Self Determination without Conflict: The case of Tibet

Ronnate Asirwatham
Posted Tues 21:34 GMT

UNESCO reckons that over 90% of the world’s conflicts are a struggle for Self Determination. Chhime R. Chhoekyapa, special representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, talks about the Tibetian struggle for Self Determination through peaceful means.

Does the struggle for Self Determination mean independence?

On a general basis it could mean separation from a state or secession if there is a collective will. But we in Tibet don't want that. We believe that we were once independent, but now 50 years have passed and so it is difficult to become independent again. We want Self Determination in peaceful co-existence as in the one-China two-systems policy. The world is now becoming a smaller place and with globalisation borders are becoming meaningless, so there is no need to be independent. We can benefit from China and China can benefit from us, if they treat us as equal partners.

What then do you actually mean by Self Determination?

Genuine autonomy in the sense that we are able to preserve our own language, identity and culture, have our own education system and local government. But matters of defence and foreign affairs of Tibet can be in the hands of China.

But isn’t defence and security a key issue of Self Determination?

No not when we are treated as equals. We have to be realistic and if we have equal opportunity it is not a problem.

Has the non violent struggle to achieve Self Determination been successful?

Locally it looks hopeless but globally it has been a success. The Tibetan community is hopeful that it will be a matter of time before both sides come to a dialogue. We also want to show the international community that Self Determination can be obtained through the means of a peaceful dialogue instead of the means of an armed dialogue.

Because the struggle has not been too successful locally, don't you think an armed struggle would have been more successful?

No. We believe that violence begets violence. There will be lots of resentment and violence if we take to arms. It’s not useful because our inherent belief is in non-violence. On a realistic note, it will be suicidal because there are obviously more Chinese than Tibetans and this will only give China an excuse to bring an army against us. In the 1960's people took up arms and even now you get a few who want to take to arms, but we believe the middle path of dialogue is best.

Do you think third party intervention is necessary to obtain Self Determination for the Tibetan peoples?

Yes, a third party is necessary as a mediator. To get the people together to talk. Third parties from the international community can do this. Like the United States.

Because of the U.S. relationship with China, won't U.S intervention hurt your cause?

No, the U.S has had many confrontations with the China and China has not retaliated. Also, China wants to be friends with the best. If the U.S takes the lead in mediation then many other countries might join in, like Norway or other countries like that. There is no talk of mediation at the moment but smaller countries like Norway could help by enabling the Chinese and the Tibetans to reach out to each other.

Do you think China's entry as a major player in the international community will work to your disadvantage?

No, we believe that China should not be isolated. If they are admitted to the world community then they will be mindful of the rules that govern their entry. Secondly, other things like Human Rights and democracy will follow. For example, now that they are members of the WTO, most businessmen have joined the Communist party. It is not an ideology anymore, it is just a way to get things done. When China is a key player it will want to play by the team rules.

What do you think a forum like the World Civil Society Forum can do to help the Tibetan and similar causes?

It is important because they provide a platform for grass roots movements. Such grassroots movements of the people are essential for peace. Secondly, such a forum is good because people from all over the world have come to this meeting, not just from one area. This forum is the first of its kind and the first step towards a dialogue on these issues. However, one thing that I would suggest is that a neutral NGO should try to get the NGOs from countries in conflict, to talk to each other. For example, when we are having discussions on Self Determination I feel a lot of animosity in the room from the opposing sides of a conflict. Like the Palestinians and the Israelis. A neutral NGO should get these two parties (the representatives of Palestinian and Israeli Civil Society) talking together because they do not know each other and that is why they are angry. If they talk to each other they might begin to understand each other and try to work together on the level of civil society.