BEIJING, April 2 (Xinhua) -- An article published under the byline Yiduo in
Wednesday's Global Times rebuts the Dalai Lama's hypocrisy on claiming to give
up his commitment to "Tibet independence".
The article in the Beijing newspaper questions the Dalai Lama's credibility
in saying he does not pursue "Tibet independence" but the Chinese government
remains suspicious of his stand.
It also questions the Dalai Lama's statement that he has no intention of
separating Tibet or sowing resentment between Tibetans and the Han Chinese.
Since 1960, the Dalai Lama has delivered an annual speech on March 10 to
commemorate the anniversary of an armed rebellion that occurred on that day in
1959, something which the Dalai clique calls "the Tibet uprising".
After reviewing the speeches delivered from 1960 to 2008, the author said
it was clear to know the Dalai Lama's real intention.
In 12 speeches between 1960 and 1977, he insisted that Tibet was an
independent nation, both historically and culturally, and vowed to keep the
stand.
Since 1978, after seeing an unwelcome international environment for his
"independence" claim, the Dalai Lama had for several years calculatingly avoided
using the word "independence".
Since 1984, he had begun interweaving his "independence" pursuit into his
speeches, but stopped short of directly using the word independence.
With the introduction of five-point plans and the seven-point proposals in
1987 and 1988, respectively, the Dalai clique initiated the so-called
middle-of-the-road policy. This actually derived from the open declaration of
independence to a de facto independence, from the one-step independence to a
multi-step independence.
In 1989 when the international situation changed rapidly, some antagonist
forces in the world supported the decision of granting the Dalai Lama the Nobel
Peace Prize.
Misjudging the international situation, the Dalai clique mistakenly
perceived the independence timing was coming.
In his 1990 speech, the Dalai Lama said the rapid political changes in
Eastern Europe set a model for the whole world and all Tibetans were aspiring
for "complete independence".
From 1994 to 2007, seeing the failure of pushing forward explicit
"pro-independence" activities, the Dalai clique changed its tactics again and
said it hoped for a dialogue with the central government of the People's
Republic of China (PRC).
While claiming it was looking for a resolution within the framework of the
PRC constitution, the Dalai clique required to create a "Great Tibet Region" and
to achieve a "real autonomy", to better preserve Tibet's unique language,
religion and heritage.
The article discerns the Dalai clique always fanned up its independence
rhetoric while thinking the international situation favorable. If frustrated by
global tides, the Dalai clique usually changed its combat tactics.
Nonetheless, the article says, the Dalai clique remains essentially the
same despite all apparent changes -- its secessionist nature remains unchanged
and their sabotage activities unstopped.
While clamoring in high profile to request a "negotiation" with the PRC
government, the Dalai clique has speeded up its infiltration into the PRC
territories, diffusing bewildering information among people, making up stories
on how horrible Tibetan people are under the relentless suppression.
The Dalai clique induced the ill-informed people to translate stirred
resentment into an anti-government attitude, which finally evolved in the Lhasa
riots on March 14, the article said.
Although claiming to adopt "non-violence", the "middle-of-the-road policy"
and "peaceful negotiation," the article says, the Dalai Lama continues to
accommodate and back the Tibetan Youth Congress, a stubborn advocacy group for
"Tibet independence".
The article exposes that the elites in the inner circle around the Dalai
Lama were activists of the Tibetan Youth Congress.
The Dalai clique's rhetoric of "preserving the unique Tibetan heritage" is
just a malicious deception to dupe a global audience, the article says. People
who visited Tibet would always be impressed by the efforts made by the PRC
government to preserve the traditional Tibetan culture and natural environment
there.
What the Dalai clique actually concerns, the article accuses, is not the
preservation of Tibetan cultural heritage, but the lost privilege of the noble
and clergy classes who in the past unconditionally enjoyed overriding rights
over the majority of Tibetans.
The article said the Dalai Lama should be judged on not what he has
romanticized his real intention, but what he has tried to
realize.