by Dalai Lama
I have thought for a long time about a realistic solution that could put an end to my country’s tragedy. With the Kashag, I have solicited the opinions of many friends and concerned persons. On September 21, 1987, before the Human Rights Commission in the Congress in Washington, I announced a Five-Point Peace Plan in which I called for the transformation of Tibet into a zone of peace, a sanctuary where humanity and nature could live together in harmony. I also called for the respect of human rights and democratic ideals, for the protection of the environment, and for the end of Chinese population transfers to Tibet.
The fifth point of the Peace Plan called for serious negotiations between Tibetans and Chinese. We took the initiative in expressing these thoughts, which, we hope, could solve the Tibetan question. All of Tibet, known under the name of Chokha Sum (including the provinces of U-Tsang, Kham, and Amdo), should become a self-managed, democratic, law-abiding entity, with the people agreeing to work for the common good and the protection of the environment, in association with the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese government would remain responsible for Tibet’s foreign policy. The Tibetan government, for its part, would develop and maintain relations, through its own foreign affairs bureau, in the sectors of business, education, culture, religion, tourism, science, sports, and other nonpolitical activities.
Since individual freedom is the true source of development for any society, the government of Tibet will try to ensure this freedom by fully adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, understanding the rights of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and religion. Since religion represents Tibet’s national source of identity, and since spiritual values are at the heart of the rich Tibetan culture, it would be the Tibetan government’s special task to safeguard and develop them.
The Tibetan government should pass strict laws to protect wild flora and fauna. Exploitation of natural resources will be carefully controlled. The production, experimentation, and storing of nuclear weapons and of any other arms will be forbidden, along with the use of nuclear energy and technologies that produce dangerous waste. It will be the task of the Tibetan government to transform Tibet into the largest nature preserve on our planet. A regional peace conference will be called to ensure that Tibet becomes an authentic, completely demilitarized sanctuary of peace. In order to create an atmosphere of trust favorable to fruitful negotiations, the Chinese government should immediately stop its human rights violations in Tibet and abandon its policy of transferring Chinese people to Tibet.
Those are the ideas I continue to have in mind. I am aware that many Tibetans are disappointed with this moderate position. No doubt there will continue to be many discussions within our own community, both in Tibet and in exile. That is an essential and unavoidable step in every process of change. I believe that these reflections represent the most realistic way to reestablish a specific Tibetan identity and to restore Tibetans’ basic rights, while still allowing for Chinese interests. I would, however, like to stress that, whatever the outcome of negotiations with the Chinese may be, the Tibetan people should have the final word in any decision. Consequently, any proposal will contain a plan for a full-scale legal process to define the wishes of the Tibetan people by way of a national referendum.
I do not wish to take an active part in the government of Tibet. Nevertheless, I will continue to work as much as I can for the well-being and happiness of Tibetans, so long as it is necessary.
We are ready to present a proposal to the government of the People’s Republic of China based on these considerations. A negotiating team representing the Tibetan government in exile has been appointed. We are ready to meet the Chinese to discuss the details of such a proposal, with the aim of arriving at a fair solution.
We are encouraged by the profound interest our cause arouses in an increasing number of governments and political leaders. We are reassured in our position by the recent changes in China, which have brought a group of new, more pragmatic, and more liberal leaders into power.
We pray that the Chinese government and leaders will examine the ideas I have expounded seriously and in detail. Only dialogue and a desire to analyze the Tibetan reality with honesty and lucidity can lead to a viable solution. We hope we can conduct discussions with the Chinese government while keeping the general interest of humanity in mind. Thus, our proposal will be made with a wish for conciliation, and we hope for the same attitude on the part of the Chinese.
The unique history of my country and its profound spiritual heritage make it perfectly apt to fill the role of a peace sanctuary in the heart of Asia. Its historic status as a neutral buffer zone, contributing to the stability of the entire continent, deserves to be restored. Peace and security in Asia, and throughout the whole world, will thus be reinforced. In the future, it will no longer be necessary for Tibet to remain an occupied, forcibly oppressed country, unproductive and marked by suffering. It can become a free paradise where humanity and nature will live in harmonious balance and a creative model for the resolution of the tensions afflicting many regions of the world.
The Chinese leaders should realize that, in the occupied territories, colonial rule is anachronistic. An authentic union of several countries is possible on a large scale only on the basis of freely consenting adherence, when the result that is aimed for satisfies all parties concerned. The European Union is an eloquent example of this.
The solution of the Tibetan problem, as we have proposed it, will be beneficial not only to the Tibetan and Chinese peoples but also to the peace and stability of the region and the world.25
In September 1987, when the Dalai Lama had presented his Five-Point Peace Plan to the Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress, he asked that “China engage seriously in negotiations to solve the relative question of the future status of Tibet.”
In June 1988, addressing the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the Dalai Lama expounded on his plan, which included an agreement to renounce a claim for the independence for Tibet in favor of an effective autonomy. This major concession aimed at bringing about the creation of a democratic political entity of self-management for all three provinces of Tibet, which would remain attached to the People’s Republic of China, with the Chinese government continuing to manage Tibet’s foreign policy and defense. The Strasbourg proposal was based on the idea of creating, in the spirit of the Tibetan way of life, a sanctuary in Tibet dedicated to world peace and founded on spiritual development and the promotion of the human values of love, compassion, nonviolence, tolerance, and forgiveness. According to Samdhong Rinpoche, the Dalai Lama gave up the claim to independence because he was concerned about allowing a real revival of the spiritual and cultural heritage of Buddhism, regarded as humanity’s global inheritance, before it was too late.26
But the People’s Republic of China declared that the Strasbourg proposal was only a claim of independence under cover of autonomy and that the Dalai Lama was pursuing the idea of separating Tibet from the “motherland.” Officials insulted him by calling him a “leader of a separatist clique.” And in 1988, in Lhasa, peaceful protests of monks and nuns were barbarously repressed, arousing international outrage. In March 1989, new demonstrations were put down by the army. Over one hundred people were killed, and three thousand were imprisoned. Martial law was established and kept in place for over a year, until May 1990.
These events led to an unprecedented mobilization of public opinion in Western capitals. The Tibetan cause was no longer the internal problem the Chinese regime wanted to reduce it to, since it now concerned the world. The Dalai Lama had become credible as a spokesman not only for his people but for the world’s conscience by suggesting that Tibet, today a land of suffering and genocide, be transformed into a sanctuary of peace.
My weapons are truth, courage, and determination
TODAY, WHEN I ENVISAGE the future of Tibet, I cannot help but think about certain landmark events. In China the popular movement for democracy was crushed in Tiananmen Square in Jun
e 1989 with a violence that was unbridled. But I do not believe that those demonstrations were in vain. On the contrary, the spirit of freedom was rekindled among the Chinese, and China cannot ignore the impact of this spirit of freedom that wafted through many parts of the world.
Extraordinary changes were under way in Eastern Europe, events that set the tone for a social and political renewal throughout the world. Similarly, Namibia regained its independence from South Africa, and the South African government made its first step toward abolishing apartheid. It is encouraging to note that these changes stemmed from authentic popular movements and that they are linked to the irrepressible human desire for freedom and justice. These historic changes indicate that reason, courage, determination, and the inextinguishable need for freedom will end up carrying the day.
That is why I am urging the Chinese leaders not to resist the wave of change, but to examine the problems of the Tibetan and Chinese peoples with imagination and an open mind. I believe that repression will never crush the determination of a people to live in freedom and dignity. The Chinese leaders should look at China’s internal problems and the Tibetan question with a new eye and a fresh state of mind. Before it is too late, they must listen to the voice of reason, nonviolence, and moderation spoken by the Tibetan people.
Despite the claims of Chinese propaganda, millions of non-Chinese residents, living in regions presently controlled by the People’s Republic, are enduring all sorts of discrimination. The Chinese themselves admit that, despite years of the Communist regime, these regions have remained backward and poor. However, the most serious impact of Chinese policy on the peoples of these regions is the demographic transformation that has been imposed on them. Almost everywhere, new Chinese immigrants have become the majority. Manchuria has been completely absorbed. In inner Mongolia, only 2.6 million Mongols remain, surrounded by 18 million new Chinese arrivals. Over 50 percent of the population of eastern Turkistan is Chinese today, whereas in Tibet the 6 million Tibetans are outnumbered by 7.5 million Chinese immigrants.
Naturally, the non-Chinese peoples are rebellious. Unless the Chinese leaders take measures to appease them, it is very likely that serious problems will arise in the future. I believe it is imperative that China try to solve these questions through dialogue and compromise. The government of China must realize that these questions in the non-Chinese regions under its yoke are not purely economic ones. They are at root political, and as such, they can be resolved only by decisions of a political order.
To bring a peaceful, reasonable solution to the Tibetan question, I revealed my Five-Point Peace Plan and presented the Strasbourg Proposal. Even after the proclamation of martial law in Tibet, we suggested that preliminary meetings take place in Hong Kong, in order to discuss the steps to follow to reduce tensions and facilitate actual negotiations. Unfortunately, the Chinese leaders, to this day, have not replied positively to our sincere efforts.
The Chinese rejected and vehemently condemned my position on the past status and history of Tibet. They want to see me change my position. But it is not possible to alter the truth of the facts. In their narrowness of mind, the Chinese did not understand the gist of the message I tried to pass on to them in my Five-Point Peace Plan, in my Strasbourg Proposal, or in my Nobel speech concerning future relations between Tibet and China, which I am ready to examine with an open mind through dialogue.
Just as we struggle for the rights, freedom, and future well-being of six million Tibetans, so we should reinforce our democratic institutions and our process of democratization. As I have declared many times, the respect for freedom and democracy is essential for the development of a modern Tibet. In 1963 I approved the Democratic Constitution of Tibet, and we have acquired significant experience in the functioning of democratic institutions. It is still necessary to democratize further, both in the Assembly of Deputies of the Tibetan People and in the Tibetan Administration. That is why I have collected the opinions and suggestions of our people. I feel it is the responsibility of every Tibetan to create a completely free and democratic community in exile.
It is important that the Chinese authorities recognize the real aspirations of the Tibetan people, the majority of whom live in Tibet. Almost all Tibetans wish for nothing other than the full-fledged independence of their country. If the Chinese doubt this, they should authorize a referendum controlled by an international commission in Tibet to determine the aspirations of the Tibetan people.
I note with sadness that far from examining the Tibetan question from a new perspective, the Chinese authorities continue to use their impressive military power to crush the many demonstrations of Tibetans. Despite such brutality, the Tibetans in Tibet remain determined and unwavering. It is the responsibility of every Tibetan to struggle for freedom and human rights. But our struggle should be based on nonviolence.
One important event was the Nobel Peace Prize I was awarded. Although it did not change my status as a simple monk, I was happy about it for the Tibetan people, for that prize brought a deserved recognition of their struggle for freedom and justice. It reaffirmed our conviction that with the weapons of truth, courage, and determination, we will succeed at freeing our country. The relationship between Tibet and China should be based on the principle of equality, trust, and mutual benefit. It should also be based on the recommendations that the sovereigns of Tibet and China wisely expounded in a treaty made in AD 823. According to the clause engraved on a stone column in Lhasa, “The Tibetans will live happily in vast Tibet, and the Chinese in vast China.”27
In March 1990, “a spirit of freedom [was] wafting throughout the world” in Europe, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the Soviet Union, and in China, with the demonstrations on Tiananmen Square, but in Tibet martial law was still in effect. It would not be lifted until a few months later, in May. But this measure did not signify the end of the oppression, whose brutality only increased, as an Amnesty International report noted in 1991.
Beginning in 1992, special teams were charged with searching private houses throughout all of Tibet. People who owned photos, books, or teachings of the Dalai Lama were arrested and cruelly tortured, then imprisoned. Many of them disappeared.
In 1994 Beijing passed a series of measures to eradicate Tibetan opposition. The third Work Symposium on Tibet advocated ensuring “the unity of the motherland and fighting against separatism.” In the rhetoric of the propaganda of the “anti-Dalai” and “anti-separatism” campaigns, it was a question of “a life-and-death struggle,” and the recommendation was to “tirelessly rain down blows for public safety.” An escalade of violence ensued throughout all of Tibet, reminiscent of the worst times in the Cultural Revolution; in July 1996 the Communist Party launched three major political campaigns called “Patriotic Education,” “Spiritual Civilization,” and “Hit Hard.” With much propaganda, the first two initiatives aimed at eliminating the Tibetan religion, culture, and language: “We must teach Buddhists to reform themselves to answer the need for stability in Tibet and to adapt to the socialist model.” To supervise monks and nuns, regarded as dangerous elements who led separatist activities in the name of the Dalai Lama, Committees of Democratic Administration and Patriotic Work Units were established in all monasteries. In 1998 this policy led to the expulsion of almost ten thousand monks and nuns, and the assistant secretary of the Communist Party declared that thirty-five thousand monks and nuns had been reformed thanks to the campaigns of patriotic reeducation.
With the “Hit Hard” campaign, the authorities undertook to eradicate all trace of “Tibetan political activism.” This expression covered such activities as speaking to foreigners, owning publications of the Tibetan government in exile or photos of the Dalai Lama, and participating in peaceful demonstrations. People were forced to give information on their neighbors, colleagues, or parents, under penalty of losing their houses or jobs. Suspects were imprisoned, and confessions were wrested from them under torture. Many died as a result of ill t
reatment. In 1999 a commission of doctors seeking to uphold human rights established that in Tibet torture was used more and more as a substitute for the death penalty. A slow death or a degradation of individuals’ lives resulted from this practice.
In the decade from 1990 to 2000, new interrogation and detention centers were built throughout Tibet. Thanks to the testimonies of political prisoners, some of whom managed to buy instruments of torture from their guards in exchange for gold, the different techniques of torture were cataloged by organizations affiliated with the UN, such as the International Commission of Jurists, the Workgroup on Arbitrary Detention, and the special report on torture.
Besides flouting human rights, Chinese authorities initiated a new policy of massive Han population transfer to Tibet with the launching of a program called “Development of the West.” That program has only accelerated since the turn of the millennium as it takes advantage of the infrastructures that facilitate the transport of new settlements, like the railroad connecting Lhasa to Beijing, inaugurated on July 1, 2006.
The Dalai Lama has called this a policy of “demographic aggression” that reduces Tibetans to no more than a minority in their ancestral land and that aims to incorporate Tibet once and for all into China: “A real demographic aggression is occurring, and this is an extremely serious problem. Today the population of Lhasa, according to the latest census reports, is two-thirds Chinese. This is also the case in all the main cities in Tibet where Tibetans have become the minority. The Tibetans in India are more Tibetan than the Tibetans in Tibet.”
In April 2000, the European Parliament voted on a resolution expressing keen concern for the threat that “the massive transfer of Han Chinese to Tibet posed to the cultural and spiritual heritage of Tibet.” The deputies urged China to undertake a dialogue “without preconditions” with the Dalai Lama on the basis of the Five-Point Peace Plan and to put an end to its “persistent and aggravated violation of the basic freedoms of the Tibetan people.”