Middle Way Approach-Based Memorandum (MWA-M)

To date, there have been nine rounds of talks between the PRC and the Tibetan Envoys to resolve their conflict issues. At the eighth (October 31, 2008) and the ninth (January 30, 2010) rounds of talks, the envoys of the Dalai Lama presented Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People (MOGAFTP) and Note on the Memorandum to their PRC counterparts.

MOGAFTP consists of 7 main parts and 11 basic needs of the Tibetan people. Having introduced Sino-Tibetan talks, it clearly states the following:

The essence of the Middle Way Approach is to secure genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the scope of the Constitution of the PRC. This is of mutual benefit and based on the long-term interest of both the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. We remain firmly com­mitted not to seek separation or indepen­dence. We are seeking a solution to the Tibetan problem through genuine autonomy, which is compatible with the principles on autonomy in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The protection and development of the unique Tibetan identity in all its aspects serves the larger interest of humanity in general and those of the Tibetan and Chinese people in particular. (see MOGAFTP, www.tibet.net, 2012, para. 1, Sino-Tibetan Dialogue under Key Issues)

By and large, the memorandum delineates Tibetan aspirations to preserve their unique identity and civilization within the federation of the PRC. From a communication point of view, the memorandum has clearly identi­fied and expressed the 11 basic needs of the Tibetans relating to language, culture, religion, education, environment protection, utiliza­tion of natural resources, economic develop­ment and trade, public health, public security, regulation of population migration, and cul­tural, educational, and religious exchanges with other countries (see details of memo­randum under Sino-Tibetan Dialogue, Key Issues, at www.tibet.net).

Tibetans belong to one minority nationality regardless of the current administrative divi­sion. The integrity of the Tibetan nationality must be respected. That is the spirit, the intent and the principle underlying the constitu­tional concept of national regional autonomy as well as the principle of equality of nation­alities. There is no dispute about the fact that Tibetans share the same language, culture, spiritual tradition, core values and customs, that they belong to the same ethnic group and that they have a strong sense of common identity. Tibetans share a common history and despite periods of political or administrative divisions, Tibetans continuously remained united by their religion, culture, education, language, way of life and by their unique high plateau environment. (see MOGAFTP, www.tibet.net, 2012, paras. 6 and 7, Sino-Tibetan Dialogue under Key Issues)

The principles of MWA, as discussed previ­ously, characterize the above memorandum. The Dalai Lama and CTA have pursued sincere dialogue with the PRC to resolve the conflict issues. The above statement unequivocally shows high mutual-face concerns to resolve Sino-Tibetan conflict (Ting-Toomey, 2005). The PRC’s main concern is about her territorial integrity and security, whereas the Tibetans’ main concern is about freedom and rights to preserve their unique identity and cultural heritage. Respecting PRC’s main concern, the memorandum in no uncertain terms expresses its commitment not to seek Tibetan indepen­dence or separation from China. This is the greatest concession Tibetans could give to the PRC, and it signifies a 180° shift in Tibetan policy from the early years of Tibetan diaspora during which they had struggled for Tibetan independence. Instead of seeking Tibetan inde­pendence, MWA seeks a genuine autonomy for all of Tibet for the preservation of their unique identity and cultural civilization.

The MWA has produced certain inter­group harmony between Chinese and Tibetan via Sino-Tibetan Friendship Associations and open dialogues between Chinese and Tibetan intellectuals. These actions have promoted positive interdependence between the two people. More and more Chinese intellectu­als have voiced their concern and support for Tibetan aspirations. Recently, a Chinese Tibetan Support Group in Canada initiated signature campaigns among Chinese groups around the world, and 70 such groups have voiced against the PRC’s repressive policy and action on Tibetans inside Tibet leading to many self-immolations (www.vot.org). On March 10, 2012, the 53rd anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day, several promi­nent Overseas Chinese such as Harry Wu and editors of four different websites in Chinese attended the official event in Dharamsala, India, to support the Tibetans. Given the com­plexity of Sino-Tibetan relations, the following section provides insights into their ethnopoliti­cal conflict from an intergroup perspective.

An Intergroup Perspective on the Mwa and Sino-Tibetan Conflict

An intergroup perspective has gained more prominence in recent years to investigate and explicate the dynamics of intergroup commu­nication (see Giles, Reid, & Harwood, 2010; Harwood & Giles, 2005). Intergroup commu­nication is concerned with interaction between members of different sociocultural groups. Tajfel’s (1978) social identity theory (SIT) has largely contributed to the emergence of this perspective. Expectedly, much of Tajfel and colleagues’ work primarily focused on social psychological processes but they also attended to linguistic and communicative issues from early on (e.g., Bourhis, Giles, & Tajfel, 1973; Giles, 1973). Arguably, an intergroup perspec­tive is informed by several allied theories such as SIT, communication accommodation theory (CAT), and self-categorization theory (see Giles et al., 2010). The explanatory calculus of this perspective comes from investigating intergroup dynamics and interactions taking into account both social-psychological and communication processes embedded in them. It is contended that group membership (social identity) changes the dynamics of communication between indi­viduals. They can converge or diverge in their communicative interaction or use social mobil­ity, social creativity, and social competition strategies based on social identification, group vitality, and permeability of intergroup bound­aries. These are discussed and applied to the Sino-Tibetan relations in the following sections.