AN EYE ON THE FUTURE HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA outlines the causes of and solutions to conflict – both in Tibet and the wider world
IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS human beings are all the same; we all want happiness and do not want suffering.We strive to fulfil these desires as best we can.We do so personally as individuals and also together as groups. Despite the differences in the colour of our skin or the texture of our hair, in our religious beliefs or our lack of them, in the languages we speak, in the culture we uphold or even our differences of gender, we are all, basically the same human beings. Appreciating this sameness is crucial to respecting and understanding other people and to developing compassion and kindness toward them.
This idea of the basic sameness of human beings is as simple as it is true.Yet,many people find it difficult not only to believe in the equality and basic sameness of all people, but also to behave accordingly.More often it is the differences between us that we emphasise. This has its positive aspect; humanity is rich because of its diversity. Each civilisation, culture and spiritual tradition has contributed in its own way to our human needs, to our knowledge and wisdom and to our wellbeing, and many of them continue to do so today. Therefore, the loss of any of these traditions is truly a tragedy for humankind, whether it occurs in the rush toward globalisation, or the genocide that so often accompanies war, or the assimilationist policies that dominant forces impose on minority groups.
I have seen this happen in my own country. I am not so concerned about the loss of external manifestations of Tibetan culture under Chinese repression, such as how people dress or wear their hair. But I am worried about the decline of those Tibetan cultural and spiritual values that have proved to be of true benefit to human beings both in Tibet and abroad.
On the other hand, focusing on the differences between us often has a negative aspect. If someone is different from us, we easily fall into thinking that he or she is somehow inferior to us or is bad in some way.We either attempt to change them and their behaviour to fit in with our own values and way of life, or we simply oppose or pick a fight with them. However much we praise diversity in theory, we often oppose it firmly in actual practice. One of the major causes of conflict in our world, both at local and international levels, is this inability to embrace diversity.We seem unable to reconcile the manifest diversity of human society with the fact that at root we all remain the same human beings, sharing the same fundamental needs and aspirations, the same basic difficulties and limitations.
Another key source of conflict is the shortsighted way in which we pursue our own vested interests and seek to fulfil our needs. If we focus only on our own requirements, regardless of the needs and interests of others, we are likely to hurt them and provoke their hostility. This is especially true when we view happiness predominantly in terms of material possessions, wealth and power. Although, to my mind, this viewpoint is mistaken, it is widespread.Moreover, while many people are driven by greed, others act mainly out of fear of losing what possessions, wealth and power they already have.
Wars are fought, people are killed or driven from their homes and entire communities are destroyed because of human greed and fear. All over the world people no different from us see their lives ruined by someone else’s desire to gain or fear of losing territory, economic resources and cultural and political supremacy – not to mention naked ideological and religious self-righteousness. This is not something that only happens elsewhere, for it is often governments that we have elected, and corporations whose products and services we buy, or whose shares we own, that cause suffering while pursuing their narrow interests. Sooner or later, the victims of such short-sightedness attempt to defend themselves and assert their own right to happiness: tension and conflict result.
Today, many parts of the world are disturbed by violent conflict. Some of these disputes revolve around ethnic differences, unjust government provokes some, and others are a response to unfair exploitation of natural resources. They all centre on people’s desire, whether as individuals or groups, to gain something they believe will bring them happiness and relieve their troubles. Too frequently the response is to fear that if one side lets the other get what they want, it will prevent them fulfilling their own wishes. So, far from helping each other, they become deliberately obstructive. In no time at all the resulting hostility turns to violence.
These conflicts do not arise out of the blue. They occur as a result of causes and conditions,many of which are within the protagonists’ control. This is where leadership is important. It is our leaders’ responsibility to decide when to act and when to be restrained. In the case of violent conflict it is important to restrain the situation before it gets out of hand. Once the causes and conditions for violent clashes have ripened, it is very difficult to calm them down again. Preventive measures and restraint have to be adopted at an earlier stage. Clearly leaders need to be alert, far-sighted and decisive.
Human intelligence is such that we can take the future to some extent into our own hands. However, as society involves a combination of individuals, there is no chance of introducing new ideas or of changing the community’s view unless initiatives come from individuals. I believe that the essential qualities we need are compassion and forgiveness. These are the qualities that form the basis of human survival.As a Buddhist, I believe religion reflects the fundamental nature of our minds, that religion actually strengthens and increases the positive aspects of our nature. But it is compassion rather than religion that is important to us. Religion involves compassion, but compassion does not necessarily involve religion.
The 20th century was marred by conflict and war. I hope that, despite a faltering start, we can take steps to ensure that this new century will be characterised instead by nonviolence and dialogue – the preconditions of peaceful co-existence. It is natural that in any human society there will be differences and conflicts, but we have to develop confidence that dialogue and the support of friends are a valid alternative to violence in all our relations. In the context of our newlyemerging global community, all forms of violence have become totally unacceptable as means of settling disputes. The practice of non-violence is surely the best way of bringing about peace, but it requires determination. For by its very nature, nonviolent action requires patience.
I am quite sure that if problems can be discussed according to non-violent principles with a calm mind, keeping in view the longterm safety of the world, then solutions can always be found. Of course, in particular instances a more aggressive approach may also be necessary. But the use of force should be our last resort, not our first response.All of us have been shocked by the recent upsurge of terrorism, but even terrorism cannot be defeated by the use of force alone. Retaliatory military action may bring some immediate satisfaction, but it will not root out the underlying problem. Longer-term measures need to be taken.
If we instinctively retaliate when faced with violence against us, what can we expect other than that our opponent will also feel justified to retaliate in turn? Everyone wishes to live in peace, but we are often confused about how it can be achieved.Mahatma Gandhi pointed out that because violence inevitably leads to more violence, if we are seriously interested in peace it must be achieved through peaceful and non-violent means.
ALTHOUGH FIRST AND foremost I am merely a Buddhist monk, as Dalai Lama, I have certain responsibilities towards the Tibetan people.And in trying to fulfil these responsibilities I have never wavered from the conviction that a solution to our problems can only be found through nonviolent means. From 1951, I tried to work with the Chinese authorities, in the perhaps idealistic hope that everyone would behave in ways that would benefit all involved. I thought then, and continue to believe, that there was no reason why the Chinese could not help us, and indeed there are many areas in which we can help them too. However, the Chinese authorities simply tried to impose their inflexible ideology on Tibetans and showed scant respect for our culture and religion. This caused the people to revolt and, in the end, I had to escape to freedom in India, from where I believed I could best serve my people.
Since 1979, I have again tried to develop a genuine dialogue with China’s leaders in order to find a solution that would benefit all concerned. Trying to accommodate Tibetan, Chinese and regional interests I regard as taking a Middle Way. Despite the suffering the Tibetan people have endured, I believe that we need to find a way to live together in a manner that will allow both Tibetans and Chinese dignity and freedom. I am convinced that we could achieve this if we were to engage in genuine dialogue, each party respecting the other as equal human beings.
In a more amicable climate, there is great scope for mutual co-operation. From a developmental point of view, Tibet needs help to utilise its abundant material resources for the general good. On the other hand we also have a living culture and spiritual tradition from which many Chinese people may draw inspiration in their quest for peace of mind. China may regard Tibet as strategically important, but I believe that our greatest contribution to Chinese security lies in restoring Tibet’s natural role as a zone of peace, thereby ensuring a peaceful Himalayan frontier. In an environment that encourages large economic zones and markets competing on a global level, Tibetans could benefit from participating in the Chinese economic success. Thus, we each have something to gain from being united within one state.
However, living together, united in one state, can only work if the relationship is based on a mutual respect for the way of life, the culture, the values, the spiritual traditions and aspirations of the other. Understanding each other’s needs also means respecting the natural desire of a people to determine its own destiny and administer its own affairs within the framework of the larger state.
For the future, therefore, I envision a genuinely autonomous Tibet within the People’s Republic of China. Tibetans would want to be fully responsible for their own domestic affairs, including the education of their children, for religious matters, cultural affairs, environmental policy and the local economy. Taking a Middle Way approach, Tibetans would accept China’s responsibility for foreign affairs and defence, thus recognising the territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China and acknowledging the security and international political role China desires.
IN MY VIEW, it is important that as China becomes a powerful and respectable nation she should be able to adopt a reasonable policy with confidence. The world in general, of which China is a part, is changing for the better. In recent times we have definitely been able to see a greater global appreciation of peace, non-violence, democracy, justice and environmental protection. The unprecedented response from governments and individuals across the world to the victims of the South Asia tsunami disaster, for example, reaffirms the world’s interdependence and the importance of universal responsibility.
I have repeatedly reassured the Chinese authorities that as long as I am responsible for the affairs of Tibet we remain fully committed not to seek independence and are willing to remain within the People’s Republic of China. I am convinced that in the long run such an approach can be to the benefit of the Tibetan people in bringing material development. It is encouraging that support we have received from various parts of the world has commended this approach as reasonable, realistic and of mutual benefit to the Chinese and Tibetans. I am particularly heartened by the recognition and endorsement that has come from certain intellectual quarters within China.
Our renewed contacts with the Chinese leadership show that our interactions are gradually improving. I remain hopeful that eventually we will be able to develop the necessary trust to resolve this long-standing issue to our mutual benefit. In seeking to resolve the problems concerning Tibet, one of the factors that sustains me, in addition to the prospect of achieving peace and justice for Tibetans, is the conviction that our success will serve as an encouraging model for others.We are not the only people seeking greater freedom and dignity through peaceful non-violent means, but every time the goal is achieved it will attract greater support for and serve as an inspiration to others who still seek it.
His Holiness the XIVth Dalai Lama is the spiritual and temporal leader of the Tibetan people. In 1989, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
