Thank you for those very good questions.
You mentioned the name of the delegate who came and made the presentation, but we all must know that there are a few Tibetans who are sent around to speak on behalf of the Chinese government or parrot their propaganda. In the last 60 years, the most powerful person, even in the Tibet Autonomous Region, the party secretary of the Communist Party, has never been a Tibetan.
Even at a prefecture level or a county level, it's very rare to have a Tibetan as a party secretary. A Tibetan could be equally qualified, equally credentialed, but the post is always given to the Chinese. Hence, those who come here and speak supposedly for Tibetan people in actuality don't have power or authority in Tibetan areas.
Yes, you're right. It's not just the Canadian government and the American government that have provided funding for projects inside Tibet, but others. For transparency's sake, to evaluate and assess how the projects are going and whether they're beneficial or not, it's very important for the Canadian officials or the NGOs to go to the area and assess, but they are denied permission.
That's the tragedy: on the one hand, they accept the funding, and on the other hand, you will never know whether the project is implemented or not. It's in clear violation of international norms or of the agreement with a government that when it provides funding for projects it must see where the money is going. That is being truly denied. I think we all must push that access be given, hence reciprocity, not in terms of exact numbers—that three Chinese officials came here, hence three Canadians must go—but in terms of the idea that if you come, then we should go too.
As far as the middle way approach is concerned, you're right. I've had hundreds of rounds of debate with Chinese students and scholars. We explain to them that the middle way approach does not seek to challenge the sovereignty of China and does not challenge China's territorial integrity. It essentially means genuine autonomy, as per Chinese laws, and to remain within China. That's why the Obama administration said they supported the middle way approach: because it does not contradict the one China policy.
But the Chinese government and Chinese officials always say that the middle way approach is hidden independence, that there's something hidden, and that the Dalai Lama is always splitting.... People say that he's the most liked and most trusted person in the whole world. It's just the Chinese government and Chinese leaders who don't trust him. I say, “Don't you see that it's your problem when the whole world trusts Dalai Lama, and if you are not trusting, don't you think there is something wrong with your mindset?” Right? If you go with that mindset of distrust.... I remember saying that even if the Dalai Lama were to go to the caves of Malaya Mountains or into a submarine deep in the ocean, the Chinese government and leaders would still say, no, he's cooking up something up in the mountains, or he's cooking up something deep in the sea.
Essentially, it's the lack of trust, hence they try to spin it around and not accept the middle way as a win-win proposition, a win for China and win for the Tibetan people as well. China is becoming a world power, and you can have military power or money power, but if you want to have more authority, if you want to win respect, you must respect the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people. Unless you do that, you will not gain credibility and respect from the international community.
For China, there is a lot to gain, because Tibet is essentially a litmus test for China, and also for Canada, because China says they implement and the respect rule of law and human rights. If that is the case, then you should see the situation in Tibet and see that the middle way approach or genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people should be implemented. That's also for Canada, because Canada has true values: moral values and human rights values. If Canada is for these rights or values, then one should speak out for the Tibetan people as well.
Tibetans have been non-violent and peaceful for decades. In that sense, we have been the good guys in the whole world. Sometimes good guys don't get rewarded, but we would like some piece of a reward for being good.
If you look at the conflicts in Syria, or in Africa—with Boka Haram or just name it—everywhere in the whole world, they are all watching to see which model to follow: the violent ISIS model, the militant Buddhist model, the non-violent peaceful Tibetan model. If we're talking about violence and conflicts, the other conflict area will say let's follow the violent model because that gets more attention, more headlines, and more support. If the non-violent peaceful model of the Tibetan people is not supported, then essentially by default you are encouraging violence, and you are encouraging terrorism and militancy around the world.
For being a good guy, I think we deserve some attention and support as well. The fact that this committee is holding this hearing essentially is a support for the good guys, for which we are very appreciative.
As far as the Sino-Tibetan dialogue is concerned, the envoys of the Dalai Lama met with the Chinese representative for nine rounds, from 2002 to 2009. It's not as though there's no talking going on. There were talks between the envoys of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese representative, but there was no breakthrough. The final talk with the Dalai was in January 2010. For eight years there has been no dialogue between the two sides. Hopefully, with a nudge from the Canadian government leaders, there could be some breakthrough as well.
I know Canada is negotiating or talking about trade agreements. It's very important to have a trade relationship with China, but it's equally important that one must speak for human rights so the money and morals go together and one is not exchanged for the other.
Thank you.