Home » Tibet China Bhutan » Tibet trip

Tashi dele from Tibet [April-May 1999]

Tibet trip

Agelasto
2004-05-20 20:00:06

Displayed times (last time: )

rule. Certain elements within the CCP
today may legitimately fear religion?s intervention in politics. The separation of religion
from politics and from economics is not easily done, however. Before any return of the
Dalai Lama, restrictions on the types of activities he could engage in would have to be
negotiated and made clear to all parties. His participation in issues seen by the CCP as
political will not occur.
The largest restraint on the Dalai Lama?s return to China is possibly not from the Chinese
side, which probably doesn?t give the matter much thought. The Dalai Lama?s
Establishment, which has set up a sort of feudal theocracy of its own in India, is likely to
oppose negotiations and dialog. The funds that the Dalai Lama raises internationally
keeps his Establishment in a lifestyle that is superior to anything they could expect if they
returned to China, which is still more or less a socialist country. It is doubtful whether
China would allow returning monks to become feudal lords. Would the monks really want
to return to Tibet, a land of poverty? I suspect not.
Yet, without the Dalai Lama?s return, who is to represent the interests of ethnic Tibetans?
The CCP says it represents the interests of all Chinese, which I believe to be a true
intention. But ethnic Tibetans account for less than half of one percent of all Chinese
citizens. Letting the majority represent the minority if not quite as bad as letting the fox
watch the chicken coop, but it comes close. The CCP cannot be expected to put the
interests of Tibetans above the interests of other Chinese. There are 2.1 billion Chinese
who need agricultural land and minerals for future development. Today, I fear that no one
in China speaks solely for the interests of Tibetans.
The Dalai Lama?s role in Tibet cannot be that of an activist spiritual leader, like the
Catholic priests in Latin America. ...