STATE COUNSELLOR'S FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDER: Tibet, Xinjiang and China-Myanmar Joint Statement
Generally, the
China-Myanmar Joint Press Release or Statement of 20 August 2016 is seen as
a diplomatic procedure normally issued
after the end of a country's leaders visit.
But a closer look at it revealed a controversial issue that has been endorsed by the State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, implying that Myanmar see eye-to-eye with China's stance on Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan ownership without reservation. This sort of official political position, especially where Tibet and Xinjiang are concerned, has never been made public, safe for the "one China" policy that has been in place for several decades.
The paragraph
regarding this was written: “Myanmar reiterated that it
sticks to the One-China policy, understands and supports China's stance on the
Taiwan issue, Tibet-related issues and Xinjiang-related issues.”
While people readily are inclined to understand Suu Kyi's political position to accommodate the big neighbouring country's by bowing to the inclusion of this controversial phrase that says Myanmar endorsed the Chinese claims of undisputed ownership, from the moral and ethical point of view, it might be having a negative impact, specifically from the sovereignty and human rights violations facets.
Suu Kyi is admired for her staunch avocation of democracy and human rights, although she insisted that she is only a politician. But still forsaking universal human rights violations for only national interest that could tarnish, or even contradict, her steadfast, liberal democratic commitment might not be the way to go.
But before dwelling on this let us look at a bit more on the said controversial issue.
Tibet and Xinjiang
Quite a lot of people that this writer have known during the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) days as a Shan representative were openly quite disappointed, particularly those from Tibet and Xinjiang, also known as East Turkestan.
It is not a wonder that the feeling of being hurt and betrayed were unable to be suppressed, especially when it was coming from a person they deeply considered to be their own kind, ideologically and world outlook.
But let us look at a bit more on this politically and internationally charged Tibet issue that refuses to fade away, which has pitted international community against each other and been at odds with one another. Many have given in to China's claims under pressure reluctantly, but also due to the fact that the world in general has become increasingly interdependent politically, militarily and economically. Still there are many countries that choose to be against China's claims or opt to stay neutral, in order to be on the justified side of the history.
Due to the
readily available data, only Tibet issue will be discussed here, although
Xinjiang is also a controversial issue and not less important than Tibet.
Is Tibet a country?
The main
thrust of the argument from China's perceptive is that Tibet was absorbed about
800 years ago during the Yuan Dynasty, becoming an inseparable part of China.
It has not been a country since and no country has ever recognised Tibet as an
independent state.
The position
of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which has ruled mainland China since
1949, as well as the official position of the Republic of China (ROC), which
ruled mainland China before 1949 and currently controls Taiwan, is that Tibet
has been an indivisible part of China de jure since the Yuan dynasty of
Mongol-ruled China in the 13th century, comparable to other states such as the
Kingdom of Dali and the Tangut Empire that were also incorporated into China at
the time.
The PRC
contends that, according to international law and the Succession of states
theory, all subsequent Chinese governments have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in
exercising de jure sovereignty over Tibet, with the PRC having succeeded the
ROC as the legitimate government of all China.
Furthermore,
according to the PRC, successive Chinese governments have recognized Tibet as
having its own unique culture and language; however, they believe that this
situation does not necessarily argue in favour of its independence, because
China has over 56 unique ethnic groups and is one of many multi-national states
in the world. (Source: Tibetan sovereignty debate - Wikipedia)
But the
Tibetan point of view is that Tibet was not ruled by the Chinese government
prior to the 1950 invasion. In 1912, the 13th Dalai Lama - Tibet's political
and spiritual leader - issued a proclamation reaffirming Tibet’s independence
and the country maintained its own national flag, currency, stamps, passports
and army. It signed international treaties and maintained diplomatic relations
with neighbouring countries. And that from a legal point of view Tibet remains
an independent state under illegal occupation, a fact that China wishes it
could whitewash from history.
The Tibetan,
further consolidated their argument with a number of new findings related to
Tibet's sovereignty since the publication of The Case Concerning Tibet in 1998.
Some refer to pre-1950 Tibet.
·
Original Tibetan text of Tibet-Mongolia treaty
discovered
In 1913,
shortly after the proclamation of independence, Tibet and Mongolia signed and
sealed a treaty acknowledging their status as independent states. The absence
of the original treaty texts enabled critics to shed doubt on the validity of
the treaty, until 2007, when the original Tibetan text was rediscovered in
Mongolia. This discovery proves that “[t]he treaty is real; it does exist and
it is signed and sealed by officials acting in the capacity of
Minister-Plenipotentiaries of the Dalai Lama, with full authority to conclude
it.”That the Government of Tibet was able to enter into such international
diplomatic relations adds weight to the argument that Tibet was rightfully an
independent state at that time.
·
Tibetan Passport rediscovered
In 2003,
Tibetans rediscovered a Tibetan passport in Nepal, providing important insight
into the way in which Tibetans were able to travel as recognized citizens of
Tibet in the years preceding the 1950 Chinese invasion of Tibet. The passport
had been issued in 1947 by the Tibetan government to Tsepon Shakabpa, Tibet’s
then Finance Minister. Friends of Tibet India, who were instrumental in the passport’s
recovery, note that “it has a message in hand-written Tibetan and typed
English, similar to the message given by the nominal issuing officers of
today's passports, stating that:
"The
bearer of this letter – Tsepon Shakabpa, Chief of the Finance Department of the
Government of Tibet, is hereby sent to China, the United States of America, the
United Kingdom and other countries to explore and review trade possibilities
between these countries and Tibet. We shall, therefore, be
grateful if all the Governments concerned on his route would kindly give due
recognition as such, grant necessary passport, visa, etc. without any hindrance
and render assistance in all possible ways to him." The text and the
photograph are sealed by the stamp of the Kashag [The Tibetan cabinet], and the
page is dated "26th day of the 8th month of Fire-Pig year" (14
October 1947).
Through the
use of this passport, Tsepon Shakabpa was recognized as a Tibetan citizen and
government official by a number of different countries.
·
UK Government Changes Position on Tibet
Since the
tripartite Simla Convention of 1913 held between Britain, Tibet and China, the
UK had maintained that Tibet was autonomous from China, under the vague and
legally undefined concept of “suzerainty” – the idea that Tibet existed as a
protectorate of some kind in relation to China, but was not a legal part of the
Chinese sovereign state. However, in late October 2008, and without public
debate, Britain’s then Foreign Minister, David Miliband MP, made a statement in
which he changed the UK’s position to one that recognised China’s full
sovereignty over Tibet. (Source: The
Case Concerning Tibet - Update added by
Tibet Justice Center, February 13, 2013)
Oppression and
human right violations
According to
Tibet Post International (TPI), in its 20 April 2016 report titled, “Human
Rights Violations in Tibet: Report 2013-2016”, starting 1949, Tibet was
invaded by 35,000 Chinese troops who systematically raped, tortured and
murdered an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans, one-fifth of the country's
population. Since then over 6000 monasteries have been destroyed, and thousands
of Tibetans have been imprisoned. According to different sources, it is
estimated that up to 260,000 people died in prisons and labour camps between 1950
and 1984. Variety records show that between 1949 and 1979 the following deaths
occurred under the Chinese rule:
·
173,221 Tibetans died after being tortured in
prison.
·
156,758 Tibetans were executed by the Chinese.
·
432,705 Tibetans were killed while fighting
Chinese occupation.
·
342,970 Tibetans have starved to death.
·
92,731 Tibetans were publicly tortured to death.
·
9,002 Tibetans committed suicide.
The Chinese
regime enforces its control over every aspect through the threat and use of
arbitrary punishments, at times including severe violence. Any act deemed to
threaten its rule normal to become a criminal offence. However TPI also
believes its efforts have increasingly become a strong voice to its targeted
international readership. Reporters without Borders (RSF) ranked China (include
Tibet) 176 out of the 180 countries on its Press Freedom Index 2015. Freedom
House, in their annual ‘Freedom in the World’ report release in 2016, has
placed Tibet as the second worst place in the world for political rights and
civil liberties. Tibet was amongst the world's 12 worst countries, in 2015.
But despite
such massive human rights violations, Dalai Lama's “Middle-Way” approach
continues to be the policy of the exile Tibetan government, to which he has
devolved the political decision-making power.
The Middle
-Way Approach
On 10 March
2011, the Dalai Lama proposed changes to the exile charter to remove his
position of authority within the organisation and devolve his political power
to the elected leader, thus making the Kalön Tripa (Chief Minister or sometimes
translated as Prime Minister) the highest-ranking officeholder. These changes
were ratified on 29 May 2011, even though, according to Dr. Lobsang Sangay, there
was “a high level of anxiety among Tibetans” over the Dalai Lama's decision to
relinquish his own political authority.
On 27 April
2011 Sangay was elected as Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government in Exile
and again for another five years on 27 April 2016, gathering a total of 33,876 votes
(57.08 % of the total vote share) against the 24,864 votes (41.89% of the total
vote share) of Mr Penpa Tsering, the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament.
Sangay has
emphasized the importance of seeking a peaceful, non-violent resolution of the
Tibet issue. He has supported the Dalai Lama's call for a so-called
“Middle-Way” approach “that would provide for genuine autonomy for Tibet within
the framework of Chinese constitution.” Noting that China has established “one
country, two systems” mechanisms in Hong Kong and Macau, he has argued that it
makes no sense for China to continue to resist a similar solution for Tibet,
which, he emphasizes, would be a “win-win” result.
According
to Dalai Lama, “Important Components of the Middle-Way Approach” are outlined
as below:
·
Without seeking independence for Tibet, the
Central Tibetan Administration strives for the creation of a political entity
comprising the three traditional provinces of Tibet;
·
Such an entity should enjoy a status of genuine
national regional autonomy;
·
This autonomy should be governed by the
popularly-elected legislature and executive through a democratic process and
should have an independent judicial system;
·
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;
·
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;
·
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;
·
The Chinese government should stop its policy of
human rights violations in Tibet and the transfer of Chinese population into
Tibetan areas;
·
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.
In a nutshell,
the Dalai Lama's proposal could be summed up as follows:
“The Tibetan
people do not accept the present status of Tibet under the People's Republic of
China. At the same time, they do not seek independence for Tibet, which is a
historical fact. Treading a middle path in between these two lies the policy
and means to achieve a genuine autonomy for all Tibetans living in the three
traditional provinces of Tibet within the framework of the People's Republic of
China. This is called the Middle-Way Approach, a non-partisan and moderate
position that safeguards the vital interests of all concerned parties-for
Tibetans: the protection and preservation of their culture, religion and
national identity; for the Chinese: the security and territorial integrity of
the motherland; and for neighbours and other third parties: peaceful borders
and international relations.” (Source: His Holiness's
Middle Way Approach For Resolving the Issue of Tibet)
But so far
China has refused to negotiate, citing that the real motive of Dalai Lama has
always been separatism and independence from China.
Suu Kyi,
Michael Aris and Dalai Lama connection
Suu Kyi met
Dalai Lama in 2012 for the first time, while she was visiting United Kingdom,
where she was praised by His Holiness, who is also a fellow Nobel prize
laureates, for her courage and steadfast democratic commitment and human rights
advocate of the people.
Dalai Lama
later urged her repeatedly to fend for the oppressed Muslim population,
including the Rohingya, for religious harmony to take place in Burma, to which
she was said to reply to be a complicated issue, non-committally without
elaborating.
Suu Kyi is no
stranger to Tibet issue, as her late husband, Michael Aris was a Tibetologist,
who was well-versed in matters encompassing Bhutan and Tibet. And as such, it
could be taken that she is well-informed on the problematic surrounding Tibet
issue.
Foreign policy blunder
Such being the
case, a host of questions on why she has signed a Joint Statement containing
such a sensitive moral and ethical question becomes an issue that could not be
overlooked, particularly when she said that Myanmar literally would remain a
neutral country, in dealing with the world at large. She was said to be
enthusiastic of the pre-military coup, former Prime Minster U Nu's foreign
policy on non-aligned position forged at Bandung, in Indonesia.
Bandung
Conference, convened in Indonesia, on
April 18–24, 1955, is the first large-scale Asian–African or Afro–Asian
Conference involving 29 countries, of which Burma is also a founding member,
represented nearly one-quarter of the Earth's land surface and a total
population of 1.5 billion people was an important step toward the Non-Aligned
Movement. The second conference in 2005, with 89 represented by their heads of
state or government or ministers; and the third conference in 2015, with
delegates from 109 Asian and African countries, 16 observer countries and 25
international organizations participation, were held respectively also in
Bandung.
Of the ten
point declaration that is still in force six are worth emphasizing, especially
in view of conforming to neutrality. They are:
·
Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and
principles of the charter of the United Nations;
·
Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of all nations;
·
Recognition of the equality of all races and of the
equality of all nations large and small;
·
Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs
of another country;
·
Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country; and
·
Respect for justice and international obligations.(Source:
Bandung Conference - Wikipedia)
Seen from
above mentioned neutrality criteria, it is hard to agree with China on human
rights, racial equality and respect for justice point of view, no need to even
invoke sovereignty and territorial integrity arguments, which are debatable in
Tibet context.
Naturally,
critical observation like whether Suu Kyi has yielded to the Chinese
initiative; if it was a trade off to get China pressured the ethnic armed
groups that it have influence to join the 21st Century Panglong
Conference; to show the Chinese that Burma is not in the West camp and catering
to United State's China containment policy, among others, are also questions
that come to mind.
But one thing
is sure that she has abandoned her moral and ethical posture as an icon of
democracy and human rights defender, and might be opting or trying to become a
pragmatic politician, bent on realpolitik approach, at the expense of
international human rights norm.
Suu Kyi's rise to fame and prominence were due to her
posture of democracy and human rights crusader, which have ushered her
eventually into the present political office. But if she would pursue national
interest, without paying attention to international human rights norm, her
standing as a world stateswoman would be called into question, so do Myanmar as
a respectable country.
To sum up, Tibet issue is a foreign policy blunder, from which she could have come out without having to make any concrete commitment, but has chosen to be led by the nose. The successive regimes, even including the military governments, have circumvented the issues of Tibet and Xinjiang.
But the damage has been already done, even if people are for now reluctant to blow it out of proportion, for fear that her good international standing would be tarnished and eventually bring her popularity down.
No one would
like this to happen. Besides, everyone that has good will for Myanmar to
achieve peace and prosperity wouldn't like Suu Kyi to fail either. We could
only hope and pray that such foreign policy blunder would never happen again.
Tags: Opinion
