Wei Jingsheng's letter to Deng Xiaoping in 1992.

I posted this letter also on Usenet.
I believe this letter from the tibet.com site gives a great amount of knowledge for the pro-Tibet activist.
It expalains the complexity of the Tibet problem for a big deal and declares Tibet as a sovereign state.
Wei Jingsheng was one of the first Human Right activists in China after having served for the red gards.
Spent many years of his lifetime in prison and after his release with the help of president Clinton he won many
Human Rights awards.


Wei Jingsheng's letter to Deng Xiaoping in 1992


October 3, 1992

The following is a translation of Wei Jingshen's letter to Deng Xiaoping in
1992. The letter shows a remarkable understanding of the Tibet situation and
lays blame on the Chinese leadership specifically Deng Xiaoping.


Mr. Deng Xiaoping:

The propaganda campaign you have launched shows that you are not only
dissatisfied with your hand-picked successor, but also concerned about the
affairs of Tibet which is under your personal care. Therefore, your people
have hastily worked out a White Paper called "Tibet-Its Ownership and Human
Rights" to cover up their incompetence and ignorance which is also your
incompetence and ignorance. They are continuing to use old lies and
distortions to deceive you and many other Chinese people in order to
maintain their position and power. The result will be that at the time when
the majority wake up from their dreams, Tibet will no longer be part of
China. The domino phenomenon will go far beyond the 1.2 million square
kilometers of Tibet and you will be laughed and condemned by history. In
order to improve the situation and solve the Tibet question, the first thing
to do is to understand what the problems are. Only to listen to the soothing
lies will not help you to understand the reality and find out the problem,
and certainly will not solve the problem. I myself know only a little about
Tibetan history. However, I believe that I am more clear-minded than you and
your people. Therefore, I venture to write this letter to you and hope that
you would create an academic atmosphere of free expression, so that people
of knowledge could put forward more insight with regard to this issue and
find out the problem. Only by doing so, could we avoid losing the last
opportunity of settling the issue and avoid repeating the situation of the
former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

The Tibet issue is a difficult one because of its uniqueness and the
vagueness of its sovereignty. As a matter of fact, the existing
international law is no longer applicable and many parts of it are mutually
contradictory so that it can not be provoked in the judgment of the more
complicated matters of today's world. Over-emphasis of this out-dated and
non-binding international law will not in any way help to find the solution
to the problem we face today. For instance, in reality, Canada and Australia
enjoy total independence and sovereignty. It will be ridiculous if we
defined them as Britain's colonies or even Britain's territory by arguing
that the head of state of these two countries is the Queen of the United
Kingdom and top government officials must be approved by the Queen. In
solving problems, people should face reality and should not try to
find "evidence and facts" only from history book. The Tibet issue is more
special and more complicated than the above-mentioned cases. The "unity"
between Tibet and China (Qing Dynasty and Republic of China) is so special
that it is not comprehended by many scholars. The authors of the "White
Paper" are worse than other scholars and their arguments have failed to
clarify the facts. The Golden Urn Lottery System was only a method used by
outside forces to settle the power struggle between religious factions. It
had nothing to do with administrative control. Should Mr. Liu Bocheng be
invited to help solve your family disputes, Mr. Deng, how could people
decide therefore that your family is being controlled by Liu Bocheng and the
Deng family is affiliated to the Liu family? It is not only ignorance but
also a distortion of real facts. Your acquaintances Ya Hanzhang and Phuntsog
Wanggyal are well aware of all this. However, you would not listen to them.
Otherwise, how could you be led astray by those swindlers?

The Amban (Chinese representative) in Tibet was sent there as a "liaison
officer" after the suppression of the rebellion in Nepal which was then
affiliated to Tibet and it was for the purpose of putting down similar
rebellions in the future. He was not, as put in the "White Paper", the top
administrative officer in Tibet appointed after the suppression of the
Chunger Mongol rebellion. His position was not as high as the governor in a
colony. It was something like the British ambassador to Brunei who could
consult and participate in the military and foreign affairs of Tibet. As a
matter of fact, he never had any authority over the administrative and
military affairs of Tibet and his power was far less than the British
ambassador to Brunei. As disclosed by the authors of the "White Paper", the
forces of the Qing Dynasty and Sichuan Province led by the Amban in Tibet
were financed by the Qing Court and as a "foreign forces" not financed by
the Tibetan government. What was kept undisclosed by the authors of
the "White Paper" is that this army was called armed escorts of the Amban in
Tibet. Should we ever claim that the sovereignty of the European countries
was transferred because of the military presence of the United Tibet chose
its head of state and set its administrative bodies in its own way and ruled
in its own way. It had its own army which was commanded by its own
government. This shows that Tibet was a sovereign country. It is not like
Croatia or Ukraine which were countries that had lost sovereignty. Even if
Tibet lost its sovereignty, it still reserved the right to free itself from
the suzerain state. "No one has ever recognized Tibet as an independent
country." What kind of a role will such an argument play in solving the
problem? It may convince some students in a college. But it is of no use in
understanding and solving the problem. The reality is there, no matter
whether you admit it or not. So, it is better to respect the rights of the
other side. At least you could win some trust this way.

Tibet's special status was that although Tibet did not lose its sovereignty
it was not an complete independent country. It was not independent, but it
was not a colony either. It was not taking care of all its affairs as an
independent sovereign country while at the same it was not ruled as a
province of China by the Amban appointed by the Court. The fact is that
Tibet had total autonomy over its domestic affairs while being part of the
Qing Court with regard to foreign affairs. It is because of such arrangement
that many Chinese and foreigners who don't know all the facts consider Tibet
a province of the Chinese Empire. There is hardly any similar cases to show
unity of this kind. From the legal point of view, it is like the
Commonwealth and the future European Community. What is common is that the
people identify themselves with the same country (United Kingdom, Europe and
China) while at the same time they identify themselves with their respective
independent countries. The unity is voluntary and the countries concerned
reserve the right to break away from the unity. The difference is that in
the case the Commonwealth, the unity of kingdoms lead to the unity of
sovereignty. In the case of Europe, democratic unity on equal basis has led
to a unity of sovereign countries. And, in the case of Tibet and China, the
actual unity of sovereignty was caused by the mutual participation of the
supreme authorities. The unity of Europe and China are not the same unity
from a legal point of view.

Therefore, in accordance with agreement and customary practice, the Qing
Court and its successor sent troops to Tibet only at the request of Dalai
Lama and would return to Sichuan and Qinghai immediately after finishing
their tasks as requested by the Dalai Lama. There was no permanent army in
Tibet sent by the Qing Court. There was only some forces under the Amban to
Tibet which were stationed in designated barracks. The Qing Court was partly
responsible for the external and military affairs of Tibet and was in charge
on an irregular basis of the security of Tibet and the repression of
rebellions. The religious forces led by Dalai Lama were trusted with the
major task of maintaining the national unity of the Qing Court. The Dalai
Lama performed the role of the supreme spiritual leader of the national
religion of the Qing Dynasty. It was not like the "imperial teacher" in
ancient times, he was the supreme spiritual leader of the national religion
and enjoyed a popularity even surpassing that of the emperor in three
quarters of the Qing territory(Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan,
Yunnan, part of Burma, Inner and Outer Mongolia, provinces in the Northeast
and part of Russian Far East). The main reason that the first emperor of the
Qing Dynasty made lamaism the national religion was that "in order to rule
the various areas of Mongolia, it is necessary to unite Lamaism." Lamaism
became the main force maintaining the unity of China when it had the largest
territory in history. The Qing Court, in turn, with its military force and
huge amount of financial support, helped Dalai Lama to maintain his supreme
position and power as well as sovereignty over much more territory.

In such a unity, each side became the main condition of the existence of the
other side and the word "tremendous" could hardly describe the benefit each
side obtained from this unity. The unity was therefore stable and
long-lasting. In this unity, the legal status of the two sides was equal
though the real power of the two sides was not the same. To appoint a
Minister to Tibet and to send large amount of supplies to Tibet were methods
to maintain the equilibrium of relations between the two sides. Otherwise,
the influence of the religious leader would surpass that of the emperor at
the expense of the equilibrium and equality of the two sides. It is true
that relations between the Qing Court and Tibet underwent a lot of changes
over the years, but this basic pattern was maintained until the late years
of the Qing Dynasty and relations between the two sides remained stable. It
was because of this that Tibet did not break away from China like Korea,
Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Mongolia. Tibet stood firmly on the Chinese side
even when British troops occupied Lhasa.

The main reason for all this was that voluntary unity based on common
interest accord with the laws of humanity which is the principle
of "people's interest is the supreme interest". Nothing could explain this
stable unity other than this principle. What has happened in the former
Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was a good example. Even people speaking the
same language would form several different countries. Do we have
disagreements over the fact that United States, United Kingdom, Ireland,
Australia and Canada are different sovereign countries? The will and
aspiration of the people are the main constituting factor of sovereignty.
Part of sovereignty would be lost with the loss of the aspiration for
self-rule of a certain portion of the people. Other conditions as defined by
the so-called "law of sovereignty" must be based on people's aspiration for
self-rule and national self-determination. Without this most important
basis, other forms of sovereignty will eventually lose validity. Military
occupation and administrative control would not be able to change this
principle, especially in modern times.

Relations between Tibet and China were established on the basis of this unity
which did not rely on military occupation and administrative rule but
entirely on the aspiration for self-rule and national self-determination.
The relations were therefore stable. In over 100 years from late Qing
Dynasty to the Republic of China, China failed to fulfill its commitment to
the security in Tibet because of the weakness of China itself, but the
government of Dalai Lama had respected the treaties between the two sides
and did not do anything to jeopardize the sovereign unity. Should Tibet
attempt to "split", it could have easily done so like outer Mongolia, given
the internal turmoil in China and the fact that foreign powers encouraged
Tibet to claim independence. The "White Paper" says that nobody ever
recognized Tibet as an independent country. This is not true. During the
period when Britain ruled India, especially at the time of the Simla
Convention, a seat was reserved for Tibet as an independent country. The
attempt to make the independence of Tibet a fait accompli was not successful
only because the government of Dalai Lama declined. The protest lodged by
the representative of the weak Chinese government did not carry as much
weight as it is said in later days. At the time when the then Chinese
government had failed to fulfill its obligations for a long period of time
and large areas of Tibet were occupied or affiliated to foreign countries,
the position of the Dalai Lama government was even more estimable.

It was during this period that relations between China and Tibet were
estranged. On one hand, China was becoming a modern society where the
influence of religion was declining. Religion was no longer as important as
it was during the Yuan, Ming and early Qing Dynasties but its influence
should not be underestimated. On the other hand, China had become so weak
that it could hardly afford to take care of its west neighbor and Tibet had
already learned to defend itself. The military assistance from China was no
longer a necessity and could no longer be relied upon. Thirdly, the close
trade relations between Tibet and China were gradually being undermined by
commodities from Britain and India. Fourthly, the Han culture had lost its
appeal to the cultures of the neighboring countries and regions and its
attraction to the neighboring peoples had weakened. In the process of this
estrangement, the extent of estrangement between peoples was larger than
that between the governments and estrangement of mind was more than that in
other respects. In the mind of the Tibetans, deceitfulness (mostly of people
in Sichuan Province and Muslims in northwest China) had replaced the image
of alliance and defenders. In the mind of Chinese who considered themselves
as being enlightened, backwardness and ignorance of the "half human - half
beast" had replaced the image of subjects of the living Buddha. Although
this mutual discrimination and despise did not cause immediate split, it
laid the foundation for the retaliatory killings by both sides in the later
days and possible split in the future. The director of this tragedy is no
other than you, Mr. Deng Xiaoping.

As early as in the 1940s, the rulers of Tibet started the discussion of
social reform in Tibet. What they wanted was a social system like that in
Britain or India and a moderate reform based on religious values. In
accordance with the custom over several thousand years, they wanted to carry
out the reform by themselves. They did not like the idea of being reformed
by foreigners or foreigner-like Han people (KMT managed to respect this
tradition so that relations between KMT and Tibet were more harmonious), nor
did they like the revolution to fight landlords, distribute land and kill
class enemies. This represented not only the will of the ruling class, but
the will of the entire society. The chanting that "liberated serfs look
forward to the coming of the Communist Party" is but a slogan in your
propaganda. It in no way represents the true feeling of the serfs at that
time. You may as well go and ask your old subordinates Ya Hanzhang and
Phuntsog Wanggyal for the real "great achievements" of the Communists in
inciting the Tibetan serfs. You will understand then that I am not biased.
In fact, in most countries ,such as Germany and Russia, the toughest
obstacle to the liberation of serfs came from the serfs themselves. It was
because of this shared will and the practice of the Chinese Communist Party
that the Tibetan government did not oppose unity with the KMT but firmly
refused to let the Communists enter Tibet and expelled the Tibetan Communist
Party led by Phuntsog Wanggyal with the excuse of expelling the Chinese.
These diplomatic methods gave expression to the fact that Tibet at that time
excised total sovereignty (in foreign affairs and national defense as well).
The arrangement of the return of the Sichuan army and the Tibetan Communist
Party from India was made through diplomatic channels.

During that period , the Chinese Communist Party was at its height. Like all
other communist parties, it little respect for sovereignty and national
self-determination. Meanwhile, India, which just gained independence from
British rule, could hardly afford to help Tibet in its struggle against the
Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, the effort to refuse entry of the
communists into Tibet ended in failure. Moreover, the ignorance of the young
Dalai Lama and the corruption of the Tibetan bureaucracy were the major
factors for the communist troops' smooth occupation of Lhasa. Mr. Deng
Xiaoping, the decision of peaceful liberation of Tibet you and Mao Zedong
made should be deemed a correct policy, though it is pretty much like an
agreement reached under pressure of heavy military presence which, according
to international law, should be rendered invalid. However, should this
policy be implemented seriously, the government of Dalai Lama may have
accepted it and the sovereign unity of China and Tibet may have continued
and the international community would have to accept the faith accompli. If
this should be the case, Tibet would not have become such a headache for
China. Tibetans are a trustworthy people and are not good at playing tricks.

Regretfully, the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong and you
yourself included, became big-headed with the "victory" of the Korea War and
the recovery of the economy. At the same time when you carried out the "big
leap forward" and ultra-leftist policies in the mainland, you began to
implement leftist policies in Tibet by deciding to accelerate the democratic
reform in Tibet. In doing so, you had in fact torn up the "Agreement on the
Peaceful Liberation of Tibet". This caused anger among Tibetans of all walks
of life. A people's war broke out to fight against the leftist policies of
the Communist Party under the banner of fighting against outsiders and
foreign religion. This was considered a rebellion by the Chinese Government.
During the war and in a long period afterward, the mutual discrimination and
despise between the Tibetans and the Chinese added to the hatred which
caused killing of the innocent people by the army, and torture of people by
officials. The estrangement between peoples deepened and the national
struggle for independence escalated. To talk about sovereignty under these
circumstance would only make people believe that the Communist Party planned
to continue this practice. The situation and pattern of confrontation
between the two sides was just like that between the colonial powers and the
colonies in the old days. It was also like the situation in today's
Yugoslavia.

Let's now have a look at two recent examples in the world, one being
positive, the other negative. One is Yugoslavia. Like you in China,
Yugoslavia would not recognize other peoples' right to national
self-determination and even resorted to armed force to prevent other peoples
from gaining such rights. As a result, it has not achieved its goal, but
planted tremendous hatred and will have to pay for it for a long period of
time. The other example is Russia. It has respected the right to
self-determination and autonomy of other nationalities and managed to keep
Commonwealth of the Independent States (CIS) and leave some room for the
possible unity in the future. What's more, the traditional trust and good
feelings have remained. The difference between the two will become more
evident. Serbia was in a much better position than Russia. In the past,
Russia had done a lot more than Serbia in causing grievances among other
nationalities. However, difference in how to handle the question have
resulted in different consequences. Other conditions remaining the same, the
largest difference is that Russia has abided by the law governing human
society and respected the right of other nations to self-determination and
autonomy. Therefore, factors in favor of unity have been able to play a
role. In modern human society, the trend to unity is stronger than the trend
to division. Over-emphasis of sovereignty and the administrative authority
of one nationality over the other will be detrimental to unity.

The societies that have already divided or are in the process of division are
those that over-emphasize a limitless administrative power of one nation
over other nations. The toughest obstacle facing the societies that have
already achieved unity or in the process of achieving it is also the
over-emphasis of sovereignty. The advantage of unity is obvious and the
arguments against unity are also strong. Why should people put emphasis only
on the arguments against unity? Can you find a case to show that unity could
be maintained only by high pressure? Even if you could find one, it must be
because the time for division has not come yet. You have all along advocated
anti-colonialism and national independence. In fact, you do not understand
what is anti colonialism and national independence. You have only taken it
as a convenient tool and do not really want to understand it or genuinely
believe in it. This is exactly the root cause of your leftism.

The relationship between China and Tibet is much better than that within the
former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Up until 1949, China had never oppressed
Tibet nor had it forced Tibet to be a subject to China. The two sides had
achieved sovereign unity voluntarily. Even today, chances of unity between
China and Tibet are much better than that within CIS and the European
Community. In the early days of his forced exile, the Dalai Lama did not
demand independence. Nor is he demanding it today. This shows there exists a
very good chance of unity. However, you have adhered to the old ideas and
policies and continued to trust old bureaucracy. What you are doing is to
push Tibet toward division. China has already lost nearly half of the
territory left from the Qing Dynasty. Should this goes on, our later
generations would have to make a living by exporting labor and to revitalize
the Chinese nation would be out of the question.

There is lot to do to eliminate the evil consequences caused by suppression
and killings of the last 40 years and to return the China-Tibet relationship
to the traditional track of normal development. The three pressing tasks are
as follows:

First, mutual hatred and discrimination between the Han people and the
Tibetans must be rooted out, especially the wrong concept in the minds of
the Han about the Tibetans. Due to the propaganda of the last 40 years,
cadres in Tibet (and in other areas, too) have had a deep rooted
discrimination against the Tibetans which, in turn, has deepened the hatred
among the Tibetans against the Han. The real situation in this regard is
beyond your imagination and it is not at all like what your people have told
you. Let me give you a few examples to help you understand the seriousness
of the situation.

My parents do not know any Tibetans and have not done any research about
Tibet. Whatever they knew about Tibet was what the Communist Party had told
them. In their mind, Tibetans were half human and half beast. So it was only
natural that when I planned to marry a Tibetan girl, what I got from them
was the strongest opposition and they even threatened to sever all
relationships with me. Later on when they got to know the Tibetan girl, they
changed. However, the girl's parents would not tolerate in-laws like my
parents and I did not become the son-in-law of this Tibetan family.

Now the second example. When I was imprisoned in Tibet(Qinghai), I overheard
a lot of conversations which helped me to learn the discrimination and
despise of the Han cadres against Tibetans. Everything that has something to
do with Tibet would be looked down upon. For instance, Tibetan dogs are
famous dogs. But Han cadres would rather raise dogs they bought from inland.
They would laugh at me when I told them how good Tibetan dogs were. They
were only convinced of what I said when it was shown on TV that foreigners
would pay a lot of money for a Tibetan dog. For another instance, they would
not believe that Tibetan butter was the same thing as butter in a western
restaurant. How could it be possible that old Tibetans eat the same thing as
foreigners? Yet another example. Yak meat is the most delicious meats. But
the Han cadres in Tibet would say something like "As there is nothing else
to eat, we have to buy some yak meat." When a Tibetan doctor learned that I
enjoyed yak meat and wanted to ask him to buy some Tibetan butter for me, he
was so surprised first and very soon took me as one of their own people.
These examples help to prove how the Communist cadres have thought about and
treated the Tibetans. It is even worse than discrimination of the white
people against the Indians. Frankly speaking, you yourselves have this
discrimination against the Tibetans and it has its expressions in all the
relevant documents, statements and other propaganda materials. This has
deepened the estrangement between the Han people and the Tibetans which
would eventually lead to division.

It will be extremely difficult to rid the grievances accumulated over 40
years. However, efforts should be made every day to this end. Cadres at
various levels that do not respect national minorities should be replaced.
At the same time, all nationalities should be treated equally without
special preferences, because special preferences indicate that someone is
treated like an outsider. Han chauvinism should be eliminated from all the
publications. Over the last 40 years, people tend to take narrow nationalism
and national chauvinism as patriotism. Whenever Princess Wencheng is
mentioned, people would take her as a savior from China to Tibet. This is
too much and it is not in accord with history. The labor camp in Qinghai
which I was sent to was in the place where the Tibetan army defeated the
100,000 troops led by General Xue Rengui. Because of this battle, Princess
Wencheng was married to Tibet to make peace. However, none of the cadres in
that region knew about the story. They all believed that the Tibetans
were "enlightened" because of the Chinese princess. And they thought they
were sent to Tibet to help the Tibetans to reclaim the barren land where the
Tibetans had lived for generations. They acted and talked just like
colonialists. It was your one-sided propaganda that has resulted in this
national discrimination against the Tibetans. This kind of mentality should
be changed together with the elimination of the practice of the authors of
the "White Paper" who are used to talking big and telling lies.

Secondly, the government should speed up the development of the market
economy in Tibet and establish closer economic relations between the inland
areas and the Tibetan market. In the past century, British and Indian
commodities have made much headway into Tibetan market. In the last 40 years
or so, the Tibetan market has suffered great damage. The
so-called "socialist planned price" fixed for the products of Tibet's
mineral resources and livestock, which resembles colonialist exploitation,
has caused tremendous loss to the Tibetan economy. Your aid could in no way
make up their loss. What's more, most of your aid has been used to support
apparatus of suppression or scientific research of the Han people. These
include government offices of various levels, hospitals and hotels for the
Hans, military facilities, observatories, geothermal power plants which are
not what most needed in the Tibetan economy. No matter what excuses you give
the Tibetan people, they are not as stupid as you think. They know that you
are not sincere in helping them so that they would not trust you. The
decisions makers should take Tibet as their own homeland and put the
financial assistance into good use to help the economic development of Tibet
in a most efficient way. The various barriers and "managed prices" should be
eliminated, Tibetan commodities should have easier access to the inland
market and be given preferential prices. Efforts should be made in other
areas, too, to improve economic and trade relations between Tibet and other
areas of China. This is most important in consolidating Tibet-Han
relationship.

Thirdly, the Chinese government should do away the traditional policy of
detaining Tibetan religious leaders as hostages. Both religious and
non-religious Tibetans have a strong aversion to this policy. And this
policy could hardly prove your respect of human rights. The Chinese
government should eliminate the mentality of the so-called "great Han
empire" and sit at the negotiating table with the Dalai Lama. He is
concerned about your sincerity, because you failed to win his trust in the
past. Therefore, you should let him choose the place for negotiation. He
should be allowed to return to Lhasa if he wants to do so. All these are
reasonable basic conditions. There is nothing here that can not be
understood. There is no reason why you should not agree to all this. Even
the appointment of the Dalai Lama's negotiating aides has to be approved by
the Chinese Government. Isn't it too much?! To postpone the negotiations
with these excuses is an indication that your people have no confidence in
themselves. They are afraid that all their nonsense would be exposed under
the sun should negotiations begin in real sincerity. You would be rewarding
your people with the national interest by continuing to tolerate them to act
in defiance of the law or public opinion. The chances of Tibet remaining as
part of China will be getting better with the beginning of negotiations.
Therefore, negotiations should start with no pre-conditions. It would be
desirable to invite the Dalai Lama to return to Lhasa. It would be much
better than letting him be surrounded by some adventurers. In fact, the
Dalai Lama should know clearly that without alliance with the Han people, he
would face the ambitious Indians who are no better than the Han people.
Sikkim, Bhutan and Nepal are good examples for a future independent Tibet.
If we could do a better job, why should the Tibetans invite sufferings for
themselves by breaking away from the unity which has already existed for
several centuries. The trend of the modern world is that unity is what will
happen sooner or later. The advantage of unity overshadows its disadvantage.
From what Dalai Lama has done in recent years, I believe he understands
better than I do about the real issue. The Dalai Lama has his own
difficulties. We should not push him too hard.

Wei Jingsheng

Delivered on October 5, 1992

Source:
http://www.tibet.com/China/wei.html