Persisting Tibetan Self-Determination Despite Chinese Aggression and United Nations Ambivalence

Persisting Tibetan Self-Determination Despite Chinese Aggression and United Nations Ambivalence Allison Brown HIST 4990: Crimes Against Humanity Dr. Blackler 14 November, 2021 In an interview between John Oliver and the fourteenth Dalai Lama in 2017, Oliver posed a question many were speculating over. When asked if he were to be in the last reincarnation ever, the Dalai Lama replied that it’s “very possible,” but added with a grin that this might not be such a terrible thing, since he’s “very intelligent,” after all. Oliver continued to press on, “If you don’t resolve your reincarnation issue, are you not worried that China (PRC) will appoint their own Dalai Lama?” In response, the Dalai Llama didn’t fully answer the question, but he offered a partial explanation, “Our brain has the ability to create common sense. The Chinese hardliners … that part of the brain is missing” (Framke, 2017). China’s Foreign Ministry released a statement days later, insisting the exiled Dalai Lama had appeared “deceptive” on the during the interview, in which he also criticized some Chinese leaders as small-minded and mocked Beijing’s portrayal of him as “a demon.” Geng Shuang in a news conference for the Chinese Government insists that the Dalai Lama’s comments about the contested issue of his reincarnation “appear to be funny and humorous, but they’re all lies”. Shuang dismissed the interview in its entirety that aired in the U.S. as merely intended for entertainment purposes (Shih, 2017). China’s ruling Communist Party (CCP) has long depicted the Dalai Lama—both in his current, 14th reincarnation, and in the past—as a dangerous separatist, strongly objecting to his meetings with global political leaders and entertainment figures, seemingly presenting the Dalai Lama in diplomatic and social settings as a world leader. Kaczorowska (2010) defines the self-determination of peoples as the right of peoples to determine their own political destiny. The plight of the Tibetan people has attracted international attention for more than sixty years with the PRC sending troops into Tibet in 1950, completing a successful invasion–or liberation, depending on the viewpoint–in the 1951 when the PRC invaded entered Lhasa, the Tibetan capital. Tibetans upheld that this represented an invasion that 1 ended the independence of Tibet, but, the PRC insists that “both the Chinese and Tibetan peoples were anxiously awaiting the region’s ‘liberation’ from oppressive colonialism and reactionary exploitation” (Ginsburgs, 1960). Despite the attention Tibet has attracted on the international stage, they remain a part of the PRC, the majority of historical Tibet forming the Tibet Autonomous Region. The ineffectiveness of Tibetan claims of independence trace back to the 1950s. When invaded by the PRC, no state came to the aid of the Tibetans and Tibet’s claim for full political independence internationally found no state support. The United Nations (UN) passed no resolutions in the Security Council or General Assembly at the same time as the Korean War. The UN was occupied with determining the role of its own body and member states in the conflict. No UN General Assembly resolution passed until 1959, fifty years after the PRC’s invasion of Tibet, and only three in all have to date passed (UN, 2006). The resolutions passed in the UN all refer to the “fundamental human rights and freedoms” of the people of Tibet, and the second of the resolutions refers to “their right to self-determination” (Talbott, 2010). However, the PRC has not complied with the resolutions. Given its current position as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, which appears to the PRC immunity in this context, reinforcing its claim that Tibet is an internal Chinese matter not relevant or held accountable to external interference. Member states of the UN, including the US, have yet to strongly oppose the PRC over the issue of Tibet, and realism in the form of political self-interest has prevailed yet again in lieu of human rights action. As Tibetan claims for independence have languished, facing ambivalence from the UN and other nations, the PRC has only increased in power over the last six decades, strengthening its hold on the territory. The PRC faces criticism on numerous occasions for human rights abuses 2 within the Tibet Autonomous Region. An infamous example of this in the past was the crackdown on protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989 with a death-toll some estimate to be over ten-thousand (BBC, 2017). Despite that violent episode, however, the prestige and position of the PRC has progressively been enhanced in international spheres and on the UN. The PRC is an elected member state of the UN Human Rights Council, and in the elections the candidate states’ contribution “to the promotion and protection of human rights” was taken into account (UN General Assembly, 2006). Alongside the UN’s actions—or lack thereof—the Chinese have tried to influence a social element of Tibet, the discovery of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama. In 1995, only three days after the Dalai Lama named the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the PRC intervene and took him, naming their own Panchen Lama, Gyaltsen Norbu. The PRC to this day insists Nyima attended traditional schooling and is living a normal life integrated into Chinese society. The PRC naming their own Panchen Lama would give them the power to potentially name the next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. Moreover, this gives the PRC a means to attempt and cultural assimilate Tibet into the PRC, as it already has territory. Culturally dictating Tibet is yet another example of the disregard of Tibetan self-determination, not only from China, but from the UN and other states. In conclusion, since 1950 when the PRC first invaded Tibet, the international community and UN has remained silent about the humanitarian rights concerns, human rights violations, and aggression of China in the region. This is in part due to the PRC’s status as a permanent member on the UN Security Council, but, this status geopolitically should not allow the PRC to continue to disregard Tibetan self-determination. 3