Home > More Topics > Unveiled Truth of Tibetan Separatists' Violence
Article Rebuts Dalai's Hypocrisy On Giving Up 'Independence' Commitment
2008-04-09 00:00

BEIJING, April 2 (Xinhua) -- An article published under the byline Yiduo in Wednesday's Global Times rebuts the Dalai Lama's hypocrisy on claiming to give up his commitment to "Tibet independence".

The article in theBeijing newspaper questions the Dalai Lama's credibility in saying he does not pursue "Tibet independence" but the Chinese government remains suspicious of his stand.

It also questions the Dalai Lama's statement that he has no intention of separatingTibet or sowing resentment between Tibetans and the Han Chinese.

Since 1960, the Dalai Lama has delivered an annual speech on March 10 to commemorate the anniversary of an armed rebellion that occurred on that day in 1959, something which the Dalai clique calls "theTibet uprising".

After reviewing the speeches delivered from 1960 to 2008, the author said it was clear to know the Dalai Lama's real intention.

In 12 speeches between 1960 and 1977, he insisted thatTibet was an independent nation, both historically and culturally, and vowed to keep the stand.

Since 1978, after seeing an unwelcome international environment for his "independence" claim, the Dalai Lama had for several years calculatingly avoided using the word "independence".

Since 1984, he had begun interweaving his "independence" pursuit into his speeches, but stopped short of directly using the word independence.

With the introduction of five-point plans and the seven-point proposals in 1987 and 1988, respectively, the Dalai clique initiated the so-called middle-of-the-road policy. This actually derived from the open declaration of independence to a de facto independence, from the one-step independence to a multi-step independence.

In 1989 when the international situation changed rapidly, some antagonist forces in the world supported the decision of granting the Dalai Lama the Nobel Peace Prize.

Misjudging the international situation, the Dalai clique mistakenly perceived the independence timing was coming.

In his 1990 speech, the Dalai Lama said the rapid political changes inEastern Europe set a model for the whole world and all Tibetans were aspiring for "complete independence".

From 1994 to 2007, seeing the failure of pushing forward explicit "pro-independence" activities, the Dalai clique changed its tactics again and said it hoped for a dialogue with the central government of the People's Republic ofChina (PRC).

While claiming it was looking for a resolution within the framework of the PRC constitution, the Dalai clique required to create a "Great Tibet Region" and to achieve a "real autonomy", to better preserveTibet's unique language, religion and heritage.

The article discerns the Dalai clique always fanned up its independence rhetoric while thinking the international situation favorable. If frustrated by global tides, the Dalai clique usually changed its combat tactics.

Nonetheless, the article says, the Dalai clique remains essentially the same despite all apparent changes -- its secessionist nature remains unchanged and their sabotage activities unstopped.

While clamoring in high profile to request a "negotiation" with the PRC government, the Dalai clique has speeded up its infiltration into the PRC territories, diffusing bewildering information among people, making up stories on how horrible Tibetan people are under the relentless suppression.

The Dalai clique induced the ill-informed people to translate stirred resentment into an anti-government attitude, which finally evolved in theLhasa riots on March 14, the article said.

Although claiming to adopt "non-violence", the "middle-of-the-road policy" and "peaceful negotiation," the article says, the Dalai Lama continues to accommodate and back the Tibetan Youth Congress, a stubborn advocacy group for "Tibet independence".

The article exposes that the elites in the inner circle around the Dalai Lama were activists of the Tibetan Youth Congress.

The Dalai clique's rhetoric of "preserving the unique Tibetan heritage" is just a malicious deception to dupe a global audience, the article says. People who visitedTibet would always be impressed by the efforts made by the PRC government to preserve the traditional Tibetan culture and natural environment there.

What the Dalai clique actually concerns, the article accuses, is not the preservation of Tibetan cultural heritage, but the lost privilege of the noble and clergy classes who in the past unconditionally enjoyed overriding rights over the majority of Tibetans.

The article said the Dalai Lama should be judged on not what he has romanticized his real intention, but what he has tried to realize. Enditem

Commentary: so where does the 'middle path' go? BEIJING, April 2 (Xinhua) -- China Daily on Wednesday published an article by Yi Duo, titled "So where does the 'middle path' go?". Full text:

Following theLhasa violence on March 14, the Dalai Lama has made many speeches in an attempt to absolve his clique of the responsibility it bears for the enormous casualties during the riots.

The other day, he once again stated that there was no change in his "middle path" stance, and expressed the hope that "Chinese leaders hold substantive talks with Tibetans".

"We sincerely pursue genuine autonomy for ethnic Tibetans, for whose rightsChina's Constitution has explicit provisions," he said.

Then what is the middle path the Dalai Lama claims to follow, and what on earth does he want from the Chinese central government?

In his speech to a US Congress human rights panel in September 1987, the Dalai Lama put forward the so-called "Five-Point Peace Plan".

At the European Parliament inStrasbourg, France, the following year, he distributed among participants the so-called "New Seven-Point Proposal".

The contents of these proposals have subsequently constituted his so-called "middle path" formula forTibet. The Dalai Lama has stressed several times that the formula offers the optimal path to the Tibet issue within the ambit of China's Constitution.

However, a close look at his proposals shows that they are in complete violation of the country's Constitution.

In his proposal, the Dalai Lama bares his conspiracy to falsify and blur the ownership ofTibet. In his "five-point plan", the Dalai Lama claimed that "Tibet was a fully independent country when the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet in 1949".

He also repeatedly emphasized in the past few years that "Tibet has been a country under colonial occupation".

In his view, the issue ofTibet is not China's internal affair but one of a colony, which has the right to exercise its "national self-determination" according to international law.

This is no doubt equivalent to another "Tibet independence" attempt.

The Dalai Lama tries to negate the extant political system practiced inTibet. In his "new seven-point proposal", the Dalai Lama said Tibet "should have a democratically elected executive and establish a two-chamber legislature and an independent judicial system".

In the so-called "Tibet's future political system" proposed in 1992, he claimed that Tibet should be rid of "China's tyranny".

It is obvious that the Dalai Lama is attempting to overturn the decades-old political system the central government has practiced inTibet.

In his proposals, the Dalai Lama exposes his desire to establish the so-called "independent greaterTibet" that did not exist in history. The Dalai Lama has long dreamed of unifying all Tibetan-populated areas and establish them into a "greater Tibet".

It is known that theTibet government has never exercised rule over Tibetan-inhabited regions beyond Tibet. The "independent greater Tibet" plan will inevitably affect China's existing ethnic distribution that sees many ethnic groups live together in the same region, hurt their economy and result in social chaos.

In his proposals, the Dalai Lama also demands other ethnic groups retreat from his "independent greaterTibet". This completely turns a blind eye to Chinese history: That Han, Hui, Mongolian and other ethnic groups have long lived together with Tibetans across the broad land.

China's army should be withdrawn from the "independent greater Tibet", the Dalai Lama has said.

The right to post an army is an important part of a country's sovereignty. Such unreasonable claims expose the Dalai Lama's scheme to deny the central government's right of rule overTibet.

The central government has all along exercised utmost patience while pursuing dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

Even after theLhasa riots, the central government has made clear that its policy toward the Dalai Lama is consistent and clear.

However, it is the Dalai Lama who has undermined the foundation for talks despite his loud calls for engagement with the central government.

The Dalai Lama should stop instigating and orchestrating violence, stop trying to sabotage the Beijing Olympics and stop attempts to splitTibet from the motherland as basic conditions for talks if he is serious and sincere. Enditem

Suggest to a friend:   
Print