|
Academia 21
Home |
Press |
Academia |
21 |
art_3
Tibetan Autonomy and Self-Government – Myth or Reality Workshop in New Delhi
Academia Nr: 21 (Dezember - März / dicembre - marzo 2000)by Jens Woelk
Much work has been done and many studies have been carried out on the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination and there are plenty good legal arguments for the support of the Tibetan quest for independence. The reality, however, is that even though Tibet continues to be occupied by China and despite the suffering of Tibetan people and culture, the international community does not exercise the same pressure on China as it has recently applied in other cases.
In the Workshop, organised by the Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Center (TPPRC), autonomy and self-government for Tibetans were analysed and discussed as "internal" application of the right of self-determination which is the essence of the Dalai Lama's Strasbourg Proposal. The scope was to examine the various options of autonomy for Tibet under various aspects: first under international law, second under a practical and comparative view and third in the context of Chinese law and the actual situation in China, taking into account also history and future developments. Besides Tibetan scholars and politicians, a number of scholars from all over the world participated and contributed to give a very rich and complete overall picture which should help the Tibetans imagine how an autonomy arrangement might look like.
Autonomy and Self-Government in International Law
In the first session, the (open) concept of autonomy was introduced by focussing on its meaning under international law. Considering that democracy has come to be recognized as a global entitlement of people all over the world, there has emerged a tension between the tendencies of existing nation states to centralize and preserve themselves, and the assertion by a plurality of peoples and cultures for preservation of their own identities. Majoritarian democracy alone often does not constitute good governance, particularly if it constricts itself against peoples or groups of all kinds, including cultural, linguistic and racial minorities. Consequently, the concept of self-determination and self-administration and its associated ideas of autonomy and self-governance has acquired considerable importance and relevance in the last fifty years.
In international law, the right of self-determination appeared as the most dramatic normative development in the middle of this century at the height of the decolonization process and as a positive-step towards freeing hundreds of millions of people from colonial bondage. Furthermore, the two 1966 International Covenants on Human Rights proclaim: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." The identification of the right with "people" in a world where many peoples lack a state of their own or are victimized by an oppressive state, has had a state-shattering effect, rendering it irreconcilable with the right of the existing states to territorial integrity. Currently the application of the right of self-determination has two aspects: the "external" one entitling a people to independence, and the "internal" one giving a people the right to choose its own system of government and to participate in governing themselves (Nirmal).
Autonomy is a pragmatic means of upholding the necessary balance between the various peoples, communities or minorities inhabiting a pluralist society. In principle, it is more a political than a legal concept, which is about negotiations between two or more parties in an effort to reach agreement about a level of self-government for one of those parties. Thus in this context international law is indistinguishable from international politics.
The Practice of Autonomous and Self-Government Arrangements
In the second session, dealing with the contents and the substance of autonomy, the results of a study of 34 autonomous and self-government arrangements were presented (Herzer); the study was conducted between 1997 and 1999 by volunteer members of the International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet, in close cooperation with Dr. Michael van Walt, formerly General Secretary of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. Each of the 34 cases examined is currently in a political relationship with a larger state and has accepted a combination of self-rule, shared rule and/or rule by the larger state. States have often granted these arrangements to avoid loss of territory and violent conflict, in the face of self-determination movements that might otherwise have lead to independence.
In the overview of the study's findings regarding the distribution of governmental powers between the autonomous and the state governments, the main focus was laid upon the scope of self-gover-nance, analyzing and comparing the arrangements made for all major govern-mental functions, such as foreign affairs, control over transportation, postal and telecommunication systems, control over the economy, natural resources, the environment, monetary policy, law and order, administration of justice and delivery of essential services, such as education, health care and other social services. Also issues such as official language, citizenship and the right to change political status were discussed.
The evolution of, and the motives for, autonomous arrangements vary as widely as the forms they take. While some arrangements result in virtual sovereignty for the people or entity concerned, others provide for very limited self-governance and broad powers for the larger state. The balance of power as reflected in the autonomy arrangement is generally a function of the relative political and economic strength of the autonomous entity and the state involved (Herzer).
Negotiating for Autonomy
In conceptualizing and negotiating for an autonomous arrangement three basic matters must be addressed. First, the division of governmental powers must be determined. The people, in particular, must prioritize the governmental functions over which they require control in order to protect their cultural identity. They must also determine how best to further their social and economic well being within the context of their resources. Second, an appropriate structure for the relationship between the autonomous government and the state must be selected and lastly, care must be given to creating the arrangement through a legal document which provides maximum protection to the people against unilateral changes by the state (Herzer).
Autonomous arrangements are unlikely to be successful and are prone to human rights violations if they are not based on the consent of the people concerned, if the basic needs of the people are not met, either by the autonomous or the state government, and if the cultural identity of the people is not supported and furthered by the autonomous arrangement. While it is useful to study the existing examples of autonomous arrangements, negotiation for and the design of specific autonomous arrangements must be based on the unique historical, political, economic, social and cultural circumstances of each individual case.
Nevertheless there also seem to be some general patterns leading to the establishment of autonomous entities as there is a desire to change, the weakness of the dominant state (in particular with regard to its economy or ideology), (sometimes) a support from an outside power and, unfortunately, often violence or armed conflicts. A strong economic base of the autonomous entity seems to be an important factor; a geographically isolated location might also help. The most successful cases of autonomy have developed after the transformation from authoritarian systems into democracies (e.g. Spain), a fact which might give some ground for optimism in the Tibetan context, too: indeed, in China rapid change is already underway, even though not (yet) in the direction of multiparty democracy, but at least in terms of liberalization and some kind of economic regionalism. For this reason the question should be: where does Tibet fit in with changing China?
Today: the Chinese perspective
In order to understand the Chinese better, the third session shed some light on the Chinese perspective (Baogang He): a brief historical review of self-determination and autonomy as understood by the Kuomintang and, later, by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was followed by an analysis of Chinese first Marxist and later economy-Centerd-theories on autonomy for minorities. Chinese theories of autonomy are different from liberal theories of autonomy: they are not based on rights, rather on pragmatism and on a combination of Marxism and Confucianism. Deng Xiao Ping stressed the importance of market and economic development as a method to deal with the nationality question and propagated prosperity as its final solution. These theoretical issues are important for understanding the Chinese system of regional autonomy for minority nationalities, which comprises a constitutional framework, the law governing autonomy and government policies. The situation in the so-called Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) can be described at best as a limited autonomy, which is in any case dependant on the CCP's absolute power, given that party instructions can contravene government decisions at every level as well as laws themselves. Consequently Chinese autonomy is based on power-relationships and not on rights: "autonomous rights" depend entirely on the central government. When a perceived stability question arises, autonomy is usually sacrificed. However, ideology issues seem to be only an instrument to control the people. As the Hong Kong case shows, the Chinese can be innovative and pragmatic. China already applies plural models or patterns of autonomy and Chinese autonomy can, to some degree, be negotiated.
Yesterday and Tomorrow: History and Future Perspectives
A historical review, taking into account the complex relationship of British-India, Tibet and China, showed that China has always exercised some political influence on Tibet. On the other hand, as far as social and religious matters and the common people were concerned, Tibet has always constituted a distinct, independent society, so that the nature of Sino-Tibetan relations can probably be characterized with the term "indirect rule", a rule which did not affect the people. Translated into modern terms, a far eaching autonomy permitting a distinct sub-system would correspond to this historic relationships. Because of the world-wide transformation process under way, due to the globalisation and the spread of communication and information technologies, major changes are to be expected also for China's future according to the observation that "what technology permits, ideology will require"; one might add that law, of course, will certainly follow. In the information age, where everyone has access to everything, the role of the nation-state and of state-sov-ereignty will become less important, because of the general trend to decentralisation and because of the fact that territorial borders no longer define information boundaries. In a developing multilevel- governance-system, the true sovereign will be the individual (Ortino). As a longer term vision of China's ongoing reform process, it is important to begin to consider what a future democratic federal China might look like and in what form it may impact the Tibet issue.
Substantial political reforms in China are increasingly called for under the pressures generated by China's own current economic reform policies and the centrifugal regional forces that they have already generated. With over a billion people, it is doubtful that China can engage in substantial political reform to create bottom-up democratic control and a more liberal system without restructuring from a unitary to a federal system. Yet it is doubtful that a democratic and federal China could continue to sustain the current harsh policies and iron grip on the periphery (Davis). For the future, the pressures from the periphery point to a confederation between the (federal) mainland and peripheral communities, including Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan and possibly Xinjiang. A confederal arrangement, as is evident in con-federal Europe, could be a looser union, with the individual member communities having to consent in a collective process to the rules that apply (Davis and Ortino).
Conclusions: Tibetan Autonomy – Myth or Reality?
Generally speaking, autonomy seems to offer a solution to the Tibetan question. However, it is difficult to adopt a democratic model, let alone to apply the Hong Kong model of autonomy to Tibet, because under the current political system it seems unlikely that Beijing will accept the Dalai Lama's proposal of autonomy. So far Chinese nationalists have rejected any democratic solution. From their point of view it was exactly the opening-up on democracy and human rights that have made the USSR crack and collapse. The democratization experience in the Philippines and Indonesia, where autonomy proposals have been taken seriously by democratizing forces seem to confirm that the only hope for a peaceful solution of the Tibetan question lies with Chinese liberals and that a policy of genuine autonomy can only be put into practice if China is democratized. Today, that day seems to be far away, but other recent examples have shown how fast things can develop once the road to change has been taken. Considering this, the Tibetans should not only study autonomy solutions for today, which might remain a myth, but prepare themselves for tomorrow, when even more far-reaching solutions (like federations or confederations) might become reality.
Tagung in Bonn: (v.l.n.r.) Jens Woelk, Sergio Ortino, Dalai Lama, Landeshauptmann Luis Durnwalder und Günther Cologna.
Dr. iur. Jens Woelk, researcher in section "Ethnic minorites and regional autonomies" at the European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano
jens.woelk@eurac.edu
Perchè il Tibet?
Dalla visita in Alto Adige del XIVº Dalai Lama, nel settembre 1997, in occasione della quale un gruppo di esperti ha illustrato l'autonomia sudtirolese presso l'Accademia, l'area scientifica "Minoranze e autonomie regionali" funge da consulente per il governo tibetano in esilio. Questa attività è stata esercitata durante due visite, in cui è stato presentato l'impianto normativo dell'autonomia altoatesina, discusso e confrontato con altre soluzioni. Il prof. Ortino e altri collaboratori dell'area scientifica hanno partecipato sia al Convegno di Bonn sia al workshop "Tibetan Autonomy and Self-Government – Myth or Reality" tenutosi in India, nelle vicinanze di Nuova Delhi.
Warum Tibet?
Seit dem Besuch des XIV. Dalai Lama in Südtirol, September 1997, bei dem ein Expertenforum an der Europäischen Akademie eingehend die Südtiroler Autonomie erläuterte, berät der Bereich „Minderheiten und regionale Autonomien" die tibetische Exilregierung. Bei zwei Informationsbesuchen wurden die Regelungen der Südtiroler Autonomie eingehend vorgestellt, diskutiert und mit anderen Lösungen verglichen. An der Tagung in Bonn und dem Workshop „Tibetan Autonomy and Self-Government – Myth or Reality" in der Nähe von New Delhi nahmen Prof. Ortino und Mitarbeiter des Bereiches teil.
|
|
