The period of liberalization, which had allowed for a resurgence of the Tibetan way of life and religion, did not last long. In 1984 a second Work Symposium on Tibet called the leadership of Hu Yaobang into question, criticizing him for allowing Tibetan nationalism to be reborn. He was dismissed as the head of the Communist Party, and once again, Chinese policies became stricter. This was when the Dalai Lama, at the invitation of the U.S. Congress, decided to bring the Tibetan cause onto the international scene—accompanied by a message of peace for the world.
I propose that Tibet become a sanctuary of
ahimsa
for the world
IPROPOSE THAT ALL OF TIBET, including the eastern provinces of Kham and Amdo, be transformed into a zone of ahimsa, a Hindu term designating a state of nonviolence and peace.
The establishment of such a zone of peace would be in keeping with the historic role of Tibet, a peaceful, neutral Buddhist nation and buffer zone between the great powers of the continent. It would also be in keeping with Nepal’s proposal to become a zone of peace, a project that was publicly approved by China. The Nepalese peace zone would have a much stronger impact if it included Tibet and the neighboring regions.
Establishing a zone of peace in Tibet would force a withdrawal of Chinese troops and military installations. It would also allow India to withdraw its troops and military camps from the border regions in the Himalayas. An international agreement could guarantee China’s legitimate need for security and build relations of trust between Tibetans, Indians, Chinese, and the other peoples of the region. It would be to everyone’s advantage, especially China and India. Their security would be reinforced, and it would lighten the economic burden involved in maintaining large concentrations of troops on the disputed Himalayan border.
Throughout history, relations between China and India have never been tense. It was only when the Chinese armies invaded Tibet, thereby creating for the first time a common border, that tensions appeared between the two powers, resulting in the war of 1962. Since then, many dangerous incidents have occurred. The reestablishment of good relations between the two most populous nations in the world would be greatly eased if they were separated, as was the case in the past, by a vast, friendly buffer zone.
To improve relations between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples, the first step is the restoration of trust. After the holocaust of recent decades—in the course of which over a million Tibetans, or one-sixth of our population, lost their lives, while at least the same number languished in concentration camps because of their religious beliefs and their love of freedom—only a withdrawal of Chinese troops could initiate a real process of reconciliation. The large occupation force in Tibet reminds the Tibetans every day of the oppression and suffering they are all undergoing. Removal of the troops would be a strong signal letting us hope that in the future a relationship of friendship and trust could be established with the Chinese.24
The transformation of Tibet into a zone of peace dedicated to the culture of ahimsa (nonviolence) was suggested by the Dalai Lama in his September 1987 speech before the Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress, in which he presented his Five-Point Peace Plan. The spiritual leader developed the argument that peace in Tibet could guarantee peace in the world, according to the principle of interdependence dear to him. This speech marked an important turning point in the analysis of the Tibetan situation by the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile.
Until 1979, the central Tibetan administration and the Tibetan people had tried to recover Tibet’s independence by calling on the United Nations, without much success, to recognize the historic sovereignty of their country, which, contrary to what Chinese propaganda asserts, was never part of China. While acknowledging that the world was becoming more and more interdependent politically, militarily, and economically, the Dalai Lama decided to put all his efforts into resolving the question of Tibet through dialogue and negotiation.
In 1979 Deng Xiaoping had decreed that anything about Tibet could be discussed except its independence. During meetings with members of the Kashag, the Dalai Lama studied the possibility of satisfying the aspirations of the Tibetan people while still accepting the idea that Tibet would become a Chinese province, provided a real status of self-management and autonomy were granted it. The incontrovertible condition to make this autonomy effective was to annul the administrative division of the country, arbitrarily imposed by the occupier, into five zones attached to Chinese provinces. The Dharamsala government proposed that all territories be reunified into one administrative entity to be self-managed democratically. Such measures would allow the preservation of Tibetan religion and culture by giving Tibetans the power to decide their own socioeconomic development. China would remain responsible for defense, foreign affairs, education, and the economy. It would gain the advantage of a long-term stability by preserving its territorial integrity. Tibetans would then have no more reason to demand their independence.
These points form the basis of the policy called “the Middle Way,” conceived to be mutually beneficial to both parties and to serve peace in the world. It is still advocated by the Dalai Lama in his negotiations with the government of the People’s Republic of China. He gave a complete account of this a year after his 1987 speech in the United States when he addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
In the name of the spiritual heritage of my people
WE ARE LIVING TODAY in a very interdependent world. One single nation cannot solve its problems by itself. If we don’t realize universal responsibility, our very survival is in danger. That is why I have always believed in the necessity for better understanding, closer cooperation, and greater respect among the nations of the world. The European Parliament is
