Nobel laureate and former Polish president Lech Walesa on Thursday called for a coalition of nations – that believed in Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement of non-violent resistance – to prevail upon China to free Tibet, a news report said.
NEW DELHI – “China could take a cue from former South African president Frederik Willem de Klerk who freed Nelson Mandela to lead the struggle against apartheid,” he told the PTI news agency in an interview.
“But the question is, is the world capable of such kind of coalition. My answer is – no, it is not ready yet,” Walesa who is in New Delhi to participate in an international conference to mark the centenary of the Satyagraha movement.
Walesa who led a movement that brought down the communist dictatorship in Poland in 1989, said Tibet’s freedom could not be achieved by the use of military force but by a change of heart of the Chinese government.
His comments came after another Nobel laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, advocated independence for Tibet at a function to award him the Gandhi Peace Prize in Delhi on Wednesday.
“We thank you (India) for giving refuge to one of the greatest human beings, Dalai Lama (the Tibetan spiritual leader) and pray that you help bring about freedom of his Tibet,” Tutu was quoted by the local media as saying, at the function that was attended by top Indian leaders.
Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959 after Chinese troops overran Tibet and set up his government-in exile in northern Indian hill town of Dharamsala. More than 70,000 Tibetan refugees are estimated to be living in India.
Tutu’s remarks had created a flutter in the Indian establishment, which later clarified that New Delhi acknowledged the “One China” concept and these were Tutu’s “personal views.”
India, as part of efforts to improve its strained ties with China since a 1962 war, recognized the Tibet region as an autonomous part of China in 2003.
The same year, Beijing recognized the eastern region of Sikkim as part of India as both countries appointed special representatives to settle their boundary dispute.
