Full Text: Tibet's Path of Development Is Driven by an Irresistible Historical Tide
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail Xinhua, April 15, 2015
This demonstrates that "a high degree of autonomy" is a mask that conceals the true aim of realizing complete independence; and its purpose is to deny China's sovereignty over Tibet and establish a "Greater Tibet" beyond the jurisdiction of the central government. There is no prospect of it ever coming to pass, for the following reasons:
First, it violates the principles of the Constitution of China concerning ethnic relationships. The Constitution states clearly in the Preamble: "The People's Republic of China is a unitary multi-ethnic state built up jointly by the people of all its ethnic groups. Socialist relations of equality, unity and mutual assistance have been established among them and will continue to be strengthened. In the struggle to safeguard the unity of the ethnic groups, it is necessary to combat big-nation chauvinism, mainly Han chauvinism, and also necessary to combat local-national chauvinism." Article 4 says: "All ethnic groups in the People's Republic of China are equal... Discrimination against and oppression of any ethnic group are prohibited; any acts that undermine the unity of the ethnic groups or instigate their secession are prohibited." The Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy stipulates in Article 48: "The organ of self-government of an ethnic autonomous area shall guarantee equal rights for the various ethnic groups in the area." The Dalai group's demands for "a high degree of autonomy" are an expression of ultra-nationalism that negates the equal rights of ethnic groups in Tibet.
Second, "a high degree of autonomy" runs counter to the present state structure of China. When founded, the People's Republic of China inherited a unitary state structure, with a unitary Constitution and legal system. In China, the state is constituted by local administrative regions rather than local governments. As the Constitution stipulates in Article 57: "The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China is the highest organ of state power." It also stipulates in Article 58: "The National People's Congress and its Standing Committee exercise the legislative power of the state."
Local governments at various levels are all subordinate to the central government and thus shall be subject to its administration - de jure, there is no power subject equal in status to the central government. "A high degree of autonomy" denies the supreme power of the NPC and defies the authority of the central government. Instead, it demands the legislative power of the state, and interprets the administrative relationship between local government and the central government as a "cooperative" or peer-to-peer relationship between political entities. In China, there is no such a thing as the central government and a local government "negotiate" on an equal footing, seek "consent" from each other, and then find a "solution through cooperation."
Third, "a high degree of autonomy" runs counter to China's fundamental political system of socialism with Chinese characteristics. As aforementioned, the system of regional ethnic autonomy is a basic political system of China. In an autonomous area, people of various ethnic groups enjoy equal rights, and such rights are protected by the Constitution and other laws. All ethnic autonomous areas are integral parts of the People's Republic of China. The people's governments of ethnic autonomous areas are local organs of the state power at the relevant levels, as well as organs of self-government in these areas. The Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy stipulates in Article 15: "The people's governments of all ethnic autonomous areas will be administrative organs of the State under the unified leadership of the State Council and will be subordinate to it." Tibet, as an autonomous region of China, is naturally under the leadership of the central government. The Dalai group's claims for "a high degree of autonomy" represent an out-and-out denial of China's system of regional ethnic autonomy.
In Buddhism, the "meditation on the mean" advocates rejection of two biases - "real existence" and "having evil views of the doctrine of voidness" (dur-grhita suyata), and advocates the avoidance of extremes. But the actual political claims of the members of the Dalai group are all about independence. Ringleaders of the group, including the 14th Dalai Lama's two brothers - Gyalo Thondup and Tenzin Chogyal, and Samdhong Rinpoche, an influential member of the leading group, once stated that they first seek autonomy, and then drive out the Chinese! Autonomy will be the start...; the first step is to realize the semi-independence of Tibet in the name of autonomy, and the
is to transit to its independence. The new head of the Tibetan "government-in-exile" once told Dialogue India, "Tibetan independence does not conflict with Tibetan autonomy. Dialectically, the former is the principle goal while the latter is a realistic target." To pursue the "middle way" and realize independence by stages, the Dalai party try their best to appeal to contemporary international trends, presenting their claims for independence as a call to fairness, justice, democracy and freedom under the banner of such expressions as "the third way," "national self-determination," "ethnic autonomy," "non-violence" and "win-win." However, they have no prospect of success as their goals are completely divorced from China's national conditions and Tibet's reality, and violate China's Constitution, its laws, and its basic systems.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)