The South Asian: The Challenge of Rangzen: Tibetan Independence

December 09, 2007

The Challenge of Rangzen: Tibetan Independence

An overview of Tibetan Alternative - a newsmagazine launched to discuss various questions of Tibetan Independence. We present some articles

EDITORIAL: THE CHALLENGE OF RANGZEN

By Mathieu Vernerey
The second issue of Alternative Tibetaine (Tibetan Alternative), 2007, has just
been published. This French-language annual is devoted to introduce and promote
the Tibetan political thinking in its plurality and to restore the power of
speech to the Tibetan people, especially to the supporters of independence. In
this second issue, we focus on the evolution of an emerging Rangzen movement,
its progressions, its limits, its challenge.

Step by step

In "Rangzen Charter" (1999), Jamyang Norbu spoke about the "first step" of a
pro-independence movement: "Before any effective discussion on strategy or
organisation for the Freedom Struggle can take place it is absolutely necessary
that those individuals and organisations that cherish liberty and Rangzen openly
and unequivocally declare their dedication to freedom and Tibetan independence".
Today, and not without difficulty, this "first step" is now accomplished.

Several events have been held in 2006 and 2007: Declaration of Independence of
the Nations of High Asia (Washington, September 2006), International Conference
of the Dhokham Chushi Gangdruk (New York, December 2006), International Forum
for a Free Tibet (Turin, May 2007), International Union of Socialist Youth
Asia-Pacific Committee Meeting (Ulaan Baatar, June 2007) and the Conference for
an Independent Tibet (New Delhi, June 2007). All these events are many "first
steps" in the dynamic, emerging movement in favour of Rangzen.

But after the "first step", the most important is the one that follows, and
perhaps the one to be decisive: the unification and the structuring of Rangzen
movement. There are several great Rangzen figures - like Jamyang Norbu, Lhasang
Tsering, Tenzin Tsundue, etc. - and several Tibetan NGOs supporting Rangzen -
like Tibetan Youth Congress, Dhokham Chushi Gangdruk, Students for a Free Tibet
etc. - but there is no unified and structured movement: which is probably the
most important and the only absolute precondition to any alternative strategy
or campaign.

Rangzen activists can't be satisfied any more with just criticising the Tibetan
Government in Exile (TGiE), without making alternative propositions and
applying them. Yes, the policy and the action of the TGiE are not perfect and
seem to be condemned to fail, but they are for the moment the "only solution",
in default of "another concrete solution". TGiE's initiatives are like a life
raft, drifting but floating. And there is no use in sinking it, as it is also
the legitimate continuation in exile of the Tibetan sovereignty and the symbol
of the Tibetan struggle.

In fact, the TGiE is first and foremost the hostage of a situation presently
unfavourable to it - precarious condition of refugee, fragile tolerance of the
Indian host, pressure of foreign governments, threats of China against Tibetans
inside Tibet, etc. Secondly, considering the pronounced legitimism of the
present Tibetan leadership, changes will not come if the Dalai Lama doesn't
take the initiative. And what lacks to each other to step forward is the
horizon of a concrete alternative. This should be the job of Rangzen activists.
But the construction of this alternative programme - which doesn't exist at the
moment - will take a necessary time of maturation, during which Rangzen
activists will have to stand and to act when the TGiE will not be able to do
it. They could also take advantage of this situation.

But above all, to bring political alternance and achieve a real political change
in exile, Rangzen activists will have to ensure their proper political - and not
only moral or historic - legitimacy, which can be started with their
parliamentary representation. And so for several reasons:

Political party representation

In spite of successive reforms since its creation in 1960, the Tibetan
Parliament in Exile (TPiE) persists on a strictly regional and religious system
of representation. Identification is not based on political ideals, objectives
or programmes, but only on traditional provinces or religious sects.
Politically, the Tibetan deputy is either an individual, or the representative
of his region or his religious sect, but he is never the member of a group
sharing and supporting common objectives. This doesn't mean that divergence of
views or conflict of interest don't exist - especially about the question of
independence or autonomy - but they don't find any opportune way of expression,
meaning here political way.

This is why when some Tibetan MPs resolved in September 2004 to contest a
previous resolution adopted with the majority support - about the possibility
to review the Middle Way policy - they did it under the cover of their regional
groups. Two regional associations (Domed and Utsang) resolved to resign from the
assembly if the resolution was not withdrawn. This in political terms has no
signification and incorrectly presumes the individual stand of the other
deputies of these regions.

The Tibetan Parliament functions with no political party system. Although the
Tibetan Charter in Exile doesn't proscribe this kind of representation, it
simply doesn't deal with political party - what Tibetans often basically answer
as a natural fact, without questioning this constitutional blank. At best, they
refer to the Guidelines for Future Tibet by the Dalai Lama, who advocates
multiparty system. But this perspective is immediately restricted to a future
"free" Tibet - a distant future as unfathomable as uncertain. And so it
postpones the responsibilities of today to tomorrow. Moreover, this vision
could function only in an independent and sovereign Tibet - free to decide its
proper way of governance - but it would be contradicted by the Chinese
constitutional framework to which it doesn't refer by the way. So, quite
paradoxically, this vision found in Middle Way policy is tacitly or
unintentionally an advocacy for Rangzen. But more significant is the top down
democratic initiatives and progression, only due to the goodwill of the Dalai
Lama who still confronts the many resistance: a new initiative which the
Tibetans seem to find hard to take themselves, or at least just to anticipate
and implement.

So, in exile, the successive reforms of the constitution brought the right to
vote, the separation of powers, the election of Parliament Members and Prime
Minister through direct suffrage. But having democratic institutions, as
perfect as they are, is not sufficient to establish a democracy if there
remains a lack of any party expression relative to political ideals or
objectives, to begin with the underlying - but non formalised - opposition
between Rangzen and Autonomy. Democracy would be an empty word if it could not
allow political discussions and if it would be impossible to know who
represents who or who represents what. And there is no question here of region
or religious sect, but only of political ideals, programmes or objectives
carried by parties sharing a common stand.

More fundamentally the question is about the mode of parliamentary
representation and about the process of decision. The role and the vocation of
a political party are to participate in governance and to the decision-making
process - including the role of opposition. Thus to invest all the areas of
decision, especially in the parliament where the policy of the exile government
is voted. But till now the Tibetan Parliament in Exile and the Tibetan Charter
don't include this kind of political representation. This is not a question of
presumed democratic model, but a question of political legibility and
efficiency.

In the second issue of Alternative Tibetaine, we interview three influential
Tibetan deputies of the present Tibetan Parliament in Exile: Karma Yeshi, Karma
Choephel (co-chairman) and Penpa Tsering (co-chairman). According to Karma
Choephel, even the National Democratic Party of Tibet (NDPT), the unique
"party" in exile, is not a real political party: "NDPT is supposed to be a
preparation for the future" in accordance to the vision of the Dalai Lama who
"envisages a dual or multiparty parliamentary system of democracy for future
Tibet".

Even Karma Yeshi, who "(has his) share of contribution in the formation of NDPT
and strongly (supports) its manifesto and political stand", acknowledges that
he is not himself, literally speaking, deputy of NDPT. He adds that "the main
issue is formation of one or two more political parties and getting them
endorsed by the parliament as well as Tibetan election commission". However,
according to Penpa Tsering, "it may be possible for political parties to
function within the present structure", before adding: "but I did not see any
move from any quarters to effect such change".

Penpa Tsering also specifies that "political parties need definite political
ideology and programs and leadership. Either we are lacking in one or all, or
we are satisfied with the way it is and focus on the (presumed) common goals".
And Penpa Tsering wonders "why people who feel very strongly about political
parties do not form one on their own or collectively with other people?". This
is the real question.

For the moment, it appears that Rangzen and political party system creates a
kind of unrest and even of taboo among Tibetan parliament and community. Both
issues stigmatize a feeling of direct conflict or confrontation with the Dalai
Lama and his Middle Way approach: an incorrect prejudice harmful not only to
Rangzen but to the whole Tibetan struggle. Fundamentally democracy is based on
difference of views, and opposition is a fundamental principle. Democracy is
the only solution to leave the present political stalemate in exile, and the
Dalai Lama himself did his best to bring democracy to the Tibetan community in
exile. As Tenzin Tsundue says in "Mangtso: Our Democratic Vision" (2004):
"Although we received our democracy as a blessing (from the Dalai Lama), we
must endeavour to make it work. And we have been most unwilling to do just
that; take up democratic responsibilities".

For the moment, the thought process within the Tibetan parliament and community
seem unprepared or not ready for political party representation. However one
step at least could be realised. As Karma Choephel says in his interview: "At
present it can be said that within the Tibetan parliament there is a majority
support for the Middle Way policy. But I sense that the longer the present
stalemate, of getting no concrete response from the Chinese side remains, more
members tend to waver in their position. (...) So I feel that in future also if
the stalemate remains, support for Rangzen will grow in the house". This
analysis is confirmed by the fact that, during the last legislative elections
in March 2006, new deputies were elected and most of them, as well as former
ones, are very close to Rangzen. So if political party representation may be
premature for the moment, one stage exists: a parliamentary group. Then it
remains with all these deputies close to Rangzen to gather and to form a
Rangzen parliamentary group. Because ensuring the political representation of
Rangzen is primordial, and representing Rangzen at the Tibetan Parliament - the
ultimate decision-making body and the symbol of the Tibetan democracy - is an
absolute necessity.

Rangzen parliamentary group

Except for the fact that a parliamentary group would be opportune to ensure the
political representation of Rangzen - in default of a system of political party
representation - it also presents some strategic advantages:

In his article "Political Transcription of Rangzen" published in the second
issue of Alternative Tibetaine, Francois Corona, a French Rangzen activist,
speaks about the method of the "parliamentary group" which he names the "method
of the legislative smokescreen". In many countries exist some Tibet
parliamentary groups. This is the method of foreign governments to not engage
on the Tibetan issue and to let their legislative representation respond to the
citizens and electors expectations. By doing so, it is also a way for the
governments to preserve the governing political parties from the electoral
consequences of their compromise with China and to not hurt China as well. So
we need to use the same arms as our political "adversaries" or presumed
"partners". This model presents many teachings and could be applied to the
Tibetan movement by reversing the situation. There are several levels of
analysis:

For the moment, Rangzen activists put pressure on their government in exile to
change their present policy. But clearly, it would be too dangerous for the
Tibetan parliament or government to become suddenly pro-independent, and it
would be also premature in absence of a clear alternative strategy. However,
without lowering the Rangzen cause and its highly moral signification,
pragmatism and strategy are useful. Middle Way approach is not so bad for
Rangzen cause. It is even the best protection for Rangzen to grow and to unify
and structure its movement. As Middle Way approach is in the interest of China,
it is also in the immediate and present interest of foreign nations. These will
not harm a Tibetan leadership who act presently in their own interest, and the
evidence is that they desperately support "dialogue with China" and
consequently Middle Way policy - with no political results of course. But that
is not the question.
During the time of maturation of the Rangzen movement and of its political
representation, Middle Way approach should remain the government policy until
political alternance and Rangzen alternative strategy are ready. This time
would be also useful for Rangzen activists to gain political and international
support.

To be clear again, it doesn't mean that Rangzen activists should stop requesting
their government to change their policy. But TGiE is as obstinate as frightened
by the foretold failure of its proper policy and by its duty to maintain the
Tibetan unity. So of course Rangzen activists should continue to put pressure
on their government, but by keeping in mind the objective difficulties of this
and the risks of a brutal change of policy. Even it remains extremely
important, as Jamyang Norbu wrote in "Looking Back from Nangpa-la" (2007), to
"take the Dalai Lama back". He is the keystone of the Tibetan struggle, but he
is at the same time the problem and the solution - the "Dilemma" that Rangzen
activists as often but respectfully speak of. The fact remains that, in absence
of an alternative strategy, the present position of the Dalai Lama is the "only
solution". He has no more latitude of manoeuvring. And the job of Rangzen
activists is to build the bridge over the precipice to "take him back".

However, in the present circumstances, "unity" may be a "trap". Of course
Tibetan people are all united in their aspiration to end the Tibetan suffering
and to live in freedom. This a common and indisputable goal. But "freedom" does
not have the same political signification. The Tibetan opinion is not uniform
and, if a consensus seems to exist on the basis of the Middle Way policy, it is
in a delicate way. As Tenzing Sonam writes in "Until the Last Tibetan" (2007):
"We (can) no longer pretend that this contradiction between our loyalty to the
Dalai Lama and our instinctive belief in Tibet's independence (does) not
exist". Except this "morass of conflicting goals and loyalties besetting the
Tibet movement", it has also many political consequences, not only by creating
confusion, but also by giving opportunities to foreign governments or Chinese
leadership to neutralise the Tibetan struggle. Then political unity with
different and even opposite political goals is impossible and also
counterproductive. As Francois Corona writes: "We rather need a clever
political plurality than a sham unity as claimed by some". The hope of
unification of the whole Tibetan movement - including the parliament and the
government - on the basis of Rangzen would be delicate for the moment and more
certainly premature. The differentiation of two sides acting for their
respective objectives is momentarily preferable, as well as the Middle Way
approach as present policy of the Tibetan government to prevent any kind of
retaliatory measures from foreign governments. In this framework, a Rangzen
parliamentary group would be the best way to bring political alternance - and
even convergence - and achieve a change of policy with less risks. It is of
course necessary to review the policy of TGiE, as well as to restore the
complete unity of Tibetan struggle on the basis of truth and justice: Rangzen.
But we have to do so step by step.

Rough draft of a political solution

In a new article published in the second issue of Alternative Tibetaine, Jamyang
Norbu draws some starting points for discussions on a political solution to
Tibet issue. "One of the first steps that might be undertaken is to seek
various local administrative bodies, state legislatures, even national
parliaments to proclaim Tibet an 'occupied country'. Such initiatives have been
successfully undertaken before but always as one-off initiatives and never as a
part of concerted campaign with a specific over-all goal. (...) A logical next
step might be to seek governmental recognition of the TGiE. This may appear to
be a difficult even impossible task but have we really tried?"

The suggestion of Jamyang Norbu is very consistent because it echoes to a
previous resolution adopted by the European Parliament in July 2000. By this
resolution, EP called on governments of the Member States "to give serious
consideration to the possibility of recognising the Tibetan Government in Exile
as the legitimate representative of the Tibetan people if, within three years,
the Beijing authorities and the Tibetan Government in Exile have not, through
negotiations under the aegis of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
signed an agreement on a new statute for Tibet". Till now the so-called
"renewed dialogue" with Beijing since 2002 and the present Tibetan policy have
only helped China to wriggle out of EP ultimatum. But at the time of the
deadline, in July 2003, EP should have evaluated their objectives and
reformulated openly their recommendations in the framework of a new resolution.
In the circumstances, attest the lack of any agreement between Beijing and
Dharamsala and consequently call on Members States to recognise the Tibetan
Government in Exile. Now the July 2000 EP resolution has not resulted in any
kind of new process, therefore its content has neither been confirmed nor
withdrawn. Theoretically, EP tacitly recognises the Tibetan Government, but by
their constant silence and ulterior resolutions, they behave as if this
resolution has never existed. If the three years deadline has now passed for a
long time, at the grassroots, EP engagements remain as well as the obligation
to implement this resolution that is still and more than ever justified by the
lack of any China-Tibet agreement.

But to seek this international recognition, the first and absolute precondition
is that the TGiE itself doesn't refuse any such recognition, and not only
accept it but manage to seek and to achieve it. By default of this
precondition, another condition could be sufficient: a Rangzen parliamentary
group giving the necessary political legitimacy to initiate and undertake a
such campaign, supported by an unified and structured international Rangzen
movement. In fact, this Rangzen parliamentary group and this international
Rangzen movement are useful and absolutely necessary to any further strategies
or campaigns.

All this could and should be discussed by Tibetan Rangzen activists during their
next meeting, in December, in Dharamsala. As many of them - Sonam Topgyal,
Jamyang Norbu, Lhasang Tsering, Karma Yeshi, Tenzin Tsundue, Sonam Wangdu etc.
- met last June, they decided to organise a next meeting or conference at the
end of this year to discuss further strategies. Technically, the formation of
Rangzen parliamentary group could be planned as soon as possible - since there
are several Tibetan deputies close to Rangzen. This initiative could then be
made official during the next session of the Tibetan parliament, in March 2008.
Furthermore, a Rangzen political party could emerge - a revitalised NDPT or a
new "real" party - and campaign in view of the next Tibetan legislative
elections, in 2010. For the first time, the formation of a Rangzen
parliamentary group could also be the best political answer to China in view of
the 2008 Beijing Olympics. However, Rangzen activists should not focus too much
on Beijing Olympics, as fundamentally Rangzen cause has no link with Chinese
affairs. Beijing Olympics are a great opportunity to highlight Tibetan issue
and to confront China, but it is not a goal in itself. It should not become a
pretext to postpone again what is more important than everything: the
unification and the structuring of the Rangzen movement and the advent of its
political representation. Long term strategies have more consistence than
immediate and just reactive actions.

To finish, it remains to say that Rangzen is not the threat of division and of
conflict within the Tibetan community and their supporters. Rangzen is the
promise of reconciliation and a door to exit out of present political crisis.
Rangzen is also a very inspiring promise: to become sooner or later a reality.
Democratisation in exile, diplomatic policy, activist strategies, international
support and Rangzen are highly connected and very close to each other. And
today, the time is to connect these. Yes, Rangzen is possible, but without
getting ahead of schedule: step by step.

M.V.

--------------------
Alternative Tibetaine n°2, 2007 - Contents
http://www.alternative-tibetaine.org/news/071115_AT2_EN.htm#contents

EDITORIAL: The Challenge of Rangzen

CONFERENCES: Declaration of Independence of the Nations of High Asia, Washington
(page 2) - International Conference of the Dhokham Chushi Gangdruk, New York
(page 3) - International Forum for a Free Tibet, Turin (page 4) - Tribunes of
Francois Bruxeille, Francois Corona, Claudio Tecchio, Piero Verni (page 5) -
International Union of Socialist Youth Asia-Pacific Committee Meeting, Ulaan
Baatar (page 6) - Conference for an Independent Tibet, New Delhi (page 7),
Rangzen Meet, Dharamsala (page 7)

DIPLOMACY: Independence as Tibet's only option, by Ketsun Lobsang Dondup (pages
8-9) - Rangzen first, the rest can follow, by Vijay Kranti (page 10) -
Reflections on a political solution, by Jamyang Norbu (page 11) - Timor,
Montenegro, What about Tibet? by Claude Levenson (page 11) - Tibet at a
crossroads, by Tenzing Sonam (page 12) - The right to self-determination, by
Jose Elias Esteve (page 13)

DEMOCRACY: Exile: Democratic inertia or transition? by Mathieu Vernerey (page
14) - Promoting multiparty system, interview of Karma Yeshi (page 15) - Rangzen
growing, interview of Karma Choephel (page 15) - Political transcription of
Rangzen, by Francois Corona (page 16) - Tibetan democracy, by MV (page 16) -
Practicies and Constitution, interview of Penpa Tsering (page 17)

TAIWAN: Has MTAC turned over a new leaf? by Luke Ward (page 18) - Dilemma of the
1994 agreement, by the Chushi Gangdruk (page 19) - China towards fascism or
democracy? by Jamyang Norbu (page 20) - Tibet and Taiwan's teachings, by
Mathieu Vernerey (page 20) - Taiwan, the Chinese divorce, by Stephane Corcuff
(page 21), Taiwanese new nationalism, by SC (page 21)

CULTURE: Lhamo, scenography of a crisis, by Antonio Attisani (pages 22-23)

CINEMA: Cinematographic anthology of Tibet, by Jamyang Norbu (page 24) - Dilemma
of the activist actress, interview of Yangzom Brauen (page 25) - Dreaming Lhasa:
Telling the exile Tibetan story like it is, by Dechen Pemba (page 26) - We're no
monks: A struggle for identity, by Topden Tsering (page 26) - Kekexili: A
Tibetan perspective, by Tenzing Sonam (page 27)

GEOPOLITICS: Sizing up the dragon's miracle, by Lobsang Yeshi (pages 28-30)

NON-VIOLENCE: Until the last Tibetan, by Tenzing Sonam (pages 31-32) - Looking
Back from Nangpa-la, by Jamyang Norbu (excerpts, page 32)
--------------------
Link : WTN: http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/499

------------------------------

------------------

TIBETAN MPs INTERVIEWED ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

Following interviews have been realised and published by Alternative Tibetaine
(Tibetan Alternative, n°2, 2007), they deal with democratic process in exile,
its progression and its limits: electoral system, political representation,
multy party system, etc. In one word: the mode of parliamentary representation
and the process of decision. Three Tibetan deputies of the present Tibetan
Parliament in Exile have been interviewed: Karma Yeshi, Karma Choephel
(co-chairman) and Penpa Tsering (co-chairman).

--------------------

PROMOTING MULTIPARTY SYSTEM

Interview of KARMA YESHI*

*Karma Yeshi: Tibetan deputy (U-Tsang), former vice-President of Tibetan Youth
Congress (1995-2001), co-founder of the National Democratic Party of Tibet
(1994)

Q: In March 2004, the Tibetan Parliament in Exile (TPiE) passed a resolution to
review the exile administration's policy of Middle Way Approach if no positive
response from China came by March 2005. Would it not be opportune now to
reformulate and to implement a such resolution?

K.Y: The main content of that very resolution is to empower parliamentarians to
review ongoing process of dialogue. That resolution is not anti middle way
policy. It is rather a sign of urgency in resolving our issue. Time is running
out for us. We are already minority in our own country -Tibet. Our culture,
language, identity and the very existence of Tibet is in great threat. That
resolution could be used as a pressure from TPiE to the People's Republic of
China. Our dialogue team could make best use out of it.
Whether there are more young parliamentarians in TPiE or not, resolution to
Tibet issue is our main target. We need to resolve our problem as soon as we
could. We have no time. As stated above, tabling such resolution is need of the
time. Looking at the attitude and sincerity of Chinese leadership, we can no
longer trust them any more.

Q: This resolution was withdrawn in September 2004 in a context of great
tension. Two regional associations threatened to resign from the Assembly if
the resolution was not withdrawn. Aren't the regional corporatism and the
traditional rifts an obstacle in the democratic process, especially to the
detriment of ideas discussion and capacity of decision?

K.Y: A group of parliamentarians tabled a resolution in September, 2004. The
content of this resolution is just to withdraw a middle way approach review
resolution passed in previous session in March 2004. In fact this is a sign of
democracy. You can lobby your parliamentarian colleagues and bring amendments
to the policy now and then.
The second resolution of September 2004 was tabled by our colleagues in bit
hurry without giving proper respect to the previous resolution. Those who are
against first resolution could have waited till March, 2005 and let TPiE have
open debate or discussion on the process of review. It would have at least
given a platform for more discussions on middle way policy.
You cannot just generalize and say that second resolution was a sign of regional
politics within TPiE. Apart from three overseas TPiE members, rest is elected
through this door of provincial/regional and religious sects. If you smell any
regional politics, we must change the very system of our election. Whether
there are any regional politics or not; if this very system of election is not
changed, others will just look at it with same eyes.
This TPiE represents both Tibetans in and outside Tibet. We are seeking freedom
for Tibet consisting of all three provinces. From this angle, it has some
meaning in present election system.

Q: During the last elections, you were elected with the support of the list
'Youth for better MPs'. This initiative, which came from a group of young
electors, proposed a list of nominees and a political draft over the
traditional rifts. Shouldn't a such initiative come from the nominees
themselves and become the beginning of a real political party, indeed an
opening on multiparty system?

K.Y: I won the last election not only because of this initiative by 'Youth for
better MPs' alone. There are so many other groups who took active participation
in every election. Initiatives of proposing nomination lists have been there in
our society long time back. It is not just a new or first one.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his future political vision of Tibet, he clearly
stated that future Tibet will be ruled by political party system. Tibetan Youth
Congress (TYC) gave birth to first ever political party called National
Democratic Party of Tibet (NDPT) in 1994. This is a big initiative undertaken
by TYC.
If we are looking for future democratic Tibet, every TPiE members must support
this lone party to grow up to its fullest capacity. Those who do not agree with
the political manifesto of NDPT must take initiative to give birth to another
party and let Tibetan democracy grow for ever.
The present system of our parliament is party less. All members have to take
both roles of ruling as well as opposition. Can a member effectively take both
roles? I think it's a big question mark.
I am always in support of political party system. But, not more than three
parties. Through this political party system, we can keep constant check and
balance on our parliamentarians too.

Q: Are you ready to form a political party or a parliamentary group to make
Rangzen represented at TPiE?

K.Y: I have my share of contribution in the formation of NDPT. I strongly
support its manifesto and political stand. NDPT stands for Rangzen. I do not
necessarily have to form a party. Those who do not agree with the political
ideology of NDPT can form another party. In fact it is important to bring
support to political party system and bring changes in our election system too.

Q: So are you yourself a deputy of the NDPT and are there other deputies from
this party in the new elected Assembly? Can we imagine that, in next elections,
the NDPT will present a common list of nominees?

K.Y: I have been nominated by many groups - like NDPT, Youth for Better MPs, and
some others too. When these different groups nominate somebody for
parliamentarian candidates, it is just a group of lists for the public to think
over it. You can not generalize that he or she is a deputy of that group or
this group just because he or she is nominated by group A or B.
There are many elected deputies, who are nominated by NDPT as well as others too
- like me. In which category you would like to put them in? Putting them in this
category or that category is difficult.
NDPT will definitely present a common list of nominee for next election as
before. Others will also present their nomination lists too. All these
nominations are just lists of nominees by different NGOs or groups for people
to think over it.
The main issue is formation of one or two more political parties and getting
them endorsed by the parliament as well as Tibetan election commission.

--------------------

RANGZEN GROWING

Interview of KARMA CHOEPHEL*

*Karma Choephel: Tibetan deputy (U-Tsang), co-chairman of the Tibetan Parliament
in Exile, former President and vice-President of the Tibetan Youth Congress
(1985-1989), former President and co-founder of the National Democratic Party
of Tibet (1994, 2004-2006)

Q: When you were elected as the Chairman of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile
(TPiE), you resigned from the Presidential post of the National Democratic
Party of Tibet (NDPT). But are you still member of the NDPT?

K.C: Yes, I am still an ordinary member of the NDPT.

Q: As a deputy at the TPiE, are you or do you consider yourself as a deputy of
the NDPT?

K.C: No, mainly because the present Tibetan election system is not based on
political party lines. Those members of the NDPT who belong to the U-Tsang or
Central Tibetan province might have voted for me. Basically therefore, I am a
deputy of this province.

Q: Till now, the TPiE has no political party system. However the NDPT exists and
presents itself as a political party. Consequently why isn't it represented at
the TPiE, and, if it is not represented within this Assembly, in what consists
its role as a political party?

K.C: NDPT was started by Tibetan Youth Congress initially on the expressed
advice of His Holiness the Dalai Lama mainly to act as a forum and an initiator
of further democratic exercises as a preparation for the future Tibetan polity.
I believe that in the vision of His Holiness, he also envisages a dual or
multiparty parliamentary system of democracy for future Tibet and he felt that
the beginning must be made in exile. So I do not hope for any full fledged role
for the party while in exile as long as the present election system is in place.
NDPT is supposed to be a preparation for the future.

Q: NTPD stands for Rangzen. Yourself, how do you conceive the parliamentary
action for Rangzen within the TPiE?

K.C: At present it can be said that within the Tibetan parliament there is a
majority support for the Middle Way policy. But I have a sense that the longer
the present stalemate of getting no concrete response from the Chinese side
remains more members tend to waver in their position. So I have seen that from
the 11th House till now more and more members have changed their position.
Therefore, my proposed resolution to review the Middle Way policy got the
majority support. That it got changed in the next session is another story
which had more to do with the political exigency rather than individual
support. So I feel that in future also if the stalemate remains support for
Rangzen will grow in the house.

--------------------

PRACTICES AND CONSTITUTION

Interview of PENPA TSERING*

*Penpa Tsering: Tibetan deputy (U-Tsang), co-chairman of the Tibetan Parliament
in Exile, Director of the Tibetan Parliamentary and Political Reaserch Center
(TPPRC).

Q: Till now the Tibetan Parliament in Exile (TPiE) has no political party
system. Why?

P.T: The Tibetan Charter (Constitution) does not deal on the issue of Political
Party. Presently we function as a party-less democracy, for some it has
remained a theoretical intellectual concept but in our case it is a reality,
partly because of the nature of our existence as an exiled government and
partly because of the political expediency to retain the identity of
traditional Tibet.
People's Republic of China persists that only Tibet Autonomous Region is Tibet.
But for the Tibetans, the whole of Tibet including Kham and Amdo is Tibet. The
equal representation of Provinces in the Parliament in Exile irrespective of
the number of Tibetans from each province in exile is based on this political
imperative than unequal rights. Given the fact that about 75% (appox.) of the
Tibetans are from Central Tibet (U-Tsang) and the rest from Kham and Amdo,
naturally gives rise to belief that equal suffrage or one man one vote would
tilt the representation to one province, which in turn would be a powerful tool
in the hands of China to divide the Tibetans inside Tibet.
Of course this must be one of the most debated issues in the exiled community
over the last 35 years but no one has been able to come up with a solution that
could satisfy all. And there are proponents of different theories on this
concept. It seems very unlikely for the situation to change in Exile but once
we get back to Tibet, the reasons I have mentioned above holds no water and the
polity then would be guided by the "Guidelines for Future Tibet" by His
Holiness.
But then again one cannot rule out possibilities of political parties within the
present structure of representation. So far no other party has emerged other
than the Democratic Party of Tibet. May be the time has not come or people do
not see the need for one to make it more complex.

Q: However would it not be useful to harmonize the Tibetan system of election
and then to let or encourage the suffrage be expressed according to the
political objectives and programs carried by political parties?

P.T: One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the government in Exile has
no hand in forming or closing political parties. The democratic party of Tibet
was formed and it still exists. Why it is not successful is a different story.
Sometimes I wonder as to why people who feel very strongly about political
parties do not form one on their own or collectively with other people. On the
other hand political parties need definite political ideology and programs and
leadership. Either we are lacking in one or all, or we are satisfied with the
way it is and focus on the (presumed) common goals.
There have been lots of discussions on universal suffrage and constituencies.
Presently, the idea is that once we are elected from any province or religious
tradition or constituencies such as Europe and North America, we represent all
the six million Tibetans. When we talk about geographical constituencies, the
chapter that deals with the structure of parliament has to be amended, which
seems to be an impossible task at the moment. On the other hand, even if we
manage to create geographical constituencies, the political implication on the
overall movement of Tibet has to be considered, which in my view is more
important than the uniqueness of our electoral system.
With regard to Universal Suffrage of one man one vote. Presently, monks, nuns
and Ngag-pas get to vote 12 people, lay people in India, Bhutan and Nepal get
to vote 10 people and Europe two and North America one. Except for murmurs
within the community, there have not been persistent efforts to harmonize the
system.
Like I said, it may be possible for political parties to function within the
present structure, but I did not see any move from any quarters to effect such
change.

Q: So do you confirm that NDPT or any new party can be represented through the
TPiE and have its proper deputies?

P.T: I am sure it is possible. If a strong political party comes into being and
campaigns vigorously based on their political ideology, within the religious,
provincial and geographical constituencies, they certainly can. Same goes for
the post of Kalon Tripa (equivalent to Prime Minister).

Q: When you succeed Mr. Karma Choephel to the post of Chairman of the TPiE, what
arrangements will you make to encourage and establish a real political party
system?

P.T: My mandate is to run the parliament in the best possible way without bias,
to improve the image of the parliament and make the parliament more effective
in its functioning. On political party system, I personally do not advocate for
one at the moment and when I take over, I do not think the ground realities will
change to initiate such moves.

--------------------
Interviews conducted by Mathieu Vernerey
Link : WTN: http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/498

------------------------------------------------

REFLECTIONS ON A POLITICAL SOLUTION

This article has been requested to Jamyang Norbu to be published in the review
Alternative Tibetaine (Tibetan Alternative), in the framework of the
International Forum for a Free Tibet held in Turin (Italy) on 26 May, 2007.

DISCUSSING A RANGZEN STRATEGY

By Jamyang Norbu

I hope that in this conference we could initiate a discussion on alternate and
viable strategies that are clearly Rangzen oriented, but are set out in
incremental and manageable stages. The idea would be to undertake a campaign
whose success would provide the foundation for another more ambitious campaign.
For example:

Recognition of Tibet as an "occupied country"

One of the first steps that might be undertaken is to seek various local
administrative bodies, state legislatures, even national parliaments (in
countries sympathetic to Tibet) to proclaim Tibet an "occupied country". Such
initiatives have been successfully undertaken before but always as one-off
initiatives and never as a part of concerted campaign with a specific over-all
goal. Such a campaign could make use of the findings and conclusions of the
International Commission of Jurists of Geneva, the Conference of Jurists in
London, the International Law Committee of the Bundestag, and the People's
Tribunal of Strasbourg, which have all unanimously concluded that Tibet is an
occupied country and was de facto an independent state before the Chinese
invasion. The American Congress passed a bill to this effect a number of years
ago.

Even in countries that have no hesitation in proclaiming Tibet to be a part of
China, we could campaign for acknowledgment of Tibet as a country that from
1912 to 1950 was a de facto independent nation that was invaded militarily by
China. It could perhaps even be presented as a historical fact that requires of
every civilized nation in the world a basic minimal acknowledgement, such as
that is given to the Jewish Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking or the Tiananmen
Massacre.

Recognition of the Government-in-Exile

A logical next step might be to seek governmental recognition of the TGIE. This
may appear to be a difficult even impossible task but have we really tried?
There are precedents for recognizing exile governments. During WWII and the
Cold War a number of exile governments, mostly European, of occupied countries,
were recognized as legitimate governments and set up their headquarters in
London and New York.

There might not be, for some time at least, a big power willing to offer such
recognition, but it is at least a perceptible goal to which our supporters and
friends in their respective countries could at least work towards. Furthermore,
while not relaxing the pressure on countries such as the USA, India, Germany and
so on, we should make a concerted effort to get the recognition of smaller
nations. Taiwan has used economic aid to get nineteen countries not only to
give it full recognition but to also support its bid to get a seat in the UN
(see below).

Getting even one small country (size doesn't matter in these things) to
recognize Dharamshala as the legitimate government of Tibet is extremely
important. For one, the usual Chinese argument that no country recognizes Tibet
is taken care off. And, of course, the deadlock is broken. If one why not more?
Tibetan morale will receive a boost.

Tibet in the UN

Of course Tibet could never become a member of the UN until there is actually an
independent Tibet state, but why not attempt to seek some kind of other
standing, such as "observer status" that the PLO received in 1974, or something
else. Of course with China in the Security Council, even a symbolic position
would be enormously difficult to attain, but even initiating the process would
be a tremendous step forward. It would be a real challenge to China. But how
could we even get started?

Every year since 1993, Taiwan has put up its bid to get the General Assembly to
discuss UN membership, supported by nineteen countries: Burkina Faso, Chad,
Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru,
Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Solomon Islands and
Swaziland. China and its supporters have so far managed to block the bill, but
always after a long hard debate. Taiwan is widely believed to win friends
through development aid and other economic blandishments. Although the Tibetan
Government could not offer anything similar, we could perhaps in this matter
position ourselves in Taiwan's slipstream, as it were, to take advantage of the
situation. These governments obviously were not intimidated by China, a
politically powerful UN member, by supporting Taiwan. So there is every
possibility that they could be persuades to recognize the TGIE and even sponsor
or support our case in the UN.

Many of the leaders of these small countries are Western educated lawyers and
other professionals who might have international aspirations and need for
public recognition, than the politics of their small countries alone could
provide. There could also be genuine champions of democracy and freedom in
those countries.

These are just some random ideas that I am offering more as starting points for
discussions on strategy, than as a fully worked out plan of action.

J.N.

Posted by collective at December 09, 2007 12:45 PM

Comments

ARCHIVED ARTICLES