A New Direction For Tibet's Cause A Proposal Submitted By @tibettruth To The 4th International Rangzen Conference, Paris August 21 to 23, 2017 Introduction There can be no doubt that the Tibetan movement and its cause has for far too long been stymied by internal schism and unwelcome distraction, centered on the thorny subject of Tibet's future status. The position and declared policy of the exiled Tibetan Administration (ETA) is well known and need not be repeated in detail. Sufficient enough to state that it seeks a negotiated settlement to obtain, what's described as 'Genuine Autonomy'. Albeit under the national, regional and local laws on autonomy, as defined by the government of China! While this is given considerable support among the Tibetan Diaspora there remains also widespread concern at what's considered to be a surrender of Tibetan nationhood. An unease not helped by the reality that repeated contacts with the Chinese authorities have achieved little. China refuses to compromise on key issues. This impasse has lasted for years, adding to a sense of frustration and disillusionment, especially when viewed against conditions inside occupied Tibet, where Tibetans have made very clear their demand for national freedom and a return of the Dalai Lama. The narrative offered by the ETA offers a more positive gloss, one that highlights growing awareness among China's intellectuals and democracy groups. It cites 'support' from various governments of its attempts at a negotiated solution, as evidence that it's policies are reasonable and realistic. In addition claims are made that it has the endorsement of the wider Tibetan community.
Despite these justifications, which themselves are open to debate, a significant division has over the years emerged which crudely presents exiled Tibetans as being loyal supporters of official policy, or advocates of Tibetan independence. Such a polarity at times has proved toxic, rather than a healthy divergence of opinion, freedom of expression has been impacted upon, misrepresentation and intolerance has generated internal conflicts. It has to be asked if such circumstances are serving the cause of Tibet or operating in solidarity with the common political aspirations of Tibetans inside Tibet? When we look at the history of the many struggles for freedom the key elements, central to the progress and eventual success of such efforts, is unity and an agreed objective. Can it be honestly said that such conditions prevail within the movement for Tibet?
Time For Change The issue of Tibet has been subject to entirely unhelpful distractions some internal, others originating from external sources. In particular the political influence of governments and politicians who declare themselves as supporters of Tibet, its people and culture. While there are notable exceptions and individuals who genuinely care about the plight of Tibet it would be naive not to consider that foreign governments elevate, above all else, their political and economic agenda ahead of humanitarian concerns or issues of human rights. What does this mean in the context of the Tibetan cause? Best to answer that by stating from the get go that no government is willing to offer its support to the idea of Tibetan independence, not because it is an unjust cause, or that Tibet has no right to national freedom.
The reason behind such unwillingness is essentially one of trade and Geo-politics with regard to relations with China, so a policy of appeasement, fueled by national selfinterest has dominated relations with the Chinese Regime. The resultant cost for Tibetans and the struggle for nationhood has been high. Neither individual governments (nor their collective voice, the United Nations) has been willing to champion Tibetan freedom, after all to do so would place in jeopardy the many lucrative commercial arrangements with China. This cynical position has directly shaped the response shown to Tibetans by the international community.Which on one hand is driven by trade yet also is guided, to varying degrees, by and dedicated to principles of human rights and freedom. How does this translate for the political and moral support offered to Tibetans? In essence foreign governments such as the USA, India and those within the European Union will limit their support within a context of human rights and cultural freedoms. This of course avoids the contentious and potentially dangerous matter of Tibet's status (a subject the world knows is of critical sensitivity to China) and so maintaining a status quo on commerce and positive relations. It also allows such governments to be seen as taking action, in that sense it's cosmetic, a public relations project directed to reassure concerned voices from within their own countries. The consequences of such perfidy have a direct impact on the reception afforded to the Tibetan cause. For when Tibetans appeal to various governments their calls only have resonance if focused on cultural issues or individual cases of human rights. This brings into question claims made by the ETA that 'Tibet' is receiving support from different countries. What backing that's offered is always mindful of not upsetting or contradicting China's bogus claims over Tibet.
Such is the reality of policy towards Tibet, it's a deadend politically and one that cannot produce any progress for the Tibetan cause, so let's remind ourselves of the present geography to see if there's a way to navigate. Current attempts to seek a reasonable compromise from China have proved a failure, efforts at negotiation repeatedly proved futile as the Chinese refuse to accommodate the proposals made by Tibetan representatives. World governments abstain from recognizing Tibet's rightful claim of nationhood and independence acknowledging, for political and economic motives, China's spurious claim over Tibet. It's pretty clear that demanding Tibet's national freedom from governments is ineffective, although it has merit and impact in terms of raising awareness. It may also bring a temporary sense of well-being to those who carry out such action, but as a serious instrument to further the cause of Tibet such a campaign needs to be re-evaluated. Meanwhile dispatching delegations to an uncompromising Chinese regime in the hope they will accept a condition of improved autonomy for Tibetans is looking increasingly desperate and causing China to play hard-ball with even more determination. Something needs to change, a new direction that avoids both of these obstructions, a movement that can unify and bypass the ruinous and divisive arguments (Umay-lam versus Rangzen) which have blighted the exiled Tibetan Diaspora.
A New Way Forward We propose that a third-way is urgently required to advance the cause of Tibet, one that would not allow governments a default position of declining acknowledgment of Tibetan independence.
Nor encourage or sustain polarized arguments within the wider Tibetan community on the subject of autonomy and independence. It is our conviction that only by restoring a common objective, one that can unify Tibetans will Tibet's just cause be given the momentum it sorely needs. To that end we recommend, in a spirit of solidarity, the following proposal.
A Plebiscite For The Tibetan People We believe that Tibet and its people have the right to external self-determination and consider that only an internationally supervised plebiscite in occupied Tibet will permit the Tibetan people the opportunity to determine their political, cultural,territorial and national freedom. In the context of internal law and United Nations protocols such an objective is attainable, as evidenced by East Timor, while the peoples of West Papua are currently demanding such a referendum. Indeed of all international issues Tibet has the strongest case. “Tibet remains one of the world's most egregious cases of self-determination denied. Tibet has all the prerequisites for self-determination, including a distinct national. cultural and political identity and a clearly expressed Tibetan desire for national independence. Tibet continues to possess all the characteristics of nationality and retains, in fact, stronger national, territorial, cultural and political qualifications for independence than do many of the world's recognized states.
Tibet's past or present domination by China or the nature of its former social system are irrelevant to the issue of Tibet's contemporary right to self-determination� Source: 'Tibetan Nation' Warren W Smith Jr, Page 686 It's our contention that to replace advocacy of Tibetan independence and 'Genuine Autonomy' with a determined and systematic campaign to achieve a United Nations monitored plebiscite for the Tibetan people would be advantageous to Tibet's cause. As follows: It would enable a more productive dialog within the United Nations, one that had a specific objective, which could realize greater support and not be as easily rejected as demands for independence. Allow a new exchange with foreign governments and require them to honor and demonstrate their commitment to the principles of democratic freedom. Since the objective would be allowing Tibetans the right to determine democratically their own political, territorial and cultural status it would not be so easy for governments to decline, as it is presently on the subject of independence. In effect it would permit a greater leverage for Tibetans. Bring a much needed sense of purpose and unity to the Tibetan cause, bringing together all Tibetans by circumventing entirely the contentious distraction and division arising from 'Rangzen and Autonomy' . Furthermore in advocating a plebiscite in occupied Tibet calling for external self-determination Tibetans in exile would be working towards a result that in all likelihood attain Tibet's national freedom. Since, given a free and fair choice,most Tibetans would opt for freedom for their country.
A coordinated campaign between exiled Tibetans and those in occupied Tibet that demanded a plebiscite would give considerable strength and solidarity to the cause. Demands inside occupied Tibet for a plebiscite would be in accord with non-violent protest and any efforts by China to suppress such calls would result in global attention and pressurize governments and the United Nations to respond in defense of democratic expression. In calling for a plebiscite China is placed in a difficult position politically and in regard to global perception, if it outright refused and used force to deny Tibetans that right it would be conceding that it is afraid of the voted decision. In other words China would be conceding, in suppressing or denying any plebiscite, that Tibetans do not wish to remain under its control. An agreed call for a plebiscite for Tibetans in occupied Tibet would in our view attract far greater international attention and political support.
Final Thoughts This proposal has been made in a spirit of solidarity with the just cause of Tibetan national freedom and mindful of the situation endured by Tibetans inside occupied Tibet It is offered in the hope of providing a positive way forward, one which rallies all Tibetans and their supporters around a goal that can bring a much needed unity and shared sense of purpose. We do not regard this suggestion as compromising on the prospect of Tibetan sovereignty, nor can it be considered as being against the political aspirations of Tibet's people. Who we are confident, if given the opportunity, would with one voice choose national freedom.
The question is, which is the most effective strategy to facilitate that objective? Appeasing China for moderate improvements in autonomy is clearly not! Nor is demanding action of governments who refuse to acknowledge Tibet's independence. Its time for a different approach and we submit this proposal as our contribution to that end. This statement was conceived, written, edited and published by Tibettruth on August 20, 2017 It may be copied, circulated and published as long as due credit is included to tibettruth as its authors.
Contact mailtibettruth@gmail.com @tibettruth facebook @digitalactivism https://tibettruth.com