Interactive discussion with the Dalai Lama and a panel of experts

Robert Blackwood Hall, Monash University

Friday 8 June 2007

Panel members left to right:
Colin Mackerras, Piers Akerman,
Keith Suter and Bee Chen Goh

Peter Mares: I will now invite each of our panellists to give a brief response to the Dalai Lama’s speech, first of all Colin Mackerras.

Colin Mackerras:  Good afternoon. I agreed with a great deal of what you said, Your Holiness. I share your wish for harmony, I share your emphasis on the environment and I also share your wish for more autonomy and for the guarantee of Tibetan culture. I have been to Tibet four times and to Tibetan areas of China four times, and I have come to love the place. I love Tibetan culture and I love the Tibetan people. I want to be more positive than you, in one respect, and also to raise a question which I think is a very important one.

On the positive side, during my visits to Tibet, I have seen a lot of evidence that the Tibetan livelihood, the lifestyle and the Tibetan Buddhist culture is very much alive. Every Tibetan I have spoken to – almost every Tibetan I have spoken to – has expressed a belief in Tibetan Buddhism, every Tibetan house I have been into, and I have been into a fair few, has a shrine. The number of Tibetans in the clerical order is still quite large. You said in your talk that it was a crime for Tibetans to promote their own culture. I think it is a crime for them to use Tibetan culture to promote separatism, but I don’t see the signs that it is a crime to promote their own culture. All the Tibetans I have spoken to love their culture. And last year I attended a conference in Beijing which had the specific aim of promoting Tibetan culture.

Now the question I want to raise – you talked about Tibet and that’s good. But I have a question, what is Tibet? There are two Tibets in a way. One is the political Tibet, which is the same as the Tibet Autonomous Region, and the other is Amdo and Kham included, the three provinces of what you regard as Tibet, but which are now parts of Chinese provinces, especially Qinghai and quite a bit of Sichuan, Yunnan and Gansu. In talking about negotiations with China, which Tibet have you in mind, because I think the Chinese will have a very, very different attitude towards granting the kind of autonomy you are talking about in Qinghai and those provinces, than they will have in Tibet itself. And I think that that’s an important question. That’s all I have to say for the time being.

Dalai Lama: So if we are seeking independence or separation, then of course, before 1950, today’s Autonomous Region of Tibet is according to international legal experts, such as the International Commission of Jurists and others, at that time Tibet had de facto independence. The Government of India also recognised that. If we are seeking independence, then we have to talk about only that part of Tibet. But since we are not seeking independence, we are simply concerned with the preservation of Tibetan culture within the People’s Republic of China. Also, I myself come from Amdo.  Strictly speaking, I am not a Tibetan! So in the last 1000 years, the Tibetan culture and the Tibetan spirit has built the entire six million Tibetans, not only the area under Tibetan Government jurisdiction before 1950.

So therefore Tibetans inside Tibet - the entire Tibetan people are very much concerned about their own culture, including their own language. So therefore I am - we are acting here as a free spokesman for the Tibetan people. So we have to act according to their wish. If Tibetans inside Tibet have no desire to be within one entity we would naturally drop that. As long as their desire insists on that – since the Chinese constitution provides different kinds of autonomy status. For example, the Tibet Autonomous Region – the political Tibetan area – then in Yunnan, Sichuan, Gansu, Qinghai, every ethnic Tibetan community – [should have] autonomous prefecture, autonomous district, autonomous county, like that. So instead of autonomy – a variety of autonomy, maybe it would be more practical and easier to make one autonomy, that is our thinking. That is the best way to preserve their culture and language. And also I think that is the best way to give satisfaction to six million Tibetan people. So therefore we have courage. We are not seeking independence.

In the past some Mongolian group put in the Autonomous Region of Mongolia. And I think it is quite practical, it is possible, within one country this ethnic group, as far as administration is concerned is joined with this – this should join this – there is no danger. So therefore we are asking the Chinese government, please treat the entire Tibetan population as one entity. But the Chinese officials are very suspicious of this. In the outside world it is well known that the Dalai Lama is not seeking independence but the Chinese officials still continually make the accusation that the Dalai Lama is seeking independence, which is the truth I don’t know.

Peter Mares: Piers Akerman, would you like to make a comment and a question?

Piers Akerman: Your Holiness, I think that your summation of the situation, the historical narrative was absolutely correct of course, but what concerns me very much now is that given the extraordinarily enthusiastic expansion of the Chinese economically, how do you manage to get the Chinese leadership to give any consideration at all to the Tibetan issue, which is such a minor issue in the enormity of the issues that they have to struggle with? There is the question of their own population, the question of the gulf that they have between the productive people that are employed now in these mushrooming capitals and their provinces - how do you put Tibet back onto the front burner? Particularly as you have the issue with Nepal, where Nepal now has a Maoist government and so forth, Tibet is not even an important border issue any longer.

Dalai Lama: That is true. As I mentioned earlier, where there is the welfare of over a billion human beings – over a 1000 millions [to consider], then six million is just very minor. But geographically, these three autonomous regions, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang Autonomous Region and the Tibet Autonomous Region comprise a vast area geographically. These three autonomous regions cover ... And also they are very rich in minerals, including oil. And also politically the Tibet issue is sensitive. Also the Tibet issue is very much related with the improvement of Sino-Indian relations. So therefore in China there is a saying; the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, even if they ask for money from the central government, it is sometimes refused. With the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, whatever they ask for they will get the money. In the Tibetan Autonomous Region, without asking they will get money, why, because of the sensitivities. So then there is another aspect.

We Tibetans are very much willing to remain within the People’s Republic of China. Therefore the central government, morally, practically have to take care about people who are willing to remain within the People’s Republic of China, if they respect them. So it is in the national interest. So in the early or mid 1950s, when I was in China – mainland China – I spent at least five months in Peking. During that period I met on several occasions, Chairman Mao, and all leaders, particularly Chairman Mao, at least 10 or 15 times. He once told me, ‘Tibet, in the past, was quite well as a nation. Now you have become weak. So we Han Chinese are sent there to help you. In the future, in 20 years or 30 years, you may develop, then it is your turn to help us’. Then on another occasion, at a long table, I sat on one side and Chairman Mao sat on the other side, and two Chinese general sat here. Then Chairman Mao pointed to these two generals. ‘I sent these generals in order to help you. In case these generals do not listen to your view, let me know, I will withdraw’. On another occasion, Chairman Mao asked me about the Tibetan flag. He asked me whether there was a flag or not. I responded with a little hesitation – I said, ‘Yes’. Then he told me, ‘Oh, you must keep that beside the national flag’.

I am often telling our supporter groups in Europe as well as in America - when occasionally they put up the Tibetan flag and local Chinese officials always protest. Then I tell them, ‘Oh, it doesn’t matter that those local Chinese officials protested to you. I got permission from Mao Zedong himself’.

So then in 1956, the uprising already happened inside Tibet.

Another word I want to share with you. In the autumn of 1954 I went to China and in the summer of 1955 I returned on the same road. On the road I met Trung Go Ha (?) a general who was stationed in Tibet. On the road we met so I told him, ‘Last year when I was coming on this road to Peking I had suspicion and doubt. Now I am returning on the same road, full of confidence, full of respect and admiration for the revolution, because since then I have become Marxist’. Still I describe myself in many places in America, in Europe and Latin America, I describe myself as half Marxist and half Buddhist. I think as far as ideology is concerned, I am more communist than these present Chinese leaders. Their main concerns are economy and power. Of course where their [indistinct] system is concerned, I am totally against it. The suppression of information and freedom, I am totally against. But as far as social economic theory is concerned, I am still Marxist. So at that time there was so much attraction for Marxism and also towards Chairman Mao. I fully trust and I really admire their dedication to the people, particularly to the working class people and their vision of world wide revolution – the benefit or the liberation of the working class people. I fully agree with that.

One of my themes is a global sense of universal responsibility. Some of you may know it. This sense of universal responsibility came from the Marxist international movement. So if there are some anti-communists here, think of me as a dangerous person.

Peter Mares: Keith Suter, would you like to ask a question of His Holiness?

Keith Suter: Yes, Your Holiness, I very much enjoyed the presentation, I have a comment and a question, sir. The comment is, following on from what Professor Mackerras had to say in the discussion about there being two Tibets, I think there is a third Tibet – a Tibet of the mind. This Tibet has a large number of supporters from all walks of life overseas. So although the numbers are small, I think the influence is very great. In an Australian expression, sir, you are punching above your weight – if Buddhists are allowed to punch. So though, sir, you are small in number, I think that you do attract a huge degree of support, and even here in Australia, Buddhism is one of the fastest growing religions. So there is, as I say, this third Tibet, which is a large number of people out there supporting you, even though the number of Tibetans is fairly small in number. That’s my comment.

My question is, sir, going back to your opening remarks about Tibet as the roof of the world and the land of snow, to what extent are your people monitoring the impact of climate change on Tibet and particularly the melting of the snows?

Dalai Lama: I also want to make a comment. Some Chinese professors who are really very, very patriotic Chinese – they say that the Chinese ambition is to become a superpower. It is true – this is deserved. It is the most populated nation, an ancient nation, I think if you compare it to Australia – the Chinese nation is much, much older, so really, it is an old nation with a rich cultural heritage. So China becoming an influential nation and member of the international community on this planet is really deserved. Now in order to become a superpower, according to these Chinese scholars, what the patriotic Chinese scholars say, is that the population is already there, second, military power is already there including nuclear weapons, third, there is economic power. Since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms the economic progress has been remarkable. The fourth factor is moral authority in order to become a superpower. America, in spite of some mistakes here and there, basically America is a champion of democracy, liberty, freedom – that’s moral authority. I think the American system – the Houses, the judiciary, the administration, is truly independent. Not like parliament and government. (?) So really, I love America – it’s very good - and American people. Sometimes they are too much excited – little positive things happen and they go, ‘Oh-oh!’, like that. Little sad things happen, they go like that. That is, I think, I would express it as childish. So on the few occasions I receive American friends I say, ‘You don’t do that. You are a big nation. If some good things happen you should be calm, if bad things happen you should be calm. Generally you should handle it like that’. So I love Americans.  I think Australians are more or less in the British tradition. So when I talk with an English man there is not much smiling.

In order to become a superpower the moral authority is very essential and that is now lacking in China. So the Tibetan issue is one place where the image of China can change overnight. And also if the Tibet issue was wisely solved and practically solved the signal to the Taiwanese would be immense. So to achieve reunification with Taiwan – for that reason there would be a positive impact. Then also there would be some kind of mental liberation for around six million Chinese in Hong Kong. At the moment – so far – they are a bit anxious. So for that also, I think, once they solve the Tibet problem practically and sensibly, then the international image would change. It would be a positive signal to the Hong Kong people and ultimately also to the Taiwanese.

And then as I mentioned, these relations between India and China would improve immensely. From the wider perspective the Tibet issue is not – it’s something quite useful if solved properly. Then now your question, what was it?

Peter Mares: About global warming.

Dalai Lama: I think that Tibetans - firstly, for example, myself. Before 1959 or even before the early 1960s I had no idea about ecological problems. So I think that the rest of the Tibetans have no concern – no idea about the importance of ecology. Sometimes we do recognise that some of these snow mountains are melting. Sometimes they believe that it is due to some deities. It is due to some local spirit. Otherwise I think very, very few are concerned. Then since 1959 – I think one of the mistakes by the Chinese central government is they are totally negligent about the training of Tibetans and they don’t give proper education. There is only political indoctrination not proper education, that is, I think, their real mistake, whereas outside Tibet, as a refugee community, since 1960, we take full care about education. Now the education standard among the Tibetan refugee community is much better than among Tibetans inside Tibet.

That is one mistake of the Chinese. So as a result, I think experts, including on ecology, are very, very few. Of course, some Chinese, including some NGOs, are very sincere and very dedicated. I met some and also some experts from outside occasionally visit. So these are helping. Still, I think we need thorough research work on the spot. This is very necessary and very important.

Peter Mares: Professor Bee Chen Goh, if you would like to ask a question.

Bee Chen Goh: Your Holiness, I am a great fan of yours. I am an international law lawyer and I think your ideas about principles of universal responsibility, compassion, the middle way, they are making inroads into international law. Particularly your idea about the middle way in the Sino-Tibetan situation will provide the realistic breakthrough because what we see now in the world is not state sovereignty that is important, it is actually some self governance, some autonomy, and in your own 1988 Strasbourg proposal you used the example, in fact, of the European Community.

Dalai Lama: That’s right – that model – I always refer to the European Union. In the previous century and the early part of the twentieth century there were small, small states and they were very much concerned about their own sovereignty and these things. Now in the later part of the twentieth century, people are, I think, becoming wiser, and have a concern for the common interest. So they are willing to join a bigger community. So the European Community is really wonderful, and also I think each individual - except the Swiss, I think they are still using their Swiss Franc and England [has pounds] – but most of the European member states accept the Euro rather than their own [currency]. I think the lire are useless in Italy and replacing it with the Euro was much better. As a result of the unified currency, the Euro can now compete with the dollar. The unified approach is always useful, even from the viewpoint of national interest. It is better to join and work together. In the mean time, within this union, each one has their own [credit?] That’s really beautiful.

Bee Chen Goh: Your Holiness, I think that the greatest contribution that Tibetan Buddhism is making to the world now is peace - mental technology, I will call it. Perhaps as well, looking at the middle way, we should also cover a common ground. And with a common ground approach, in a dialogue with the Chinese Government, perhaps that should be a way in which we can then find ways and means to achieve that goal, particularly in light of the fact that Buddhism is one of the ancient wisdoms of the Chinese. So I think we can cover common ground and I am wondering in terms of future dialogues – would you see dialogues going on [which consider] how that can contribute in terms of the mental technology that is peace seeking? Not just the Sino-Tibetan situation, but also a global concern? Thank you.

Dalai Lama: Yes, as I mentioned before, the Tibetan Buddhist cultural heritage, by its very nature is peaceful and non-violent, compassionate. So with that, to some extent, I think we can make some kind of contribution to the entire humanity. So as far as the Chinese are concerned, now, China, as I mentioned before, has a long history and a sophisticated cultural heritage, including Confucianism - it is very rich. And also with the family, the younger people respect the elders and are educated, isn’t it? So that rich culture in the eighteenth century and the nineteenth century and the twentieth century, also politically China became united and was no longer subject to Western colonial exploitation. However, I think due to short sightedness, great damage was done to family values and also the 5000 year old Chinese cultural heritage. As a result now, today, I think one of my Indian friends has told me that the real capital of Chinese culture is Taiwan, not Peking.

So, it is a pity. Not only just a pity, but as a result of damaging or loss to your rich cultural heritage there is a lot of corruption, isn’t it? Although corruption is, I think, everywhere. I think in Australia also corruption must be there. Everywhere, in those totalitarian regimes there is no free information, no press freedom, it is very difficult. Once you have power you are above the law – that is the problem.

So therefore, as a result, I think now China – the very basis of the society is family values. That is destroyed. So here, Confucianism as well as Buddhism, I think, can help to rebuild a meaningful society. So we are very happy and eager and have a moral responsibility to help the Chinese community because Buddhism is not alien to the Chinese people. For the Europeans, Buddhism is not traditionally your religion. So I am always telling the audience – Europeans, Americans and English people, or the Australians who come from Europe or who come from some other countries, those non-Buddhist countries, your tradition is not Buddhism. So better to keep your own tradition – not show excitement about Buddhism, no, no.

But for Chinese, for Taiwanese, for Vietnamese, for Korean, for Japanese, for Mongolian, for Tibetan, for Laotian or Cambodian, these areas are traditionally Buddhist countries. So propagating Buddhism is simply reviving or recognising your own traditional values. We are very much willing to help you. As far as the Taiwanese are concerned, every year annually a few hundred Taiwanese come to Dharamsala and receive a Buddhist explanation or teaching. And also in 1997 I visited Taiwan for the first time. At that time I decided that every second year – every other year I planned to visit Taiwan, purely non-political, of course. At my first visit to Taiwan, I met some DPP politicians there. I told them that as far as Tibet is concerned we are not seeking independence. Then for Taiwan - economically, you have some unique, close relationship with China. I told them, that is my position. Of course the majority of the people wish for independence, that’s up to them, but on a practical level, for practical reasons I feel it is better to have a very close unification with mainland China. So I told them. But however, our Peking boss is very much concerned about my visit to Taiwan. So they put the condition that I should not go to Taiwan. On my second visit to Taiwan I publicly expressed, ‘I wish that one official from Taiwan [sic] should accompany me while I remain here to check on whether I engage in some sabotage work or not – in splittist activities or not’.

I publicly stated, ‘One official from Peking should accompany me day and night to see what the Dalai Lama is doing. They should check’. I expressed that publicly. Since then we developed direct contact with the Chinese government as I mentioned earlier since 2001. So, for the time being I have to say to my Taiwanese friends or Taiwanese devotees, I have to say, ‘Bye, bye’, but still I never forget our Taiwanese Buddhist brothers and sisters. It is my moral responsibility to help them and to serve them. So sooner or later I think the Chinese - our boss in Peking - may understand that. Then I will have another occasion to visit Taiwain, purely on spiritual matters. So basically I am always happy and feel it as my duty to serve our Buddhist brothers and sisters, particularly Chinese brothers and sisters.

In another field, I have heavily engaged with modern scientists and established a dialogue between Buddhist science and Western science over more than 20 years. Now the discussion has become really very, very interesting. As a result the enthusiasm of both sides is increasing. Among the scientists they are also very eager to learn the Buddhist explanations about different emotions, about mind, about mental functions, things like that. So I wish some professors, some scholars from mainland China would participate at those meetings, those dialogues, our official Mind and Life Dialogues. It is going very well.

Since many years I expressed the wish that some scientists, some scholars from traditional Buddhist countries should be participating.

Peter Mares: Your Holiness, we are running out of time. We should have finished a few minutes ago. Would you like to take another question or would you like to make some closing remarks?

Dalai Lama: No, I think there is nothing left. It’s all very good, thank you very much.