By Tsering Topgyal
On 25 April, 2008, China offered to talk to the Dalai Lama. Through Xinhua, an official said that Beijing will have “contact and consultation with Dalai’s private representative.” Western governments welcomed the gesture enthusiastically.
Experience has taught the Tibetans to be more guarded. The Dalai Lama welcomed “serious” talks, not empty gestures. The exile prime minister called China’s offer a “good sign” and that normalcy must be restored in Tibet for formal talks to begin.
Circumspection is warranted. Xinhua repeated Beijing’s pre-conditions that the Dalai Lama repeatedly addressed. He denied seeking independence, opposed violence and supported the Beijing Olympics. Meanwhile, vilification of the Dalai Lama continues. On 27 April, People’s Daily accused him of secessionism and “playing with words.” On 30 April, China Daily said that he “is spewing lies.” Is Beijing serious about addressing fundamental Tibetan grievances?
This is an important question because when raised expectations are dashed, dialogue becomes dangerous. Dialogue must now be treated with trepidation as much as relief.
Talks always raise Tibetan hopes and expectations. Tibetans think that deliverance from political powerlessness, cultural depression and economic marginalisation is close. The possibility of being united with the Dalai Lama lifts their sunken spirits. Past experience suggests that failed dialogue provokes Tibetan protests.
Between 1987 and 1992, Lhasa was rocked by 140 protests and riots. Martial law was imposed in Lhasa in 1989. The Tibetans paid dearly. Many died during protests or in prisons. Others spent years in prisons and labour camps.
The protests took place after the Sino-Tibetan dialogue that began in 1978 collapsed. Four exile fact-finding missions visited Tibet between 1979 and 1985, where they received wildly emotional receptions. Two exploratory talks took place in 1982 and 1984. Dialogue failed as a result of widely divergent agenda, but the balance of compromise favoured the Chinese. The Dalai Lama controversially gave up independence for autonomy, while Beijing denied the existence of a Tibetan issue, choosing only to talk about the Dalai Lama’s return.
The euphoria of renewed links with the Dalai Lama and promise of greater autonomy, palpable in the early 1980s, gave way to despair and anger as talks floundered and Beijing saw economic development as a panacea for Tibetan grievances. In 1984, Tibet was opened for Chinese businesses and trade, despite the reservations of leading Tibetan cadres. The influx of Chinese caused great resentment. More fundamental political, cultural and economic reasons existed, but the failure of talks and the dashing of hope clearly contributed to the 1987-1992 protests.
The recent round of nearly 60 protests and riots is no different.
A sense of political hopelessness and cultural depression has gripped the Tibetan psyche in the face of hard-line policies-ruthless suppression of dissent and unbridled economic development-Chinese migration and the continued exile and treatment of the Dalai Lama. Even in heavily censored blogs and popular media from Tibet, the Dalai Lama’s exile and the fate of Tibetan identity under Chinese political and cultural imperialism are lamented at great risk.
Against this backdrop of despair, dialogue resumed in September 2002, raising Tibetan hopes again.
Immediately, Beijing indicated that it was not interested in meaningful negotiations. The Dalai Lama’s representatives were not formally recognised and his scaled-down, post-2002 Middle Way policy was pooh-poohed. In 2005, Zhang Qingli, Tibet’s Party Secretary, stepped up the anti-Dalai lama campaign calling him a “false religious leader.” On September 30, 2006, Chinese troops shot dead two Tibetans escaping across the Himalayas.
On 18 July, 2007, Beijing announced the notorious “Order No. 5”, prohibiting Tibetan lamas from reincarnating without prior approval from the Chinese government! Clearly, Beijing has the selection of the next Dalai Lama in mind. Tibetan resentment grew.
After six rounds of dialogue, which the Tibetans handled with great delicacy, nothing was achieved. The Dalai Lama conceded on 10 March, 2008 that “on the fundamental issue, there has been no concrete result.” On that and the next three days, monks and nuns in Lhasa demonstrated peacefully, but were beaten up and arrested. On 14 March protesters turned violent and attacked any symbol of Chinese colonialism (not of capitalism or modernity as leftist pundits are trying to portray), including Han and Hui Chinese. Through written and verbal slogans, the protestors were clearly adding weight to the Dalai Lama’s positions, with the stalled dialogue in their minds. They are paying with lives and livelihoods. This time around, Chinese migrants also suffered.
This time around, according to the Beijing-based Tibetan writer, Woeser, “Tibetans in China hold that the Chinese side is not sincere about the talk.”
In light of such suffering, it would be extremely irresponsible for Beijing to initiate a dialogue without addressing long-standing Tibetan grievances. Dharamsala should also tone down its positive assessment of talks, if it is not certain that positive outcomes are in the offing. Let’s not raise the hopes of the Tibetans in Tibet again, only to be cruelly dashed at the hands of Chinese intransigence. Western leaders should push China to conduct substantive talks instead of using dialogue as a PR gimmick. Remember the dead Chinese and the Tibetans, Mr. Hu!
Tsering Topgyal is a Tibetan writing a PhD dissertation on the Sino-Tibetan conflict at the London School of Economics. This piece appears in Tibet Society Briefing. Also by the author: “Our struggle will go on, despite the crackdown” in The Independent.
