作者：Claude Arpi （居住印度的法国人，作家、记者)
译者：卜花儿 ( @Buxoro)
这是我以前对达赖喇嘛做的一个采访，于2001年4月26日发表在Rediff.com（http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/apr/26inter.htm）。其中，达赖喇嘛谈及《十七条协议》，十年后的今天，读来意味犹存。
问：尊者，五十年前，也就是1951年5月，你的政府在中国的压力下与其签署了《十七条协议》。这项协议确认西藏是中国的一部分，但你的政府仍能保持高度内部自治。回顾过去，你觉得历史有没有其它可能？
答：从五十年代末起，一直到现在，也就是过去这四十五年之中，有没有《十七条协议》都没有什么区别，这个协议已失去了意义。我应该这么说，《十七条协议》签署后，有几年，西藏得到了一些好处，在某种意义上，签定协议的结果，多少保证了继续我们自己的生活方式（在文化、宗教等方面）。
后来，到了五十年代后期，所有这些承诺都被置之度外，协议也变得一文不值。
我还要进一步澄清，当西藏代表团在北京谈判时，他们并不情愿签署这个协议，但中国方面明确告诉他们：“如果你们不签，对我们来说很容易，我们只要给军队一个信号，他们就会开进西藏。”
那样的话，对我们会更糟糕。很明显，只存在两种选择：要么接受协议，要么经历他们所说的武装“解放”。
有那么几年，我们从中得到些好处，后来，就变成了不加掩饰的军事占领。
问：在字面上，你们被授予的是广泛的自治权，包括对文化、宗教、教育等方面的控制，但中国没有履行该协议的条款，你们因此失去了自治。
现在，让我们来看今天的形势，你所要求的“真正自治”，与1951年你从字面上所得到的，有什么不同吗？
后来，到了五十年代后期，所有这些承诺都被置之度外，协议也变得一文不值。
我还要进一步澄清，当西藏代表团在北京谈判时，他们并不情愿签署这个协议，但中国方面明确告诉他们：“如果你们不签，对我们来说很容易，我们只要给军队一个信号，他们就会开进西藏。”
那样的话，对我们会更糟糕。很明显，只存在两种选择：要么接受协议，要么经历他们所说的武装“解放”。
有那么几年，我们从中得到些好处，后来，就变成了不加掩饰的军事占领。
问：在字面上，你们被授予的是广泛的自治权，包括对文化、宗教、教育等方面的控制，但中国没有履行该协议的条款，你们因此失去了自治。
现在，让我们来看今天的形势，你所要求的“真正自治”，与1951年你从字面上所得到的，有什么不同吗？
答：是一样的原则，是一样的精神。我常把我们想要的说成是“一个国家，两种制度”。但会有一个很大的不同：《十七条协议》中有一些关于达赖喇嘛制度及地位的条款（根据这些条款，达赖喇嘛可以保留在西藏自治地方的地位和权力）。
今天，我不为达赖喇嘛要求任何东西，我不需要任何特殊地位。
问：假如再有一个协议，你相信中国会遵守吗？
答：目前，我只要求西藏人在他们可以管理自己事务的领域中，有充分的权力。
在这些领域，他们应有全权。在国防或外交事务方面，中国可以管理（我们的事务）。我们不要求分离，当然他们可以处理国防一类事务。
至于保证，在1950年，西藏是非常偏僻的地方，也不为外界了解，今天，人们都知道西藏，任何协议都会有国际社会做证人，这就是保证。如有协议，世人一定会关注到，我还相信国际社会对正义及合法性的关心，把这些加在一起，就会给我们保证。
我认为很难有第三方（做担保人）。
今天，我不为达赖喇嘛要求任何东西，我不需要任何特殊地位。
问：假如再有一个协议，你相信中国会遵守吗？
答：目前，我只要求西藏人在他们可以管理自己事务的领域中，有充分的权力。
在这些领域，他们应有全权。在国防或外交事务方面，中国可以管理（我们的事务）。我们不要求分离，当然他们可以处理国防一类事务。
至于保证，在1950年，西藏是非常偏僻的地方，也不为外界了解，今天，人们都知道西藏，任何协议都会有国际社会做证人，这就是保证。如有协议，世人一定会关注到，我还相信国际社会对正义及合法性的关心，把这些加在一起，就会给我们保证。
我认为很难有第三方（做担保人）。
问：印度能做担保人吗？ 1914年，在西姆拉的三方会谈后（英属印度、西藏和中国），你们与印度有了条约。这个条约的目的是保证西藏的独立。你能不能再认印度为担保人？
答：从理论上说，可以，也应该，因为西藏与印度有漫长的边界。但这已经是过去。今天的实际情况非常复杂，所以我不知道。
答：从理论上说，可以，也应该，因为西藏与印度有漫长的边界。但这已经是过去。今天的实际情况非常复杂，所以我不知道。
转自：http://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2011/05/dalai-lama-on-17-point-agreemeent.html
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Dalai Lama on the 17-Point Agreement
In this old interview with the Dalai Lama for Rediff.com, he speaks of the 17-Point Agreement. Ten years later (it was in April 2001), it makes interesting reading.
The entire interview is available on Rediff.com's website.
On the 17-Point Agreement
Your Holiness, fifty years ago, in May 1951, your government was forced by China to sign an agreement known as the '17 Point Agreement'. In this agreement it was stated that Tibet was part of China, but your government could retain a very large internal autonomy. Looking back, do you think that things could have been different?
From the late 1950s, till now, let us say for the past 45 years, whether there was a 17 Point Agreement or not, it made no difference. The agreement has not been relevant. I should put this way, as a result of signing the 17 Point Agreement, for few years, Tibet enjoyed some benefits in the sense that a certain autonomy in our way of life (for example in the fields of culture, religion) was granted. It was guaranteed by the agreement.
Later, in the late fifties, all these guarantees were disregarded and the agreement became worthless.
I want to further clarify that when the Tibetan delegation was negotiating in Beijing they were reluctant to sign, but the Chinese told them clearly: "If you do not sign, it is very easy for us, we just have to give a signal to the army and the army will march into Tibet."
For us it would have been worse. It is clear, there were only two choices: either to accept the agreement or to go through what they called a military 'liberation'.
For some years, we derived some benefit, but later, it became plain military occupation.
Though on paper you were granted a wide autonomy which gave you control over culture, religion, education etc.. the terms of the agreement were not implemented by the Chinese and you lost your autonomy.
Now, let us come to today's situation. You are asking for 'genuine autonomy', is it different from what you got (on paper) from the Chinese government in 1951?
It is the same principle, it is the same spirit. Usually I described what we want as "one country, two systems'. But there is a big difference: In the 17 Point Agreement, there were some clauses about the status of the Dalai Lama's institution. (According to these clauses, the Dalai Lama was able to retain his status and power within an autonomous Tibet).
Today, I am not demanding anything for the Dalai Lama. I do not want any special status.
In the event of an agreement, are you confident that this time the Chinese will keep their word?
Today, I am only asking for the Tibetans -- that they should have full power in the fields where they are capable of managing their own affairs.
In these fields, they should be given full authority. In the case of defence or foreign affairs, the Chinese can manage (our affairs). We are not asking for a separation (from China), therefore logically they could handle matters like defence.
About the guarantees, in 1950 Tibet was very isolated, Tibet was not very well known to the outside world. Today, everybody knows about Tibet. Any agreement will have the world community as a witness, that is a guarantee. There will be an universal awareness about the agreement and I also believe in the international concern for justice and rightfulness; all this added, can give us a guarantee.
I think it will be difficult to have to have a third party (as a guarantor).
What about India as a guarantor? In 1914, after tripartite talks in Simla (between British India, Tibet and China), you had a treaty with India. The objective of this treaty was to guarantee Tibet's independence. Could you again think of India as a guarantor?
Theoretically speaking, yes, it should be, because Tibet has a long border with India. Traditionally, that has happened in the past. But practically today things are very complicated, so I do not know.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Dalai Lama on the 17-Point Agreement
In this old interview with the Dalai Lama for Rediff.com, he speaks of the 17-Point Agreement. Ten years later (it was in April 2001), it makes interesting reading.
The entire interview is available on Rediff.com's website.
On the 17-Point Agreement
Your Holiness, fifty years ago, in May 1951, your government was forced by China to sign an agreement known as the '17 Point Agreement'. In this agreement it was stated that Tibet was part of China, but your government could retain a very large internal autonomy. Looking back, do you think that things could have been different?
From the late 1950s, till now, let us say for the past 45 years, whether there was a 17 Point Agreement or not, it made no difference. The agreement has not been relevant. I should put this way, as a result of signing the 17 Point Agreement, for few years, Tibet enjoyed some benefits in the sense that a certain autonomy in our way of life (for example in the fields of culture, religion) was granted. It was guaranteed by the agreement.
Later, in the late fifties, all these guarantees were disregarded and the agreement became worthless.
I want to further clarify that when the Tibetan delegation was negotiating in Beijing they were reluctant to sign, but the Chinese told them clearly: "If you do not sign, it is very easy for us, we just have to give a signal to the army and the army will march into Tibet."
For us it would have been worse. It is clear, there were only two choices: either to accept the agreement or to go through what they called a military 'liberation'.
For some years, we derived some benefit, but later, it became plain military occupation.
Though on paper you were granted a wide autonomy which gave you control over culture, religion, education etc.. the terms of the agreement were not implemented by the Chinese and you lost your autonomy.
Now, let us come to today's situation. You are asking for 'genuine autonomy', is it different from what you got (on paper) from the Chinese government in 1951?
It is the same principle, it is the same spirit. Usually I described what we want as "one country, two systems'. But there is a big difference: In the 17 Point Agreement, there were some clauses about the status of the Dalai Lama's institution. (According to these clauses, the Dalai Lama was able to retain his status and power within an autonomous Tibet).
Today, I am not demanding anything for the Dalai Lama. I do not want any special status.
In the event of an agreement, are you confident that this time the Chinese will keep their word?
Today, I am only asking for the Tibetans -- that they should have full power in the fields where they are capable of managing their own affairs.
In these fields, they should be given full authority. In the case of defence or foreign affairs, the Chinese can manage (our affairs). We are not asking for a separation (from China), therefore logically they could handle matters like defence.
About the guarantees, in 1950 Tibet was very isolated, Tibet was not very well known to the outside world. Today, everybody knows about Tibet. Any agreement will have the world community as a witness, that is a guarantee. There will be an universal awareness about the agreement and I also believe in the international concern for justice and rightfulness; all this added, can give us a guarantee.
I think it will be difficult to have to have a third party (as a guarantor).
What about India as a guarantor? In 1914, after tripartite talks in Simla (between British India, Tibet and China), you had a treaty with India. The objective of this treaty was to guarantee Tibet's independence. Could you again think of India as a guarantor?
Theoretically speaking, yes, it should be, because Tibet has a long border with India. Traditionally, that has happened in the past. But practically today things are very complicated, so I do not know.
Let His Holiness perform a Kalachakra in Tiananmen Square to wash away the June-fourth blood.
回复删除请阿嘉仁波切为蒙古人莫日跟超度。
回复删除蓝色山丹请看美国之音报道：
回复删除中国内蒙爆发30年最大规模抗议活动
记者: 杨明 | 华盛顿 2011年 5月 25日
中国内蒙锡林浩特爆发近30年来最大规模的抗议示威，2000多名蒙古族学生和牧民在当地政府所在地示威，要求惩罚碾死牧民莫日根的肇事者，保护蒙古族人民的权益和他们赖以生存的牧场和家园。
设在美国纽约的“南蒙古人权信息中心”媒体负责人霍特拉(Dugarjab Hotala)对美国之音说，5月25日，2000多名蒙古族学生在内蒙锡林浩特政府大楼前举行抗议示威，要求政府尊重蒙古族牧民的权益和尊严，惩罚被煤车碾死的牧民莫日根的肇事者。
这位负责人说，这是内蒙30年来发生的最大规模的抗议活动。当局面对如此多蒙古族学生和牧民的抗议，没有采取强制的措施，在对学生和牧民代表做出三项承诺后，抗议和平结束。
霍特拉说：“第一是处理莫日根被碾死的事件；第二是其它的冲突要合理的解决；第三是以后要尊重牧民的权利，类似的事情要在当地的媒体上曝光。”
不过，两天前由上百名的牧民和部分学生参加的示威，却遭到了当局的镇压，至少5人被捕，其中包括一名蒙族学生。这位人权观察人士说，当地蒙族人对汉人肇事者说，轧死一个蒙古族人最多赔40万元，感到特别愤慨，才激起民愤，引发抗议。
“南蒙古人权信息中心”说，当局承诺这次事件的受害者家人将获得房子和60万元的赔偿。两名肇事者逃逸后已经被缉拿归案，将受到审判。
面对一些商人唯利是图，不顾环境保护和牧民的利益，肆意开采当地的煤矿，一些牧民们自发地组织起来进行维权。今年5月10日晚，莫日根和一些牧民在浩勒图高勒镇其家附近的公路旁，阻止破坏牧场的运煤卡车经过。在拦截过程中与酒后驾车的司机李某和卢某发生争执。莫日根在车前阻挡，却被卡车从身上碾过，拖出150多米，当场死亡。
牧民莫日根被运煤车碾死的事件，随着各方事态的发展、陈情抗议等方式的不断升级，最后演变成内蒙30年来最大规模的抗议活动，有着其深层的原因。
在美国的前中国佛教协会副会长、全国政协常委、青海省政协副主席的原藏传佛教六大寺院之一的青海塔尔寺住持阿嘉仁波切(活佛)说，他对莫日根因捍卫蒙古牧民权益和家园被活活碾死感到非常痛心和震惊，为莫日根的死亡，念经祷告。
他说：“在内蒙，有大量的内地人的移民，近期对内蒙资源的大量开发，对环境保护和对少数民族文化的侵蚀，非常厉害。当地蒙族人忍无可忍时，只能‘官逼民反’，起来捍卫自己的权益。”
http://www.voanews.com/chinese/news/20110525-Mongolian-122601904.html
这只是和平请愿，没有暴力动机，我们仍然相信政府，相信共产党，相信流氓不是强奸犯。那么请和我一起重温建国时期的名曲，用我们各自的语言，----国际歌----。很适合现在的中国版图里生活的民族，推行08宪章，实行联邦制，让阿嘉仁布齐做蒙古人的主。今天，在这个版图里被和谐了的人民的土地比命珍贵，我们民族的男儿们，起来。你的儿女为你光荣，起来，蒙古男儿，你们的女人为你们自豪。起来，蒙古男儿，你们的民族纪念你们的功勋。拿起黑色的苏里德，前进，前进。hurai,hurai,hurai.莫日跟是普通牧民，他为了捍卫自己的土地牺牲了，起来，不愿做奴隶的民族。团结起来到明天，自由属于黑苏里德。
回复删除