Interview: YOUDON AUKATSANG

The Tibetan Solidarity Committee was set up in response to the clampdown in Tibet on March 10 2008, with the objective of coordinating the Tibetan movement in exile to resolve the crisis in Tibet. On April 23rd, Youdon Aukatsang, Member of Parliament (Government in exile) and member of the Solidarity Committee talked to Tenzing Choesang and Sangita Mulji about the Solidarity Committee, its aims and objectives.

Can you explain why it was felt necessary to form a Solidarity Committee as a response to the crackdown in Tibet?

The whole purpose of having the Tibetan Solidarity Committee was that the Government felt that it couldn’t remain quiet in such a crisis. It is like a state of emergency that is happening in Tibet and the Government felt it was important to have a common voice against the crackdown and the brutal oppression in Tibet.

What is the status of the Committee? Is it under the Government in exile? Who are the members of this Committee?

The committee was instituted by the Kashag and the Parliament together. Under that we asked all the organizations whether they were willing to join or not and if they were not, there was no pressure to do so. The Tibetan Youth Congress didn’t join, but other than that, most of the organizations joined it. At the moment the organizations have gone for the march, and so we are back to the Kashag and Parliament, but we have the support of the organizations other than the Tibetan Youth Congress.

What are the objectives and demands of the Committee?

The Committee has identified four or five demands. The first is that there should immediately be an independent fact finding mission into Tibet. The second demand is for the release of all the political prisoners who were arrested during the crackdown. A third demand is that the brutal killing be stopped. We had over 150 people killed. A further demand was to have a free press. Not just press orchestrated by the Chinese, who can only go where the Chinese Government asks them to go. We had heard reports that the monasteries were being totally cut off from their daily needs so we also demanded that people must be given access to daily needs and that those who were injured should get immediate medical attention. Those are our demands. They are very focused on the immediate situation inside Tibet.

What steps that have been taken by the Committee to make international bodies help you achieve the aims?

Before the Committee took over, all the organizations were mobilized locally and were doing spontaneous demonstrations. Since the Committee took over on about March 19th we have taken steps at various levels. There have been petitions to the UN. We wrote to Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Before we took over there were just protests and candlelight vigils. We tried to explore more creative means of non-violent protest and tried to grab the attention of the media. We did more plays and lectures and arranged a lot of seminars about the current crisis to make sure awareness and action was not just at the street level but we tried to bring it to the intellectuals and thinkers in India and elsewhere. We also participated fully in the street demonstrations. We also supported the ideas of the organizations when they came out with something new. We did not try to dominate the situation.

What is the Committee planning to do if there is no response to your demands?

The Committee needs to come to a decision about this. We need to think about some kind of guideline. Until now, when we are asked how long this will go on, we have said that it will go on indefinitely until the demands are met and until the current situation improves.

Is there a need to sustain the Committee beyond the current situation given the fact that there are reports of continuous human rights violations in Tibet?

I am personally not in a position to decide, as I am only one of the members of parliament, but personally I think there is a need to go on. There is a need for the Solidarity Committee to sustain and to go on coordinating protests. I think that most of the people really appreciate that we are all together and that the Government is not being aloof and refusing to get into street politics and non violent activities. There have been very few people who have criticized us saying that we are trying to crush the revolution or that the Government are trying to calm down the protests. This kind of criticism has come from very few though.

The government in exile is trying to negotiate for autonomy whereas the common slogan being voiced at every pro-Tibet protest is “free Tibet”. Do you see this as a divide in the movement?

I think that for me ‘free Tibet ‘ does not really mean free Tibet. It could mean freedom for Tibet or that Tibetans should be free to do things. However people do use this slogan to demand Tibetan independence as well. There is a dilemma for the movement. On the one hand you have peoples’ undeniable unquestioning faith in his Holiness and his wisdom and his vision. He is the only real leader we have. However, I think that deep down people still have not given up hope on independence. The Government has given up. China refuses to believe that, but the Government really has been pursuing genuine autonomy for a long time. So there is a dilemma in everybody’s minds that comes out in the protests. However, I think that practically the majority will go with his Holiness.

There was some kind of informal opinion poll conducted very widely in exile and also inside Tibet. In this opinion poll the majority did not come down in favour of independence or autonomy, they said that they support the Dalai Lama, and that they would support what he wants. The slogans will always remain the same. It sounds too odd to shout ‘we want autonomy’ but when the time comes, the majority will side with his Holiness. There is not as strong a sense of divide as the media portrays it and likes to sensationalise this dilemma. There are some who want independence but they would not go against the Dalai Lama. Even the majority of young Tibetans will follow him, not just through blind faith but because he is the only leader we have. Of course there is a need for more leaders to come up but until then we have to go with the only charismatic, dynamic and original leader we have.

Is the Solidarity Committee also going to play a role in bridging this gap?

I don’t think there is such a big gap to be bridged. Ideally, who doesn’t want independence? However that is an idealistic view and to say that what we want is autonomy doesn’t mean we are AGAINST independence. The Solidarity Committee stands for autonomy but we will not force the Tibetan people and tell them what to want. However, as the Solidarity committee is formed from the branches of the Government our stand is for genuine autonomy.

What is the status of negotiations between the delegates of the government in exile and the officials of the People’s Republic of China?

Since 2002 we have had six rounds of talks, which have not been substantive, but have been at the level of the United Work Front, which deals with the so-called ethnic minorities and aims to unify the so called 'motherland'. I think dialogue is a better word than negotiation as we have not really reached the stage of negotiation. There have been confidence and trust building measures. The delegations say that at least now on both sides the positions are clear. However it doesn’t seem like that when the Chinese keep saying that the Dalai Lama should give up demands for independence. Even now they don’t seem convinced that the Dalai Lama is genuinely seeking autonomy. Talks are still at a very initial stage. It is better to have a dialogue than not to have it, but the talks are not substantive. The Chinese put conditions on their negotiations. They say that the Dalai Lama should give up his demands for independence, and accept that Taiwan and Tibet are part of China. However the Dalai Lama has not been asking for independence for a long time, and as for Taiwan, what has that got to do with it? Why should we claim that Taiwan is part of China? These conditions could be a time buying tactic.

What kind of agreement for autonomy does the Government in exile want from the Peoples Republic of China?

The genuine autonomy that the exiled Government is seeking is autonomy within the Chinese framework and within the Chinese Regional autonomy law. Although Tibet is called the Tibet Autonomous Region the Ethnic Regional Autonomy law is not implemented at all. In Tibet most of the peoples representatives at the top are Chinese. The highest positions go to China and the Tibetans are given a ceremonial role. The real power is with the Chinese, whereas the Autonomy Laws very clearly say that the real power should be with the locals. The cultural identity and religion of the locals must be respected along with the language. There are 55 minority regions like Xingjiang and Inner Mongolia according to the Chinese, and all these places are having problems with the implementation of this law.

The Tibetan demand for autonomy includes the demand that the whole of traditional Tibet be under one single administrative rule. The Chinese have only called one third of traditional Tibet the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The rest of Tibet has been divided into four of five different provinces. Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu and Yunan. The whole of Amdo is not even part of the Tibet Autonomous region at all. We are also concerned about the demographic transfer that is taking place. The Chinese main agenda is for stability, unity and control and this is what is behind everything the Chinese do in Tibet.