[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    杨建利文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[杨建利文集]->[ A New “Middle Way” Approach]
杨建利文集
·中国民主运动2008年洛杉矶大会演讲
·哈佛第四届族群青年领袖研习营演讲(视频)
·杨建利:我倡议的新中间道路
·《华盛顿邮报》The Facets Of Chinese Nationalism
·I was tortured in a Chinese prison. Now I’m marching for freedom.
·China's people must rise up with nonviolent tactics
·劉曉波對中國民主化的意義
·介绍推广中国的人权标志符号
·实名签署《零八宪章》的意义-附《世界人权宣言》全文
·中国民主运动08年洛杉矶大会 谈2009"六四”活动协调(视频)
·国会演讲视频
·"公民力量后援会"成立大会演讲(视频)
·Yang Jianli's Returning to China Event
·杨建利回国事件
·杨建利关于不上诉的申明
·杨建利照片集
·杨建利照片集(2)
·关于多名人权活动者被捕或失踪的声明
·中国民主运动干部学校授课(照片)
·中国民主运动2008年洛杉矶大会(照片)
·公民力量 “第四届族群青年领袖研习营” 文图及视频
·中国民主运动干部学校哈佛结业典礼 视频与照片
·2009年新春杨建利博士与民运社团欢聚畅饮 视频/照片
·Dr. Yang Jianli Attended Harvard Event: Witness—Arts, Humanities, and Human Rights
· A New “Middle Way” Approach
·不忘记,不恐惧,不冷漠,不堕落,不放弃
·视频:纪念六四20周年 波士顿公民行集会 柴玲 方正与民运队伍在一起
·致“六四綠卡”獲得者的一封信
·致“六四綠卡”獲得者的一封信
·杨建利狱中诗集在香港出版
·就滥用暴力问题写给中国政治警察
·视频:纪念六四 公民行 白宫演讲
·中国呼唤有雄心壮志、有能力、有道德勇气的政治家
·视频:热比娅 7.5事件真相新闻发布会演讲
·不能控制歌谣的中共全力控制司法--维权运动处在中国民运最前沿
·捍衛回國權是維權運動的一部分
·一个公民的伟大力量
·说中共政权60年
·你的自由是我的自由 你的希望是我的希望
·与杨建利离婚的说明
·中国: 纳税人革命
·哈佛中国民主运动干部培训班第二期(视频及图片)
·给冯正虎的颁奖辞
·《零八宪章》与公共政治话语体系
·《零八宪章》与公共政治话语体系
·杨建利狱中诗集《寂静 是音乐的自由》
·公民力量在中國
·关于冯正虎赢得回国权的声明关于冯正虎赢得回国权的声明
·2010年3月国际会议发言稿
·麻雀护巢行动----声援胡燕联合国上访
·六四这一天,请把你的车灯打开
·2010公民行系列活动就要启动
·在中国民主党美国总部第二次代表大会上的致辞
·“我也是刘贤斌”
·谈苏州民众的抗争智慧及意义
·苏州民众散步不止,杨建利再谈抗争策略
·李昌玉:抗美援朝:一场不义之战、一场不法之战
·致达赖喇嘛尊者 75岁寿辰的贺信
·三个中国
·杨建利出席国际会议,探讨制度转型与繁荣关 系
·还我土地、护我家园——麻雀行动宣言
·再一次的呼吁: 让刘霞出国代刘晓波领奖
·奧斯陸宣言
·杨建利:街头的力量——中东民主运动的意义与启示
·空椅 子
·《公民行 自由路》出版 
·《公民行自由路》出版 
·戒急戒躁,走向深入——也谈中国的茉莉花革命
·关切刘霞,救助中国人权受害者
·大连市民展现公民力量
·Speech at the Celebration on the Inauguration of Lobsang Sangay
·"解决西藏问题”的主语缺失及问题解决的宪政原点
·清除联合国“负资产”的希望所在
·由陈光诚案看中共控制手段与困局
·由几位高级将领的回忆录谈起
·官方历史与民间故事
·官方历史与民间故事
·洛阳性奴案后面还隐藏着什么秘密?
·展开对李群等人权施害者的国际追究
·美国之音中文网博客
·黑暗的新社会
·“小悦悦事件”,根源在道德之外
·为什么中国对欧洲债务方案反应谨慎冷淡?
·中国万税 税税不平安(之一)
·中国万税 税税不平安(之二)
·勇气和担当铺就英雄路
·中国万税 税税不平安(之三)—-从织里到艾未未
·他们在诉说什么?
·蒙汉间共同的价值和未来-写给“蒙汉民族与民主问题研讨会”
·他们,是反人类罪罪犯
·布拉格宣言 亚洲民主和人权论坛:奥斯陆空椅子一年后
·非暴力抗争是有效的——乌坎村民维权阶段性成果启示之二
·留在2011年的疑问
·2011年证明了什么?(上)
·2011年证明了什么?(下)
·难忘刘迪生前的愿望
·免职后面的潜规则
·中国民间变革动能逐渐为外界感知
·街头的力量-中东民主运动的意义与启示
·乌坎村民维权阶段性成果的启示
·从煤商讨债看私有财产地位
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
A New “Middle Way” Approach

Phayul.com: A New “Middle Way” Approach
   March 30th, 2009 · No Comments
   By Yang Jianli (Chinese pro democracy activist)
   
   As we mark the 50th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising, we can only hold the deepest respect for the Tibetans’ extraordinary struggle for freedom and democracy under the leadership of the Dalai Lama. Ever since the 1989 Democratic Uprising and the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the future of Tibet and the Chinese’s struggle for democratic reform has become intertwined. In recent years, these issues have generated increasing attention and critical reflection among people within China. Despite the continued efforts by Chinese Communist Party continues to block the free flow of information, and to promote discord by flaming the fires of nationalism, the taboo of debating the issue of Tibet is gradually dissipating.

   
   Today, innumerable articles exist regarding Tibet’s history, culture, religion, the Dalai Lama’s efforts at reconciliation, and the Chinese Communist Party’s Tibetan policies. Therefore, I will not elaborate on these issues here. Instead, I will look at the future.
   
   For several reasons, the events of March, 2008 in Tibet (hereafter referred to as 3.14) have become a new watershed moment in the course of this struggle. First of all, the Tibetan upheaval, and its subsequent brutal suppression, explicitly demonstrated the failure of the Chinese Communist Party’s policies on Tibet; secondly, the riots stimulated many Han Chinese pro-democracy activists to examine more closely the Tibetan status quo. This reexamination led many to realize that to truly accomplish China’s democratization they must incorporate the issue of Tibet into the pro-democracy movement; finally, the events of 3.14 led the Dalai Lama and his Tibetan compatriots to reevaluate the concept of the Dalai Lama’s “Middle Way” approach.
   
   The Dalai Lama’s “Middle Way” concept for Tibet proposes the pursuit of genuine autonomy instead of outright independence. This pursuit is guided by the principles of peace and non-violence. This approach reflects both pragmatism and extraordinary wisdom. Combined with his humility and commitment to non violence, the Dalai Lama has earned worldwide admiration and has become a moral inspiration for China’s pro-democracy movement. For the past three decades, Despite numerous setbacks, the Dalai Lama has always hoped to realize the “Middle Way” through good faith negotiations with the Chinese government.
   
   However, I cannot but say the Dalai Lama made a strategic mistake that doomed his efforts. Because, under China’s current political system of a Communist one-party dictatorship, it is simply impossible for any ethnic or pro-democracy group alone to reach any reliable agreement with this dictatorship. The logic is quite simple: if the Chinese government grants true autonomous rights to Tibet and freedom to the Tibetan people, it is impossible for the Chinese government not to give freedom to the Han Chinese and other ethnic groups. However, if the government does grant freedom to everyone, it basically means the dissolution of China’s one-party dictatorship and the establishment of a democratic government, which, ironically, is what the Chinese government resists at all costs. After 3.14, the Dalai Lama has also recognized this past strategic flaw. In the past year, he has said on various public and private occasions, including a meeting I personally had with him in July, 2008, that he has given up on the Chinese government. Instead, he has turned to the Chinese people as the source for his hope.
   
   Since 3.14, the call for Tibet’s independence has become louder and stronger. In the First Special General Meeting of the Tibetans-in-Exile held on November 17th 2008, the Tibetan representatives recommended that: “1. [The] [majority [decide] to continue the policy of Middle-Way-Approach. Besides that, looking at the Chinese Government’s behavior in the past, views to stop sending envoys and to pursue complete independence or self-determination, if no result comes out in the near future were also strongly expressed. 2. The Middle-Way-Approach, independence or self-determination, whatever is pursued in the Tibetan struggle, we shall not deviate from the path of non-violence to achieve our aims (Item 2, 5th Resolution, 1st Special General Meeting of the Tibetans-in-Exile).” This recommendation is rather reasonable. Both the ethnic Han Chinese and the Tibetans have suffered tremendously under the Chinese government’s dictatorship. However, as ethnic Han Chinese, we cannot but feel ashamed because of the ethnic discrimination we have practiced, adding to the torment to which the Tibetan people have been subjected. We cannot but feel heartbreak due to the suffering of our Tibetan brothers’ families, religion, culture, environment and economic well-being. Because of these particular reasons, we feel even stronger sympathy and compassion towards the concept of ethnic self-determination, which conforms with the general trends of the civilized world to pursue governance that respects individual freedom as well as ethnic and racial equality.
   
   Unfortunately, every dictatorship always lives with a despicable dilemma by which any plans for realizing such just goals are simply not feasible because the pursuit of such goals undermine the very existence of the dictatorship. Every individual, group (including religious group) or ethnic community under dictatorships is stuck with this predicament without any exception. The Dalai Lama deeply understands the core nature of the Chinese Communist Party’s dictatorship, He is also aware of the perspective of the ethnic Han Chinese after several generations of education (or brain-washing if you want to call it) on the “mono-China” propaganda generated by the CCP. The Dalai Lama is aware that if Tibet ever pursues full independence, war is unavoidable. Yet, violence and bloodshed violates the core principles of the Dalai Lama. In addition, through his broad and long-term perspective, the Dalai Lama realizes that the pursuit of independence is indeed not the best path toward happiness for the Tibetan people. Based on all these concerns, the Dalai Lama proposal of a “Middle Way” approach toward solving the Tibet issue is extraordinarily wise and courageous.
   
   However, whether the issue is Tibet’s “unity” or “independence”, there is simply no common ground, or constitutional foundation for the resolution of these issues. As a matter of fact, over the past one hundred years, the ethnic Han Chinese and the Tibetans have never had any legal foundation for governing mutual relations which reflected free will of both parties. As everyone knows, the current Han-Tibetan relations were imposed by the Chinese constitution. In fact, even the forcibly imposed Han-Tibetan relations written into the Chinese constitution haven’t been fully realized. However, the imposed relations have become reality. All countries have established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China have de facto acquiesced to the current Tibet-China status. Moreover, the two peoples have been mingled together for so long under the concept of “one country”, that any relationship other than the status quo appears to have no legal ground.
   
   In order for future relations to be convincing and acceptable, a process involving all parties must be established. This process begins with a starting point agreeable to all. The most plausible “common ground” from which to start is for all parties to agree on a goal toward which they will work together to achieve. I submit that this goal should be to establish a constitutional democracy. Once the goal is established, then all parties will work together to establish a legal and binding process for achieving this goal.
   
   For example, following the constitutional procedures agreed to by both the Han Chinese and the Tibetans, laws and protocols can be established for building better Han-Tibetan relations based on mutual trust and respect. Without such a constitutional foundation, any imposed unity or forced independence without the participation of the people will be perceived as unconvincing by both the international community and the two ethnic groups involved.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场