Comments on: 50 years on, what do we know about Tibet? http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/03/16/50-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-tibet/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:50:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Tenzin Norbuhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/03/16/50-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-tibet/comment-page-1/#comment-827471 Tenzin Norbu Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:16:07 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=2689#comment-827471 I was born and lived in Tibet for 30 years. Perhaps when you have my sort of experience of living in a country that oppresses your cultural identity you might be able to write a fully balanced article. How can you be so naive to write such a strong article when you are not Tibetan, not seen and heard what my people have had to experience. My advice to you Ben is to write about what you know. I was born and lived in Tibet for 30 years. Perhaps when you have my sort of experience of living in a country that oppresses your cultural identity you might be able to write a fully balanced article. How can you be so naive to write such a strong article when you are not Tibetan, not seen and heard what my people have had to experience. My advice to you Ben is to write about what you know.

]]> By: Wangchukhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/03/16/50-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-tibet/comment-page-1/#comment-148270 Wangchuk Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:40:09 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=2689#comment-148270 I agree with the author's conclusion that meaningful Tibetan autonomy is only possibly when China becomes a true democracy. Right now the PRC's orientation is to a strong, unified central govt in which the regional govt must defer on all things. In fact, Tibet enjoys less autonomy than Chinese provinces becuse the TAR must get pre-aapproval for all laws by the NPC but a province only needs ex post facto approval for any laws they pass. Hong Kong has its own legislature, executive & judicial branches & its own constitution, flag & police force so Hong Kong has far more autonomy than Tibet or Xinjiang. The last 50 years have been pretty horrible to Tibetans. Thousands were killed by PRC forces & many more persecuted. Tibetans feel that only independence will guarantee true freedom & protection from abuses by the Chinese Govt. And they may be right unless China changes its ways & begins respecting the fundamental civil rights of Tibetans. The more China villifies the Dalai Lama & represses the Tibetan people, the further China drives the Tibetan people down the road towards Tibetan nationalism. I agree with the author’s conclusion that meaningful Tibetan autonomy is only possibly when China becomes a true democracy. Right now the PRC’s orientation is to a strong, unified central govt in which the regional govt must defer on all things. In fact, Tibet enjoys less autonomy than Chinese provinces becuse the TAR must get pre-aapproval for all laws by the NPC but a province only needs ex post facto approval for any laws they pass. Hong Kong has its own legislature, executive & judicial branches & its own constitution, flag & police force so Hong Kong has far more autonomy than Tibet or Xinjiang.

The last 50 years have been pretty horrible to Tibetans. Thousands were killed by PRC forces & many more persecuted. Tibetans feel that only independence will guarantee true freedom & protection from abuses by the Chinese Govt. And they may be right unless China changes its ways & begins respecting the fundamental civil rights of Tibetans. The more China villifies the Dalai Lama & represses the Tibetan people, the further China drives the Tibetan people down the road towards Tibetan nationalism.

]]> By: Huw Slaterhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/03/16/50-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-tibet/comment-page-1/#comment-15674 Huw Slater Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:50:09 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=2689#comment-15674 I just noticed that the link to Tibet: A Human Development and Environment Report, did not make it in...hopefully it works this time: www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=95&rmenuid=11 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: edaiyuhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/03/16/50-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-tibet/comment-page-1/#comment-15663 edaiyu Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:53:51 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=2689#comment-15663 Very insightful! Thanks. Very insightful! Thanks.

]]> By: Huw Slaterhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/03/16/50-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-tibet/comment-page-1/#comment-15648 Huw Slater Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:22:54 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=2689#comment-15648 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 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 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. [<em>Ed: Huw Slater is a former secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Tibet Council</em>] 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: Anonymoushttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/03/16/50-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-tibet/comment-page-1/#comment-15300 Anonymous Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:54:35 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=2689#comment-15300 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. 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.

]]>