By Namlo Yak
Chinese President Mr. Hu Jintao will pay his first visit for India on 20 November 2006 since he became the President of China. This visit is
believed as a part of the current ongoing process of the summit meeting between China and India, and two countries will continue to focus on several controversial issues. According to annalists, Mr. Hu Jintao will likely borrow the border issue to make more pressure on New Delhi, as Beijing has been desperate to solve the border issue with New Delhi as soon as possible. For India, this meeting will be more than to only deal with the border issue, New Delhi will be able to put more issues on the table to create a huge pressure on other side in order to make itself more active in the meeting.
Tibet issue has been playing a major controversial issue between India and China since H.H the Dalai Lama fled his homeland for India in 1959, but two
countries seem like to avoid raising this issue during the meeting. For China, it will make itself more comfortable without dealing Tibet issue
during the meeting, but it has been misleading India into a passive situation. Therefore, there is a significant importance for New Delhi to raise Tibet issue as a key issue during the meeting, it will not only help India to bring more benefit for its people, but also can find a way to solve Tibet issue. Below, I will explain this significant importance of raising Tibet issue in detail:
To understand the root of the Tibet issue, one needs knowledge of history and the ability to judge debates. When the question of Tibet was first brought up before the United Nations, United States recognized Tibet as ‘an autonomous state under the suzerainty of China’, but it also supported the Dalai Lama submitting the Tibet problem to the United Nations in order to bring about a resolution to the Tibet question and to realise the Tibetan people’s right to self-determination. The basis for this statement
of ‘suzerainty’ can be found at the proceedings of the Simla Convention in 1913-14, a forum for talks between Britain, Tibet, and the then Republic
of China.
The Chinese delegation refused to sign the Simla Convention, and on the basis of ambiguous and temporary ‘historical borders’, refused to accept
the border between ‘inner Tibet’ and China – and even rejected the border between Tibet and India. In 1987, India therefore established
Arunachal Pradesh to the south of the McMahon Line in accordance with the Convention. That this line could include Sikkim, Ladakh and Bhutan is the
real reason why China and India get beyond the impasse of ‘border negotiations’. The ‘Tibet issue’ therefore obviously does not only directly touch upon India’s interests; it could also impact upon the security of all south Asia. Even though the chances of a large-scale military confrontation are extremely small these days, the large and extremely well-resourced military presence is still a factor. Furthermore, the opening of the Tibet railway has raised the Tibet issue to an important position in south Asian and indeed global security considerations. All of
these matters are important indicators that the ‘Tibet issue’ will remain current.
Could these factors impact upon a resolution of the ‘Tibet issue’? Although one would not deny the existence of obstacles, looking at the issue from the point of view of the interests of India, China and the west, a resolution of the ‘Tibet issue’ on the premise of a democratic system could create a ‘win-win’ situation. For instance, it could be as simple and straightforward as, for example, article 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China: “The state may establish special administrative regions when necessary. The systems to be instituted in special administrative regions shall be prescribedby law enacted by the National People’s Congress in the light of the specific conditions.” There is not much difference between this and the “search for the future of Tibet within the framework of the Chinese constitution” called for by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Furthermore, Beijing has already signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress even ratified the ICESCR in 2001. All of these are undoubtedly practical and inter-linked plans for resolving the issue. As for the eventual form it could take, Tibet is most like a “Culturally Special Administrative Region”, an option commonly recognizable outside the Chinese and Tibetan systems and most easily acceptable by the international community; and furthermore, it tallies with strategies of global environmental protection.
So how would Beijing be able to accept such an arrangement? From the point of view of the study of diplomacy, both sides have not been impeded by a lack of communication; rather, what we have now is the result of too much unhelpful communication. Therefore, all Tibet support groups and friends
should urge all countries to acknowledge the Tibetan government in exile, and after substantive talks have been accepted, that recognition would be withdrawn.
Namlo Yak
(Pen name Dongsai)
Senior researcher/writer in Dharamsala,ICT
E-mail: ds63@hotmail.com
Mob: +91- 9816052097
