An interesting article which I found and compiled to highlight the pros and cons. There is a lot of interesting read so please take your time before you vote.
Who says Yay and who says Nay... please vote!
TOPIC AT HANDThe question Tibet's status vis a vis China has been a major international political debate ever since the Chinese government occupied the territory in 1949. A large number of activists continue to call for independence, while the Beijing typically advocates for the status quo of fairly centralized Chinese government control. The Dalai Lama has proposed a "middle way" between these extremes. This would see Tibet accorded a greater level of autonomy, while allowing for Chinese sovereignty over Tibet’s territory and borders to continue. The Central Tibetan Administration's proposal, which reflects the views of the Dalai Lama, included below.
The Middle-Way Approach has been proposed by the Dalai Lama in an effort peacefully resolve the controversies surrounding the status of Tibet, and to bring about stability and respectful co-existence between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. The “third way” is also a policy adopted democratically by the Central Tibetan Administration and the Tibetan people through a series of discussions held over a long time.
Important Components of the Middle-Way Approach:
1. Without seeking independence for Tibet, the Central Tibetan Administration strives for the creation of a political entity comprising the three traditional provinces of Tibet;
2. Such an entity should enjoy a status of genuine national regional autonomy;
3. This autonomy should be governed by the popularly-elected legislature and executive through a democratic process and should have an independent judicial system;
4. As soon as the above status is agreed upon by the Chinese government, Tibet would not seek separation from, and remain within, the People's Republic of China;
5. Until the time Tibet is transformed into a zone of peace and non-violence, the Chinese government can keep a limited number of armed forces in Tibet for its protection;
6. The Central Government of the People’s Republic of China has the responsibility for the political aspects of Tibet’s international relations and defence, whereas the Tibetan people should manage all other affairs pertaining to Tibet, such as religion and culture, education, economy, health, ecological and environmental protection;
7. The Chinese government should stop its policy of human rights violations in Tibet and the transfer of Chinese population into Tibetan areas;
8. To resolve the issue of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai Lama shall take the main responsibility of sincerely pursuing negotiations and reconciliation with the Chinese government.
The 'Middle Way' is the most realistic path for Tibet and ChinaPoint:The Dalai Lama believes complete independence is not a viable solution for the Tibet crisis. Rather, his advocacy is aimed at creating common understanding between the Chinese and the Tibetans. He points to the model of the European Union as an example of a modern supranational political system in which different ethnicities and nationalities can cooperate to achieve an agreed ideal of prosperity.
“Look at the European Union … What is the use of small, small nations fighting each other? Today it's much better for Tibetans to join [China].”[1]
The 'Middle Way' is the most practical and realistic path for Tibet and China, as it bridges the needs of the Tibetan people with and interests of China.
Specifically, the "Middle Way" offers a mutually beneficial course of action, as it avoids the concerns that China has regarding national unity and separation and at the same time it enables the Tibetan people to achieve de-facto equivalent of a right to self-determination.
Acceptance of the 'Middle Way' would work as a signal demonstrating the increasing openness and accountability of Chinese political culture. As it is beneficial for both parties, it can be considered as a practical political course with a great potential to alleviate an ever growing strained situation.[2]
China is more likely to negotiate with Tibetan activists and leaders if their demands are limited to greater political autonomy. Conversely, China is unlikely to give up control of Tibet, as doing so would constitute a grievous blow to the territorial integrity of China itself.
The 'Middle Way' provides the current generation of Chinese leaders with an opportunity to accord greater autonomy to Tibet, without risking their domestic political capital or jeopardising China’s international standing.
A key aspect of the 'Middle Way' is an undertaking by Tibetan leaders not to push for further independence if greater autonomy is granted.
The 'Middle Way' also has the advantage of being in keeping with Tibetan Buddhist beliefs, mirroring the religion’s own ‘middle way’ tradition. The Buddhist 'Middle Way' is the descriptive term that Siddhartha Gautama (the Supreme Buddha) used to describe the character of the path he discovered that led to liberation. It was coined in the very first teaching that he delivered after his enlightenment. In this sutta- known in English as The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma- the Buddha describes the middle way as a path of moderation between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification.[3]
The Dalai Lama's “Middle Way” in Tibet is designed, per its name, around these Buddhist principles, and so it has the advantage of being in keeping with the religious beliefs of most of Tibet's population. This adds to its practicality as it would offer a political strategy consistent with the cultural norms of most Tibetans. Therefore, the Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way's is the most practical and realistic path toward rapprochement between Tibet and China.
[1] Liu, Melinda. “Fears and Tears”. The Daily Beast. 19 March 2008.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/19/fears-and-tears.[2] Gyaltsen, Kelsang. “The Middle-Way approach”. Tibetan Bulletin, July-August 1997.
http://tibetoday.com/middle_way_approach.htm[3] Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya, 56:11
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.Counterpoint:The 'Middle Way' is no different from the current situation. Although, theoretically, the 'Middle Way' proposition offers the Chinese authorities and ordinary Tibetans a way to harmonise their conflicting interests, it is practically no different from the political accommodation that Tibet currently subscribes to. Under the ‘Middle Way’, the Dalai Lama has expressed willingness to accept socialist rule in Tibet. He has also dropped former Tibetan demands that their homeland be offered a political relationship as expansive as China’s offer in the early-1980s to Taiwan in favour of an insistence on a Hong Kong-style ‘association’ relationship with Beijing. Since the early 2000s, in keeping with the ‘Middle Way’, his hints about a residual international personality have been kept to a minimum. Further, the autonomy arrangement sought is an amalgam of the Hong Kong ‘one country, two systems’ formula and the existing autonomy provisions of the PRC Constitution.[1] This gradual dropping of Tibetan demands under the name of the ‘Middle Way’ means that it offers little improvement from the status quo.
The background in terms of political events that led to a proposition of a "Middle Way" sheds more light into the fact that his strategy is just a new name on the board for the same as the provisions currently existing within the PRC constitution.[2] If the PRC sees that the ‘middle way’ is slowly reducing the demands for more freedom for Tibet then they are unlikely to embrace it as they can equally wait for more concessions. Despite all these concessions to the PRC position there are still things that China will never accept such as any idea that Tibet will be transformed into a ‘zone of peace and non-violence’ or that there should be a popularly elected legislature – it would inevitably mean others in China would believe they should have more democracy. By giving away so many concessions before negotiations but still making it impossible for the PRC to accept the Dalai Lama makes it unlikely that his middle way will get anywhere in negotiations so it is not really ‘realistic’.
[1] Gupta, Sourabh. “The Dalai Lama’s Middle-Way approach needs re-adjustment”. EastAsiaForum. 8 March 2010.
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/08/the-dalai-lamas-middle-way-approach-and-the-need-for-re-adjustment/[2] ChinaDaily. “What is Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way'”. ChinaDaily.com.cn 26 July 2007.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-07/26/content_649545.htmThe 'Middle Way' has international supportPoint:The USA, the most powerful nation in the world, has been vocal in its support for the 'Middle Way' strategy. Concurrently, the US has not given any indication that it would support complete Tibetan independence – nor is it likely to. America is unlikely to jeopardise trade relations with China over the Tibetan issue by giving political legitimacy to those advocating complete independence.[1]
The European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament have also both passed motions advocating for the 'Middle Way' as a solution in Tibet.[2][3] Such international support for the 'Middle Way' should be compared to the fact that no country in the world has ever recognised Tibetan independence.[4]
Only the involvement of international actors and inter-governmental organisations can guarantee that Tibet and China will be able to attain a peaceful and equitable equilibrium with each other. International support means that the international community would accept any change when it occurs and gives China a further incentive to negotiate for some form of the ‘Middle Way’ as it would positively benefit its international relations.
[1] Valdes, Manuel. “Dalai Lama to begin 6-day U.S. visit in Seattle to discuss compassion amid turmoil in Tibet”. Associated Press. 10 April 2008.
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080410-0236-dalailama.html[2] TibetCustom. “European Parliament Discusses Current Situation of Tibet”. TibetCustom. 26 March 2010.
http://www.tibetcustom.com/article.php/20100326083417443[3] Australia Tibet Council. “Sino-Tibetan Dialogue Presented to Scottish Parliament”. Australia Tibet Council. 2011.
http://www.atc.org.au/content/view/263/91/[4] The Economist. “Britain's suzerain remedy”. The Economist. 6 November 2008.
http://www.economist.com/node/12570571?story_id=12570571Counterpoint:The opinions of foreign governments and the international community have frequently failed to have any real impact upon the situation 'on the ground' in Tibet. For example, The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese 'aggression' and 'invasion' of Tibet in 1950, however the Chinese exerted their authority there anyway.[1] The international community will therefore acquiesce with whatever is decided between Tibet and China – they will applaud any deal or condemn any repression but this will not affect the positions of either side. Rather, what matters is what the Tibetan population support, and there is good reason to believe that the 'Middle Way' does not satisfy them. Many younger Tibetans would prefer that the Dalai Lama push for total independence, an regret that he did not pursue a more confrontational path with China over the 2008 Olympics.[2]
[1] The Office of Tibet, New York. “Historical Overview”. The Office of Tibet, New York.
http://tibetoffice.org/tibet-info/historical-overview[2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582113/Tibetans-criticise-Dalai-Lamas-middle-way.htmlThe 'Middle Way' respects China's right to territorial integrityPoint:The Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism. US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”.[1] Unity was argued to be essential to the integrity and future of the union if the United States as a much more decentralized federal union cannot sanction such a division then a much more centralized China cannot. China can put forth the same rationale as Lincoln for forcing Tibet to remain part of China, for example when it notes argues that the concept of an independent Tibet has historically been used by what it calls ‘foreign imperialists’ to interfere in China internally and split it up so that it can more easily be controlled from abroad. As an example of this, the CIA’s support for Tibetan separatists during the Cold War is cited.[2][3]
Mongolia provides a striking precedent for for Chinese worries about Tibetan independence, as it gained independence through Soviet backing and subsequently came under effective control of the USSR.[4] If Tibet were to achieve independence, both China and Tibet would be weaker, with less geopolitical strength and with greater tensions and opportunities for conflict. This is especially true in light of the history of foreign attempts to interfere with China internally, as noted above. The Dalai Lama made a similar argument himself when he stated: “Look at the European Union … What is the use of small, small nations fighting each other? Today it's much better for Tibetans to join [China].”[5] In 2008 the Foreign Minister of Cyprus similarly argued that the ‘One China’ policy, including Tibet, was necessary to safeguard China’s territorial integrity.[6] The government of Fiji has offered similar support.[7] The 'Middle Way' accounts for this need of China's whilst also offering greater autonomy to the Tibetan people, thus respecting the rights of both parties.
[1] Abraham Lincoln Online. “House Divided Speech”. Abraham Lincoln Online.
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm[2] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/zhengfu/2002-11/15/content_630888.htm[3] Wonacott, Peter. "Revolt of the Monks: How a Secret CIA Campaign Against China 50 Years Ago Continues to Fester; A Role for Dalai Lama's Brother". Wall Street Journal. 30 August 2008.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005956740185361.html?mod=googlenews_wsj[4] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/zhengfu/2002-11/15/content_630888.htm[5] Liu, Melinda. “Fears and Tears”. The Daily Beast. 19 March 2008.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/19/fears-and-tears.html[6] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. “Cyprus supports the principle of a ‘single’ China”. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. 20 March 2008/ .
http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/All/5B640E57BE973A1FC22574120050A086?OpenDocument[7] Fijilive. “Fiji backs China’s action in Tibet”. Fijilive. 24 March 2008.
http://www.fijilive.com/news_new/index.php/news/show_news/3075Counterpoint:China's supposed strategic interests in Tibet are also why the promised autonomy under the 'Middle Way' will never truly emerge. If China's need to hold onto Tibet is really so important as made out, China will always need to keep tight control over all happenings in Tibet so as to further guarantee its security. This of course assumes China really does have vital strategic interests in controlling Tibet (as the Chinese Government claims, and as is argued opposite), however it is not entirely clear exactly what these strategic interests are. The 'Middle Way' is just a smokescreen for perpetuating the predominance of China's security interests as the most important issue in Tibet. Thus, if China does have vital strategic interests in Tibet, it will never allow it true autonomy (and so the Middle Way is hopeless), and if it has no vital strategic interests in controlling Tibet then Chinese rule there is unjustified -and independence, not the ‘Middle Way’ should be adopted.
