The political scientist Robert Dahl defines relational power as when ‘’A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something B would not otherwise do’. Sadly, this definition is fitting for the unequal relationship between the Chinese Government and the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in which the former is in the position of power.And the effect of this position of power is evident in the recent statements made by the democratically elected Tibetan leader, Dr Lobsang Sangay, on the Middle Way proposal.
During his four-day official visit last month to the United States of America, Dr Sangay participated in a talk organised by The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Here, the leader of the CTA made statements which have been seen as contradicting key provisions of the Middle Way proposal as understood by the Tibetan community: 1) that democracy within Tibet was out and Communist Party rule was acceptable; 2) that Tibetan autonomy could be for a limited duration only;and 3) China would have control over military deployment within Tibet.
These statements suggest a changing view of the content of the Middle Way proposal as they can be seen to beat variance with the spirit of the initial proposals formulated by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the 1988 Strasbourg Proposal. This first attempt at a negotiated settlement with China called for genuine Tibetan democracy and self-determination. Seeing the proposals proved fruitless, in 2008 the CTA updated the Strasbourg Proposal with the submission to the Chinese Government of the Memorandum on Genuine Tibetan Autonomy. This Memorandum called for genuine Tibetan autonomy for all three regions of Tibet under one administration – within the framework of the Chinese Constitution. As such, this 2008 proposal was an attempt to moderate the content of Tibetan independence in order to reach a compromise with China. Beijing blatantly rejected every proposal. In 2010, the CTA issued a follow-up proposal stating that the ‘Memorandum also does not challenge the socialist system of the PRC’.This proposal still did nothing to change the Chinese politics within occupied Tibet.
Dr Sangay’s recent statements have prompted an extensive public outcry within the Tibetan community as they see this as one step too far in the attempt to reach a compromise with China. However, Dr Sangay’s statements and the apparent changing view of the Middle Way must be seen is in the light of those unsuccessful previous attempts to reach a negotiated peace. To date, the Middle Way proposal has not proven effective in changing the unbearable status quo within Tibet, as conditions for domestic Tibetans have worsened in recent years with crackdowns intensified, new surveillance procedures,and self-immolations increasing each month.
It would appear that Dr Sangay, as a firm believer in a non-violent solution to the liberation of Tibet, is taking what he sees as a more realistic path to the negotiation table with China, and the new proposals are not in direct contradiction to either the 2008 Proposal or the 2010 followup.However, this is the first time an elected Tibetan leader has publicly stated that the CTA is not seeking democracy for Tibetans inside Tibet and will accept Communist Party rule in Tibet.
Communist rule within Tibet would pose many questions about the genuine autonomy of Tibetans, and Dr Sangay is facing many dilemmas in his attempts to reach a compromise with China. The CTA has not disclaimed Dr Sangay’s remarks, so it is safe to assume that they are in line with the CTA’s current Middle Way policy and reflect the official view of the Tibetan Administration – and would suggest that the CTA has abandoned one of the key provisions of the original Middle Way Proposal.
Acceptance by the Tibetan people is key to the democratically elected CTA, and it is uncertain what form any official proposal to the Chinese will take. As the prominent online journal The Tibetan Political Review has commented: ‘it remains to be seen whether the Tibetan people, in exile and in Tibet, will accept the Middle Way in its present form’.
Print
Email