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. The transformation of the whole Tibet into a zone of peace;
- 2. Abandonment of China’s population transfer policy which threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a people;
- 3. Respect for the Tibetan people’s fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms;
- 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. 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 7th 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
Engaging thought 