精品国产福利一区二区在线,麻豆精产国品一二三产,18禁国产一区二区三区,日韩狼人精品在线观看,亚洲女同精品中文字幕

Some home truths about Dalai Lama

By Zheng Dui (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-04-04 11:13

How can there be a "Tibet issue" and, if there is one, what is its nature? These two points have to be clarified for a person to understand the ulterior motives of the Dalai Lama when he gave a speech recently.

First, there has been no such a thing as "independent Tibet" since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) established its suzerainty over the region. It was the invasion of Tibet by British forces in the late 19th century that made Tibetan sovereignty an issue. When the British forces withdrew after waging two wars, they tried to create an "independent Tibet" by convening the Simla Convention.

Some home truths about Dalai Lama

After Britain's clout on world politics ended with World War II, the United States got involved in the "Tibet issue", and the Central Intelligence Agency even supported the Dalai Lama in his attempt to split Tibet from China.

Second, the way the Dalai Lama spoke about the treaty he signed with the central government in 1951 was aimed at creating the impression that Tibet was an independent country before 1951. Why else did he not mention that the region has been part of China since the Yuan Dynasty?

And when the Dalai Lama mentioned the "Tibet issue", he was apparently referring to his "meaningful autonomy of "the great region of Tibet", which he said was an appropriate resolution of the issue after he abandoned his "Tibet independence" pursuit.

But has he really given up his dream of an "independent Tibet"?

An analysis of his concept of "the great region of Tibet" and "meaningful autonomy" makes his rhetoric game clear. "The great region of Tibet" the Dalai Lama refers to includes parts of the Tibet autonomous region's neighboring areas, which would add up to one-fourth of China's entire land mass.

Full coverage:
Tibet in 50 years

Even during the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties when the emperors exercised suzerainty over Tibet, these Tibetan-inhabited areas were part of other local Chinese provinces and regions. Hence, the Dalai Lama has neither a historical ground nor legal basis for his geographic concept of "the great region of Tibet".

The autonomy Tibet enjoys over its affairs has been conducive to economic growth and social progress of the region. It's true, Tibetan culture has suffered over the past few decades, including cultural relics being vandalized during the "cultural revolution" (1966-76). But then the cultures of other provinces and regions suffered the same fate during that period.

Thus it would be erroneous to say that Tibetan culture was singled out for destruction. On the contrary, the central and Tibetan autonomous region governments have made every effort to preserve material and non-material Tibetan culture.

The "meaningful autonomy" the Dalai Lama has been talking about in recent years is meaningful only to him and a handful of his followers. "Meaningful autonomy" is nothing but a new term for "Tibet independence". And the Dalai Lama and his followers changed their strategy, and began seeking "meaningful" or "real autonomy" only after their call for "Tibet independence" failed to get the support of Tibetans and the international community.

What goes against any reasoning is his accusation that the central government is trying to assimilate Tibetans and other ethnic groups by building highways, airports and railways in Tibet. Tibet's natural environment and local way of life have suffered, too, because of these infrastructure constructions, he says.

Can anybody deny that improved infrastructure has contributed to the remarkable progress of the region and greatly improved the living standards of Tibetans? Or, does the Dalai Lama mean to say that Tibetans have no right to share the fruits of material civilization and the progress that science and technology have brought about in the past century?

In his recent speech, he said that he hoped the friendship between Tibetans and their Han counterparts would be promoted. But how can such friendship develop without modern transport and infrastructure facilities? His self-contradiction reveals his true nature: Tibetans should be isolated, left to live in poverty and ignorance and that there should be no contact between Tibetans and their Han brothers and sisters. Haven't Tibetans and Hans learned from and influenced each other in every sphere of life? And doesn't such a thing happen in every country that is home to more than one ethnic group

By saying that the economic development and social progress in Tibet is aimed at assimilating Tibetans and Hans, he intends to create a schism between Tibetans and Hans.

In his speech, he also said that his first wish as a religious figure was to do good deeds. Is this what he is actually doing by trying to foment trouble in Tibet?

The author is director of the China Tibetology Research Center's religious institute.