By: Huw Slater

Huw Slater — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:50:09 +0000

I just noticed that the link to Tibet: A Human Development and Environment Report, did not make it in…hopefully it works this time: http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=95&rmenuid=11

By: edaiyu

edaiyu — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:53:51 +0000

Very insightful! Thanks.

By: Huw Slater

Huw Slater — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:22:54 +0000

Hi Ben,
thanks for helping to identify some of the issues that really need to be discussed about Tibet.
I just want to take issue with a couple of things. One of the most important elements of your analysis is showing that the Chinese approach to Tibet is not black and white. A similar approach is needed for the exile community.
You point out that, “while the exiles rally pro bono international lawyers for their improbable grand design, other Tibetans are working towards gradual change from within the system”, and suggest that “they will probably have more impact than the exiles in the long run”. However this doesn’t acknowledge that many of those promoting gradual change are in fact exiles. There are many young Tibetans who have managed to gain an education either in India or a third country such as Australia or the USA, who have realised that there are many positive contributions that can be made, that do not require promoting the “grand design”!
They are live to many of the issues of economic disenfrachisement that you identify as a contributing factor in the recent unrest. They have sometimes taken on Chinese passports (that have been enthusiastically promoted by Chinese embassies to Tibetan exiles), in order that they can travel to Tibet and see for themselves the many serious development challenges facing Tibet. Some of them are trained in anthropology, economics and other disciplines. As you mention, they tend to stay out of the limelight, but many of them contribute to reports such as Tibet: A Human Development and Environment Report .
Another important point is that the article you refer to on http://www.tibet.com, is in fact a statement from 1992. Not only is it over 16 years old, it is a product of a time when the dynamics of the Tibet issue were quite different. The Dalai Lama had recently been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; the suppression of reformists in Tiananmen Square was a recent memory, and it seemed to some observers that China was coming in to a period of significant change. The exile community began to assert claims that tapped in to the pro-human rights and pro-democracy agenda of the US, and clearly overstretched their ambition.
The website in fact is not the official website of the government in exile: that can be found at http://www.tibet.net, and demonstrates that both the Dalai Lama and the government-in-exile have moved on somewhat since the early ‘90s. Contrary to your suggestion that “these demands were repeated at the most recent ‘discussions’ between exile representatives and Beijing”, after discussions with representatives of the Dalai Lama, it seems pretty clear that the suggestions put to the Chinese by the Tibetans were hardly comparable to those made by the Dalai Lama in 1992. Yes, they still claim “genuine autonomy” for all Tibetan areas of China, but there were no claims for a Tibetan “president”.
You have identified the need for a more realistic assessment of China’s activities in Tibet. Surely a similar even-handed approach must be taken to the exile community. The exiles are not a static group with a universal set of fundamentalist ideas. They are a dynamic community, with many approaches to the Tibet issue. Surely it could only help the resolution of the dispute to recognise the ability of many exiles to contribute to discussion rather than selectively depicting them as an immovable obstacle.
That said, I think that your suggestion that “much more needs to go into education, health and inclusive development programs”, is very important. I think it is important to encourage those on both sides of the border to consider these issues in greater depth, and to work toward progressing them as much as possible.
[Ed: Huw Slater is a former secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Tibet Council]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:54:35 +0000

At last – a bit of balance ! Though no evaluation of the factionalised Tibetan exile groups, and no analysis of the capacity of these exile groups to turn violent as the Dalai Lama’s influence fades away.

Comments on: 50 years on, what do we know about Tibet?

By: Huw Slater

By: edaiyu

By: Huw Slater

By: Anonymous