On second thoughts, talks not a good idea
Updated: 2008-04-17 07:22
Until recently, I would not argue with friends from abroad when they talked about the necessity for China to open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. I know little about this monk, am no expert on Tibet, and these friends sounded convincing that dialogue is more constructive than antagonism.
I still do not know much about the Dalai Lama and am still no expert on Tibet. But the recent happenings began to make me doubt about my friends' reasoning. Yes, it remains true that dialogue is more constructive than antagonism. But the question is, is the Dalai Lama qualified for such a dialogue?
To have a dialogue with China's central government, the Dalai Lama should at least have sufficient political capital. For instance, he should have enough authority among the domestic and overseas Tibetans communities so that they follow his doctrines and preaching.
The reality, however, does not point that way.
The Dalai Lama claims he is an advocate for non-violence.
But the riots staged by some of his believers in Lhasa and a few other Tibetan areas in China last month were very violent.
The Dalai Lama claims he is not a separatist and he wants Tibet to remain within China.
But the demonstrations put up by his followers abroad always chant "free Tibet", although Tibet was freed from the cruelest rule in human history 50 years ago.
The Dalai Lama claims he has the best wishes for the Beijing Olympics. But his supporters in Western countries have been trying to hijack the Olympic torch and spoil the first Olympic Games to be hosted by China. And they even attacked a disabled girl torchbearer in Paris.
I would very much like to believe that the Dalai Lama had nothing to do with all those ugly acts against China, and that he has no hostility toward the Han people.
But those who are supposed to be his believers, followers and supporters seem to have been turning deaf ears to him. Assuming he has been as honest as his words, the fact is his words failed to make any impact on them.
In this case, even if I still believe in what the Dalai Lama has said and buy the idea that he is a pacifist, I cannot but conclude that he has no control over all those who follow and support him. They just do not listen to him.
Then, I wonder, if the Dalai Lama is so powerless that he cannot even influence the people within his immediate reach, what political authority does he have to request a dialogue with the central government? And what is the point to have a dialogue with a guy without any impact on his followers?
If those who know the Dalai Lama better tell me that he still has the influence over his followers and they do listen to him, they may actually mar his supposedly immaculate image. Because that means the Dalai Lama is not true to his words and is indeed behind all those ugly acts.
Then it would mean the monk is indeed a liar, as so many people here have labeled him. Does an outright liar have the political capital for a political dialogue? What could you expect from a dialogue with a person who either has no impact on his people or is not honest with his words?
The current Dalai Lama used to rank among the Chinese leaders - for people not only in Tibetan regions but of the whole country of China - when he was elected vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, China's top legislature, in the 1950s. He was supposed to represent the people's interest at that time.
Yet he did not seem to treasure this honor and power, and left the country without saying good-bye. I do not know if he was taken away by those old Tibetan officials who were around him, or defected on his own. But I know one thing - with his departure, he lost the trust of the Chinese people.
For nearly 50 years the Dalai Lama has stayed abroad, without doing anything constructive for his native land. But his shadow loomed over almost every bloody and violent act against law and order in Tibet.
If he was really behind those violent acts, the monk would be a criminal, who has no status to request for a dialogue with the government. If he was clean, then his incapacity again deprives him of the qualification for a political dialogue.
The Dalai Lama is thus an ambiguous figure at best, even if we avoid calling him a liar or a double dealer. A request to have a dialogue with such a person is a joke. No responsible government can take it seriously.
Of course, some Western politicians' backing can be the only political capital that remains with the Dalai Lama. But the figures who attempt to derive their weight from foreigners' support and put pressures on their own government are always unpopular among the multi-ethnic Chinese people. Such pressures can only arouse the people's indignation and resistance, as evidenced in many overseas Chinese demonstrations recently.
After all, the issue with the Dalai Lama is our domestic affair - external interference can only make it worse.
The author is a council member of China Society for Human Rights Studies
(China Daily 04/17/2008 page8)
|
||
|
|
|
|