Legal Standards and Autonomy Options for Minorities in China: THE TIBETAN CASE

Memorandum Regarding March 2008 Events:

In 2004, the Belfer Center published Legal Standards and Autonomy Options for Minorities in China: The Tibetan Case, by Theodore Sorensen and David L. Phillips. We are revisiting it now, as authors believe the report's recommendations are critical to resolving the current crisis in Tibet.

China is at a fork in the road after a crackdown on protests by Tibetan monks for demanding greater religious freedom. The Chinese government can intensify repression under martial law, which will bring it disgrace and fuel demands for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics. Or it can address its Tibet problem by verifiably implementing cultural autonomy as part of an arrangement whereby the Dalai Lama would fully, formally, and forever renounce Tibet’s claim of independence.

After the 1949 Revolution, China recognized the advantages to providing minority groups with self-government and promulgated extensive provisions for regional autonomy. Article 4 of the constitution affirms the equality of China’s 55 ethnic groups and requires the State to ensure their “special characteristics and needs.” Not only does China’s constitution prohibit discrimination, it also guarantees minorities the same freedom of thought, expression, assembly, and religion as the majority Han Chinese.

China has since added to its body of laws on minority rights. At least 160 rules and regulations on self-governance, economic development, and cultural practices have been adopted by provincial, prefectoral, and county authorities in the Tibetan areas. The scope of these laws is far-reaching—addressing, for example, police and security, economic rights, and responsibility for the development of natural resources.  They also address the use of Tibetan language, traditional medicine, and religious and cultural practices.

However, a huge gap exists between legislative intent and conditions on the ground. The Chinese government derogates its laws with caveats and conditions; no law can compromise national unity. The Dalai Lama calls China’s practices “cultural genocide.”

-           The Tibetan issue would no longer be a problem if China fully implemented cultural autonomy in the Tibetan Autonomous Region as well as ethnic Tibetan areas in the provinces of Gansu, Qinghai, Yunnan, and Szechuan.

-           China should not fear that autonomy is a half-step toward independence. The opposite is true. Meaningful autonomy would enhance, not impair, China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

-           President Hu Jintao has affirmed a legalistic approach emphasizing the rule of law, maintaining that “it is essential to stick to and improve the system of regional ethnic autonomy.”

-           Absent progress, Tibetans will become more radicalized and the opportunity to negotiate an autonomy arrangement that strengthens China’s territorial integrity could disappear.

The Chinese Government may have already squandered its opportunity.  Before the window of opportunity slams shut, the Chinese government should reconsider its approach.

-           It is not too late to calm the situation by rescinding its declaration of martial law, withdrawing soldiers to their barracks, and releasing monks as well as other
political prisoners.

These steps might mollify the current firestorm of international criticism. But they will not address the root cause of conflict. For Tibetans, religion and culture are integrally intertwined. If demands by the monks for religious freedom are not met, Tibetans will become radicalized and China will face a full-blown rebellion whose aim is independence.

-           To prevent a spiral of deadly violence, China should establish a Special Commission on Cultural Autonomy including representatives from the Tibetan Government-in-exile. International experts should also be invited to advise the commission, which would draft a uniform package of governance, economic and cultural autonomy measures to be implemented wherever Tibetans reside in China.

A final and verifiable arrangement is in the interest of both China and the Tibetan people. Most important, it is essential to save Tibetan culture. It would also help China avoid opprobrium tarnishing the 2008 Olympics and undermining its role as a world leader in the twenty-first century.

Foreword from the Director:

China matters. Whether one considers the country's vast population, economic growth, rich culture and history, or geopolitical significance, China looms large on the international stage. Its international role is bound to continue increasing over time. How China interacts with its own people affects not only those who live within its borders, but can also affect outside perceptions and how others interact with China. This study of standards and autonomy options presents not only a legal but also a scholarly analysis. At the same time, it is policy relevant in the longstanding tradition of both the Kennedy School of Government and the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Project Chairman Theodore C. Sorensen and Project Director David L. Phillips have done an important service in pulling together a wide range of experts. The Belfer Center review process included top scholars not only from our own Center, but also others from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and other top universities. This study is written as a resource for Chinese legal experts, scholars, and practitioners, as well as Tibetan representatives, who are interested in applying the rule of law to enhance conditions in ethnic Tibetan areas of Western China. Arguably, a comprehensive and fully implemented autonomy arrangement would strengthen China's territorial integrity and, by preserving and promoting Tibetan culture, help bring closure to the Tibetan issue. We are proud to help contribute to this important discussion.

Graham Allison, Director
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

From the Introduction:

Legal Standards and Autonomy Options for Minorities in China: The Tibetan Case is a resource for strengthening minority rights and autonomy arrangements in the ethnic Tibetan areas in China. Rather than attempt to address all 55 of China's minority groups, the report focuses on the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetans in the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan, and Sichuan. Effective autonomy would enhance, not impair, China's sovereignty and territorial integrity while reinforcing its stated commitment to the rule of law. Autonomy is also the best and most realistic way to preserve Tibetan culture.

Structure

The report does not seek to assess China's human rights practices or every aspect of the treatment of Tibetans in China. Instead, it focuses on China's current laws and identifies possible legal arrangements advantageous to both China and Tibetans. The report is divided into three parts: 1) Minority Rights Legislation in China; 2) International Standards for Minority Rights; and 3) Autonomy Options. Each chapter is organized thematically with information on governance, economic issues, and culture.