, we cannot possibly sweep a minute of dirt under the carpet nor can we afford any sort of laboratory experimentation with the Katri election. While we undisputedly condemn smear campaigning for any candidates, we believe that constructive criticism for public scrutiny is indispensable as an instrumental apparatus for a healthy democratic election. What is at the stake or for what reason this paper is produced after several discussions on skype is a sincere expression with tremendous concern unto the trend of Katri elections in the past few months. Because, demagoguery and rhetoric are at the service of unrealistic commitments that should not be allowed to hijack the principles we hold dear. The carbon copy modeling of our democracy with Western politics without considering the differences in ground realities does more harm than good for our national struggle.

The candidate in question is Dr. Lobsang Sangyay la to whom we have as many Tibetan youths, developed deep sense of respect and acquired immense stimulation from as a role model in his academic pursuits. Nevertheless, it stops us to second him following a meticulous surveillance on our status quo. In the West, political campaigns are battle grounds for party survival and more than often fight on ideological strings. However, even highly mature democracies in the West counteract the dividing elements to maintain stability and health of a democratic system. Therefore, a candidate’s rhetoric and promises do little to the outcome at ballot box in winning the overall battle. More often than not, candidates are tested by vision, experience, integrity and dedication. We believe that the ultimate measure of a man is his actions, not words.

Democracy is often blamed for the tendency in public failure throughout the philosophical discourse of politics. This tendency of failure within the public intellect is an imminent danger, and therefore an urgent call for a careful reading of the candidates is a duty dictated by conscience for every Tibetans in exile. In our community, there are number of people who are simply attracted by an abundance of promises and melodies in speech. For example, Dr. Lobsang Sangay employs the campaign mantra of “change” , without mentioning what the changes are actually going to be. The word change can be deceptive if people don’t have a fair understanding of functional relations between the executive and legislative branches in democracy. He is no more different from other candidates in terms of exile government’s political approach to China.

Moreover, his idea of a legal battle against China is merely rhetoric, and is simply playing his international law degree card, often associated with the eminence of Harvard. Let us face the fact that given China as a permanent member in the Security Council and the weaknesses of international legal regime in dealing with issues where interests of a powerful state clash, international law is crippled. Dr. Lobsang la’s idea of a legal battle against China lacks maturity in understanding of international political climate or simply waving a flag to obscure yet entice the mass. From a legal perspective, international law is unable to cross the ‘principle of sovereign immunity’, which precludes parties from suing a foreign government without its consent.  The legal weaknesses of the United Nations can easily be discerned from its relatively short history. To make the record straight, the international legal system works only against weak and poor countries, and seldom works against the belligerent states. Unfortunately, this is a realistic assessment of international law and Dr. Lobsang la is completely aware of it.

It is repugnant to hear people ranting about our democratic institution as a gift of His Holiness while they don’t recognize that it comes with a responsibility as rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. The Katri’s position should not be an experimental chair but the commending heights of the TGIE. This is certainly not a time for such an experimental transition, but is rather a time for carefully prudent moves. A promising leader like Dr. Lobsang Sangay perfectly befits for the principal brain for the International Relations Kalon while harvesting massive experience and strategic intelligence as a transitional state of affairs to be the next Katri. This is an unsullied and unpretentious opinion from any influences and a rationally calculated voice of two concerned university students in the United State.

Co-author: Palden Gyal, published online on Tibetan Political Review and Rangzen

As the 21^st century unfolds, the dawn of a new global order is taking root with the emergence of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a new player in global politics and the international economy. The speed and the magnitude of China’s economic growth and military modernization becomes not only a subject of great intellectual inquiry in contemporary literature, but also a heated political debate dominated by the global mass media from daily newspapers to television talk shows. Despite the circulation of great volumes of literature and rhetoric of political speculations about the implications of a rising China, the reality is still shrouded in mystery, how China conducts herself in the international community with its newly found global power? Answering this question is not an easy task, because of the hypothetical nature of this question, there is no right or wrong answer. Therefore, the focus of this article is sorely based on historical facts and events. Based on historical analysis, the author examines China’s role in the future global order. If the widely believe mantra, “history repeats itself” is true; I have ample reason and evidence to make a personal inquiry into the nature of China’s conduct in the foreseeable global order. The inquiry of this subject is influenced by Warren I. Cohen’s book, “East Asia At The Center” and Cohen’s historical illustration of China’s role and conduct in international system in East Asia.

Before jump to the actual narrative of historical analysis, I would like to introduce readers to two possible explanations from the perspective of international relations on this issue. This might help to give readers a broader perspective on understanding the implications of China’s rise. Firstly, from the realist doctrine, the rise of China is an actual threat to the contemporary Western oriented international order which is designed on the interests of the West. The realist theory defines state as a self-interested entity constantly struggling against one another in an anarchic international system. Therefore it is reasonable to argue that China will gradually impose change in the current international order to promote and secure its own interests if China becomes an uncontested power player. Proponents of this doctrine claim credit for this argument based on current Chinese leaders’ unpleasant and hostile attitude towards the West, particularly, China’s constant clash with human rights and growing domestic problems.

Secondly, from the liberalist perspective, China is less likely to engage in hostile actions and pose threat to the contemporary international order. Because of the existence of (a loose) global regime under the United Nations, the behavior of states is monitored through international norms and standards. More importantly, the degree of economic integration today demands effective cooperation and good relations among the actors in the international system. From the economic point of view, China’s growing economic integration with West and its export oriented market reinforces good relations with other states and execution of international norms. It emphasizes on institutional mechanism and rule of law in regulation of relations between states to prevent conflicts and maintain international order. Given the tragic circumstances of continuous wars and conflicts in the course of human history, the foundation of the United Nations after World War II marked an epoch of relative peace. The UN’s success in reducing major wars between states and the decolonization campaign gives credential to the proponents of this theory. Apart from economy, the culture and type of government are also important factors in determining the behavior of a state. However, critics might dismiss the liberal optimism based on China’s distinct culture and its communist regime.

Going back to the history of China’s early civilization, Cohen argues an existence of an international system in East Asia in period between 4^th century and 13^th century. During these periods, Chinese civilization was at its peak and China had played a dominant role in the region’s economic, diplomatic and political relations. The careful study of China’s conduct in this context might give us a theoretical framework under which we can make possible predictions and speculations about China’s future conduct. At the same time the author recognizes the differences in environmental setting, ideology and structure of governance between today’s PRC and the past empires.

The so called golden ages of Chinese glories and might never came through peace but rather through the expense of many lives and the bloodsheds of thousands on the battlefield. Much of those early periods of Chinese civilization were largely characterized by warfare and conquest. For example, the unification of China during these periods of early history was never achieved through peace and agreement, but solely, (identical to their western brothers and sisters), through warfare and conquest. This is evidence that China’s earlier emperors were not much different from any other emperors of the world. As Cohen argues, “Like all other world’s empires, the Chinese Empire was based on conquest, the subjugation of militarily inferior peoples whom the Chinese portrayed as subhuman to justify their own action” (p.2, 2000). The quest for power and glory is arguably an innate human characteristic as Machiavelli put in his work The Prince. This quest seems to have no cultural and ideological barriers and it is common in most cultures we study. Therefore, the cultural factor is largely irrelevant to interpret the behavior of state in this context. The enhancement of state power was the sole concern of the emperor and his advisors. For example, Shang Yung, known as Lord Shang in the 4^th century devised strategies of acquiring wealth and power necessary to achieve control in anarchic world (p.15, 2000).

One of the most glorious times in ancient Chinese civilization was during the Tang Dynasty (618-907). Tang Dynasty’s glamor and splendor were largely achieved through forced conquest and battle against the neighboring states. As Cohen argues, “Physically, the empire expanded aggressively, imposing Chinese culture forcibly on peoples to the north, south, east and west” (p.61, 2000). China’s military might and offensive aggressions were clearly demonstrated during the period with constant massive military offense against competing forces like Korea, Japan and Tibet. For example, during 610 to 612, China had launched a massive military offensive against Koguryo, but failed to bring the king of Koguryo to the Chinese court to pay homage (p.66, 2000). Similar attacks were made against other states including Japan and Turks.

To secure China’s interests and influence over the periphery states, a tributary system was introduced as a diplomatic channel through which interactions between superior China and inferior periphery states were made. The tributary system had been practiced throughout the various periods of Chinese empires. Cohen argues, Tributary system was at once a formula for diplomatic intercourse, a symbol of peace and friendship between unequal sovereign states (p.60, 2000). The notion of superior Chinese civilization is embedded deep within Chinese culture and mindsets. These cultural beliefs have strong psychological implications on the behavior and attitude of Chinese people. For example, Chinese emperors often justified their subjugation and conquest of other states by labeling others as inferior to China. This kind of behavioral pattern and psychological mindset seems still strong in Chinese society. Considering the CPP’s invasion of Tibet, CPP justifies its illegal invasion as superior liberation of inferior Tibet from the yoke of the barbaric feudal system. By and large, the tributary system reflects China’s continuous domination and influence over the tributary states. Cohen clearly states that the system of tributary particularly found useful to Chinese when “they lacked the will or the power to crush or occupy another states” (p.60, 2000). The tributary system lends us evidence about the expansionist behavior and attitude of China during these imperial periods of China’s splendor.

Changing tone of China’s of foreign policy:

Until recently, China has kept herself quiet in the international spotlight to prevent criticism about its repressive domestic policies and questionable human rights record. When dealing with issues of international concern, China tends to push herself away from the mess and attempts to keep a low profile on these issues. But its new found status and confidence changed her self-image and conduct regarding international issues. As many western experts on China argue that China’s foreign policy is becoming more assertive. For example, Edward Carr points out three incidents that illustrate or projects China’s growing assertiveness. First, when North Korea provocatively sank South Korea navy ship near Yellow Sea and killed more than hundred sailors, China failed to condemned North Korea’s misconduct and provocation. Since North Korea is China’s close ally in the region, China did not punish North Korea’s action even if America and international community are frustrated and warned for possible retaliation. Second, when the Japanese government arrested Chinese fishermen for illegal straying into Japanese territorial water, China boldly responded to Japan’s action by arresting some Japanese businessmen and threaten to block vital rare earth materials use in Japanese industries. Third, Beijing responds to Washington’s warning against its policy to keep her currency artificially low. When President Barack Obama warned China about possible imposition of tariff on China’s export goods, China boldly respond that such action will face similar retaliation. Fourth, China today pursues stick and carrot policies toward other states. As Richard Armitage, the Secretary of State under Bush administration once argued that the “smiling diplomacy is over” when dealing with China. This is clear from China’s reaction to the West while dealing with Tibetan issue and Dalai Lama. Recently, China begins to pursue a more aggressive policy regarding the issue of Tibet. For example, Sino-French and Sino-German rows over Dalai Lama’s visit. When French president met Dalai Lama during his visit to France, China took a punitive measure against France by delaying an economic submits. Similarly, China protested to Barack Obama when he decided to meet Dalai Lama at White House last year. The muscular tone of China’s foreign policy is clearly demonstrated by China’s reaction to Nobel Community’s decision to award Nobel Peace Prize to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. China not only stopped Lu’s families and closed friends from attending the ceremony to collect the prize, but also pushed away 16 countries from the ceremony. Christopher Bodden, in his recent article published on phayul website argues that “China showed more muscular foreign policy in 2010 that called into question Beijing promise of a peaceful rise”.  These reflect a changing attitude of China toward international community at large and America in particular. Significance of the change in China’s attitude is that China will assert its power whenever its interests are at stake. Therefore we can neither expect a peaceful China as many over-optimists believe nor an aggressor as many people in the West fear. China’s aggression will be largely determined by the clash of interests and relations with contenting powers.

China’s military assessment:

China’s rapid military modernization and growing budget spending is one the causes of tension and fear in the West. More particularly, China’s opaque nature of its military secrecy provokes suspicion and mistrust. When China begins to open the door of modernization under Deng Xiaoping, he did not envision the modernization of the People Liberation Army (PLA) before complete modernization of other social spheres. His vision of new China has changed with change in the agendas of modernization. After his death, new Chinese leaders had quickly reassessed the undergoing modernization program and gave priority to military instead of farming, education and industry. Although, China achieved a degree of modernization in industry but farming and education are still lacking behind. China’s immediate step in military modernization reflects sense of urgency and concern about its security and power hunger. According to global Security Organization, Chinese defense spending has increased by an average of 12.9 percent every year since 1989 when Beijing launched its ambitious military modernization program. This is a huge increase in military budget as compared with average annual GDP growth of 9.2 percent. Concerning the Beijing’s three areas of military modernization, today China has created “the most active land-based ballistic and cruise-missile program in the world” (Carr, 2010). China is also developing first anti-ballistic ship missile in the world with ever growing number and capability of its submarines. Currently China has 66 submarine fleets and about 1.100 short range ballistic missile facing Taiwan. In terms of space, China successfully launched its rockets in the space and able to put its satellite into orbit. Its new breeds of modern aircrafts are equipped with capability to launch nuclear warheads and conventional ballistic missiles. Although China is not compatible with American military superiority, but China’s fast track military modernization and increasing defense spending will challenge America in the future. For example, massive military and weapon display during the 50^thanniversary of CPP was an evidence of China’s power projection to the outside world.

By inquiring into the history of China’s imperial past and behavior and attitude of PRC today, the author concludes that the China will play global role in its own term like other great powers in the past. Many people believe that China’s attitude will change if much waited political reform; democracy is realized. The transition to democracy definitely improves China’s human rights records but it does not bring large scale change on China’s behavior as player in global theater. A common sense can easily depict from the behavior of the United States as unchallenged super power after the collapsed of Soviet Union. Despite the champion of democratic value and the defender of human rights, the United States chose to ignore international obligations after September 11 attack. The United States’ decision to withdraw from the ICC as a party and its practice of torture reflects that national interest trumps over international obligations. If necessary China will and shall impose changes in current global order in order to advance its own interests. Given the evidence of China as a long time vocal critic of the West and its continuous alliance with rogue states, China will not tolerate the order that has little respect and value to her. Therefore international order will continuously change with shifting tectonic of power balance.

The question is, has Tibet been historically a part of China since the Tang dynasty as the Chinese government claims in its official White Paper? Although, answering this question is not a simple and easy one, rather it is a complicated one. This complication of relationships between Tibet and China arises not due to lack of historical evidences and records; rather it is largely due to Tibet’s long isolation to the outside world. Tibet is often known as the “forbidden kingdom” to the outside world due to its centuries of isolation without economic or diplomatic relations with many of countries except its close neighboring countries such as Nepal, Bhutan, Mongol, India and China. China’s historical claim of sovereignty over Tibet rests on four historical events or periods, Tang dynasty (618-907), Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), Ming dynasty (1368-1644) and Seventeen Point Agreement between Tibet and China in 1951. In this paper, the author would like to examine the relations between Tibet and China during each period and how China’s claim of Tibet is consistent with narrative of history itself.

According to China’s official white paper, Tibet was unified into Chinese territory through marriage between Tibetan Tubo King Songtsen Gampo and Tang princess, Wen Cheng. The marriage between Tibetan Songtsen Gampo and princess Wen Ching was historically consistent with both Chinese and Tibetan history. However, the unification or incorporation of Tibetan territory into China bears no historical evidences and lacks legal and logical legitimacy. This is because Tibetan Tubo King Songsten Gampo married not only Tang princess Wen Cheng, but he also married Nepali princess Bhrikuti Devi. The question here at stake is that, if China claims its sovereignty over Tibet on the ground of marriage between princess Wen Cheng and Tibetan King Songtsen Gampo, can also Nepal claim sovereignty over Tibet on the same ground of marriage? Therefore, a mere marriage event can not be a determining factor for China’s sovereignty over Tibet.

If we closely examine the nature of marriage, there is clear historical evidence that the intention of marriage was not to integrate Tibet into Chinese territory or unification with China as the Chinese official paper often claims. According to well known Tibetan historian Dawa Norbu, Tang emperor’s acceptance of marriage was merely to fathom war and conflict between two states as both Tibet and China’s relations at the time were largely characterized by conflicts. As he argued, “matrimonial alliances were intricately connected with the strategic problem of war and peace (p.37, 2001). A number of treaties made between Chinese Tang dynasty and Tibetan King Emperor Songtsen Gampo demonstrated the conflicting nature of Sino-Tibet relations at the time.

Particularly, Tibetan fighting power and military superiority at the time compelled the Tang emperor to give his daughter to Tibetan King Songtsen Gampo. As Tibetan tribes had been the greatest threat to Chinese security and sense of superiority, and more than any nomad tribes, Tibetans competed against China for territorial expansion. For example, during the Tang and Tubo period, nine peace treaties had signed between Tibet and China. Particularly, the treaty of 821/822 D Tang and Tubo recognized each other as equal sovereign state with a clear sense of territory demarcation as it stated, “All the east is the country of Great China. All to the west is country of Great Tibet” (Norbu, p.37, 2001)

Second, China argues that Tibet officially integrated into Chinese territory under theYuan dynasty which was established by Mongol emperor, khublai Khan. In order to understand the historical complexities between Tibet and China, we have to explore the relations between Tibet and Mongol emperors. Chinese communist historians often ignore the special relations between Mongol emperors and Tibet. The special spiritual connection between Tibet and Mongol during 13^th century was a key to understanding the nature of Mongol invasion of Tibet. It is consistent with many historians that Tibet and Mongol relations at the time were characterized by patron and priest relationship. Mongol emperor, Ghengis Khan and Khublai Khan highly respected Tibetan Buddhist scholars, namely lamas (spiritual teacher) and sought their guidance and spiritual advices. The Buddhist factor was important to the relationships between Mongol and Tibet and Tibet and China itself. As Norbu argued,

“There was political dimension but it was tempered, moderate, softened and eased by what appears to have been the religious belief of the early Mongol emperors such as Godan and Khublai Khan, both of whom were covered to Buddhism by two Sakya lamas, Sakya Pandita (1182-1251) and Choegyal Phagpa (1230-80)” (p.44, 2001).

The religious dimension is an important factor to understanding the underlying complexities of relations between Tibet and China. The priest-patron relation also existed between Tibetan Buddhist scholars (lamas) and Chinese imperials throughout the later Chinese imperials.

In short, Mongol emperors of Yuan dynasty gave special political concessions to Tibet on the grounds of religious belief and spiritual connection with Tibetan lamas. As many Tibetan historical records reveal Mongol did not directly rule Tibet as it did in China during Yuan dynasty. Mongol emperors during Yuan dynasty indirectly ruled Tibet through the medium of Sakya Lamas. Tibetan government has established its power in Sakya which directly rule the whole U-Tsang province and Nyagri for 114 years. This was the first centralized government established with support of Mongol emperor after the downfall of the Btsan state. In short, this resulted inYuan dynasty’s indirect rule of Tibet with full self administration and self rule by Tibetan elites and little or no interference from China. As Bhattacharya argues “Norbu clearly demonstrates that the priest-patron relations between the Mongols and lamas emerged 39 years before the Yuan imperial rule in China, thus discounting the Chinese claims on Tibet as part of Yuan and therefore part of PRC (Tibet and the Middle Kingdom, p.2313). Author John Keay comes to a similar conclusion in his book “China: a history”.  He argues “Like Taiwan, and despite vague claims by the Chinese Yuan dynasty, Tibet had never been administratively part of any Chinese empire” (p.442). Elliot Sperling also argues,

The idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13^th century is a very recent construction. In the early part of the 20^th century, Chinese writers generally dated the annexation of Tibet to the 18^th century. They described Tibet’s status under the Qing with a term that designates a “feudal dependency,” not an integral part of a country. And that’s because Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus. When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1911, Tibet became independent once more (New York Times, p. 1).

It is seemly clear that Chinese communist historians distort the historical realities for the sake of ad hoc political purpose. As mentioned in the introduction, many Communist historians ignore some of the fundamental factors and jump into blunt political conclusions. For example, Mongol invasion of Tibet has simply taken as China’s exercise of sovereignty over Tibet without considering the relation between Mongol emperors and Tibet. More significantly, if China claims its sovereignty over Tibet merely on the grounds of Mongol influence in Tibet during Yuan dynasty, why can’t China claim its sovereignty over all territories both in East and South Asia that fall into Mongol invasion during Yuan dynasty?

Thirdly, the Chinese exercised sovereignty over Tibet in an unbroken line since the Yuan dynasty. According to the official White Paper released by Information Office of the state council in 1992, when Yuan dynasty collapsed, successive Ming dynasty inherited the right to rule Tibet continuously. This argument does not hold the truth of history. Tibet became a sovereign state after the collapse of Yuan dynasty and it ceased to pay tribute to China as it did to Yuan dynasty under Mongol rule. However, Kham and Amdo region continue to maintain tribute-cum-trade relations with Ming Court due to its geographical proximity and being free from Lhasa control. This tribute-cum-trade relation between Ming dynasty and Eastern Tibet does not constitute China’s sovereignty over Tibet. As in 1642, Fifth Dalai Lama proclaimed Tibet’s independence by establishing the Gadhen Pokdang government with help of Mongol. Ming dynasty has no political control over the central government in Lhasa. However, Chinese communist historians insist that Tibet was subject to Ming rule on the grounds of tribute-cum-trade relations with eastern Tibet. The evidence gives ample credit to Tibet’s assertion that Tibet was not territorially part of the Ming dynasty. According to Norbu’s book ‘China’s Tibet Policy’, the Chinese map drew by Wang Fen, a legal officer in Ming court did not include Tibet as a part of Ming dynasty’s 15 provinces (p.64, 2001).

Fourthly, Communist historians assert that Tibet was fully and politically integrated into the territory by signing of the ‘Seventeen Points Agreement’ between Tibet and China in 1951. From the Tibetan side, Seven Points Agreement is not a legally binding treaty as it was signed under the Chinese force and coercion. China uses it as stepping stone to legitimize its invasion of Tibet in the international community. From the perspective of international law, treaty cannot be valid unless it is signed with the agreement of both parties with equal footing. Thus, Seventeen Points Agreement was not a legally binding agreement between Tibet and China.

With a fair minded analysis of historical relations between Tibet and China, historians often agree with and come to a similar conclusion that Tibet hasn’t been a historically administrative part of China until communist invasion in 1959. At the same time, author also acknowledges the complexity of relations between Tibet and China and China’s various degrees of influences over Tibet. However, author rejects the communist historians’ assumption that Tibet has been a part of China since Tang dynasty and territorially incorporated during Yuan dynasty. Following the Confucius rule in China, the status of Tibet is a tributary which does not amount to China’s sovereignty rather potential actor in international relations. China’s claim of Tibet is more of a recent construction in the early nineteenth century influenced by the Western expansionist movement. Owing to Tibet’s geographical proximity to China and strategic security importance, China was compelled to resort means to claim its sovereignty over Tibet. Particularly, early 1990s, the British colonial expansion in South Asia and trade ambition in Tibet exasperated China’s concern over its security.

Therefore the author found it is worth studying the Sino-Tibetan historical relations in our academic literature to reduce the gap of understanding between Tibetan scholars and Chinese scholars in the future. Author is also surprised by the degree of twisted facts and historical manipulations found in current Chinese academic literature directed by the Communist Party. For example, the Chinese government’s official White Paper on Tibet is merely a piece of political propaganda with no factual historical evidences. Hence the author cautions that the circulation of such propagandist literature in Chinese academia can do more harm than good to Sino-Tibetan relations and Chinese society in particular.

Reference and bibliography:

1 China’s Tibet Policy, Dawa Norbu, 2001, Published by Curzon Press

2 Don’t know much about Tibetan History, Ellot Sparling, 2008, New York Times

In recent years, the Tibet issue has gained political and intellectual momentum in contemporary global society and become a crucial international issue. Tibet’s perceived isolation in the past made it hard to see its strategic values and Geo-political importance to many people around the world, particularly within mainland China and neighboring countries. The Communist leaders political propagandas further suppressed  Tibet’s regional importance, global dimensions, and Tibet lost its horizon to the eyes of many young scholars. Given its historical role and examining the future prospects, Tibet is a solution to political disorientation in Asia. In this article, I would like to address the future implications of an autonomous Tibet to the Sino-Indian relation, Asian security and world peace.

The Tibetan people’s demand for genuine autonomy is a reasonable call for a solution based on mutual benefits and interests. This demand is consistent with PRC’s political aspirations and social integrity, and reflects the true essence of PRC’s constitution and the rights granted by it. Tibetan exile government’s “memorandum for genuine autonomy” offered to the Chinese government at their eighth rounds talk carefully cited the rights within PRC’s Constitution. In large, the demand for autonomy does not undermine and prejudice the main concerns of China regarding Tibet issue. China’s three main concerns regarding Tibetan issue as express publicly and privately conveyed to His Holiness’s envoys are; (1) the preservation of China’s sovereignty over Tibet, (2) the defense and security of China, and (3) the preservation of social integrity and harmony. These objectives are clearly accepted in the proposal and are seriously considered by the Tibetan side. Moreover, these are the preconditions for dialogue set forth from the Chinese side and Tibet has and will continue respects them. However, Tibetans will not accept baseless preconditions like insisting His Holiness the Dalai Lama to recognize Taiwan as a part of China. Chinese leaders should not dilute Tibetan issue with any other issues. For example, recognizing China’s sovereignty over Taiwan goes beyond His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s authority and he has no legal position to infringe on Taiwan’s domestic affair. Taiwan’s future is in the hands of the Taiwanese, they have right to determine their own future. Tibet issue is sorely a problem between Tibetans and Chinese government, it must be addressed based on concerns of the two sides.

The core model or structural frame work of the genuine autonomous Tibet is based on His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s “Five Points Peace Plan” widely known as the Strasbourg proposal of June 1988. The proposal called for transforming Tibet into a peace zone through the demilitarization of PLA forces currently station in various parts of Tibet. Although, this proposal was widely applauded by the international community, particularly intellectuals and peace loving people across the globe (including scholars in mainland China), but Chinese government had rejected it on the grounds of “separatist activity” as usual political rhetoric. This is sad news not only for Tibetans, but also for millions of people in Asia and the world at large. The Dalai Lama’s “Five Point Peace Plan” seeks to address Tibetan issue within the political framework of People’s Republic of China. Demilitarization of Tibet does not mean the loss of China’s full control over Tibet, it means the withdrawal of Chinese force from Tibet to such degree that it should not pose threat to its neighboring countries. The Tibetan side also acknowledges China’s right to keep quantum of PLA force in Tibet for defense and security purposes only. The proposal for transforming Tibet into a peace zone reflects the Tibetan people’s earnest desire to live in peace and harmony with neighboring countries and within ethnic groups in China.

Following are the five points of the peace plan proposal, September 1978, Washington DC

1. 1. The transformation of the whole Tibet into a zone of peace;
2. 2. Abandonment of China’s population transfer policy which threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a people;
3. 3. Respect for the Tibetan people’s fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms;
4. 4. Restoration and protection of Tibet’s natural environment and the abandonment of China’s use of Tibet for the production of nuclear weapons and dumping of nuclear waste;
5. 5. Commencement of earnest negotiations on the future status of Tibet and of relations between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples.

I would like to elaborate on the Five Points Peace Plan and analyze its dimensions and scope to offer readers a deeper understanding of autonomous Tibet. In this article, my focus is entirely on the first point of the “Five Points Peace Plan”. The rest of the points will be published periodically in consecutive issues. The first point boldly dictates the “Transformation of the whole of Tibet into a zone of peace”, as I mentioned in the introduction. His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s vision to transform Tibet into a zone of peace is not a political strategy or tactic to separate Tibet from mainland China by pulling the Chinese military presence out of Tibet, as Beijing often accuses. This vision is consistent with and tied to Tibetan culture and history and can be traced back as far as the 7^th century. Tibet made a great epoch of warriors by conquering vast lands in central Asia, including China itself, with a powerful conventional traditional military. In the seventh century, the god-king Songtsen Gampo, one of the most famous rulers in the history of Tibet, reformed Tibet through demilitarization of its forces and the introduction of Buddhism. The demilitarization of Tibet played a pivotal role in the history of ancient Asia by acting as buffer between nations during war times. Throughout history, Tibet’s neutral status and its buffer role was heard and told by generations in the Asian continent but recently the memory has been buried in the sand of modern history with the emergence of more radical revolutions under the gravity of political motivation by self-proclaimed emperors.  Living in peace and harmony is a core sentiment of the belief and traditional habit of Tibetan people, embedded deeply within our faith. Our Buddhist culture gives the foundation of this aspiration and creates the conditions necessary for such development. For that reason, the preservation of our cultural heritage and religious traditions are indispensable and necessary.

Given the prospects of the past, I would like to examine the implication of His Holiness’s vision of a peace zone for Asian security, world peace and Sino-India relations. Asian security and world peace are directly related to healthy relations between India and China, the two most populated countries of rapid emerging power, often referred to as two Asian giants, namely the dragon and the elephant. If the much debate intellectual speculations on the emergence of Asian century comes true in the foreseeable future, India and China can play a vital role in shaping the destiny of the entire globe. Their newly found confidence and influence in the international stage and dominating role in Asia are  testimonies to the prospects of their future. By large, Asian security greatly depends on how these two countries conduct themselves in a manner that preserves and balance the regional order and political status quo in Asian continent.

Traditionally, India and China never had a warm relationship through out the modern history, since the declaration of Indian independence and the creation of communist regime in China. Particularly, the behavior of the two countries during the Cold War reflects the deep hostility and suspicion against each other. Although there are multiple factors that can explain the sharp division between the two countries, beyond a doubt, the most crucial factor or stepping stone is the question of the legal status of Tibet. The diplomatic ties between the two countries had been badly strained after China’s military annexation of Tibet in 1959. The Indian government’s response to China’s occupation of Tibet and its continuous support of the Tibetan freedom movement by offering legal sanctuary for more than eight thousand Tibetan refugees indicates New Delhi’s serious concern and mistrust of Beijing. China, on the other side, engages in continuous hostility toward New Delhi with repeated military incursions into Indian territories and provokes India by claiming its sovereignty over some Indian territories in eastern frontiers (Skim and Arunachal pradesh) and Northern frontiers (Ladhak). The Sino-Indian conflict and confrontation can be best illustrated by the border war in 1962 and the continuous military building and reorganization of force into border areas. Both Beijing and New Delhi spend billions of dollars on military allocation and reorganization in the border areas to strengthen their defensive and offensive capability against each other. Although, the actual strength of PLA forces in the border area is unknown due to China’s secrecy and lack of transparency regarding its military. But there is no doubt of China’s secret military operations and infrastructure developments along India borders in Himalayan regions. In recent years, China faced criticism for its lack of transparency and openness about its military build up from both India and the United States. To defend its home from possible attack from China, India rapidly moved to reorganize its forces in the border regions and today India has ten mountain divisions ready to confront any attack from China and defend its territories.

The negative implications of heightening tensions and increasing hostilities between India and China threatens the regional stability of Asia by disrupting the political and social atmosphere of neighboring countries such as Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan and Russia. China and India share borders with all of these countries, except India does not have a common border with Russia. Border between these countries are unresolved issues with no legal historical demarcations. The complexities and confrontations of border issues come from China’s illegal annexation of Tibet, as Tibet did not have clear border line with these countries. For example, Bhutan, a small Buddhist country, is facing increasing pressure and anxiety from China’s military incursion into its border through tri-junction, which is a traditionally territorial meeting point of the three countriesa. India’s renewed support to Bhutan as a traditional ally further deteriorates Sino-Indian relations. India has a vested interest to protect and secure Bhutan from any invasions. Bhutan’s strategic and Geo-political importance for Indian defense makes it hard for India to ignore, even if Bhutan is an economically poor and militarily weak nation. India’s military aid and relocation of forces toward Bhutan faced strong criticisms and objections from China. Nepal is also undergoing political turmoil and civil war within its border due to political meddling from China and India. China’s plan to join a railway network from Lhasa to Nepal and its increasing political influence worries India. The struggle between pro-Chinese and pro-Indian factions in Nepal today is critical stage and often threatens the peace and stability in Nepal. In recently, Chinese Backed Moist insurgency in Nepal has took control over Nepal with more than 10 years of  gorilla war and terrorism. Once peaceful Himalayan kingdoms have now become battle grounds for two Asian giants who flex their muscles in their power struggle.

Another area of rising political temperatures and social violence is Pakistan, whose traditional rivalry with India further escalates from China’s interference. Murty contented that “There is this support which China as been giving to Pakistan (moral, political, economic, and military) which has been a factor contributing Pakistani hostility toward India and Pak intransigence on Kashmir”(p.61 1987) Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities and military equipments are largely backed by China in its efforts to contain India’s growing influence in South Asia. China’s economic aids and infrastructural developments in Pakistan and Kashmir anger India. The weak civil government in Pakistan and rising terrorism in its territory is a grave source of danger with the possibility of nuclear material smuggling. The Pakistan government’s inability to protect its nuclear facilities in the future will lead to the worst catastrophes of nuclear war. For example, the discovery of AQ Khan’s (widely known as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear scientists) secret smuggling of nuclear materials and blueprints is a testimony to the possibility of an approaching nuclear nightmare. Given the current political upheavals and social tensions in Pakistan under the gravity of NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) war on terrorism, the future prospect of Pakistan is uncertain. India and China should be careful in meddling in Pakistan’s domestic affairs for their own political interest. A fall of nuclear materials in the hands of terrorists will lead to common tragedies and put every one in hell. Today, Pakistan is known as one of the most dangerous places on earth according to survey conducted by News Week Magazine.

Today both China and India possess nuclear weapons and New Delhi is further advancing its nuclear capabilities by signing new contracts with the United States and France. New Delhi’s obsession and hunger for enhancing its nuclear capabilities stems from its fear of China’s rising power, particularly PLA’s secret military operations and increasing hostilities against India. India’s sensitivity toward rising China is not an unreasonable caution; it is deeply rooted in modern history and was sown by the 1960 border war. Possible clashes between the two powers will be a nightmare, as India will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in defense of its territories and people as she is conditioned by the fear and embarrassment of the 1962 border war. Today, the Indian government is facing strong criticism from the public regarding its soft stand on China and growing anti-China sentiments in India will push New Delhi toward a more aggressive position. For example, former India national security advisor, Brajesh Mishra in his interview with Zee News channel expressed his deep concern over current Sino-India political friction. He argued, “I think, we should equip our forces as soon as possible. Our forces should be properly equipped. We are not doing enough in this regard at the moment and I am afraid that in the next five years we might get a bigger jolt than ’62” (Zee News, November 08, 2009). Such fear for China’s attitude and opinion for India’s soft stance are widely shared among Indians and recently hundreds of articles have been published in Indian news papers and online sites in criticisms against New Delhi. As a democratic country, public opinions and anger has a strong influence on government’s attitude and policy options. For example, China’s effort to block Indian prime minster, Manmohan Sign and Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh triggered huge public anger and sparked violence, such as burning China’s flag with anti-China slogans. Such changing public attitude and growing anti-China attitude will have a larger consequence on Sino-Indian peaceful coexistence than imagined.

As far as the economy is concerned, the two countries’ markets are growing fast and expanding beyond their borders, hence trade relations between the two countries are indispensable and will become a determining force of social development and market growth in the near future. Currently trade between two countries cross 30 billion dollars per year and it will be expected to jump $60 billion in the next ten years. The magnitude of economic integration and trade dependency is becoming more accute by day. Good economic ties will serve the interests of both countries and an important engine of growth and development. Without illusion, a strong and successful trade depends much on political temperature; a diplomatic tie between two nations. From the perspective of international political economy, politics and economy is highly integrated, thus the absence of one mechanism will threaten the other. Given the historical facts of traditional trade between India and Tibet, the Eastern frontier (Sikkim) served as a pinnacle of trade, particularly, Nadu La was an important ancient channel of commerce between Tibet and India. In recent years, the political tensions between the two nations badly strained their trade and disrupted the flow of goods by blocking the Nadu La trade route. Such a political rift injures the lives of hundreds of thousands of people living in the border regions and cuts off essential supplies to the large society. Acknowledging the capitalist nature of their economy, large population, huge poverty and high growth rate of economy, the need of a strong diplomatic bond is essential and unquestionable. The ground for a good diplomacy and healthy relations is the peaceful settlement of the border dispute. The peaceful settlement of the border disputes and secure and open border trade will not be possible as long as the Tibet issue remains unresolved. It is the settlement of the legal status of Tibet which defines the long lasting relationship between the two countries.

The successful transformation of Tibet into a peace zone will reduce fear and tensions between New Delhi and Beijing, thus creating conditions for a friendlier relationship and stronger diplomacy of  good faith based on mutual benefits and respect. Enhancing the  diplomatic relationship between the the two states will immensely benefit the lives of millions of people economically and socially. Economically, it reduces the burden of military spending to both countries and strengthens their markets by open flow of goods. The mistrust and antagonism held by the two countries against each other will not be easily resolved unless they come to an agreement of complete settlement of the border dispute. The heart of this dispute is the question of the legal status of Tibet, without which there will be no settlement in the Sino-Indian border confrontation. The demilitarization of Tibet is an attractive and favorable proposition to the Indian government as Chinese forces in Tibet are seen as a potential threat to her (p.56, 1987). India is always keen to neutralize Tibet so that both India and China can live side by side peacefully without fear of being attacked from other side. The same principle is also true in the case of China, worrying about Indian interference in its domestic politics, particularly the Tibet issue. As Murty argued, “To the extent that the Indian government is believed by China to be giving moral and material support to anti-Chinese force in Tibet, the demilitarization of Tibet and acceptance of Chinese position in Tibet would presumably mean withdrawal of such support, if any” (p.65, 1987). Whether you agree or not, it is the Tibet issue that messes up the whole Asia with increasing political chaos and social violence. Meanwhile there is no better alternative solution except the demilitarization of Tibet through the establishment of an autonomous Tibet as legal status which is acceptable to Tibetan people.

The demilitarization of Tibet will restore political and social order in neighboring countries such as Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh by reshaping the current political climate in Asia. The establishment of Tibet’s legal status will dramatically reduce Sino-Indian rivalry and thus gives foundation to political self-determination of neighboring countries without meddling from India and China in their quest for political influence and mistrust of each other’s growing power. It is this border dispute that perpetuates Sino-Indian conflicts beyond their constituency and its shock is felt every where in Asia. As I mentioned above, domestic political problems in all these neighboring countries are largely a manifestation of Sino-Indian paranoia. By large, Asia security and peace are highly tie to the question of Tibet’s lost legal status. Thus Tibet’s legal status is the foundation of Asian peace, security and prosperity. The secured and peaceful Asia is at the heart of world’s peace.

Chinese leaders should not view His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s proposal as a threat to China, rather they should acknowledge it as an important strategic value for long term peace and stability. China’s biggest challenge in the near future will be social and political stability within its border, more specifically, the accommodation of various ethnic groups in harmony. This requires a political solution; economic concessions will not yield any fruitful result. For fifty years, China’s money policy has been unable to buy the hearts and minds of its oppressed minorities and failed to address key domestic problems. As long as China’s current ad hoc policies remain, its domestic problems will remain. Failure to change will injure China’s growing influence and power. For example, the international community’s fear for China’s growing power stems from its domestic oppressions and authoritarian behavior. To be accepted as a responsible and respected global power, China must address its domestic problems and commit to execute international norms and standards. The emergence of China should not be a threat to the world.

References and bibliography:

1 India-China boundary; India’s options by S.T Murty

2 Memorandum on genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people, phayul website, November 16, 2008

3 India worries as China builds ports in South Asia by Vikas Bajaj, New York Times, February 15, 2010

4 Sino-Indian border dispute reconsidered by Neville Maxwell, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 15, (Apr. 10-16, 1999), pp. 905-918. Accessed : 07/02/2010 15:47

5 Peking-Lhasa-New Delhi, by George Ginsburgs, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 3 (September 1960). Accessed: 24/01/2010 15:13

6 Beijing’s Tibet Policy: Securing Sovereignty and Legitimacy by Allen Carlson. Published by Policy Studies, East-West Center Washington. Accessed: 15/02/2010 12:55

7 India, China, the United States, Tibet, and the Origins of the 1962 War by John W. Garver. India Review, Vol.3 No. 2, April 2004, pp. 171-182. Accessed: 09/11/2009

8 The Politics of History and the Indo-Tibetan Border (1987-88) by Elliot Sperling, India Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, July-September, 2008, pp. 223-239. Accessed 26/12/2009

8 The Implication of Demilitarization of Tibet for Sino-Indian Relations and Asian Security, by Suisheng Zhao. Asian Affairs, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Winter 1969), pp. 254-260.

9 Alarm over Chinese incursion in Bhutan by Pramod Giri, Hindustan Times, December 28, 2005

Chairman of the Communist Party and the president of People’s Republic of China, Mr. Hu Jintao came into office in 2003 with a mantra of  “social stability and harmony” to lift up China’s society from the chaos of inter-ethnic tension. Many politically deprived ethnic groups have anticipated a more transparent and open society under the leadership of Mr. Hu. Particularly, the speculation of change had spread widely among Tibetans with optimism and hope for a brighter future. Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Hu had served in Tibet as the Party chief from 1988-1992; where he had earned credential for his leadership and Party loyalty by backing Party’s policy whole heartedly with heavy hand oppression. Despite his ugly past history, in fact he is the only top leader in Beijing today, who has a factual understanding of Tibet and knows reality of darkness there. His knowledge about Tibet behind the close curtain of Beijing gave people reason to anticipate for a positive change with realistic approach and fair assessment. But soon the shadow of reality shattered the hopes of million people who have been suffering under the Communist regime under the pretext of liberation.

The handling of popular Tibetan uprising in 2008 and the Xiajiang riot in 2009 tested Mr. Hu’s political philosophy and exposed the true color of his authoritarian ambition. I can’t envision myself the logic of Mr. Hu’s brutal military crackdown of unarmed protestors and successive political campaigns he has launched during and after the political turmoil engulfed in Himalayan and Xinjiang regions. The political campaigns were based on short-term goal, merely to justify the use of their force and suppression. For example, China’s state controlled media widely reported only the death of Han Chinese in the course of riot and largely ignored the damage and death of other sides. In the case of Tibet, the death toll of Tibetans was ten times larger than that of Han Chinese. Thousands of people were arrested and kept under indefinite detention for months and even years without legal trial of any sort. Down playing its constitution for the sake of the Party’s survival weakens the institutional principle fundamental to all states of governance. When law lost its defined character; the power to defend citizens, and become an instrument of political game, the legitimate foundation of government cease to exist. He should be careful of the grave consequences of sacrificing the law of the land at the expenses of the Party’s interest. Overemphasizing the Party’s legacy and putting its interest above all social interests will be no longer tolerated by any rational men, seeking self interest.

I don’t think such propagandist political move can actually serve the very purpose of a harmonious society. Rather, I fear for the long term repercussion that might engulf China with ethnic chaos and paralyze its growing power. Hu’s blind devotion to the Marxist doctrine of “Social Homogeneity and Simplification” is a risky and dangerous path. China’s effort to homogenize Chinese society through forceful cultural assimilation by flooding the Han Chinese into minorities’ areas has proven to be a complete failure, with emergence of more apparent divisions. On the surface level, there is an illusion of the unrealistic optimism of commonness, more hypothetically, “a single common interest” as Marx predicted.  But in reality, the diversity is still a dominant force that characterizes the complexities of any society. The downfall of the former Soviet regime and communist regimes in Eastern Europe are historical testimonies reflecting the uncertain future of Marxism. Author Arthur Waldron in his article titled “The Soviet Disease Spreads to China” argued that “China’s fundamental dilemma, growing more accurate by the days, is mismatch between a complex society and a government that is unable really to manage it”. I am not making this assumption in vacuum without logical pillars to support my rational test of Mr. Hu’s theory. I can’t convince myself of any social harmony in the absence of freedom and human dignity; rejecting the wellbeing and aspiration others. I have a firm believe that a legitimate power must be come from consent rather than coercion.  Power is not something which we can buy; it must be manifested by protecting human dignity and freedom. Chinese leaders are currently either buying their power with economic concession or stealing with force and coercion.

Today, the fueling nationalism is only the last resort of the Communist leaders to maintain Party’s political monopoly. Unfortunately, the nationalism does not have unifying power; it further segregates ethnic groups and exacerbates the existing tension in higher momentum. So called nationalism in China is not a unidirectional nationalism; it is highly segregated multi-directional nationalism. Each ethnic group is becoming more united with increasing consciousness of one’s own cultural and social identity and religious faith in the face of threats. Thus China as a whole is becoming highly polarized society as each ethnic group has its own increasing sense nationalism. This ugly change in the trend of Chinese society is sorely a result of mismanagement and unfair policies masterminded by the Party leaders.

It seems that Mr. Hu has forgot the complexities of China’s society, “the fifty five minorities” under the illusion of power; the Super Power status for China. I welcome China’s growing power and I do believe that China deserve that status. China is an ancient nation, with rich cultural heritage and tradition, more realistically its population constitutes one fourth of total global population. Yet, I see little space for Mr. Hu’s ambition without illusion about the internal constraints. As Waldron argued “an inevitable fact in China today is that there exist different interest groups whose understanding of the objective situation is different”. I am confident that real progress and social harmony will prevail in China only if Mr. Hu has courage to adopt a policy based on recognition of the existence of fundamental social differences and diversity. I hope Mr. Hu will soon acknowledge the ugly mess behind the facade of China’s growing power, so that the political calculation for social harmony will be more accurate and realistic, based on long term goals rather than momentary pleasure. Merely targeting on preservation of party’s monolithic power without broader consensus on wide range of social issues will get China nowhere. China can no longer resist adapting to the changing realities and circumstances. The politics of window dressing is outdated in the age of informational revolution and has no path in the twenty first century. I wish him all the best.

Arunachal Pradesh

The border tension between two rising Asian powers, China and India is not a newly emerging issue; its root stretch back to the 1950s. The origin of the conflict lies in Chinese annexation of Tibet in 1959. Historically, Tibet has been best known as a buffer state in Asia, particularly between Mongol emperors and Chinese dynasties. After India became independent from British rule and Mao’s revolution founded the Communist Party in China in 1949, the traditional relation between two countries dramatically altered.

The Mao ambition to colonize Tibet faced opposition and strong vocal objection from Nehru’s India. When China completely occupied Tibet in 1959, Indian government was left without any option except military action to force the Chinese presence out of Tibet. Since military operation is costly, Nehru was caught up in a complex calculation of India’s military capacity and the cost of war and he finally failed without strategic action.

In May 23, 1951, Mao called representatives from the Tibetan government and forced them to sign a treaty, known as Seventeen Points Agreement. The Seventeen Points Agreement was signed against the will of the Tibetan representatives and some of the members were gradually imprisoned due to their objection. Chinese government even used duplicate seal of the Tibetan government. The rising Chinese aggression and China’s plot to kidnap the Dalai Lama in 1959 forced the Dalai Lama to escape to India. When the Dalai Lama and his official reached the Indian border, Bomdhi La, the Dalai Lama officially denounced the Seventeen Point Agreement internationally in a press conference, which the Chinese government claimed to be a legal foundation of PLA’s (People’s Liberation Army) rule over Tibet.

After the Seventeen Point Agreement, the Nehru sought a friendlier political relation with Beijing and signed a treaty called Punchsheel Agreement. In which Indian government headed by Nehru recognized China’s sovereignty over Tibet. The Punchsheel Agreement was the biggest failure of Nehru, a man who was respected as a visionary leader. It was a failure of Nehru’s vision to secure India and maintain regional peace and stability in Asia.

The border tension between two rising Asian giants was further escalated in recent years with China’s repeated military incursion into Indian Territory. In the last two years, more than 100 incidences of minor incursions have been reported in Ladhak and Skim regions which were traditionally and legally part of Indian Territory and currently under the control of New Delhi. All these gestures by Beijing are perceived as provocative by New Delhi but so far the Indian government has shown restraint and is unwilling to have direct military action which might lead to the repetition of the 1962 War. There is no standard demarcation of the border line between the two states in the north eastern frontier, particularly the border between Tibet and India. The legal frame work of border demarcation exists, which was settled by a treaty called the ”Shimla convention” signed by British India, China and the Tibetan government in 1914. Although China rejected the ”Shimla Convention” as legal basis for border demarcation, but both the Indian government and the Tibetans strongly perceive it as historically significant and recognize it as a legal yardstick of border measurement.

China’s claim of the Arunachal Pradesh (state) as part of Chinese territory is a heated dispute between two states in contemporary history. Recently, China has objected Indian prime minister’s visit to Arunachal state for an election rally which then led to strong criticism from the Indian government. Particularly, Indian public anger toward China’s reaction pressures New Delhi to take a tougher action against China’s deflated claim. Arunachal state had been a part of India before Chinese colonization of Tibet. The complexity of this issue come from the region’s close cultural and religious connection with Tibet. For example, most of China accusation is based on Tibetan documents. Meanwhile, China’s claim of Arunachal state might be a small step of territorial encroachment, yet a giant political leap for Beijing’s hegemonic ambition, that might have far reaching consequences. New Delhi should be careful when dealing with China on the territorial dispute, because repeating Nehru’s mistake will be severe damage to its growing power and future peace and stability.

The rising temperature between the two Asian powers is sign of future clash. The 1962’s Sino-Indian border war is a testimony of history. Many political scientists view China’s action as containing India’s political influence in the South Asian region. For example, China’s diplomatic move to extend cooperation with Pakistan in trading weapons and infrastructure development is clear sign of ”containment” by isolating India via forming alliances with its neighbors. Nepal is another issue, perceivably insignificant on the surface of international relations, but in substance it is strategically important to India both geographically and politically. Rising Maoist insurgency in Nepal pose serious threat to India and its political stability.

By examining the nature and root of Sino-Indian territorial conflict, the complexity of the dispute embedded in the question of Tibet and its status is obvious. As long as the Tibetan issue remains, the Sino-Indian conflict will continue. The only way to resolve Sino-Indian border dispute and maintain regional peace and stability in the Asian continent is to neutralize the Tibetan issue as Professor Dawa Norbu suggested. Norbu argued “Tibet is a legal foundation on which the both India and China’s border claim rest” (1997, p. 1094) I personally believe that the Line of Actual Control; the border between the two countries has definitely no meaning unless the Tibetan issue has resolved. As the Indian government believes, the restoration of Tibet as a buffer zone is the most effective and available solution on the table. This can be done through peaceful means of Gandhian philosophy rather than military assault. It is time for the Indian government to use Gandhi’s path effectively and seriously to forge a congenial atmosphere for long lasting peace and friendship with Beijing.

Note: This article has published in Earlham Word (weekly news and events)

October 23, 2009

Path to nuke

The Pentagon and Moscow have emerged from the darkness of the Cold War and under the shadow of nuclear race. For several decades, whether leaders of both countries are willing to admit it or not, they had lived under constant fear of danger fostered by mistrust and obsession. The Cuban missile crisis reflects the underlying pain and fear hidden beneath surface of their super power coolness.

That traumatic experience taught a lesson to both sides, the lesson that no any other nation has not received yet. Today, this disease of nuclear race is again gaining its momentum in many third world countries in Asia and Middle East. In recent years, North Korea has insistently sought a nuclear program at the expense of its starving people. Regardless of the consequences of its isolation and ostracism from the internal community, both diplomatically and economically, Kim Jong-il advanced its nuclear technology and became a holder of a nuclear weapon state. He repeatedly test fired its final leg of short and long range missiles across the Korean peninsula and provoked international community. Though Pyongyang remained deft to the Pentagon’s warning against its nuclear activity, but he aggressively warned its peaceful neighbor (South Korea) for military retaliation if South Korea failed to shut up its mouth. Pyongyang’s nuclear provocation has cast doubt on the future stability of its region and instilled deep mistrust in the hearts of people in the neighboring countries. Despite Kim Jong-il madness, Beijing, a neighbor and a closely ally of Pyongyang, closed its eyes and ears in the spirit of friendship. In fact, Beijing has to share the long run consequence regardless its downplay.

Creeping behind the footsteps of Pyongyang, the Tehran has chosen to pursue nuclear weapon under the illusion of its greatness and superiority. On many occasions, Obama administration has urged the Tehran to comply with United Nation’s nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran has flatly rejected the U.S led P5+1 resolution for negotiation and accused United States for intervention and undermining Iran rights and obligations. United States and European allies has imposed mild sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply with international standards and norms regarding nuclear program. Due to lack of support from Russia and China, The Obama administration failed to bring Iran to the negotiation table and contain its nuclear program. With discovery of Iran’s secret underground nuclear site near the holy city of Qum, Obama took the opportunity of the United Nation’s general assembly and urged all the leaders for their cooperation. After meeting the U.N Security Council, a joint resolution has passed against Iran to face tougher sanctions if Iran ignores the standards of non-proliferation treaty before October 1. But Russia and China officially haven’t confirmed their support on sanction against Iran, even though president Medvedev signaled the possibility and willingness to extend Russian cooperation.

On the contrary, Iran took the path of Pyongyang and test fired two short range missiles on September, 27 and one long range missile, Shahab-3 on September 28, which is suspected to be capable of reaching Israel and U.S bases in the Gulf as it has capacity to fly 2,000 km. This is a true gesture of Iran’s provocation and show of its strength. In retaliation, Israel has vowed to take military action if Iran chooses the path of isolation and withdraw its cooperation with international community. Before too late, Iran should seize the opportunity of negotiation offer and choose to live in peace. The miscalculating the weight of pros and corn of its nuclear ambition is dangerous and risky path. Iran has more to lose than gain by seeking this path. As I believe nuclear weapon is not the interest of Iranian people, rather an obsession of its leaders. Undermining the interest and will of Iranian people will escalate further regional instability and legitimacy of aging autocratic government.

It is time of every leader to act smartly and rationally without conditioned to old roots and thoughts. We can no longer repeat the historical mistakes and horror of world war. We all are aware that nuclear war is mutually assured destruction: out of nuclear war, there is no winner. Production of every single nuclear weapon increases the risk of danger. Critiques may argue that nuclear weapons help maintain peace based on decades of historical experiences. It is too early to make such judgment; future is uncertain and no one can guarantee on the future. The best option is to get rid of nuclear weapons.

Note: This article has published in Earlham Word (Weekly News and Events)