THE POTOMAC CONFERENCE, October 5-6, 1992
SINO-TIBETAN RELATIONS: PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
October 5, Afternoon Session I. DISCUSSION
ENVIRONMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Environmental Issues / Environmental Security
Economic Development and Subsidies /
Impact of the Reform Policies in Tibet
James D. Seymour, Moderator
+ + + + + + +
DISCUSSION
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
We can pause here for some questions on the points that have been made
so far. Again, come to the microphone and then I'll recognize you, and
please indicate your name. Come to the microphone and I'll recognize
you, Jonathan. This gives me time to get in a quick question.
This is for Xue Haipei - I'd like to ask what it means to say that 60-70
percent of the biodiversity, does that mean that 60-70 percent of the
species in the PRC are on the Tibetan plateau?
XUE HAIPEI
Yes, that is exactly what I was saying.
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
Very interesting point. Okay, Jonathan Mirsky?
JONATHAN MIRSKY
I'd just like to ask a simple-minded question of Ms. Tsering Tsomo.
Because you, that was a very high-level paper you gave. And I'd just
like to see if I can get a clear answer on something. It is very often
said by people who criticize Chinese activities in Tibet that, to put it
in its plainest language, that the Chinese are "environmentally stripping
Tibet." It's a very well-known accusation, that they are deforesting it,
and the like. I just want to know if this is a sustainable charge, or
not, in your judgment?
TSERING TSOMO
Are you suggesting that - Am I saying that this is -
JONATHAN MIRSKY [continuing]
No, no! I'd just like to have your opinion. Is it the case that the
Chinese are, to use your term, I mean, are they "degrading" the
environment in Tibet? Are they stripping the forests? Are they removing
the natural resources, and so forth? Is the Chinese occupation an
environmental disaster for Tibet or not? Or is it in some ways but also
not some ways?
TSERING TSOMO
From a Chinese perspective I would say they would be "developing" Tibet
rather than "stripping" Tibet of its resources and environmentally
degrading it. I would suggest "yes" and "no," to that answer.
JONATHAN MIRSKY [continuing]
So, how about the yes part?
TSERING TSOMO
Well, at least according to _them_ they are developing the region.
JONATHAN MIRSKY [continuing]
All right, so, what is the "no" part?
TSERING TSOMO
No, in fact - at least from a Tibetan perspective "no," because
culturally they've been insensitive to the region.
JONATHAN MIRSKY [continuing]
Yes, but that is putting it very mildly... _Not_ that I'm trying to get
you to say something, I'm really not. But this is a very serious charge
made by many of the critics of the Chinese in Tibet. And, _of course_
the Chinese say that they're "developing" the region. But when you say
they're being "insensitive", can you just be a little more specific about
that, and tell us about it in a minute or two, because except for the
attacks on the religious community and on that establishment in Tibet,
the most serious charge in the anti-Chinese case, is the charge against
the environment. So I think that we would gain something from hearing
from you specifically, on that matter.
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
Pardon me for interpreting Jonathan Mirsky's question (laughter), but I
think the question is: we know the Tibetans are very sensitive about
this. Are they being _oversensitive_, looking at it in a strictly
scientific manner?
TSERING TSOMO
Are Tibetans being insensitive? Over-sensitive?
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
Are they being oversensitive?
TSERING TSOMO
Tibetans being oversensitive, hm. Culturally, no. Yes. No, no, no!
Let me answer that question properly. As a Tibetan refugee born and
brought up in exile, I have been brought up in a Westernized, so-called
"modernized" society and therefore I would see that development is
important for Tibet. Right? Economic development is important for
Tibet.
And yet I see that the large number of Chinese people who are coming in
and who are benefiting _from_ that development _is_ insensitive, in that
sense. I would see it as insensitive. But yes, personally I would say
that economic development is, to an extent, of importance for Tibet.
JONATHAN MIRSKY [continuing]
But do you mean the _way_ the Chinese are doing it? This is not a
general question, now. _Is_ what the Chinese are doing in Tibet - is it
really developing Tibet or isn't it? Is it stripping Tibet, or isn't it?
Is it good for it? Is it developing it? What is actually going on? I'd
like to know.
TSERING TSOMO
Is it economic development? Yes. I will not say more than this.
TANG DAXIAN [at times gesturing to a map]
[in Chinese] Sorry, I am sorry. I would like to ask an apology from
the lady on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Mirsky's rigor. Dr. Mirsky is a very
serious writer and editor and moderator. We have to be responsible; in
my view, we need to have facts when we are investigating and discussing
Tibetan issues. The figures that the lady cited in her paper are mostly
hypocritical figures given by the Chinese authorities' reports, the
credibility of which is questionable. This is important to note. Many
of these are wrong figures. Many people want to solve the Tibetan
problems, but they have quoted the wrong numbers given by the Chinese
Government.
The figures about the exploitation of the Yamdro Lake and the massive
"aid" given by the Chinese Government are actually not accurate. These
are quoted from the May conference held in Southwest China. But I can
tell you this is a disguise, this is only a smoke screen. I can tell you
that there are only two large-scale governmental support projects in
Tibet. In this meeting, for the first time, I want to disclose some
figures. One project is to establish a space-satellite center in Tibet.
Perhaps you don't know this.
The second project is to continuously exploit geothermal energy
resources in the Yangpachen area, near Lhasa. The Chinese Government has
been very successful in exploiting geothermal energy and has been closing
one area after another to develop this. It is because they do not really
want to develop the resources there - they are doing it for strategic
considerations. Because there is a joint meeting between the Economic
Planning Committee and the national Defense committee saying that the
projects in Tibet should be put on hold for 20 years. However, any
exploited energy will not be used in Tibet to help the Tibetan people:
most of the energy has stored underground and will be used for some
special purpose in the future. Therefore, my point is that we should
exam the data and figure from the Chinese Government in a very critical
manner.
Of course, there is ecological damage in Tibet, some of which are very
serious, more than what you said; let me give more data to you [to
Tsering Tsomo]. Let's look at the map. The Qinghai Province [Amdo], the
altitude of which is above 5,000 meters, and in the Ali District [near
Ladakh] of Tibet. These two places are close to the source of many
rivers, so it is very dangerous to build a nuclear power station to serve
a space-satellite base. The Chinese Government has started to do
reconnaissance in this area with the help of some Japanese scholars who
are also involved in this project. I was arrested in Nimbi in Spring
1985 when I went there to investigate the current situation of the
Tibetan monasteries. At first, I did not know why I was arrested. Later
I was told that people had been moved out from this area because of this
plan and that nobody had been allowed there since then. The villages
have already been removed. As you can see from the map, there are many
lakes and water, the source of many rivers around this area. Once this
water source is contaminated, the result will be very dangerous, very
terrible. That is, the contamination will have a severe adverse affect
on the Yellow River and Mekong River in south Asia, and also the Yangtse
River in China.
And then, another issue that may need our attention is that the forest
in Southern Tibet, from the Nyangchi and Chamdo areas to Yunnan Province,
has been damaged tremendously. These areas are the only scenic spots on
this side of the Himalaya, but now they have been damaged. At the
conference on ecological balance, the general opinion was that they
should be concerned, but that the military had already decided to
"develop" that area by cutting down 30% of the forest there. This is a
very serious situation, very serious.
In sum, this is a question of methodology. At present, the situation in
Tibet is more or less what I have said. I think those who are aiming for
real research of the Tibetan issue should be able to discern the problem
with the figures put forward by the CCP. This is the methodology that
you have to adopt; without doing this, it is impossible for you to raise
objections and to make suggestions to the changes that the CCP should put
into effect. This is what Dr. Mirsky just now said: that this is the
attitude and the methodology we should adapt. I apologize for taking so
much time.
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
I'm very glad for that input, and let me say that the questions from the
floor today have all been from Tibetans and us foreigners. With the
exception of Tang Daxian who doesn't really count because he's also a
speaker. So
[now in Chinese], it is especially welcomed that you Chinese - Han
Chinese - ask questions.
PHINTSO THONDEN
Mine is not really a question. I'd like to make an observation about
the question that was asked from the floor. Has China been accused
unfairly of environmental degradation in Tibet? Now, I'm not an expert
on the environment or anything like that, but I had two incidents: one
was in the early '80s. A group of the Tibetan delegation went to tour in
various parts of Tibet, and when they came back to New York we had a
slide show at the Office of Tibet. And one slide showed a bare mountain
and a town in front of the mountain. The speaker said, "Now that's
Chatrim." We had a person who came from Chatrim who had left there when
he was about twenty years old. And he said, "No, that's not my hometown!
That's not Chatrim". They told him, "Look carefully, that is Chatrim."
And he finally realized that it _was_ Chatrim. He didn't recognize it
because all the forests were gone. Before, he said, the backdrop of the
town was a beautiful mountain full of junipers and pine trees. Now all
that has been _totally destroyed_, totally cut, so that he couldn't even
recognize his own birthplace! I think that is especially poignant.
Another incident is, in 1985, I went back to Lhasa where I was born and
raised and lived until I, too, was about twenty. In Lhasa, as a boy, one
of the things we played with - you know, when your parents are making
dough - we always made an animal out of the dough, a black raven - in
Tibetan we call it a "Porog" - all Tibetan children are familiar with
stories about the black raven. They were full of those ravens wherever
you went in Lhasa, wherever there is something happening, especially
where some monks' ceremonies going on, and after the ceremony they put
out on the rooftop some of the offerings, and those ravens would just
flock there, in the hundreds! So, one of the things that really struck
me when I went back to Lhasa was there was not a single raven to be seen
in Lhasa, or in any of the other areas I traveled in.
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
The last question on this half of the panel will be from Professor June
Dreyer.
JUNE TEUFEL DREYER
I think there's no doubt that the Chinese are guilty as charged on the
matter of the environment. There were separate groups of botanists and
zoologists who went to Tibet in the early 1980s, and they _each_ came
back - apparently not having met each other in the process - and wrote
articles for their respective magazines saying, you know, we can't find
plants and we can't find animals and we know they were here before.
But apparently there was this very very bad famine - not "apparently" -
there _was_ a very bad famine - when the wheat that the Chinese forced
the Tibetans to plant exhausted the soil and created a famine and the
Chinese admitting that and they sent huge airplanes into Lhasa to
evacuate the Han, because there was just nothing to eat.
In Qinghai, in Tibetan areas of Qinghai or, pardon me, in Amdo, there
was a dam built a few years ago which caused a tremendous environmental
problem because it raised the temperature in the area surrounding the
reservoir, which created higher winds which then eroded the grasslands
which meant that the herds couldn't graze properly.
There is also another form of environmental degradation which the
Beijing government _didn't_ intend, and that is they were telling people
please save forests in Tibet at the same time they had ordered the PLA,
the Peoples' Liberation Army, to go into sideline production, and the PLA
was cutting the forests and making furniture and selling it at profit.
So, part of this is ordered from Beijing and part of it is unintentional
and not ordered by Beijing, but is a spin-off of other policies. So, I
think the Han are guilty as charged on this one.
A question for Miss Tsering Tsomo, and that is you mentioned that the
Chinese are trying to push to get livestock production up. One of my
hobbies is keeping statistics from Tibet, and I noticed that livestock
production in Tibet has been stagnant for the last five years or more - I
haven't got my figures in front of me - I asked someone about this a few
years ago, and he said, "Oh yes, the Chinese have come to a conscious
policy that increasing livestock production would mean over-grazing and
they're not doing that anymore." Have you heard anything - because that
doesn't quite jibe with what I thought I heard you say, and I'd just like
you to clarify it. Thank you.
TSERING TSOMO
I got my figures from the FBIS Reports, so I'm not too sure if they're
the most recent figures, the 1990-1991 figures. They didn't mention
anything other than saying that they've increased the livestock.
JUNE TEUFEL DREYER
I've got some other figures for you and I will send them to you. But
the figures they actually give out even though every year they say
livestock production is quite good, they are giving out the same figures
as the year before.
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
It's against the rule to say anything unless you're speaking into a
microphone. One final comment from Sophie Young, and she has promised me
to limit her comment to thirty seconds.
SOPHIE YOUNG
[in English with Chinese terms] I felt compelled to come up here because
I'm neither a "han ren" (Chinese) nor a "waiguo ren" (foreigner) nor a
Tibetan. I'm a "hua qiao" (overseas Chinese).
I was concerned about the question earlier: is the Tibetan concern over
the environment on the plateau too great a concern, is it excessive? To
me, posing the question in those terms is very disturbing because we are
_still_ learning how to define environmental degradation, how to define
environmental impact, as it is. And I think the question that we should
be dealing with, until we have reached a consensus globally on this
matter, is self-determination. And whether people who have been
traditional stewards of the land are capable and empowered to continue
their stewardship _without_ the imposition of a foreign power.
[applause]
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
And a very brief _final_ final question, because now we're way over
time.
CHEN YIZI
[in Chinese] I have a doubt about what was said just now [by June
Teufel Dreyer] and I want to add something to the lady's words. Just now
she said the Han Chinese people are guilty. I do not believe that. The
ordinary people are not guilty. They would like to live on their land
peacefully, happily, and freely. Those who are guilty are those who want
to seek political power and suppress the people. It is the autocrats who
are guilty. We cannot pit the Tibetan and the Han people. We should
fight against the small number of autocrats!
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
Xue Haipei, you wrap it up, then and respond to that.
XUE HAIPEI
[in English] I'll just make a quick comment on that. I've been
listening to what they're talking to and fro. I think they are two
elements to that.
First, the Chinese will say exactly that what we have done in Tibet is
exactly what we did in the Cultural Revolution. We had disasters all
over the nation, so we have had a consistent policy all over, in
Szechuan, in northeast China or in Tibet. On the other hand, you can't
just say that because of the Cultural Revolution, just as we have done in
other parts of China, it's okay or somehow can be condoned in Tibet. It
is a different situation.
As to the question of whether Tibetans are oversensitive to environment,
I really want to make, to tell, a simple story about that: as a Han I
have gone to Tibet a lot, very often in that area you sometimes have
Tibetan drivers driving a truck or car, sometimes you have Han Chinese
drivers, and on several occasions when a Chinese driver is driving his
car in the evening, when he sees some small animal crossing the road,
he's likely to speed up and just crush the creature! Well, on several
occasions, I'm very moved to see that Tibetan drivers prefer to stop the
car to let the small creature pass!
The Tibetan environment is such a fragile system I don't think the
Tibetans are being oversensitive to [degradation of] the land. Part of
this comes out of the Buddhist sensitivity to nature. On the other hand,
if you're talking about whether there is such a stripping off of Tibet, I
think yes, there is a stripping but whether that's a deliberate policy
decision of the Han nation to somehow get the resources from Tibet, I
think that's not the case specifically in terms of the forest and
wildlife and big dam projects and the environmental degradation that
brings.
And as the other gentleman [Phintso Thonden] mentioned I also heard the
same story in Lhasa, that they used to have a lot of migratory birds in
Lhasa, but you see almost none of them now. And, finally, because more
and more Chinese people who are supposed to be bringing benefits to the
Tibetan people by building those big constructions projects, the last big
factor is the overloading of the natural resources.
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
Thank you one and all. More to be said here, but we have to proceed to
the next part of the panel.
|
