| Abstract: | 西藏問題錯綜複雜，中、藏雙方多年來對峙立場積累的歧見，形成盤根錯節的難解局面。自1950年中共解放軍入藏，到1959年發生拉薩抗暴事件，導致達賴喇嘛出走印度，成立西藏流亡政府，長期爭取西藏地位認同、並挑戰中共治藏之合理性。達賴喇嘛與其所領導的西藏流亡政府從早期在國際間奔走鼓吹「西藏獨立」、到目前追求的「高度自治」，從堅決的強硬態度、到主張符合西藏利益為優先的「中間道路」，達賴喇嘛與其所領導的西藏流亡政府之政治態度隨著中共的治藏政策、中國綜合國力日增、國際現實、斡旋談判…等主、客觀現實條件而做調整及修正。
在治藏政策方面，入藏初期及文革時期中共治藏政策的左傾與失誤，為流亡政府創造機會點與著力點，也為西藏獨立提供了有利的口實；相對地，改革開放時期之後中共治藏政策的若干績效優勢，為流亡政府形成壓力與製造困境，也為其政治態度轉變埋下伏筆。
在國際現實方面，雖然達賴喇嘛擅於運用個人魅力及國際情勢為西藏問題尋求宣傳，在80〜90年代確實也成功地將西藏問題國際化，迫使中共不得不與之展開接觸與談判。然而國際情勢詭譎多變，國際現實時不我予。21世紀以來中國綜合國力日益增強，在經濟層面掌握優勢籌碼，世界各國為維護國家利益與現實考量，對於西藏問題支持的力度也逐漸式微。復以中共以全面「現代化」政策，及全國大規模輸血性經濟援藏，大幅提升藏區生活水平，相對壓縮了流亡政府的訴求空間，削弱了著力點。面對外在客觀情勢不利的困境，以及長期以來中國對雙方會談的擱置與推遲，影響了達賴喇嘛與流亡政府日後政治態度的轉變。達賴喇嘛遂自1980年代以降，放棄獨立之說，轉而倡議「中間道路」，力求「高度自治」，疾呼中、藏對談，主張「非暴力」方式解決西藏問題。
然而，對於流亡政府政治態度的轉變中共並不領情。達賴喇嘛的「高度自治」仍被中共視為「包藏『藏獨』禍心的本質」，導致歷時30年的中、藏會談由於雙方認知差距甚大始終無法達成共識，西藏問題遲遲無法獲得解決。面對達賴喇嘛有限時間的急迫性、以及中國強硬的態勢，流亡政府政治態度未來會如何因應演變也充滿了變數。
The Tibetan issue is both sensitive and sophisticated. After years of confrontation, the Chinese and Tibetan governments have reached an impasse. The occupation by the Liberation Army began in 1950 and in 1959 there was the Tibetan Uprising in Lhasa, when the Dalai Lama escaped to India and formed the Tibetan Government in exile, struggling for the identification of Tibet and challenging the legitimacy of Chinese rule. Under the leadership of the Dalai Lama, the government in exile has changed from promoting “Tibetan independence” to promoting a “high degree of autonomy”; that is, it has changed from promoting a self-determined and uncompromised attitude toward a “middle way”, putting benefits for Tibetans first. As a result, the Dalai Lama and his government in exile have adjusted and corrected their political attitude based on political objectivity and reality following the Tibetan policy change and increasing the synergic power of the Chinese government, international reality, mediation and negotiation and other factors.
In Tibetan policy, the leftist tendency and misjudgment of the Chinese Government in the beginning of Tibetan rule and the Cultural Revolution have created various opportunities and pretexts for the Tibetan Government in exile to promote Tibetan independence. On the other hand, the ameliorating performance and advantages in Tibetan rule after the economic reform of China have added pressure and created difficulties for the government in exile and foreshadowed the political attitude change of the latter.
In international reality, although the Dalai Lama is good at propagating the Tibetan issue with his charisma and international situations, and successfully internationalized the Tibetan issue during the 1980s and 1990s to push the Chinese Government to initiate contacts and negotiations with him, international reality has changed as time goes by. As the power of China has increased since the turn of the century and it has more need for economic chips at hand, countries around the world began to reduce their support for the Tibetan issue as a result of national benefits and political reality. Further, the full-scaled “modernization” and massive transfusion-like economic aid for Tibet to significantly improve the living standards in the Tibetan autonomous area have made the claims of the Tibetan Government in exile weaker, giving it fewer reasons to make their claims. Facing unfavorable external situations and the ignorance and decline of negotiations over time, the Dalai Lama and his government in exile have gradually changed their political attitude. Therefore, the Dalai Lama finally gave up on independence in 1980 and began promoting the “middle way” in order to seek a “high degree of autonomy,” advocating the Sino-Tibetan dialogs to seek “non-violent” solutions to the Tibetan issue.
However, the Chinese Government shows no mercy to such political attitude change, considering that the “high degree of autonomy” urged by Dalai Lama is merely “a cover for Tibetan independence”. As a result, efforts to promote a Sino-Tibetan summit have been in vain over the past 30 years or so due to the huge conceptual and cognitive gap between both parties and the Tibetan issue remains an open case. While time for Dalai Lama is limited and there is no sign that the Chinese Government will moderate its intransigent attitude, the political attitude of the government in exile has become an even more open question. |
