The Cross Strait Times

Yep, the 2008 legislative and presidential elections and their accompanying referenda are fast approaching, and both the Pan-Blue and Pan-Green sides have been adjusting their tactics to win at the polls.

Much has been said about the KMT adjusting its policies to be in step with DPP ideology, such as how Taiwan is already independent from Mainland; that Taiwan would only reunify with the Mainland with the democratic, willing consent of the Taiwanese people; and that Taiwan should be included in the UN and other international bodies. But the DPP has been an imitator, too. The DPP, or at least Frank Hsieh, wants to open direct transport and mail links with the Mainland, ease anachronistic trade restrictions across the strait, and Hsieh even reacted favorably to Hu Jintao’s “peace overture” even though President Chen Shui-bian has called Hu’s overture a “treaty of surrender.”  The lines between the KMT and DPP are fast blurring all in an attempt to survive the brutal electoral process — will the voters know who to vote for anymore?

Of course, there’s also the problem of if the politicians will actually do as they promise.  Will Hsieh actually open up Taiwan’s economy and transport links to the Mainland and resume dialogue with the Communists, or is it all a ploy that he will retract if he is elected?  Will the KMT’s Ma Ying-jeou honor his adaptations to approving increasing democratization of Taiwan and uphold “ROC = Taiwan” sovereignty in the face of PRC threats, or is that too a ploy?  I certainly hope that whomever is elected (I personally favor Ma, but, who knows what the outcome will be) will maintain his campaign promises and not just have them be empty words.  Only time will tell.

Letters: Hu Jintao should not snub the Dalai Lama

The China Post news staff

October 27, 2007

Comment: I have personally been hoping for a resolution to the Tibetan situation that would be satisfactory to both the PRC government and the Dalai Lama and his supporters within the Dalai Lama’s lifetime, perhaps as soon as the 2008 Olympics. The Dalai Lama’s current call for “autonomy as guaranteed in the constitution, not independence,” I think, is reasonable and a fair compromise for both sides to settle on. While perhaps it is true that deep in the Dalai Lama’s heart, he may not want Tibet to be a part of China, he has conceded the point that Tibet is now a part of China and he wants it to remain that way. The Dalai Lama has even pleaded internationally for the PRC against the containment of China by her neighbors. The Dalai Lama himself has stated here (China Post mirror here):

The very idea of total victory for one’s own side and the total defeat of one’s enemy is untenable. . . . Today, the only viable solution to human conflicts will come through dialogue and reconciliation based on the spirit of compromise.

While it is true that what the Dalai Lama is calling for in Tibet will decentralize the country, it is truthfully not much different from “One Country, Two Systems” currently in place in Hong Kong and Macau. The separate governance of these areas has not irreparably harmed China. Increased autonomy for Tibet is not a wedge the Dalai Lama is driving towards Tibetan independence — it is a guarantee in the PRC constitution that has not been upheld that the government should actually honor.

So, listen up, PRC, you have nothing to lose and much diplomatic currency to gain.  The time is ripe for a good deal.  The Dalai Lama is not a splittist. Even if he were, the increasing infrastructural and economic links with the Chinese heartland would make an independent Tibet an economic vassal to her giant neighbor to the north and east. No, the Dalai Lama just wants the most peaceful and most satisfactory way to resolve this dispute so that he, and all the Tibetans that fled with him in ‘59, can be free to go home without fear.

Letters: Hu Jintao should not snub the Dalai Lama

The China Post news staff

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Hu Jintao is to begin his second five-year term as president of the People[’s] Republic of China after winning re-election as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party at the just-concluded Communist Party Congress. But he is facing a series of daunting challenges in the next five years on numerous issues, including improving human rights and religious freedom.

Underscoring these issues was a high-profile ceremony honoring the Dalai Lama by the U.S. Congress, which accorded the spiritual leader of Tibet with its highest honor — the Gold Medal. U.S. President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush attended the ceremony, held Oct. 16 on Capitol Hill, despite strong protests from Beijing which views the Dalai Lama as a separatist.

The Dalai Lama denies the accusation, saying he is seeking nothing more than “meaningful autonomy” for Tibet under the PRC flag. The Buddhist monk, who has been in exile since 1959, said he regarded himself as “Chinese” (and “a refugee” as well), and that he has long abandoned his pursuit of Tibet’s independence. He told Chinese reporters in Washington that his homeland would be “weak and poor” on its own, without help and support from China.

This is a clear and unequivocal statement of his position, a position that can hardly qualify him as a separatist or “splittist.” He once was, to be sure, but he renounced the effort in 1987, in favor of what he calls “meaningful autonomy.” It is unclear what that means, because Tibet has already been one of the autonomous regions in the People’s Republic of China. What is known is that negotiations on that issue have been going on and off for quite a long period of time, with the last attempt, the sixth, breaking off in July.

What caused the breakdown of the July talks, held in Shanghai and Nanjing, is unknown to the outside world, except the Dalai Lama’s revelation that Beijing “suddenly got tough.” Why the change in attitude? It is difficult to gauge, judging from the secrecy surrounding the talks. Whatever the reason, it is in the interest of mainland China to re-open dialogue with the Dalai Lama to resolve the issue once and for all. Hu Jintao appears to be the best person to take charge of the issue, because he worked for a long time in Tibet as party commissar — the man wielding the highest power in Tibet.

Hu, who has made “harmony” a hallmark of his policy, should know that a successful settlement of the Tibet problem would be a monument and legacy of his reign. He has the wisdom and ability to negotiate a settlement through which Tibet will become a harmonious society. Also, Tibetan culture will be preserved and respected, and Tibetans will live in harmony with the Han immigrants — China’s dominant ethnic group poised to become the region’s majority.

Hu and the new leadership in Beijing should have less fear for trouble in Tibet once the Dalai Lama, now 72, returns to the once-isolated serfdom ruled by monks. Tibet today is no longer the mysterious Shangrila it once was, especially after the completion last year of the Qinghai-Tibet railroad, linking the “ridge of the world” with the rest of China. The Dalai Lama is aware that Tibetan independence is all but impossible as China’s rise continues to soar. He may have realized that “meaningful autonomy” is in the best interest of Tibetans, who in recent years have been benefited from Beijing’s economic largess. No doubt, Beijing is in the driver’s seat in talks with the Dalai Lama, who has much fewer bargaining chips. But to achieve harmony for China in general and Tibet in particular, Beijing should show magnanimity and goodwill to a small group of religious dissidents in exile. Their campaign has largely been peaceful, and the Dalai Lama “has asked little more than that Beijing respect its own laws and allow Tibetans to maintain their own religion and culture — under the Chinese flag,” says rightly the Wall Street Journal.

Beijing has little to lose — and much to gain — if the regime under Hu Jintao indeed heeds the calls of the free world to achieve a negotiated settlement on the Tibet problem. In so doing, Beijing would neutralize some of the criticism of its human right abuses and suppression of religious freedom. If Beijing really wants to “integrate China with the rest of the world,” (與世界接軌) this would be a big step to take.