THE POTOMAC CONFERENCE, October 5 - 6, 1992
SINO-TIBETAN RELATIONS: PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
October 5, Afternoon Session I.
ENVIRONMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Environmental Issues / Environmental Security
Economic Development and Subsidies /
Impact of the Reform Policies in Tibet
James D. Seymour, Moderator
+ + + + + + +
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSIDIES, COMMENTATION
JAMES D. SEYMOUR
The last speaker is not listed on your program, so he deserves somewhat
better than the perfunctory introductions that I've been giving people.
Chris Wu is Vice President of the Chinese Alliance for Democracy, and is,
in his other life, an engineer with the Xerox Corporation. He's going to
give a Commentary.
CHRIS WU [WU FAN]
The previous speakers have spoken in English, so I would like to speak
in Chinese.
[now in Chinese] As far as I know, several years ago the Dalai Lama put
forward a proposal that Tibet should be a region which has no nuclear
weapons, which is a very good idea. In such a high place, there should
be a few conditions for this, I think. He suggested that there should
not be any production, stockpiling, and experiments of various nuclear
weapons in Tibet. At that time, I felt that there must be some reasons
for him to put forward such a proposal, though I did not know what the
reasons were at that time. I am glad that Mr. Tang Daxian mentioned
this. According to Mr. Tang's research, it is believable that the
Chinese Communist army has made a lot of military and strategic
preparations in Tibet. In the future, I think, there will be a lot of
pollution in Tibet, which will result from military abuse, not from
commercial industry. From the perspective of percentage of population,
there are only 2 million people in Tibet, and Tibet has the lowest
density of any region in China. Tibet also is the most backward region
compared with other regions in China; Tibet does not have its own
industrial system. Almost all the industrial products used in Tibet are
made in the coastal areas and the interior cities [in China]. Therefore,
Tibet itself has no source of pollution resulting from commercial
industry and the population is smaller. Therefore, if there is pollution
in Tibet, it must come of course from the military occupation.
There are many causes for the slow economic development of Tibet:
sparse population, geographically disadvantaged conditions, etc. The Han
Chinese cannot adapt themselves to the Tibetan circumstances, but Tibet
is such an important strategic point that the Chinese Communist Party
does not want to abandon it. I believe that the reason the Chinese
government does not want to forgo Tibet stems from strategic need because
it is facing India and the Soviet Union. In the past, Communist China
needed this place to antagonize India and the Soviet Union, so the
Communist Party chose a plan of Tibetan "development" - the strategy it
adopts is not to develop this area, but only to feed the people.
Therefore, the Chinese Government uses a lot of national subsidies to
feed and support the armies' personnel and cadres in Tibet. After Hu
Yuobang's visit, I heard that the common Tibetan people also got a lot of
subsistence allowances such as food allowance, and beef and mutton
allowances after 1985. The Chinese Government's purpose is not to
develop Tibet and develop industry there, but to maintain the location
for the use of military strategy. From another perspective, the cost of
creating industry there is very high, so it is not worth it to them. In
the three decades of Chinese occupation in Tibet, they build three
highways. Apart from transporting food from other parts of China, it
only provides provisions for the military forces. If a war breaks out,
the military equipment could be transported through this road, so the
Chinese Communist Party gives priority to national defense rather than
for economic development in Tibet. As a face, economic development in
Tibet is the weakest link there. Can it continue to go along like this?
I don't believe so, in the long run. Right now, we should point out this
idea, but I think the Chinese Communist Party will not change this policy
in the near future. So after the overthrow of the one-party
dictatorship, a new democratic government will discuss with the local
people how to develop Tibet, and that will be the right time for people
to discuss the economic development of Tibet. Because right now, the
Chinese Communist Party does not want to invest in Tibet apart from this
strategic point of view.
I myself also want to take this very rare opportunity to make another
observation on Tibetan issues. I was a student studying abroad from
mainland China and I have been here for 12 years. I am very interested
in and concerned about the question of the Tibetan issues and the
question of other minority nationalities in China. So far, Tibetan
issues have been a hot point in the world. The Tibetan people have been
subject to inhuman treatment, cruelly governed by the authoritarian
Communist Party since 1950. In Tibet, the people have no means of
livelihood which led to a situation where all the people cannot survive.
How many complaints are there, how many grievances? Because they have
compared the method of ruling of all the emperors of all the different
dynasties and none has had the same cruelty. Why does the Chinese
Communist Party dominate Tibet like that? Who has given them the right,
the authority? They will say "Get out of Tibet." If I were a Tibetan, I
would think along the same lines. So, I sympathize very much. I
commiserate with the Tibetans very much. This noon when I had my lunch,
I talked with a Tibetan friend. I said I can understand very well the
feelings and emotions of the Tibetans. But how are we going to resolve
the problem? I also want to listen to know whether the Tibetans could
understand the Han, whether Tibetans want to know the ideas of the Han.
I hope we can communicate with each other a lot at this conference. Now
I want to put forward several suggestions about Tibetan issues:
First, the Tibetans have their own right to self-determination. Every
nation has the right to choose their way of life.
Second, the Hans and the Tibetans should mutually respect each others'
interests. Of course, the Han is a big nationality, so the Chinese
should especially pay attention to and respect the interests and the way
of life of the Tibetan people. Without this, this problem cannot be
settled.
Third, the means of settling the question should be peaceful and
reasonable and consultative. Repression, suppression, violence, and
massacres - these ways of behavior cannot resolve the Tibetan problem.
Based on these three principles and of the Chinese Alliance for
Democracy, I am sure my colleagues there will agree with me, because
these are the most proper ways of settling disputes as acknowledged by
people all over the world. When I discuss with my friends and I say
"What should we do? They want independence and you don't want them to be
independent." So there will be a war. The result of the war is that the
Tibetan people will suffer the most. And we don't want to resort to
these means, because this is running counter to the principles
acknowledged by people all over the world. So we have to sit down around
the negotiating table and to respect the feelings and the interests of
each other and make concessions in a give and take and then it will be
easier to solve the question.
Take the case of Taiwan. Taiwan also wants to claim independence, but
the Communists will start a war. The Communist Party says if Taiwan does
not claim independence, everything can be discussed. I don't believe
everything the Communists say. After we terminate the one-party
dictatorship of the Communist Party and after we establish a new
democratic government, then we can sit down and discuss all the minority
issues, how to settle these problems and I am sure the Tibetan issue will
be on the agenda.
Recently, I read an autobiography of the Dalai Lam. I think it was very
well written. It told the story of his childhood and after he had fled
from the Chinese. There is a map that includes Qinghai and some parts of
Szechuan. If that is his idea of Tibet, then I am sure the territory
there will occupy at least 1/6th of the total territory of China. If
this should be demarcated out as the "Republic of Tibet", I am sure that
the Tibetan people would be glad. But what would be the feelings of the
Han people? Would they be pleased? And then the scholars would discuss
endlessly saying, "Historically this piece of land belongs to me" and
then they say, "no, it belongs to me," and then even if they argue from
morning till night, no problem can be solved. You see, we want to solve
the problem, not to discuss only for the sake of arguing. Therefore,
mutual respect for the interests of each side and striving for peaceful
coexistence is the goal.
We have lived on the same piece of land for 5,000 years. Arguments
cannot solve the problems, right? The period of arguing and fighting is
very short, and the one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party is also
very short: 40 years compared to 5,000 years - this is very short. Can
our generation seek a new way? Can the democratic leaders abroad sit
down and is it possible from here to start to seek a new point on which
everyone can agree? To bend over backwards to accommodate the interests
of the other side? Then it will be easier to solve the problem.
Even with a new democratic system, it would still be difficult to solve
the questions. You see, the establishment of a new regime doesn't solve
everything. The problem of feelings are difficult to settle. If people
cannot reconsider in terms of the their feelings, then it will be
difficult. Because I was educated under the Chinese Communist Party for
many years, for several decades and I learned a lot of historical lessons
then.
When I was in San Francisco [at a 1992 meeting in a series on the
possibility of federation], I even said to Jigme Ngapo that "I hope you
can invite all of your friends and I will invite all of my friends" - and
the two sides can have a discussion about the Tibetan issues. Even if we
shout at each other, this is better - we can never start a war. Some of
us here might one day become the leaders of China. It is very possible,
_so_, probably, we can start to solve the problem beginning from us, from
our beginning here. I know that the Tibetan people are suffering. They
are miserable. I know.
I also know that what I have said is not commensurate with my status a
as the commentator on the subject at hand. But I just wanted to put out
some of my personal views and the view of my organization for us to
discuss.
|
