DELEGATION FOR RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CINA
THE CHAIRMAN

Dear Mr Dupuis,

You will find hereinafter some considerations with regard to Tibet, China and the EP's positions.

On the visit of the China-delegation to China: Human rights and Tibet

During a recent visit to China among other issues (which will be covered in the report that will be presented to the relevant Committee) the Delegation also, in accordance with EP-resolutions, raised the issues of Human Rights and minorities, such as Tibet. We handed over comprehensive lists of alleged political prisoners from Human Rights in China and Falung Gong and were promised serious efforts by the Chinese to provide further information.

We also extensively raised the issue of Tibet in a long discussion with the NPC Speaker Li Peng. This was partly based upon a conversation I had in Stockholm in May this year with Dalai Lama.

Discussion with Dalai Lama

Dalai Lama briefly reminded me of the well-known events of 1959 and afterwards, then stated: "I launched the Middle Way Strategy in 1973, which is something else than Independence. In 1979 my elder brother as my emissary was invited to meet with Beijing representatives, including Deng Xiao Ping. I told him to go ahead. During their conversations Deng declared that "anything except independence" would be acceptable to the Beijing government. Up until now I have not changed my policy."
Directly after our meeting Dalai Lama made a speech to the Swedish Foreign Policy Institute, where he publicly repeated that as part of an agreement on the Tibet issue China could retain control of borders, external defence, all military matters, foreign policy and some economic policy (planning). "It would be awkward of me as a pacifist to opt for any kind of Tibetan military capacity", he said only partly joking.
I asked: Why then are there all these problems with contacts with the Beijing government, why do Beijing representatives claim that Dalai Lama in fact does demand Independence ?

Dalai Lama replied that one reason might be that the Chinese government is suspicious because he has not declared that Tibet has always been part of China. But that he would and could not do, he emphasised, because such a statement simply is not true, Tibet has not "always" during its long history been "part of China". To make such a statement would not only be historically false, it would also give the Chinese a pretext for justifying their occupation of Tibet, he said.

Dalai Lama criticised Chinese scholars who deny that there has ever been real independence of Tibet, but he expressed the belief that this is due, not to bad intentions, but to ignorance, and proposed: we could have a Tibetan-Chinese seminar on history! Dalai Lama was very eager to underline his interest in future close co-operation with China: It is for our own interest, he said, we don't want to go back to the old type of society. We are modern, we need technicians, capital. We might get better benefit from China.

Dalai Lama also expressed some hope about the attitude of President Jiang Zemin, who, Dalai Lama said, seems to know better than some other Chinese representatives, and quoted the Chinese President as having stated that the Tibet issue is "complicated" and that Tibet has "returned" to China, which as interpreted by Dalai Lama, must imply a covert recognition "that Tibet has been away" !

Concerning the contacts between himself and the Beijing government Dalai Lama recalled that the latest meeting with staff of the Chinese Embassy in Dehli took place 28/4/93. Since then there were some semi-official contacts, which were broken by the Chinese side. Dalai Lama then wrote a letter to Jiang Zemin, the receipt of which the Chinese President acknowledged to US President Clinton during a live TV broadcast in 1998. But since then nothing important has happened.

"As soon as there is some decision from Beijing I am ready to come", says Dalai Lama. "It is not only about me, but about 6 million Tibetans." He is uncomfortable with a debate and dialogue which only deals with his eventual personal return to Tibet, "that is not enough". He firmly refutes Chinese beliefs that he is desperate to return to Tibet during his lifetime and therefore might be ready to give in more than he has already done by not demanding full Independence.

My impression is that already among those who work closely with Dalai Lama the preparedness for concessions to the Beijing government are considerably less than that of Dalai Lama himself. But they loyally support the policy of Dalai Lama as long as he is around. Thus my conclusion is that rather the Beijing government has cause to be somewhat "desperate", because if they don't find a solution with "peacenik" Dalai Lama, they might find themselves up to exactly the situation they want to avoid, an armed resistance movement, something like Chechnya.

The Chinese government would be wise to listen when Dalai Lama says: "My approach is that I help the Chinese government. China needs gradual change." And when I ask him about his opinion about contacts with the Beijing government he says: "You should have close relations, try to reduce their suspicions. At the same time I feel strongly that issues about freedom and democracy should be raised. Make friends with the Chinese, but be honest!"

Discussion with Li Peng

I had my discussion with Dalai Lama in mind when I recently on an official visit to Beijing raised the Tibet matter with the Speaker of the National Peoples Congress, Li Peng. In order to focus the matter upon practical possibilities I asked Li Peng to make a reasonable proposal to Dalai Lama: Why not offer Dalai Lama to become the Governor of the Autonomous Province of Tibet?

Interestingly enough Li Peng did not flatly reject that proposal, but stated some important conditions: Dalai Lama must accept the territorial integrity of China, abstain from demands for Independence, accept Chinese citizenship and obey the Chinese Constitution. I replied that I think Dalai Lama might accept these conditions. Then Li Peng said that the correctness of that should be checked. He also invited me and the delegation to visit Tibet.

My aim was, of course, to contribute to a fair solution of the Tibet problem by telling the Chinese that they loose very much because of their inflexibility on Tibet, that there should be a simple solution if they choose to listen to Dalai Lama and if they start to take his statements about his ambitions seriously and not only condemn him as separatist. I also emphasised that I do not believe that everything social and economic has become worse in Tibet after the Chinese occupation (a sensitive issue for the Chinese) but underlined that the point is not that, but a matter of self-determination which the Chinese because of their history should be in a good position to understand.

The conversation was only partly quoted in the Chinese media. However I had a press conference with a dozen foreign (including Hong Kong) journalists, some of whom reported my version. It is clear from other conversations during our stay in China that my proposal to make Dalai Lama governor of Tibet had leaked to parts of the Chinese public through Foreign and Hong Kong media and, of course, Internet.

One Chinese journalist admitted that "Dalai Lama is very popular in Tibet". A high-ranking official discussed Tibet with me for an hour and also said that the Tibetans are extremely devoted to Dalai Lama (which he, however, took as an argument why DL could not be allowed to return!). This is interesting because the official version is that Dalai Lama has only weak support among the Tibetans.

I believe that there are different attitudes in the Chinese leadership. Some think they will get rid of the problem when Dalai Lama is gone and are prepared to wait for that - especially as Western governments don't act strongly. Others understand that the situation might be worse when the Pacifist Dalai Lama is not there to contain those Tibetans who are prepared to start an armed guerrilla war. And they also have understood that the Chinese Tibetan policy is tarnishing the image of China in an unnecessary way.

How to contribute to a solution for the Tibet question?

I think that condemning China is not enough, we must try to find solutions that might be acceptable also from a Chinese point of view, otherwise the situation will not change. According to one press report diplomats in Beijing believe that my proposal is "elegant but unrealistic" because the Beijing government would never dare to allow Dalai Lama to return to Lhasa because of his popularity among the Tibetans (South China Morning Post 2000-11-01). But my idea is that he should be offered not only to return as religious leader but also as civilian governor - which would be in line with theocratic Tibetan traditions for unity between political and religious leadership, but would also, in a modern setting, force Dalai Lama closer to every-day realities (which, by the way would be no problem for him because he is today quite a modern person, rather far from the atmosphere and way of thinking that may have been prevalent in the Potala Palace before 1959). Also, such a move would be in line with the repeatedly stated Chinese opinion that Dalai Lama is not only a religious leader but also a shrewd politician! With a little more of classical Chinese dialectical thinking the Beijing rulers might come to the conclusion that Dalai Lama inside, in Lhasa, with responsibility not only for the souls of the Tibetans but also for the quality of their roads and water pipes and internet connecting telephone lines, is probably much less dangerous for them than Dalai Lama outside, as a major symbol of China's lack of comprehension for international standards of human rights. At the same time, of course, Dalai Lama as governor of Autonomous Tibet would be a guarantee for real autonomy, cultural and religious freedom and a sense of security that most Tibetans, according to overwhelming facts delivered by International Human Rights Organisations, unfortunately cannot feel today.

In a time of peace negotiations all over the world the least that should be demanded from the Beijing Government is a reasonable offer to Dalai Lama and the Tibetans. Why not answer his letter from 1998? When the two presidents of North and South Korea can meet it should be no problem for Jiang Zemin to meet with Dalai Lama!

Your letter to the President

Against this background, I was very astonished by your unfriendly and rude press release, mentioning a letter to the EP president, demanding my resignation from the chair of the China Delegation. I think that your accusations are totally unjustified. I have not at all deviated from my duty to represent the policy of the EP. On the contrary I have done more than some EU-politicians, while meeting with Chinese leaders, by raising an extremely sensitive issue in an open and frank manner, that, according to the many witnesses present (members and staff of the Delegation), obviously took Li Peng by surprise. At the same time I have, of course, an ambition to try to contribute to a solution of the Tibet question. That cannot be done only by adopting condemning resolutions; it has to be followed by proposals that might be acceptable both to Dalai Lama and to the government in Beijing. Otherwise, with the present distribution of strength in the region and the reluctance of Western Powers to use political and economic pressure upon China in support of Tibet, nothing will change to improve the situation for the people of Tibet.

Yours sincerely
Per Gahrton