Area Studies
Return to Conference Index

THE POTOMAC CONFERENCE, October 5 - 6, 1992
SINO-TIBETAN RELATIONS:  PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE

October 5, Afternoon Session II. DISCUSSION

CULTURAL, ETHNIC & CHANGING PERCEPTIONS
  Tibetan Culture and Modernization
  The Chinese Tradition of "Great Unification" and
     the Tibetan Issue
  The Ethics of Religion

Robert A. F. Thurman, Moderator

+ + + + + + +

CULTURAL, ETHNIC & CHANGING PERCEPTIONS DISCUSSION

ROBERT A. F. THURMAN

Now, questions from the floor, and comments - with priority to anyone 
from the Chinese side.  Make a line at each of the microphones, please.  

YUAN JIAN

[Chinese physicist by training] [in English]  I have a question for Chen 
Kuide.  You talk about the wisdom of waiting.  Patience.  And that the 
critical moment you talk about is the political change in China, that is, 
when probably the democratic government takes over.  Why is that what 
we're waiting for?  What's the action we're waiting for?  What is the 
result?

CHEN KUIDE 

[in Chinese throughout]  Thank you.  I talk about the wisdom of waiting 
from a higher point of view.  It means waiting for the change of the 
political and social construction of Chinese society, which will have a 
lot of structural changes and impact on the Chinese people as well as 
Tibetan people.  But, I need to point out one thing:  the changes of the 
political and social reconstruction cannot completely resolve 
Sino-Tibetan issues - for example, those problems that have been formed 
historically, some of the religious problems, cultural and national 
feelings - these aspects transcend the kind of changes that political 
change can bring about.  But I do believe that these conflicts can be 
reduced by change in some of the basic issues which we have discussed 
this morning.  Thank you.  

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Professor Chen, perhaps it would be useful for me to at this time read a 
question for you, from a Mr. Yale Ning from the University of 
Pennsylvania.  He said he had to leave, but has a question to be raised 
with Mr. Chen.  "Mr. Chen, your scholastic flavor in your speech, your 
call for patience, based on your kindness and care for avoiding bloodshed 
and violence, are, of course, very much appreciated.  Your balancing 
strategy, patience appeal, being gifted to Tibetan people, are certainly 
appreciated.  My question is, can you give us a specific definition of 
what you call 'historical chance'?  Did you imply that Tibetans should 
stop active resistance against the totalitarian regime now, remain 
obedient when totalitarians in power, patiently wait until the Communists 
collapse, then at that time go to exploit that historic chance when it 
comes?  Secondly, if what you call 'historic chance' does _not_ come, 
because everybody is patient now, then what's to be done - in your 
academic opinion?" 

CHEN KUIDE

This is a very important question.  Let me answer it briefly here.  The 
so-called "patience" refers to the patience for taking some major 
political and economic action; that is, to have negotiations with the 
Chinese government.  Therefor, we have to wait for this important 
historical opportunity.  Specifically, there must be a qualitative change 
in China. The one-party authoritarian dictatorship of the Chinese 
Communist Party, probably by the end of the century will gradually and 
rapidly change or even fade out altogether and make the Chinese parties 
break into several ruling parties and _this_ will be an historical 
opportunity.  Now, at this time, whatever you do will be more efficient 
than at any other time and then it is possible for it to be easier to 
establish a new relationship between China and Tibet.

So, this is why I say that to grasp the historical opportunity is very 
important.  However, I do not mean doing nothing now.  Actually, what we 
are doing here now - is for the creation of the historical opportunity - 
communication and discussion - of course, it is only a small part, but it 
is very important, because we are making efforts to facilitate the 
changes between Tibet and China.  Thank you.

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Thank you.  Next question.

KELSANG AUKATSANG

I work at the Institute for Asian Democracy.  Mr. Chen, you spoke very 
forcefully and eloquently about the need to compromise between the two 
parties here, the Tibetans and Chinese.  I'd like your views on the 
Five-Point Peace Plan and the Strasbourg Proposal put forth by His 
Holiness.  Do you seriously think that there is room for compromise here, 
given the reactions of the Chinese towards these two proposals put forth 
by His Holiness the Dalai Lama?  

CHEN KUIDE

I am terribly sorry that I haven't had the chance to read the Five-Point 
Peace plan carefully.  I read it casually a long time ago, so I cannot 
remember the exact contents.  However, I respect very much the five 
points raised by the Dalai Lama.  As a scholar, however, I cannot say 
that this proposal has no room for improvement and I do not think that 
this proposal is the final resolution of Sino-Tibetan issues.  History is 
going forward and everything is changing.  The Dalai Lama is a man of 
wisdom, and I personally believe that, along with the changing situation, 
he may even have some new ideas about the proposal in the future.  But, 
since I do not remember the exact contents of the Five-Point Peace 
proposal, I cannot give further comments.  Thank you!

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Please make it brief, sir, we have other questions...

TANG DAXIAN

[in Chinese throughout]  Before I ask my question, I would like to 
remind Mr. Chen about the Five-Point Peace Plan and the Strasbourg 
Proposal.  Putting it briefly, one of the main points of this plan is 
that if the Chinese Government is willing to return to and abide by the 
Seventeen-Point Plan, the Dalai Lama's government will agree that Tibet 
will start negotiations with the Central Government on autonomy in the 
context of a confederation with China.  I believe that this was the last 
compromise that the Tibet Government made to the Chinese Government, but 
the Chinese side did not respond.  

In 1988, I was in China and I wrote a report to the department of the 
United Front suggesting that _if_ you are sincere about this question, 
then the Chinese Communist party should recognize the legality of the 
exiled government of Tibet.  The leaders of the democratic movement 
abroad now don't even have the courage to recognize that.  I think that 
this is the tragedy of the democratic movement today.

I think that if the Chinese Government really is willing to negotiate 
with the Tibetan Government, it should admit that the Dalai Lama's 
government is a legal government.

Now my question.  I have read Mr. Chen's book, _The New Liberalism_, 
[available in Chinese] which is a book worth reading.  Many points are 
very sharp and incisive; I respect him as the author very much.  However, 
I did not see many incisive points in the comments that Mr. Chen just 
delivered.  Mr. Chen, you should answer the questions directly, instead 
of giving ambiguous answers and avoid the important issues because now 
the people cannot raise any objections but can barely agree with you.  
And this is the kind of approach as scholars that we should avoid.  Mr. 
Chen is a very well known scholar in China, therefore his answers should 
be clear-cut and not ambiguous.  That is, I believe he should answer in 
so many words:  Any nation has the own right to decide its own political 
future.  As an alien ruling force, as the British were to the Indians, as 
France to the Algerians, so the Chinese to the Tibetans.

If you dare to acknowledge that what you have done is wrong, then you 
should correct it.  At the present, we have the courage - although you 
don't know very much about the Tibetan question - but at least you should 
have the courage to acknowledge that other people are equal, are your 
equals.  This is very important.

Then, my second point, you made an example in physics, where the birth 
of a new theory in physics is because of the dying out of the old 
physicists.  [heatedly] Now, Mr. Chen is the representative of the 
Chinese philosophers.  Even using this example to explain his point, this 
doesn't make sense.  This only shows how the political philosophy is very 
backward.  Now, I would like to quote what Confucius said:  Treat others 
as you would like others to treat you.  Otherwise, you are actually 
recognizing that the powerful side has the right to impose its will on 
you.  So, the Confucian doctrine has already been absorbed into Christian 
political ideas and philosophies, but here, we are talking about the 
cynicism of the new realistic political philosophy which puts aside that 
reality.  That is why I always say that the present Chinese scholars are 
not good at - I don't know how to put this - that is, they don't have a 
sense of justification, what Lu Xun once criticized, that is, in our own 
destruction, we are enjoying the pleasure of suppressing others.  Now, I 
am not a specialist in philosophy;  I am more specialized in political 
science.  But I think that no matter what we do, our philosophical ideas 
should pave the way for the future democratic policies.  That is to say, 
to let other people enjoy freedom.

As to when the question of Tibet can be solved, I believe that we can 
discuss this question in _this_ meeting.  Because the Communist Party has 
already lost its legality - its legitimacy, because the proposal put 
forward by the Dalai Lama, is very low-keyed.  He even went so far as to 
give up the idea of full independence that he fought for for so many 
years.  So this is the last compromise.  But still, the Communist Party 
did not accept this.  This kind of rigid totalitarian government should 
be gotten rid of.  Right now, we should sit down and discuss with the 
relevant Tibetan organizations and institutes about the details of how to 
resolve the Tibetan question.  Now if we don't study and clarify some of 
the issues which have been formed historically, I would then like to ask 
Professor Chen, when the time comes, how can we stop a war that results 
from these historical differences?

As a Chinese scholar, it is my responsibility to see that the Chinese 
people, first of all, should give other people their freedom, to 
recognize that tit is wrong to impose our will on another nation.  Only 
by so doing, can be prove that the Chinese  people and the Chinese nation 
is great, and that they have wisdom.  The Chinese wisdom is great.  The 
reason that the Tang emperor reconciled with the Tibetan king is because 
the Tibetan emperor tried to extend his territory.  But for this insult, 
the current Chinese cannot understand and would not respect, but instead 
of fighting with the Tibetans, the Tang emperor married his daughter to 
the king.  So I think he is very farsighted and wise.

So today, if we tried to justify what we are doing, I think we are 
really despicable.  So then we should just go back and be petty 
bureaucrats to the Communist government.  Because you have then lost the 
value of what it means to be a human being.  We should behave differently 
than the Communist Government.  We need a new relationship.  We are 
scholars of a new generation.  We need to make our own decisions.  A new 
Asia is waiting for a new program that _we_ are to put forward.  
Therefore, we _cannot_ wait.  Asia is waiting for us!

Thank you!

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Mr. Chen, do you want to respond?

CHEN KUIDE

I think that you did not understand what I said.  I am so sorry for this 
[laughter].  I mentioned at the beginning that all the cultures have the 
same status and there is no superior and inferior culture.  Second, I 
have talked here  about the fact that the worst thing that the Chinese 
Government has done to Tibet is to deny the human rights of the Tibetan 
people and to destroy the culture of Tibetan people.  Mr. Tang thinks 
that I consider Tibetan and Chinese as unequal.  I never said this.  I 
totally agree with the other arguments that he made, because these 
arguments do not conflict with mine.

[interrupted by Mr. Tang from the floor, shouts from other participants, 
finally causing physical intervention at the microphone by moderator 
Thurman.]

The second thing that I would like to point out is that eventually we 
will have to face the Sino-Tibetan issue, whether or not the Communist 
Party loses power or does not exist.  I appreciate your kindly reminding 
me of the Five-Point Peace Plan, which is a great proposal.  According to 
you, the Dalai Lama has compromised so much that he even retreated from, 
given up his original and basic claim.  This means that he has withdrawn 
from the side of truth and justice, and come down to the side of untruth 
and injustice.  Your argument is not tenable and consistent.  Truth is 
the result of compromise between the two sides.  Moreover, we cannot give 
Tibetan people freedom, because we do not have this kind of right.  The 
Tibetan people who used to enjoy freedom, should make efforts to restore 
their freedom.  Therefore "to give them their freedom" these words 
themselves do not show respect to the Tibetan people.  They need to 
pursue freedom for themselves.  Thank you!  [applause]

TANG DAXIAN [coming back to the mic, again, heatedly]

I think that Mr. Chen distorted what I said!  One side's making a 
compromise during negotiations is a smart action.  Making a compromise 
does not mean giving up the truth.  You are a philosopher, Mr. Chen.  We 
all know that the truth is not absolute, but relative.  Today, however, 
you make truth be absolute.  Compromise does not mean giving up the 
truth.  I am so sorry, but I have to say that Mr. Chen, you do not 
understand even basic logic of philosophy.  You do not know what the 
Tibetan issues are.  In 1988, The Dalai Lama made such a big compromise 
that he has no way to concede further.  His proposal caused so much 
debate among the Tibetan Government that he modified his suggestion and 
insisted on independence again in 1991 after he won the Nobel Prize.  We 
should start discussing from this.  The Chinese Government and Chinese 
people lost a precious opportunity.  

In your talk, you did mention the equality of culture, but the equality 
of culture does not necessarily mean political equality.  [shouting now]  
If you had mentioned political equality, I would consider you a great 
thinker and scholar, but you did not.

CHEN KUIDE

Sure, I did.  [inaudible]

TANG DAXIAN  [remaining heated]

Your argument is ambiguous.  A real political philosopher should make 
his statement clear and sharp.  In history, a lot of people have said a 
lot of beautiful things, and in philosophy.,  But in history, then they 
take the wrong action - as when the Japanese invaded China and bombed 
Pearl Harbor...

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN  [interrupting]

We do appreciate your passion and your intention, Mr. Tang, but let's 
cool it a little bit, okay?  [applause]  Mr. Chen, are you satisfied?

TANG DAXIAN

[apologizing but generally ignoring the moderator's admonition to cool 
off]   I am sorry [to Thurman].

Mr. Chen has deliberately and personally twisted my statement.  Anyone 
who has a little knowledge can tell that his logic is problematic.  How 
can one answer your question?  By saying that my philosophy in saying 
that the Dalai Lama has already compromised show that the Dalai Lama has 
given up his truth!  I think he lacks the basic quality - integrity - of 
being a high scholar of philosophy.  A high scholar of philosophy is the 
one who make compromise as the first step, is the one who has wisdom.  
Now we who do not make the next response - if we fail to respond to the 
Tibetan people here _today_ - this is a failure on our part.
Now, I don't have any personal objection towards Mr. Chen.  But even 
through you twisted what I said, I will _never_ make even half a 
concession in front of the truth that I uphold.

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Thank you, Mr. Tang.  Thank you.  Mr. Chen, do you want to respond?

CHEN KUIDE

I do not want to make this issue too "heated", so I don't want to say 
too much.

TANG DAXIAN
[angrily, inaudible]

CHEN KUIDE

[to Thurman]  Do I still have the right to speak?  [Thurman nods]
[to Tang]  I did not twist your statement...

TANG DAXIAN

[angrily, again; inaudible]

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Please, please let Mr. Chen talk...

CHEN KUIDE,

My background?  I think that there is no need to explain my background.  
I do not represent the Chinese Government or anyone who relates to them.  
I am speaking in my own personal capacity as a scholar.

What you have said is right!  But I don't know what your point is, and 
what you want to argue against?

TANG DAXIAN

[interrupting, yet again; inaudible]

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Please, Please, Mr. Tang...Please wait...let him finish...No.No.No....

TANG DAXIAN

What I want to say is that in such a conference as this we should state 
our point clearly!  We should not be evasive!  If you do not agree with 
the independence of Tibet, you can directly point it out, and state your 
reasons.  However, you are playing a rhetorical game in your speech.  
This kind of rhetorical game will make outsiders feel disappointed in our 
democracy movement.  [applause]

CHEN KUIDE

I do not represent the democracy movement of China.

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Mr. Chen, are you satisfied?

CHEN KUIDE

I do not want to say anything more.  I totally agree with Mr. Tang and 
the wisdom of the way of compromise.  Just now he wanted to know my 
point.  He wants to know whether I support Tibetan independence or not.  
I think I have clearly stated my view: I respect Tibetan people's right 
to self-determination and their human rights.  [Applause]

As to the future of the Sino-Tibetan relationship, what kind of scenario 
it will be, and how it will be structured, what I meant by the wisdom of 
waiting, it _is_ because of this [current] relationship between China and 
Tibet:  How it should be is something that we should discuss in the 
future when every single one of us has the right to discuss it at least!
Thank you.

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Thank you. Another question for Mr. Chen.

XUE HAIPEI

[now in Chinese]  I have a couple of questions - not very tough and 
sharp questions.  Just now, in Mr. Tang Daxian's talk, when he mentioned 
some principles such as compromise and communication - I appreciate that.  
And Mr. Chen Kuide also make a prediction and that is that the problem 
between China and Tibet will not automatically be settled as a result of 
the toppling of the Communist government.  My question is, while you were 
talking about the specific principle, I wonder if you have a general 
principle as the premise that you could restate that, whether you 
recognize that the Tibetan people used to be an independent state?  And, 
since you do recognize that the Tibetan people have the right to 
self-determination, do you think that the future negotiation will be one 
between two states or between a central government and a local 
government?  Just now, I noticed that you use the term of this 
conference, "Sino-Tibetan" instead of "Han-Tibetan" in your speech.  This 
is a very important distinction.  Does this indicated your premise?

CHEN KUIDE

This issue is very important.  You have stated my point exactly.  The 
negotiation is between China and Tibet.  Thus, this _is_ a Sino-Tibetan 
issue.  Personally, I admit that the Tibetan people have the _same human 
rights as Chinese people do_.  Tibetan people have the right to pursue 
independence.  However, if we hold this view and try to negotiate now 
with the Chinese Government, the Chinese Government may not agree with 
this premise, and as a result they will not talk to us at all.  We need 
to have political wisdom.  Yes, the Tibetan people have the right to 
self-determination, different communities in Tibet also have the right to 
self-determination, so do the Chinese people.  The problem is how we can 
balance this kind of right, and minimize the sum of loss to the whole 
community?  

ZHAO SUISHENG

[begins in English, then in Chinese]  I have a brief question.  The 
Five-Point Peace Plan has been mentioned in the above discussion.  I 
think that the Five-Point Peace Plan is a very good proposal.  Recently, 
I read some articles about it, some of which suggest that the Tibetan 
people should go beyond the Strasbourg Proposal.  What exactly does "go 
beyond the Strasbourg Proposal" mean?  I would like to hear some comments 
on this from the two Tibetan panelists here, or anyone here.  

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Would one of you like to answer this?  Jamyang Norbu?

JAMYANG NORBU

I give here my personal opinion on what I feel about these negotiations 
with China and the question of compromise.  Personally, I don't see that 
there's _anything_ to be compromised as far as the question of Tibetan 
independence is concerned.  We _were_ an independent country, and in the 
future I think if the Tibetans want to maintain their cultural integrity, 
if they want to maintain _life_ for their society, they _have_ to break 
away from China - there is _no_ other way for the Tibetans!

I hate to say this, but I think Chinese colonialism in Tibet is the 
_only_ surviving colonial power in the whole world, in the history of 
mankind, that has not contributed, even in a _very_ small way, to the 
advancement of the ruled people.  All it has done in many ways, is to 
traumatize millions of people, destroy, and kill.  And, of course, to a 
certain extent in an academic conference like this one we're supposed to 
try to be middle-of-the-road and, in many ways, to talk about compromise 
and understanding - but the basic facts inside Tibet are extremely 
brutal, extremely sad.  And in the end, it's not going to come to a 
question of talks and negotiations, because the people inside Tibet, 
given an opportunity, are going to revolt!

I know it may be sad, there will be bloodshed, and the gentleman here, 
he says we should try to avoid these things but, in the end, the few of 
us talking here don't decide matters.  There are a lot of _desperate_ 
people, not only inside Tibet but in lots of other places in China, and 
they will decide it.  And I can see how they're going to decide it, 
especially when they've had to live under such a monstrous, totalitarian 
system all these years.  Just a few color TV sets inside China and a few 
stockmarkets are not going to change that equation at all.  [applause]

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Thank you, Jamyang.  Thubten, would you like to respond to that 
question?

THUBTEN SAMPHEL

Very briefly, my response is very similar to one which Jamyang Norbu has 
told you.  The only thing I would like to add is that in the Strasbourg 
Proposal His Holiness expressly said that he would like to make Tibet a 
self-governing, democratic political entity, in association with the PRC.  
And as the gentleman here said [Tang Daxian], psychologically, it's a 
tremendous concession by the Tibetans.  There _are_ many young Tibetans 
who are opposed to this.  My opinion is, I'm not approving it or 
disapproving it - I'm simply describing an event [the putting forth of 
the proposal].  But even this has been rejected by the Chinese 
leadership, and if we're talking here about a peaceful solution to the 
problem, and if such really tremendous concessions are rejected by the 
Chinese, there is no _other_ alternative for Tibetans except to be 
frustrated.  And frustration would lead to violence.

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Thank you.  Mr. Pandit, you've been waiting a long time.  Do you want to 
have the last question, or did you forget it by now?

RAJESH PANDIT

[US Congressional Staff]  I'll make it very brief.  I want to raise 
another side of this whole question of perceptions.  We focused 
completely on the Tibetan-Chinese relationship and perceptions and how 
those might be evolving, but it seems to me that that has to be seen in 
the context of what the alternative is.  And it seems to me that the 
alternative for Tibet is another center, another protector, another 
center of power that can counter this lockhold that the Chinese appear to 
have on Tibet.  And I just want to raise a couple of skeptical questions 
about that.  What would it mean if the miracle we all anticipate - and I 
see lots of my friends here from Capitol Hill or formerly from Capitol 
Hill - the miracle we anticipate is that the U.S. would actually get 
serious about Tibetan independence.  That's the miracle that we 
anticipate.

And yet, what would that mean?  What that would mean, it seems to me, is 
that we get serious about Tibetan independence the way we're serious 
about Russian freedom or freedom elsewhere, which is to say, we insist on 
things like open markets, open investment climates, etc.  And what does 
that really mean to a fragile economy and a fragile ecology like Tibet?  
What does it mean, in fact, for Tibet to _really_ be free in the modern 
world, and to perhaps look to a rapacious and somewhat anarchic Indian 
economy to the south?  To look to some of these new economies that are 
emerging, looking for opportunity, to the north and to the west?  I think 
it's very important for us to look at these questions because these are 
questions about the real future.  To be free of the oppressor is one 
thing, but what does it mean and how will we exercise our freedom?

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Would you like to respond to that, Thubten?

THUBTEN SAMPHEL

You put a totally different light on the whole Tibet question in 
relation to China, in relation to India - but I don't think China invaded 
Tibet to protect Tibet [laughter] or the Tibetan economy from the 
rapacious Indian economy.

We have lived with China, we have lived with India for thousands of 
years.  Until 1959, Tibet - whether the economy was backward, feudal, 
whatever - we survived as a separate, independent economic and political 
system.  But in the future, you can see, we Tibetan refugees, we have 
lived in India and in this way we are, in many senses, a very adaptive 
people.  And if there was a free Tibetan economy I'm sure it would adapt 
to whatever circumstances would be surrounding Tibet at that time.  Thank 
you.  Jamyang?

JAMYANG NORBU

Of course, when or if Tibet gets independence in the near future, things 
are going to be difficult for the Tibetans in one way or the other.  
That's the problem of just being born as a human being - is getting out 
of bed every morning!  [laughter] The difficulties stay whether you're 
independent or not -

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Sometimes it's worse for a writer.  [laughter]

JAMYANG NORBU

Yeah!  I think, there will be a million and one problems, but it is our 
right to try and solve them ourselves!  I'm sure we'll have more problems 
that most of the people in this world, but at least it gives you dignity 
when you can tackle your own problems - not to have some jerk from the 
Party, some person you never knew in your life and never see, telling you 
_"do this, do that!"_  We don't want to avoid problems, we just want to 
tackle our own problems and be given the opportunity to do so!  That's 
all we expect in life.  Not happiness.  I don't expect that.  [laughter 
and applause]

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Mr. Xue?  Please?

XUE HAIPEI

[now in English] I'd just like to say, quickly - not really about your 
reactions, but about earlier ones.  I hope that we're discussing about 
the issue of Tibet, especially in a kind of potentially emotional setting 
like this very good one today.  I somehow feel that we shouldn't try to 
push for a pattern that the more the pro-independence, the better.  Each 
side has to take its time and sit down there.  And those things, those 
temperaments, those respectful procedures, those are _as_ important, if 
not more, than the democratic principles themselves.  That's what I think 
is a lot of the Chinese democracy movement's problem, that's the main 
problem there.

ROBERT A.F. THURMAN

Yes, I agree very much.  Well, thank you all very much.  It's been a 
very interesting discussion.  I thank Mr. Tang and the other discussers 
for their great interest.  And I, unfortunately, will not be able to be 
here tomorrow myself, so I'm sure you'll all work more on these problems.

I would just like to say, I would like to underline if, as a moderator, 
I can say one thing in two sentences:  I would like to underline one 
thing which Mr. Jamyang Norbu said in his example of Mr. de Gaulle in 
relation to our Chinese friends.  Since I won't be here tomorrow I'd just 
like to say this one thing:  that it is the 19th Century, or what Vaclav 
Havel calls "modernist thinking" to think that to move out of a 
territory, formerly occupied, is a loss, a disaster, a catastrophe and so 
forth.  In a post-modern world it is possible that the loss is to keep 
trying to hold on to something that is not rightfully, historically or 
legally, one's own, and to simply do so by brutal force.  The price paid 
of one's own - all of you particularly who are seeking democracy within 
your own society, what Jamyang Norbu said is, I think, very accurate - 
that it's hard to expect such democracy when you are giving your rulers 
license to exercise totalitarian viciousness on other people.  You very 
much can then expect them to exercise that viciousness on yourself.  
There's really no way you'll get out of it.

So I really think this is, should be seen as a _win-win_ situation - 
that is, whatever future relationships are made, they can only be made on 
the basis of two parties _free_ to make a relationship, and you cannot 
have a free partner in the Tibetans to make a relationship with you until 
you leave them alone!  Your leaving them alone would be a _tremendous 
advantage_ to you.  It would be a great gain for the Chinese people, I 
think.  And for the Chinese democratic movement, it would really 
represent success in all of their aims, I believe.

So, I just wanted to leave you with my little belief, my last little 
excuse as a moderator, and we now adjourn to a reception.  Thank you all 
very much, and good luck.