Why is it that the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people, does not live in Tibet? Many people are aware that the Dalai Lama lives in exile and that he has done so for 51 years, but surprisingly few in Taiwan are familiar with the story of why he was forced to flee 51 years ago.
Recently, a Chinese-language version of the Dalai Lama’s autobiography My Land and My People was published in Taiwan and it is an absolute must for anyone curious about that time in history. More importantly, the book also provides many lessons for Taiwan today as it faces the formidable challenge of rapprochement with China.
What happened in Tibet half a century ago? Why did the country not enjoy peace after signing a “peace agreement” with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a document that is better known as the Seventeen-Point Agreement, in 1951?
Why did Tibet’s capital, Lhasa, later erupt into mass riots and why was the Dalai Lama forced to flee his homeland?
The Seventeen-Point Agreement not only failed to facilitate a sustainable peace, it resulted in exile for many, with more than 100,000 people losing their homes and thousands more their lives.
In My Land and My People, the Dalai Lama says that when he accepted an invitation from India to take part in the 2,500th Buddha birthday celebrations in 1956, he did not want to return to Tibet.
However, then-Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru persuaded the first premier of the People’s Republic of China, Zhou Enlai (周恩來), to personally guarantee that the CCP would not enforce its “reforms” on the Tibetan people.
That was the reason the Dalai Lama was willing to return to home.
However, after only a few years, the situation deteriorated so badly that he had no choice but to flee for India.
If we look at more recent history, in 1979, when paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) said that everything other than independence was open for discussion, the Dalai Lama decided to start negotiations with the CCP for the welfare of his 6 million countrymen in Tibet.
To that end he asked for a high degree of autonomy and gave up on ever gaining independence.
However, in 30 years of China-Tibetan talks, little of substance has been achieved and the CCP still accuses the Dalai Lama of being a separatist.
The CCP has also not wasted time, seizing more and more land in Tibet, encouraging “Han” Chinese immigration and promoting large-scale sinification.
Today there are more “Han” Chinese residents in Lhasa than Tibetans and Tibet is becoming a second Mongolia, where not even 20 percent of the population is Mongolian.
Tibet’s experience in negotiating with the CCP has been a bloody one and this is an experience that Taiwanese must not forget in their own dealings with China.
Some people in Taiwan propose signing a “peace agreement” with China, but with no war between the two countries, why do we need to sign a peace agreement?
If there is a war, how is it that the governments of Taiwan and China continue to exchange friendly words with one another?
The lessons of history are there to be learned: A “peace agreement” with China failed to save the Tibetan people and that is something the Taiwanese public needs to think about long and hard.
Chow Mei-li is chairperson of the Taiwan Friends of Tibet.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS