Analysing the Address of the Dalai Lama to the European Parliament-04.12.08

· Buddhism, Dalai Lama
Authors

When Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France entertained the Dalai Lama despite the protests of the Chinese Government, he started a serious diplomatic rift with China. To understand this rift I will attempt to analyse his address to the European Parliament on December 4th,2008. My comments will be in bold italic format.
ADDRESS TO THE PLENARY SESSION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT-By His Holiness The Dalai Lama XIV [5]
Your Excellency, Mr. President, Honorable Members of the Parliament, ladies and
gentlemen,
It is a great honour to speak before you today and I thank you for your invitation.
Wherever I go, my main interest or commitment is in the promotion of human values
such as warm heartedness – this is what I consider the key factor for a happy life at the
individual level, family level and community level. In our modern times, it seems that
insufficient attention is paid to these inner values. Promoting them is therefore my
number one commitment.

My second interest or commitment is the promotion of inter-religious harmony. We
accept the need for pluralism in politics and democracy, yet we often seem more
hesitant about the plurality of faiths and religions. Despite their different concepts and
philosophies, all major religious traditions bear the same messages of love, compassion,
tolerance, contentment and self-discipline. They are also similar in having the potential
to help human beings lead happier lives. So these two are my main interests and
commitments.

[The Dalai Lama speaks of human values and a happy life at a community level yet what he proposes is the source of dissension and disharmony by challenging the authority and sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China. The Dalai Lama has already conceded that Tibet is part of China and he was not seeking independence from China but acknowledged as being part of China. I cannot see any evidence where the dispute is over Buddhism in Tibet or China. China has between 278 million to 1,057 million Buddhists although they are mostly of a different sect for the Gelug sect. [1] It has never been a conflict of religious doctrine. So to raise the subject of “inter-religious harmony” is a red herring. The Dalai Lama mentions in the same breadth plurality of politics and democracy coupled with the plurality of faiths and religions. I have not seen any conflicts regarding religion or faith, but there are certainly differences of opinions over politics and sovereignty. The whole address is a political and not a religious address.]

Of course the issue of Tibet is also of particular concern to me and I have a special
responsibility to the people of Tibet, who continue to place their hope and trust in me
during this most difficult period in the history of Tibet. The welfare of the Tibetan
people is my constant motivation and I consider myself to be their free spokesperson in
exile.

[The Tibetan people compromise of more that the three major Buddhist sects and in 1950, the total population of Tibet was 1,000, 000 and the Dalai Lama’s sect, the Gelug sect could not have been more than 800,000. He was never elected the Head of all of Tibet nor appointed such. He has surreptitiously assumed this role without a mandate and portrayed himself to the world that he represents Tibet. He is only the head priest of the Gelug sect.

If he and his ruling priests were concerned about the welfare of the Tibetan peoples why has he and the 13 other Dalai Lamas before him kept 97% of the Tibetan population in the state of serfdom and slavery depriving them of education, housing or medical care for 1300 years? The serfs and slaves were finally freed in 1950. [1]

The last time I had the privilege to address the European Parliament (EP), on October
24, 2001, I stated, “despite some development and economic progress, Tibet continues
to face fundamental problems of survival. Serious violations of human rights are
widespread throughout Tibet and are often the result of policies of racial and cultural
discrimination. Yet, they are only the symptoms and consequences of a deeper
problem. The Chinese authorities view Tibet’s distinct culture and religion as the
source of threat of separation. Hence as a result of deliberate policies an entire people
with its unique culture and identity are facing the threat of extinction”.

Since March this year, Tibetans from all walks of life and across the entire Tibetan
plateau demonstrated against the oppressive and discriminatory policies of the Chinese
authorities in Tibet. With full awareness of the imminent danger to their lives, Tibetans
from all across Tibet known as Cholka-Sum (U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo), young and
old, men and women, monastic and lay people, believer and non-believers, including
students, came together to spontaneously and courageously express their anguish,
dissatisfaction and genuine grievances at the policies of the Chinese government. I have
been deeply saddened by the loss of life, both Tibetan and Chinese, and immediately

-2-
appealed to the Chinese authorities for restraint. Since the Chinese authorities have
blamed me for orchestrating the recent events in Tibet, I have made repeated appeals
for an independent and respected international body to conduct a thorough investigation
into the matter, including inviting them to Dharamsala, India. If the Chinese
government has any evidence to support such serious allegations, they must disclose it
to the world.

[Strong emotive diction is being used here like, “policies of racial and religious discrimination the Tibetan culture and religion” when it is obvious that some of the Dalai Lamas supporters had instigated the riots to destabilise the  country in the hope of getting international support for their cause especially leading to the Beijing Olympics. As ethnic Tibetan agitators killed Chinese civilians and ransacked Chinese shops, and did the Dalai Lama expect the Chinese authorities not to quell the demonstrations? Which nation will stand by and  allow the dissenters to run amok? Which nation would not arrest and interrogate the trouble makers. Is it not also logical for a police presence to prevent further anarchy? Compare it to Paris, Northern Ireland, London, even Jerusalem or Mumbai. Here it was clearly trouble started by ethnic Tibetan agitators, encouraged by exiled Tibetans in Dharamsala and surreptitiously supported by CIA trained ethnic Tibetan saboteurs.]

Sadly, the Chinese authorities have resorted to brutal methods to deal with the situation
in Tibet, despite appeals by many world leaders, NGOs and personalities of
international standing to avoid violence and show restraint. In the process, a large
number of Tibetans have been killed, thousands injured and detained. There are many
whose fate remains completely unknown.  Even as I stand here before you, in many
parts of Tibet there is a huge presence of armed police and military. In many areas
Tibetans continue to suffer under a state of de-facto martial law. There is an
atmosphere of angst and intimidation. Tibetans in Tibet live in a constant state of fear
of being the next to be arrested. With no international observers, journalists or even
tourists allowed into many parts of Tibet, I am deeply worried about the fate of the
Tibetans. Presently, the Chinese authorities have a completely free hand in Tibet. It is
as though Tibetans face a death sentence, a sentence aimed at wiping out the spirit of
the Tibetan people.

[Here again, His Holiness, The Dalai Lama, is disingenuous in distorting the reality of the situation. The Dalai Lama’s supports have agitated and stirred up anarchic behaviour among the ethnic Tibetans to embarrass China just before the Beijing Olympics and expects the PRC to sit back and do nothing to prevent mass slaughter of her own citizens, Han or Tibetans? How irresponsible would that have been? All civil unrests has to be dealt with promptly and effectively to stop further spread of such unrests regardless of whether the unrest is in Tibet or Guangdong, or Beijing. For once (since the downfall of the Manchu Dynasty), China was in a position to deploy sufficient police and troops to quell civil unrest.

It is interesting to observe that since there has been no further agitation or anarchy in Tibet since the PLA  placed strict discipline in Tibet at the time of the Beijing Olympics, not a single ethnic non-agitator Tibetan has been arrested or put in jail. No reports of mass massacre or any genocide has occurred, nor has there been undue repression of anyone in Tibet. In fact, there are reports that the Tibetan population has increased as an unprecendented rate, and all Tibetans now have free access to education, medical care, free to travel to any part of China or outside China, and are enjoying true freedom since 1959.
When the PRC made sincere attempts to open up Tibet to the world, most of the journalists were only intent on looking for reasons to “demonize the PRC, most were Human Rights agitators,” or the “insurgent exiled Tibetans” who entered under the guise of innocent travellers, only to forment unrest and trouble among the ethnic Tibetans. This abuse of freedom that caused more unrest had to be stopped. It had to be part of the Tibetan National Security scheme. Any other nation in the world would have take a similar action. But this has been interpreted as “martial Law.” Whatever the Dalai Lama wishes to call it, it has stopped unrest and anarchy.]

Many honorable members of the EP are well aware of my consistent efforts to find a
mutually acceptable solution to the Tibet problem through dialogue and negotiations. In
this spirit, in 1988 at the European Parliament in Strasbourg I presented a formal
proposal for negotiations that does not call for separation and independence of Tibet.
Since then, our relations with the Chinese government have taken many twists and
turns. After an interruption of nearly 10 years, in 2002 we re-established direct contact
with the Chinese leadership. Extensive discussions have been held between my envoys
and representatives of the Chinese leadership. In these discussions we have put forth
clearly the aspirations of the Tibetan people. The essence of my Middle Way Approach
is to secure genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the scope of the
Constitution of the PRC.

During the seventh round of talks in Beijing on 1st and 2nd July this year, the Chinese
side invited us to present our views on the form of genuine autonomy. Accordingly, on
31st October 2008 we presented to the Chinese leadership the Memorandum on
Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People. Our memorandum puts forth our position
on genuine autonomy and how the basic needs of the Tibetan nationality for autonomy
and self-government can be met. We have presented these suggestions with the sole
purpose of making a sincere effort to address the real problems in Tibet. We were
confident that given goodwill, the issues raised in our memorandum could be
implemented.

Unfortunately, the Chinese side has rejected our memorandum in its totality, branding
our suggestions as an attempt at “semi-independence” and “independence in disguise”
and, for that reason, unacceptable. Moreover, the Chinese side is accusing us of “ethnic
cleansing” because our memorandum calls for the recognition of the right of
autonomous areas “to regulate the residence, settlement and employment or economic
activities of persons who wish to move to Tibetan areas from other parts of the PRC.”
We have made it clear in our memorandum that our intention is not to expel non-
Tibetans. Our concern is the induced mass movement of primarily Han, but also some
other nationalities, into many Tibetan areas, which in turn marginalizes the native
Tibetan population and threatens Tibet’s fragile natural environment. Major
demographic changes that result from massive migration will lead to the assimilation
rather than integration of the Tibetan nationality into the PRC and gradually lead to the
extinction of the distinct culture and identity of the Tibetan people.

[A close scrutiny of this portion of the Tibetan demands is critical in understanding why the Tibetan demands were sly and hypocritical and made it impossible for the PRC to consider.

The Dalai Lama’s “Middle Way Approach” is intended to secure genuine autonomy (independence) for the people of Tibet.  That Tibet would be responsible for her own

(1) independent legislature-formulating their laws,
(2) independent judiciary-Tibetan judiciary is the final arbiter, and
(3) independent executive-to have an administration that is solely responsible to Tibet. This means that Tibet would be independent of the Governance and Laws of the People’s Republic of China and yet is a part of China. It is quite contradictory in concept and naturally unacceptable. (Was it intended to be unacceptable to further demonize China and make China look unreasonable? Did the CIA-Americans have anything to do with the drafting of the conditions?)

This means that Tibet will be a totally independent autonomous sovereign state within the sovereign nation of the People’s Republic of China. It is inconceivable that ANY sovereign nation would accede to such a demand from a state considered as a tributary state of the parent nation. Surely the advisers to the Dalai Lama did not axpect the PRC to agree to such outragous demands.

Furthermore, “to add insult to injury” the Dalai Lama intends to make it legal to discriminate against the people of China with ethnic cleansing of Tibet.
This is what he requests,

“our memorandum call for the recognition of the right of the autonomous areas (Tibetans) “to regulate the residence, settlement and employment or economic activities of persons who wish to move to Tibetan areas from other parts of the PRC.” (clearly implying the Han people or non-Tibetans showing racism.) We have made it clear in our memorandum that our intention is not to expel non-Tibetans (ethnic cleansing). Our concern is the induced mass movement of primarily Han, but also some other nationalities, into many tibetan areas, which in turnb marginalizes the native Tibetan population and threatens Tibet’s fragile natural environment.”
Yet, no such restrictions have ever been imposed on any Tibetan, nor any other ethnic minority in any party of China as far as I know. All ethinic minorities in China are Chinese citizens that enjoy all the previleges of a Citizen.”]

The cases of the peoples of Manchuria, Inner Mongolia and East Turkestan in the PRC
are clear examples of the devastating consequences of a massive population transfer of
the dominant Han nationality upon the minority nationalities. Today, the language,
script and culture of the Manchu people have become extinct. In Inner Mongolia today,
only 20% are native Mongolians out of a total population of 24 millions.
Despite the assertions by some hard-line Chinese officials to the contrary, from the
copies of our memorandum made available to you it is clear that we have sincerely
addressed the concerns of the Chinese government about the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the PRC. The memorandum is self-explanatory. I would welcome your
comments and suggestions.

[The practice of “special previleges for any minority group” should never be condoned as it would invariably lead to more discontent and hatred. The Dalai Lama is using the Tibetan minority as a red herring. There are many minority peoples in China and I have yet to hear of any minority (non-violent) group that has been targetted indiscriminately and persecuted.The following is China’s policy concerning minorities:

“Chinese Policy on Minorities [2]
General

These fifty-six are extremely diverse. Some of the minorities, including the Hui and the Zhuang, are very similar to the Han; others are very different, for instance, the Turkic peoples of the west such as the Uygurs or Kazakhs, or the Iranian Tajiks. The Minority nationalities occupy about 60 per cent of China’s territory, including, above all, the vast western areas.

Policy
Chinese policy officially opposes forced assimilation and allows autonomy to the minority nationalities, so that they can retain their own characteristics. Under this policy, the government has set up numerous autonomous areas throughout China. The policy’s real effect, however, can best be described as integration.

Policy on Secession
Both policy and reality are fiercely opposed to outright secession, which the government has suppressed brutally on several occasions. Such occasions occurred in the years of 1959, 1987, and 1989. Most of the minorities have succeeded in integrating reasonably well with the Han, but independence or secessionist and wishes have remained strong among a few, particularly the Tibetans. Ethnic dissent among some nationalities could easily develop as an issue in the coming years.

Census Situation
In the 1953 census 41 minority nationalities were specified. In the 1964 census, there were 183 nationalities registered, among which the government recognized only 54. Of the remaining 129 nationalities, 74 were considered to be part of the officially recognized 54, 23 were classified as “other nationalities” and the remaining 32 were classified as “indeterminate.” The numbers of population has some suspect due to the re-registration of significant numbers of Han people as members of minority nationalities, an action which brought with it personal benefits. Also some did so as it relates to the substantial (though not total) exemption of members of minority nationalities from the family planning policy of “one family one child”.

As far as I can observe, the same policy has been applied to all minority ethnic groups and this includes Tibetans.]

I take this opportunity to appeal to the European Union and the Parliament to use your
good offices, sparing no efforts, to persuade the Chinese leadership to resolve the issue
of Tibet through earnest negotiations for the common good of the Tibetan and Chinese
peoples.

While I firmly reject the use of violence as a means in our struggle, we certainly have
the right to explore all other political options available to us. In the spirit of democracy,
I called for a Special Meeting of Tibetans in exile to discuss the state of Tibetan people
and the state of the issue of Tibet and the future course of our movement. The meeting
took place from November 17-22, 2008 in Dharamsala, India. The failure of the
Chinese leadership to respond positively to our initiatives has reaffirmed the suspicion
held by many Tibetans that the Chinese government has no interest whatsoever in any
kind of mutually acceptable solution. Many Tibetans continue to believe that the
Chinese leadership is bent on the forceful and complete assimilation and absorption of
Tibet into China. They therefore call for the complete independence of Tibet. Others
advocate the right to self-determination and a referendum in Tibet. Despite these
different views, the delegates to the Special Meeting unanimously resolved to empower
me to decide the best approach, in accordance with the prevailing situation and the
changes taking place in Tibet, China and the wider world. I will study the suggestions
made by about 600 leaders and delegates from Tibetan communities around the world,
including views we are able to gather from a cross section of Tibetans in Tibet.

[Again the use of emotive words to stir up resentment and prejudice in the Dalai Lama’s quest to break away as an independent state of the PRC. The sinister finger-prints of the CIA to create instability in a part of China as a very low cost to America is evident. This is what is stoking the fires of resentment.
“in the United States, its operations in the Tibetan region of China are virtually unknown. [3]

According to a Jan. 25 report in the Chicago Tribune, Little about the CIA’s skullduggery in the Himalayas is a real secret anymore except maybe to the U.S. taxpayers who bankrolled it.

The Tribune report is titled The CIA’s secret war in Tibet. It is the first major report on this contra operation in a corporate-owned newspaper in the United States, although this news has been reported many times in the pages of Workers World newspaper. ” [3]

Further evidence from state department papers:

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

1964-1968

Volume XXX

China

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Washington, DC

SUBJECT

Review of Tibetan Operations

1. Summary–The CIA Tibetan Activity consists of political action, propaganda, and paramilitary activity. The purpose of the program at this stage is to keep the political concept of an autonomous Tibet alive within Tibet and among foreign nations, principally India, and to build a capability for resistance against possible political developments inside Communist China.

2. Problem–To explain Agency expenditures in support of the Tibetan program.

3. Background and Objectives–At a 13 December 1963 meeting “The Special Group approved the continuation of CIA controlled Tibetan Operations [1 line of source text not declassified].” Previous operations had gone to support isolated Tibetan resistance groups within Tibet and to the creation of a paramilitary force on the Nepal/Tibet border of approximately 2,000 men, 800 of whom were armed by [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] airdrop in January 1961. In 1963, as a result of the [2 lines of source text not declassified] and as a result of the cited Special Group meeting, the Agency began a more broadly based political program with the exiled Tibetans. This included bringing 133 Tibetans to the United States for training in political, propaganda and paramilitary techniques; continuing the support subsidy to the Dalai Lama’s entourage at Dharmsala, India; continuing support to the Nepal based Tibetan guerrillas; the reassignment of a part of the unarmed guerrillas to India for further training; and the [6 lines of source text not declassified]. Operational plans call for the establishment of approximately 20 singleton resident agents in Tibet [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] two road watch teams in Tibet to report possible Chinese Communist build-ups, and six border watch communications teams [1 line of source text not declassified].

[4]

 

[The above has been highlighted and linked in order to show that the Tibetan movement has the backing and the financing of Wahsington and that is why it is so insidious and complicated.]

I am a staunch believer in democracy. Consequently, I have consistently encouraged
Tibetans in exile to follow the democratic process. Today, the Tibetan refugee
community may be among the few refugee communities that have established all three
pillars of democracy: legislature, judiciary and executive. In 2001, we took another
great stride in the process of democratization by having the chairman of the Kashag
(cabinet) of the Tibetan Administration in exile elected by popular vote.

I have always maintained that ultimately the Tibetan people must be able to decide the
future of Tibet. As Pundit Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, stated in the Indian
Parliament on December 7, 1950: “The last voice in regard to Tibet should be the voice
of the people of Tibet and nobody else.”

The issue of Tibet has dimensions and implications that go well beyond the fate of six
million Tibetans. Tibet is situated between India and China. For centuries Tibet acted
as a peaceful buffer zone separating the two most populated countries on earth.

However, in 1962, only a few years after the so-called “peaceful liberation of Tibet” the
world witnessed the first ever war between the two Asian giants. This clearly shows the
importance of a just and peaceful resolution of the Tibet question in ensuring lasting
and genuine trust and friendship between the two most powerful nations of Asia. The
Tibetan issue is also related to Tibet’s fragile environment, which scientists have
concluded, has an impact on much of Asia involving billions of people. The Tibetan
plateau is the source of many of Asia’s greatest rivers. Tibet’s glaciers are the earth’s
largest ice mass outside the Poles. Some environmentalists today refer to Tibet as the
Third Pole. And, if the present warming trend continues the Indus River might dry up
within the next 15-20 years. Furthermore, Tibet’s cultural heritage is based on
Buddhism’s principle of compassion and non-violence. Thus, it concerns not just the
six million Tibetans, but also the over 13 million people across the Himalayas,
Mongolia and in the Republics of Kalmykia and Buryat in Russia who share this
culture, which has the potential to contribute to a peaceful and harmonious world.

My maxim has always been to hope for the best and to prepare for the worst. With this
in mind, I have counseled the Tibetans in exile to make more rigorous efforts in
educating the younger generation of Tibetans, in strengthening our cultural and
religious institutions in exile with the aim of preserving our rich cultural heritage, and
in expanding and strengthening the democratic institutions and civil society among the
Tibetan refugee community. One of the main objectives of our exile community is to
preserve our cultural heritage where there is the freedom to do so and to be the free
voice of our captive people inside Tibet. The tasks and challenges we face are daunting.

As a refugee community, our resources are naturally limited. We Tibetans also need to
face the reality that our exile may last for a longer time. I would therefore be grateful to
the European Union for assistance in our educational and cultural endeavors.

I have no doubt that the principled and consistent engagement of the EP with China
will impact the process of change that is already taking place in China. The global trend
is towards more openness, freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. Sooner or
later, China will have to follow the world trend. In this context, I wish to commend the
EP for awarding the prestigious Sakharov Prize to the Chinese human rights defender
Hu Jia. It is an important signal as we watch China rapidly moving forward. With its
newfound status, China is poised to play an important leading role on the world stage.
In order to fulfill this role, I believe it is vital for China to have openness, transparency,
rule of law and freedom of information and thought. There is no doubt that the attitudes
and policies of members of the international community towards China will impact the
course of the change taking place in China as much as domestic events and
developments.

In contrast to the continued extremely rigid attitude of the Chinese government towards
Tibet, fortunately among the Chinese people – especially among the informed and
educated Chinese circles – there is a growing understanding and sympathy for the
plight of the Tibetan people. Although my faith in the Chinese leadership with regard to
Tibet is becoming thinner and thinner, my faith in the Chinese people remains
unshaken. I have therefore been advising the Tibetan people to make concerted efforts
to reach out to the Chinese people. Chinese intellectuals openly criticized the harsh
crackdown of Tibetan demonstrations by the Chinese government in March this year
and called for restraint and dialogue in addressing the problems in Tibet. Chinese
lawyers offered publicly to represent arrested Tibetan demonstrators at trials. Today,
there is growing understanding, sympathy, support and solidarity among our Chinese
brothers and sisters for the difficult situation of the Tibetans and their legitimate
aspirations. This is most encouraging. I take this opportunity to thank the brave Chinese
brothers and sisters for their solidarity.

I also thank the European Parliament for the consistent display of concern and support
for the just and non-violent Tibetan struggle. Your sympathy, support and solidarity
have always been a great source of inspiration and encouragement to the Tibetan
people, both in and outside of Tibet. I would like to express special thanks to the
members of the Tibet Inter-Group of the EP, who have made the tragedy of the Tibetan
people not only a focus of their political work but also a cause of their hearts. The many
resolutions of the EP on the issue of Tibet have helped greatly to highlight the plight of
the Tibetan people and to raise the awareness of the issue of Tibet amongst the public
and in governments here in Europe, and all around the world

The consistency of the European Parliament’s support for Tibet has not gone unnoticed
in China. I regret where this has caused some tensions in EU-China relations. However,
I wish to share with you my sincere hope and belief that the future of Tibet and China
will move beyond mistrust to a relationship based on mutual respect, trust and
recognition of common interest – irrespective of the current very grim situation inside
Tibet and the deadlock in the dialogue process between my envoys and the Chinese
leadership. I have no doubt that your continued expressions of concern and support for
Tibet will, in the long run, have a positive impact and help create the necessary political
environment for a peaceful resolution of the issue of Tibet. Your continued support is,
therefore, critical.

I thank you for the honor to share my thoughts with you.

Brussels, 4 December 2008

[It is apparent that the Dalai Lama is insincere as a Buddhist and does not understand the philosophy of Democracy if he considers Tibet as part of China . It is quite clear that he is speaking entirely as a politician and is the lackey of the CIA will never achieve his intransigent aims of  total Independence of China after accepting that Tibet is a part of China. China has always treated Tibet  as a tributary state of China since time immorial. This analysis is an attempt to give the Dalai Lama’s Address to the European Parliament some perspective and not meant to discredit the Dalai Lama.]

References:
[1] http://knol.google.com/k/mbp-lee/a-modern-perspective-of-buddhism/1l23x9udotn1a/7#
[2] http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Minorities/China-min-policy.html
[3] http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/776.html
[4] http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html
[5] http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=23342&t=1&c=2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: