Middle Way Approach-Based Solution to Sino-Tibetan Conflict
Nonviolence and middle way philosophy are the core principles of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan diaspora’s MWA to address Sino-Tibetan ethnopolitical conflict. Buddhism is one of the most important dimensions of Tibetan sociocultural identity (Dorjee & Giles, 2009; Gyatso, 1999), and their struggle overall has been grounded in nonviolence (Gerstein & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Even those who call for complete Tibetan independence (e.g., Tibetan Youth Congress and International Tibet Independence Movement) agree with the nonviolence approach adopted by the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA). CTA has adopted MWA to resolve Sino-Tibetan issues but not without critics (see J. Norbu, 2009; Smith, 2008). Sino-Tibetan relation is embedded in a complex and contested history over many centuries (Davis, 2008; Gerstein & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Goldstein, 1989; D. Norbu, 2001; Shakabpa, 1967; Smith, 2008), and differentiated social-cultural identities (Dorjee, 2006; Dorjee, Giles, & Barker, 2011).The PRC’s White Paper (2004) on Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet claims that Tibet has been an inalienable part of China since ancient times (mainly two historical periods: the 7th and the 13th centuries). According to Tibetan history (D. Norbu, 2001; Shakabpa, 1967), Tibet was a power in Central Asia in the 7th century, and the Tibetan Emperor Songtsen Gampo married Tang Princess Wen Cheng and Nepali Princess Bhrikuti. Tibet, China, and Nepal remained independent nations regardless of these matrimonial alliances.
In recent times, the PRC claimed Tibet based on Manchu rule over Tibet in the 13th century (see Davis, 2008; Shakabpa, 1967). Shakabpa (1967) and Smith (2008) described that Tibet established priest-patron relationship (Tibetan: Chos yon gyi grel wa) with the Mongol Empire in 1247 AD. Having proclaimed the Yuan Dynasty, Mongol King Kublai Khan administered China and Tibet separately and differently. Mongol Emperors honored leading Tibetan lamas, namely, Sakya Pandita and Chosgyal Phagpa, as their Royal Priests. The PRC has politicized this PriestPatron relationship (which continued into later Ming and Qing Dynasties) into sovereignty over Tibet. Davis (2008) states, “A closer look at Sino-Tibetan history reveals a more nuanced story and hardly one that would justify such claim” (p. 7). Against these backdrops Sino-Tibetan dialogues have been conducted.