Earnest Negotiations the Only Answer To Growing Unrest in Tibet
| Author | Michael C. van Walt van Praag |
| Date | 01 May 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/004711788900900501 |
| Published date | 01 May 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
377
EARNEST
NEGOTIATIONS
THE
ONLY
ANSWER
TO GROWING
UNREST
IN
TIBET
Michael
C.
van
Walt
van
Praag
Introduction
In
the
past
two
years
much
progress
has
been
made
towards
resolving
conflicts
in
many
parts
of
the
world.
The
Geneva
accords
paved
the
way
for
the
with-
drawal
of
Soviet
troops
from
Afghanistan;
Namibia
will
gain
its
independence
under
the
terms
of
a
peace
accord
involving
South
Africa,
Angola
and
the
United
States;
Morocco
is
willing
to
negotiate
with
the
Polisario
about
the
future
status
of
the
Western
Sahara,
to
be
determined
by
plebiscite;
Vietnam
is
withdrawing
troops
from
Kampuchea
and
Laos,
making
a
restoration
of
peace
in
that
part
of
the
world
a
possibility
also.
No
significant
progress
has
been
made
in
resolving
the
tense
situation
in
Tibet,
however,
despite
the
Dalai
Lama’s
important
new
peace
initiative.
Lack
of
progress
in
Tibet
is
partly
due
to
the
exertion
of
insufficient
inter-
national
pressure
on
China
to
respect
the
rights
and
aspirations
of
the
Tibetan
people
and
to
respond
more
constructively
to
the
Dalai
Lama’s
efforts
to
reach
a
negotiated
settlement
of
the
Tibetan
question.
Disagreement
among
the
Chinese
leadership
on
the
most
effective
way
of
dealing
with
the ’Tibet
prob-
lem’
may
also
contribute
to
China’s
slow
and
unconstructive
response.
Perceived
economic
and
political
interests
of
many
countries
vis-a-vis
China
prevent
them
from
taking
a
firm
stand
on
the
question
of
Tibet.
But
perhaps
insufficient
information
about
the
background
to
the
conflict,
the
present
situation
in
Tibet
and
the
meaning
of
the
Dalai
Lama’s
peace
propo-
sals
also
contribute
to
the lack
of
international
assertiveness
on
this
issue.
With
the
sudden
death
of
the
Panchen
Lama,
long
considered
to
be
the
second
most
important
Tibetan
Buddhist
leader,
during
a
rare
visit
to
his
homeland
from
Beijing
in
late
January,
China
may
feel
a
greater
need
to
seek
a
negotiated
solution.
The
Panchen
Lama
was
the
only
Tibetan
leader
who
could
lend
at
least
a
semblance
of legitimacy
to
China’s
occupation
of
Tibet.
Without
him,
only
an
agreement
with
the
Dalai
Lama,
the
exiled
spiritual
and
temporal
leader
of
Tibet,
can
provide
any
legitimacy.
Background*
*
Tibet
is
situated
in
the
very
heart
of
Asia,
and
constitutes
the
world’s
highest
plateau
separating
the
two
most
populous
countries:
China
and
India.
It
covers
an
area
of
approximately
850,000
square
miles,
nine
times
the
size
of
the
United
Kingdom
and
almost
equal
in
size
to
the
whole
European
Community.
378
Less
than
6
million
Tibetans
live
in
Tibet,
and
some
120,000
live
in
exile.’
I
The
Tibetan
people
are
a
distinct
people
with
their
own
rich
and
unique
cultural
and
spiritual
heritage,
language,
and
way
of
life.
Their
recorded
history
dates
back
at
least
two
thousand
years,
when
the
Yarlung
Dynasty
was
established
in
127
BC.
The
entire
Tibetan
plateau
was
unified
and
the
greater
Tibetan
state
created
in
the
seventh
century.
Parts
of
Tibet
are
fertile,
while other
parts,
especially
the
northern
plains
(Chang-Tang),
are
largely
uninhabitable.
The
country
consists
mostly
of
agri-
cultural
land
and
the
land
along
the
numerous
rivers
and
in
the
valleys
can
be
extremely
fertile
and
rich in
forests.
Before
1950,
Tibet
was
populated
virtually
exclusively
by
Tibetans.
In
fact,
Mao
Dzedong
complained
in
1952
that
’while
several
thousand
Han
people
live
in
Sinkiang,
there
are
hardly
any
in
Tibet,
where
our
army
finds
itself
in
a
totally
different
minority
nationality
area. &dquo;
In
1953
Chinese
population
statistics
put
the
population
of
Tibet
at
6.34
million:
1.67
million
in
Qinghai;
3.4
million
in
Kham;
and
1.27
million
in
the
newly
created
’autonomous
region’
of
Tibet.
At
the
time,
there
could
have
been
no
more
than
a
quarter
of
a
million
Chinese
and
Mongolians
in
Tibet,
and
they
lived
only
in
the
border
regions
of Amdo
and
Kham.
Today,
the
number
of
Chinese
in
Tibet
is
estimated
to
be
between
5
and
7.5
million,
of
which
over
one
million
are
thought
to
live
in
the
Tibet
Autonomous
Region.4
4
Historically,
Tibet’s
geographic
’and
political
isolation,
its
vastness
and
harsh
climatic
conditions
ensured
the
country’s
continued
independence,
even
at
the
height
of
Western
imperialistic
expansion.
Asia’s
great
powers
suc-
ceeded
for
centuries
in
preventing
any one
of
them
from
controlling
Tibet,
in
order
to
ensure
the
continued
existence
of
a
neutral
buffer-state
between
them.
Though
Tibet
occasionally
exerted
influence
over
neighbouring
countries
and
peoples
and
was
itself
at
times
subjected
to
varying
degrees
of
influence
by
foreign
rulers,
namely
the
Mongols,
the
Manchus,
the
British
and
the
Nepalese,
the
Tibetan
state
always
remained
intact
and,
unlike
most
states
in
Asia,
was
never
colonized.’
Ironically,
it
was
when
most
empires
were
being
dismantled
and
forced
to
shed
their
colonies
that
revolutionary
China
expanded
its
empire
and
established
colonial
rule
over
Tibet.
China
today
claims
that
Tibet
became
an
integral
part
of
China
when
both
countries
came
under
Mongol
domination
in
the
thirteenth
century.
At
the
height
of
their
power,
the
Mongol
and
Manchu
emperors
who
conquered
China
and
established
the
Yuan
and
Qing
dynasties,
exerted
influence
over
1
No
exact
figures
on
the
population
are
available.
Discrepancies
in
official
figures
are
largely
due
to
the
lack
of
reliable
census
figures,
varying
descriptions
of
Tibet’s
political
or
administrative
boundaries
and
differing
uses
of
the
term
’Tibetan’.
2
Mao-Tse-Tung,
Selected
Works,
vol.
5,
pp.
73-4.
3
The
Statesman’s
Year-book
1972-73,
at
p.
815.
These
figures
are
similar
to
those
given
by
the
Tibetan
government
in
exile,
which
put
the
figure
at
6
million.
Most
of
Kham
is
referred
to
as
Hsi
Kang
(Xikang)
in
these
Chinese
statistics.
Already
before
the
1949
invasion,
Beijing
claimed
the
area
should
become
a
separate
province
to
be
called
Xikang.
See
General
Fu
Sung-mu,
History
of the
Creation
of Hsi
Kang
Province,
Ch.
1
(1912),
reproduced
in
India
Office
Library
and
Records,
Doc.
L/PxS/10/149.
Though
Xikang
was
shown
on
some
Chinese
maps,
the
province
was
never
actually
created.
4
For
a
discussion,
see
M.C.
van
Walt
van
Praag,
Population
Transfer
and
the
Survival
of the
Tibetan
Identity
(2nd
rev.
edn.,
1988).
5
For
detailed
discussions
see
M.C.
van
Walt
van
Praag,
The
Status
of
Tibet:
History,
Rights
and
Prospects
in
International
Law
(Boulder/London,
1987);
H.
Richardson,
Tibet
and
its
History
(London,
1962).
See
also
Wilmer,
Cutler
and
Pickering’s
legal
opinion
’The
Status
of
Tibet’,
Washington,
DC,
7
May
1986.
To continue reading
Request your trial