图为2009年3月在北京民族文化宫“西藏民主改革50年”展览上,关于1951年5月23日签订“十七条协议”的雕塑。我当时拍的。而此协议签订已六十八周年。 |
以下两篇文章,选自王力雄文库http://wlx.sowiki.net。如何看待十七条协议
王力雄
对半个世纪前签订的《十七条协议》,中国政府和西藏流亡者的看法完全不同。中国政府目前正在举行规模宏大的纪念活动,西藏流亡者则普遍认为十七条协议的签订没有合法性。对此应该怎么看?
我认为,虽然十七条协议的确是在军事威胁下签订的,但不能因此断定不合法,因为历史上和国际上很多重要协议同样是战争的结果,都在得到执行。但是十七条协议的合法性还需要从另一个角度考虑──作为一个由双方签订的协议,需要对协议进行完整的实施,而不能只实施部份条款,不实施另外的条款。十七条协议中关于西藏制度不变、达赖地位不变、不强迫西藏改革、维护西藏宗教等条款,从1959年3月的拉萨事件后就不再实施,而这种改变没有得到签署协议的另一方──达赖喇嘛和西藏地方政府的同意。在这种情况下,十七条协议应该被认为已经终止。
然而十七条协议对中国的重要性在于,它是在中国与西藏改变原本以“礼”维系的东方式关系、接受以“法”建构的主权关系之后,西藏方面第一次正式承认西藏属于中国,是唯一的有法律效力的文本。如果十七条协议终止,其中的西藏属于中国的承诺也就随之变为无效。
这一点是“西藏问题”之所以存在的基础,国际社会对流亡西藏的支持,根源也可以追溯到这里。因此,解决西藏问题,最佳途径莫过于中国与西藏重新签订一个确定西藏归属中国的协议。
目前,能够被绝大多数藏人共同听从的唯有达赖喇嘛,除此没有人可以整合已被严重分化的藏民族,国际社会普遍承认达赖喇嘛是藏民族的代表,因此他具有足够的权威性。同时有利的因素在于,达赖喇嘛多次表示西藏可以留在中国。如果能够达成一份达赖喇嘛签署的法律文件,承认中国对西藏的主权,那么无论藏人还是国际社会,从此对西藏属于中国的事实就无从质疑,西藏独立的诉求也就失去根据,占中国四分之一面积的领土从此也将不再有合法性方面的争执。
中国政府应该抓紧十四世达赖喇嘛健在的时候签下这样一个协议,达赖喇嘛一旦去世,机会就可能失不再来。因为在西藏是否归属中国的问题上,除了达赖喇嘛,没有任何人能够说服整个藏民族。
目前中国政府之所以拒绝与达赖喇嘛谈判,原因在于达赖喇嘛不是无条件地同意西藏留在中国。作为交换,他要求中国方面给整个藏区以高度自治。其实,只要西藏主权能够保证,藏区怎样划分只是技术层面的问题,西藏高度自治则可以减轻中央政府的负担。邓小平对解决西藏问题的说法是“除了独立,什么都可以谈”,达赖喇嘛则明确表示了不寻求独立,因此,双方在根本立场上已经是一致的,那么现在该做的就是开始谈判。因为只有谈,分歧才能开始接近,问题才能得到解决。这是符合中国人民和西藏人民的共同利益的。
2001年5月26日
(本文为RFA藏语节目,转载请注明。http://wlx.sowiki.net/?action=show&id=26)
十七条协议是否还有效
王力雄
有人对《我和平汪先生的共同心愿》一文提出质疑,认为1951年的“和平解放西藏十七条协议”已经解决了西藏归属问题,因此中国政府不需要和达赖喇嘛再达成协议。
的确,当年的“十七条协议”有西藏谈判代表签字,也有达赖喇嘛正式批准协议的电报,虽然是在中国军事威胁下签订,但国际上很多重要协议同样是战争结果,都在得到执行。“十七条协议”是否有效,并非从这个角度论。
从法理而言,一个由双方签订的协议,只有在协议得到完整实施时,才能被认为协议成立并且合法。如果实施不完整,只实施协议的部份条款,不实施协议的另外条款,协议便等于是无效的。
把“十七条协议”的每一条用一句话概括,分别如下:
一、西藏属于中国;
二、西藏同意解放军进藏;
三、西藏自治;
四、西藏现行制度、达赖和各级官员的地位不变;
五和六、恢复班禅地位;
七、维护西藏宗教;
八、藏军改编为解放军;
九、发展西藏教育;
十、改善西藏人民生活;
十一、中国不强迫西藏改革;
十二、对西藏官员不究既往;
十三、进藏解放军遵守军纪;
十四、中国掌管西藏外交;
十五、中国在西藏设立军政委员会和军区司令部;
十六、中国担负其在西藏所需的经费;
十七、协议于签字盖章后立即生效。
从1959年3月的拉萨事件之后,以上协议中有关西藏自治、西藏制度不变、维护西藏宗教、不强迫西藏改革、对西藏官员不究既往等条款就停止实施,甚至反其道而行,那种改变却没有得到签署协议的另一方──达赖喇嘛及西藏地方政府的同意,因此从法理角度,“十七条协议”相当于被废止。
“十七条协议”是历史上西藏方面正式承认西藏属于中国的唯一文本。随着“十七条协议”废止,其中西藏属于中国的条款也同时废止,那么在西藏归属中国的问题上,就面临了合法性方面的空白。
“西藏问题”之所以存在,这一点是根源,国际社会对流亡西藏的支持,基础也在这里。因此我才提出,解决西藏问题,最佳途径莫过于中国政府与达赖喇嘛重新签订协议,确定西藏归属中国的法律根据。
那种认为西藏已在中国之手,是否有法律根据并不重要的看法是短视的,因为西藏问题的考验不在平时,而是在历史关头。身为世界两霸之一的前苏联比今天中国更强,却能在一夜间四分五裂。至今没有进行政治改革的中国,未来难以避免转型的震荡,如果那时西藏归属仍然没有法律根据,当年蒙古独立的历史就并非没有可能重演。
2005-5-19
(本文为RFA藏语节目,转载请注明。http://wlx.sowiki.net/?action=show&id=53)
How Should We View Seventeen-Point Agreement
Written by Wang Lixiong
Translated by Ogyen
The Chinese government and Tibetan exiles hold different views on the “Seventeen-Point Agreement” signed half a century ago. The Chinese government is currently holding large-scale celebrations while the Tibetan exiles repudiate the agreement for its being illegitimate. Then how should we view the agreement?
According to me, though the agreement was signed under threat and force, illegitimacy cannot be established just because of this as many international agreements signed and implemented in the history were also consequences of wars. However, legitimacy of the Seventeen-Point Agreement also needs to be looked at from another angle --- being an agreement signed by both the sides, there had to be complete implementation of the entire agreement but not just parts of it. Terms like no change to the earlier Tibetan systems, Dalai Lama retaining his position, no forced reforms in Tibet, protection of Tibet's religion etc, in the agreement were no more implemented since the Lhasa Uprising in March 1959, and these violations did not get consent from the other side of the agreement --- the Dalai Lama and local Tibetan government. Therefore, the Seventeen-Point Agreement should, just because of this, be considered terminated ever since.
The significance of the agreement to China is that the agreement, for the first time, after accepting China’s sovereign relation with Tibet bound by "law" from the earlier eastern type of relation based on “courtesy”, Tibet officially agreed to be a part of China, which became the only document with legal effect. With the termination of the agreement, terms of Tibet belonging to China in the agreement also cease to be valid.
This is the basis of the existing “Tibet Issue” and where international support for the exile Tibet can be traced to. So the best way to resolve the Tibet issue is to sign a new agreement with Tibet that confirms Tibet belonging to China.
So far, Dalai Lama is the only person majority of Tibetans can comply with and nobody can integrate the seriously divided Tibetan people apart from him. International community generally recognizes the Dalai Lama as the representative of the Tibetan people and so he has sufficient authority. Meanwhile, the beneficial factor is that the Dalai Lama expressed many times his willingness to be a part of China. If a legal document accepting China’s sovereignty over Tibet can be signed with the Dalai Lama, since then there would be no doubt over Tibet belonging to China by the Tibetans and the international community and thus there would be no ground for the pursuit of Tibetan independence that would finally end the legal dispute over one-fourth of China’s territory.
The Chinese government should embrace this golden opportunity to sign such an agreement while the Dalai Lama is still alive, such opportunities will be lost forever after the Dalai Lama since only he can convince the entire Tibetan people over the issue of whether Tibet belonging to China or not.
China’s rejecting negotiations with the Dalai Lama is because the Dalai Lama does not agree Tibet to stay under China without conditions but demands genuine autonomy for the entire Tibetan regions in exchange. Actually when China's sovereignty over Tibet is guaranteed, how to divide Tibet would just be a technical issue and this genuine autonomy would reduce administrative burdens of the central government. Deng Xiaoping said of the Tibetan issue, "Anything can be discussed except independence", and the Dalai Lama clearly said that he would not pursue independence, thus the fundamental positions of both the sides are already consistent and so what should be done now is to start sincere negotiations. Because only through dialogues, differences can be minimized and problems can be resolved.
On May 23, 2011