The Middle-Way approach


In the Strasbourg Proposal His Holiness the Dalai Lama outlined the main features of the Middle-Way Approach as follows:

"... The whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum (U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo) should become a self-governing democratic political entity founded on law by agreement of the people for the common good and protection of themselves and their environment, in association 'with the People's Republic of China.

"The government of the People's Republic of China could remain responsible for Tibet's foreign policy. The Government of Tibet should, however, develop and maintain relations, through its own Foreign Affairs Bureau, in the fields of commerce, education, culture, religion, tourism, science, sports and other non-political activities. Tibet should join international organisations concerned with such activities,

"The Government of Tibet should be founded on a constitution or basic law. The basic law should provide for a device ratio system of government entrusted with the task of ensuring economic equality, social justice and protection of the environment. This means that the Government of Tibet will have the right to decide on all affairs relating to Tibet and the Tibetans.

"... A regional peace conference should be called to ensure that Tibet becomes a genuine sanctuary of peace through demilitarisation. Until such a peace conference can be convened and demilitarisation and neutralisation achieved, China could have the right to maintain a restricted number of military installations in Tibet. These must be solely for defence purposes..."

This Middle-Way-Approach is a pragmatic political course. It is a forward-looking vision of a future that meets the vital needs of the Tibetan people while conforming with the interest of a more open, liberal and politically mature China. It offers a solution whereby both parties benefit by ensuring the exercise of full internal self-determination by the Tibetan people and maintaining at the same time the territorial integrity of the PRC. This option thus meets the bottom lines of both parties.

It is a creative way to address and safeguard Tibet's and China's foremost national concerns without the need of separation. By addressing in an adequate manner the vital interests of both parties this option is also politically achievable. This conclusion is based on an assessment of the following factors.


The situation in occupied Tibet

In the face of the alarming pace of sinocisation inside Tibet coupled with random destruction of its cultural heritage and arbitrary violation of the human rights and fundamental freedom of its people, the urgent need for an early solution to our problem is obvious. However, although we are not in a position to force a solution on China, we are in no way helpless or unable to influence the course of development. Our efforts and policies remain an important factor. China's failure to "settle" the problem of Tibet after nearly half a century of use of force indicates that without the free consent of the Tibetans there is no way to arrive at a settlement. The Chinese government cannot continue to ignore this fact for long. Moreover, His Holiness the Dalai Lama remains the key to a mutually acceptable solution of the issue of Tibet. Despite the present outright antagonistic attitude of the Chinese government vis-a-vis His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the Chinese leadership under Mao Tse-Tung in the 50's and under Deng Xiaoping in the 80's implicitly recognised this fact. A clear indication of this is, as an example, the Five-Point Proposal of the Chinese leadership for the return of His Holiness to "the motherland" in 1981.

Sooner or later the Chinese government will have to face the fact that they have to talk to His Holiness the Dalai Lama for a mutually acceptable solution. Whether the Chinese government is compelled sooner or later to accept this fact depends to a great extent on the vigour, determination and political astuteness of the Tibetan people. Put differently, we Tibetans have much potential and possibility to influence the factors that determine China's policy on Tibet and create a conducive political environment for the Middle-Way Approach solution.


The role of the exiled Tibetan community

Politically speaking the most important functions of our exiled community have been to provide leadership and act as the free voice of Tibet to the world at large in our struggle. With the leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama our freedom struggle has come to be a cause of great international appeal. For many people throughout the world our cause has come to embody the universal values of justice, freedom and non-violence. The leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been extremely successful in highlighting the Tibetan freedom struggle and soliciting world-wide support for our cause. Today, many governments in the West and in Asia encourage and urge the Chinese government to enter into negotiations with His Holiness the Dalai Lama or His representatives.

The Middle-Way Approach has made it easier for many governments to support the Tibetan position. It does not require them to adopt a fundamentally confrontational course towards China on the issue of Tibet. Within the framework of their overall bilateral diplomatic relationships with the PRC they are able to raise the issue of Tibet. The Middle-Way Approach is a stance that is not only legally and morally undeniable, but also politically difficult to argue against as it is moderate, conciliatory and feasible. There is, therefore, growing governmental and non-governmental support for the Middle-Way Approach.


The situation in China

China is undergoing historic changes. Today's China is no longer a country that gives even an outward appearance of the regimentation and mechanical obedience associated with Leninist party systems. Observers have predicted everything from system collapse, to the development of a federal system, to a fundamental renegotiation of the country's cultural ethos. The reforms, initiated by Deng Xiaoping, have altered not only the Chinese economy but also the political system, making it less ideological, less reliant on mass mobilization, less coercive, and less enveloping for the average citizen. It is also notably far less centralised. The state no longer promotes either revolution or ideological orthodoxy. Rather, it promotes economic growth by any means that do not produce social and political instability. The leadership's policy is to buy social peace with economic success.

Despite substantial decentralisation, Beijing retains important powers. It still controls substantial coercive resources. It is said that the Chinese more than most people fear chaos, and the destructiveness of the Cultural Revolution probably reconfirmed the importance attached to order.

The least change under the reforms has occured at the apex of the Chinese political centre. Among the top leaders, institutions do little to constrain actions and political contention drives the system. The ongoing struggle over leadership, in the face of the lack of an institutional means of succession, may continue to characterize the politics of the coming years. Some observers opine that it may be difficult for any single individual to consolidate personal power in the immediate future, while others believe that the struggle for power may stay within boundaries that allow continued political stability. After years of political infighting it is probable that by the end of this decade a more stable leadership will emerge. The 15 Party Congress of the CCP in the fall of this year will be crucial in this regard.

In the context of the Tibetan problem this means that it is not an appropriate time to make major political changes. Despite the changes in China it would be political adventurism and gambling to base our political approach on the anticipation of a collapse of the Chinese regime in the near future, especially when our political approach has been making significant inroads into the views of Chinese intellectuals and human rights and democracy activists in supporting our cause. Moreover, China continues to face a tumultuous political period. And there is reason to assume that the domestic political uncertainties and agendas are the determining factors for China's intransigent position on Tibet rather than lack of serious interest in the Middle-Way Approach of His Holiness.

In a political system such as China's, for the leaders to undertake major policy changes on sensitive issues like Tibet they must be a) united in their views on

the matter and b) they must give the issue priority. This seems to be the major difficulty in moving the Chinese government on the issue of Tibet. Political uncertainties in China seem not to allow the Chinese leadership to address the issue of Tibet in a serious and responsive manner. On the contrary, the domestic political situation encourages them to take a more hardline and nationalistic posture.

In short, the lack of Chinese response to the Middle-Way Approach does not necessarily indicate at a deeper level the inacceptability of the basic idea and concept of the Middle-Way Approach, but rather the limited political space of the Chinese-leaders to manoeuvre in a period of transition and power struggle for the leadership. Moreover, the overall trend of the changes in China is towards decentralisation. The return of Hong Kong to China will introduce a radical different system of society within the PRC and will test the viability of the concept of "one country, two systems". These developments and trends actually correspond with the basic idea of the relationship between Tibet and China as proposed in the Strasbourg Proposal.

In bringing about a change in the Chinese perception of the Tibetan issue the role of the Chinese intellectuals is of particular importance. In our contemporary time we have witnessed successive Chinese student and intellectual movements that have dramatically influenced the course of China's political development and shaped the image of China in the international community. The most recent political event of this kind was the student-led pro-democracy movement of 1989.

In this context, the growing support for our cause among Chinese intellectuals and pro-democracy and human rights activists is of great importance. The informed and educated Chinese citizens' pressure on their government to change its perceptions of the Tibetan issue will prove more effective than any other external means of persuasion. His Holiness the Dalai Lama's approach of reconciliation and compromise has touched the hearts and minds of many Chinese. Brave Chinese like Wei Jingsheng and Liu Xiaobo are languishing in Chinese prisons for protesting among others against the Chinese government's repressive policies in Tibet. These Chinese have not only demonstrated their personal courage, decency and integrity but also their solidarity with the Tibetans, thereby reaffirming and strengthening the vision of a peaceful coexistence between Tibetans and Chinese. Such support for Tibet from Chinese are mainly the result of His Holiness' effort and way of thinking as reflected in the Middle-Way Approach. To abandon the Middle-Way Approach now would confuse and disappoint many of these Chinese who have come to appreciate and support His Holiness' approach for a mutually acceptable resolution of the Tibetan problem in the spirit of reconciliation and compromise.


The international political environment

Most governments abide by the principle of "one China" policy as upheld by the PRC. A change in this respect can only be envisaged if China should experience a similar process of disintegration as the former Soviet Union. However, this seems a very unlikely scenario.

China's reforms have brought an opening to the outside world and an effort to join fully in the international community. The vast economic gains under the reforms have greatly increased the PRC's prestige and importance in the international arena. Governments take care in their dealings with the Chinese government. They recognise its growing potential for good and for mischief

China experienced a drastic setback in its international relations and prestige following the highly visible repression in and around Tiananmen Square in 1989. However in the following two years it made a slow climb back to respectability, based primarily on moderate, astute diplomacy. Deng Xiaoping's "southern tour" in 1992 and the burst of economic activity it sparked catapulted the PRC into a far more prominent position in the international arena. Increasingly, the international media refer to China as a looming superpower.

At the same time, China is also increasingly regarded as an undisciplined and disruptive member of the international community. It still has territorial disputes with many of its neighbours and its handling of these disputes could have a substantial influence on the levels of tension throughout the region. The Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is one of the most sensitive of these disputed areas. China's assertive posture here is increasing tension considerably throughout the region.

Moreover, the very reforms in China that the world applauds are creating unintended international problems. The same reforms limit Beijing's ability to assure that China will comply fully with international agreements that it signs. China's economic decentralisation and its attendant corruption call into question Beijing's future ability to abide by trade agreements. Other areas of international concern with regard to China are the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the violation of human rights.

In the context of the Tibetan problem, we can draw the following conclusions from the present international political environment:

A) There are limitations to what the international community can do for Tibet in view of China's growing importance in the international arena.

B) There is a legitimate interest and concern on the part of the international community that China becomes a disciplined and responsible member of the community of the nations who abides by the rules and norms of international conduct. It is considered essential for stability and friendly relations among nations that the member countries comply with the various UN instruments and established international principles.

C) There is growing recognition of and support for our cause as presented and advocated by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. These conclusions mean that the international community has a responsibility and legitimate interest to engage China on the issue of Tibet in terms of human rights and the principle of self-determination of all peoples. The issue of Tibet is thus becoming an increasingly damaging aspect of the bilateral and multilateral relations of China. On the other hand, we must also realize that no country is willing to challenge the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the PRC.

The Middle-Way Approach of His Holiness the Dalai Lama takes into consideration this complex international political situation. It enables members of the international community to take up the issue of Tibet with China without having to challenge the PRC fundamentally and adopting a confrontational course. The Middle-Way Approach makes it possible for governments to reconcile the Tibetan demands with their overall interest in dealing with China. Moreover, the Middle-Way Approach allows them to present their concern for Tibet as efforts to contribute to social harmony, stability and peace and to counter allegations of political scheming to destabilize and dismember China.


Conclusions

WE live today in an interdependent world where hardly any government is in a position to force or determine on its own its agenda. It is even more necessary in our case that we adopt a course that takes advantage of the complex political environment.

Individually we can resolve to sacrifice our lives for the cause of the freedom of our people, but the foremost responsibility for a nation is to survive and keep the spirit of the nation alive. It is therefore important that we talk in terms of ground realities and rational political options when we are discussing the future course of our freedom struggle. The Middle-Way Approach is a realistic, practical and carefully thought-out initiative presented with a karmic and historic sense of responsibility for the country and people of Tibet.

Too much freedom to Tibet. Since when can it have its own foreign relations?

ya lol

middle-way approach or not, it won't affect anything. Those exiled dissidents can protest all they want but they will never get a dialogue with the prc.

It's also assuming that this is some sort of compromise. A compromise with whom, and why should the PRC release control of Tibet. This idea won't work.

Please read International news. Tibet issue is well knowen in the world. Sooner or later china must change.

u mean the exiled tibetan government being run in India? China will change and along with it Tibet.

Outsiders have said so for decades but its not the time when they can make the decisions in our home, its us chinese who control our land and we will develope any part of china according our interest, not that of the outsiders.

dont you know that International community is not only Inda. It seems you are isoletet in your country


Tibet is not part of China; Tibet is illegally occupied by China has no right to make decision on Tibet. Please read outside world news and don’t be naïve and indoctrinated by your government

LOL, do you want to stir up the international community and say it is not fair? USA, India, Russia, Australia, Mongolia, Vietnam, etc... will be disintergated because they stole lands from other people illegally by force. Actually India stole lands from China. Parts of India are belong to the Chinese. Russia also stole lands from Chinese. The west of Russia: Siberia is belong to the Chinese. Regarding USA, it was stolen from the Americas Indians who have Chinese DNA. Australia same thing. Mongolia is part of China until USSR break it away from China. Vietnam and Korea are actually parts of China before. Should China get them back? Complain all you want. Tibet is part of China since time inception. Dalai Lama is a separatist. He staged a failed armed rebellion against the Chinese government in the late 1950's and stirred social unrest in Lhasa in the late 1980's. Soon or later he will break India apart. He will claim India belong to him. He is nothing but a real power monger in a buddhist cloak.

Sorry to see such a primetive person like you. hope all chines are not like you. I have many chinese friend in China who have the same view as us.

sorry to see such a primetiv person like you.hope not all in china are like you

Why dont you read more inside news then, as news from outside have less facts to rely on, one can say that outside news of tibet are mostly biased since they get their infomation from those "exiled people" or "free journalists" who are not so neutral from the begining, while the inside news can be propagadas but at least they come from the people who have the actual control of tibet and their decicions and opinions really counts.

Some outsiders would like tibet to stay as their backward "wonderland", as shown in their actions although they wont admit it. And wont it be a good idea to make Tibet a theocracy again? or better, a democracy headed by a "living god". But lets forget about all that since tibet is chinese territory no matter with or without recognition of outsiders, as their opinions are actualy far less important to us than they believe. The same with the so called "exiled community", they can pretend that their opinion means something to their "home country" as that is what all exiled government are doing and that is what makes them different from real government.

Unless they can summoning up an army strong enough to defeat us (and risk the end of the world) they have to sit back and watch us doing what we want to OUR land.

Bull$hit you are talking you must be paid to say what your government wants

It is truly sad for someone like you who don't know what the heck you are talking about. All the people in China know Tibet is part of China since time inception. You are probably brainwashed by all the ideologies of West and Dalai Lama who are extremely anti-China and who are glad that China break up into pieces and become weak. So China will pose no threats to them. Why don't you ask the international community to return those stolen lands back to China for a starter? Actually Dalai Lama right now are trying to incite India military to invade China for the really power monger that he really is.

oh come on now, 'paid' to say that by the government? surely you can come up with a better rebuttal than that.

India did not steal any land from China.

It seems every 50 years or 100 there is a world war and all the land and borders will change and shift.
look at the map of 1940's japan and china is the same country.
I am quite surprised to see, many of you think it is ok for china to invade and occupy Tibet.
so , you must think it is ok to occupy and invade other countries?!!
well, in that case , it must be ok for japan to occupy and invade china too!!
It must be ok for ussr to occupy and invade northern part of china too.
heck the japanese of wwII. are saying" We wanted to protect chinese from evil white imperialist" "Therefore, we must occupy china, furthmore, japan help develop china's economy, so chinese should say thank you" The japanese of wwII are also saying " Our emperor is a living God, We only did what the emperor told us to do"
Yes, just like ccp is a living god, and china help Tibet develop economically, so it must be ok to invade and occupy a foreign country.

You are another person who don't know what the heck you are talking. Maybe you should take a history class.

Maybe the land of USA should return back to Chinese, since it was illegally taken from Americas Indians by forces who has Chinese DNA. So Chinese has a stake of claims here.

hei all
I thought we would discuss the topic i wrote but all discussing on that is without any substance

Bolldog=either troll or supreme dumbass.

As much as it would be cool, I nor anyone here are getting checks in the mail from the CCP for making forum posts that they would consider to radical anyway. Last I checked, Wikipedia and the BBC don't answer to the propoganda ministry, and Jonathan Spence isn't a party cadre.

When you hold a view, and regard all others with differing views as being brainwashed, what does that make you? think hard, grow up or gtfo.

Anyway. Any sort of federated system that realigns the current governance of various parts of the country will be pipe dreams before the whole of China initiates some sort of reform in that respect. The only reason HK, Macau and maybe Taiwan sometime in the future will be able to get away with de jure unification but radically different systems is that they were severed from mainland governance to begin with.

Sorry to say, but Tibetans that want to assert their rights are gonna have to get in line along with all the Chinese.

Again Joe, do you have to bring this up again, I will show you another map of Asia in the 1940s.
Japanese occupied territories in China
See 1/3 of China was occupied. According to your logic, the USSR was the same country as Germany? And South Korea is the same country as the USA?

O and sure, Japan should invade China again. Go ahead, China doesn't care because more than just 2 japanese cities will be devastated.

Japan and China were never the same country. Japan never had a functioning government in China nor did it ever manage to take over all of China. Just because you occupied land for a limited time does not mean you are the same country.

raymondusa/joe111/joe112/battleship/vincelee/kevintam/cruise56/cruise566, etc, etc never listens to arguments, he is just a troll. and apparently in another recent thread he claimed he is not taiwanese either, so you have to wonder why he will not stop trolling this forum.


__________

why did it take the Dalai Lama and his advisors several decades after he was exiled to come up with this "middle way" democratic approach? Did him and his predecessor try to install democracy in Tibet between 1912-1949? what exactly is the middle way, a democratically elected theocracy? that is an oxymoron in itself isn't it? Who is going to campaign against the Dalai Lama? of course he is trying to be the one that is going to be back in power.

and read this:

http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html

and China is not even communist any longer.

CIA paychecks, $1.7 mil a year:


who are the ones that are really out of touch here?

It's no use. People will believe what they want to believe. At this point, pointing fingers toward the CIA, as well documented as it may be, will always be dismissed as us being brainwashed.

It is not the question of His Holiness Dalai Lamas position in future, heHe made it clear that future tibet should be securlar goverment with democracy

So if the PRC becomes democratic, would those exiled tibetans still ramble?

That would be wish of Chinese brothers and sister, and definitely Tibet issue will be settled if China becomes democratic.

Bull$hit, a democratic China doesn't mean a free tibet. It doesn't matter if china is communist, a democracy, utopia, stalinist state, etc. Tibet will never be independent.

It said "The government of the People's Republic of China could remain responsible for Tibet's foreign policy. The Government of Tibet should, however, develop and maintain relations, through its own Foreign Affairs Bureau, in the fields of commerce, education, culture, religion, tourism, science, sports and other non-political activities. Tibet should join international organisations concerned with such activities"

Where does it say Tibet can have its own foreign relations?

90,000 km^2 of land.

Nonsense. No such land was stolen by India.

Not entirely true. Both sides are in control of lands claimed by the other side. Donno what the numbers are specifically, but it's wrong to say that India (or China) isn't standing on disputed territory. That's why current negotiations for settling the border dispute has always been centered on some sort of land swap.

And Raymond is proving himself ever the dumbass with every post.

Japan, even with its grand imperialist intentions, never intended for full integration of the Chinese mainland. The plan was to use an interlocking system of client states pitted against each other ethnically to manipulate the continent from afar. Manchukou was technically a sovereign state, as was the provisional government of Nanjing, and the outter Mongolian federation, but ultimatley they would be sattelites, not unlike the warsaw pact countries and the USSR.

He obviously never looked at any map he cited, as even the wartime Japanese maps would show its occupied territories in China as different colors.

Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pardesh are those two disputed regions. However, its wrong to say that either side "stole" the land.

I don't see the current Lines of Control changing anytime soon. The most recent development was that the PRC officially recognized Sikkim as an Indian state, but aside from that, no other developments have occured.