Why can't resolution of Tibet issue be dealt under the provision of Article 31 (relating to SARs) rather than Article 4 (regional autonomy-LRNA) of the 1982 PRC Constitution!! ?
Explanation:
Basically I was trying to raise the question Why can't "One Country, Two System" form of self-government (that is applied in Hong Kong and Macau ) be the basis of our approach in resolving Tibet issue. Article 31 of the Chinese constitution provides for the establishment of "Special Administrative Regions"(SARs) when necessary, in which people enjoys far greater amount of freedom and rights than in five Autonomous regions of China ( Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi and Ningxia ). In short in such a system (SARs) people has got the ultimate right to be master of their own affairs (except, of course, Foreign affairs and National Defence, which remains the prerogatives of the Central government).
On the other hand, the very basis of our current Middle way policy of Genuine Autonomy is based upon the Article 4 of the Constitution (which gives Regional Autonomy to Minority Nationalities) and its subsequent 1984 "Law on Regional National Autonomy" (LRNA). On the face of it, it looks as if minority nationalities are given significant amount of right to regional autonomy (especially Regional law making authority) over their own regional matters. But in reality, this right is frustrated by various requirements of Central approval for such legislation. For e.g., Art 19 (LRNA) provides for the exercise of autonomy by each autonomous areas by enacting a Basic Law on the subject, but the catch is that the Standing Committee of the NPC in Beijing must approve any such law. Thus a single attempt at enacting a basic law on regional autonomy for the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) went through 15 rejected drafts before being abandoned. As a result, existing system has failed to provide Tibetans with Ultimate Control over their own affairs.
Therefore my argument is that instead of waiting and expecting Beijing to be little more sympathetic, flexible and generous to Tibetans by making necessary changes in Tibet (while at the same time taking a risk of inviting similar demands from other Autonomous regions), WHY shouldn't we focus on the existing Legal and Constitutional Framework by simply changing the legal basis of our approach from Art 4 to Art 31 (from Tibet Autonomous Region to Tibet Special Administrative Region), especially taking into account Tibet's unique and special historical as well as legal status or background (which is far too unique and distinct as compare to other Autonomous regions of China).
*Disclaimers:
-- Theoretically and Conceptually, Tibet's case in its internal dimension of right to self-determination remains analogous and compatible with the concept of Autonomy in general.
-- All above arguments doesn't mean that Rangzen has lost its meaning or its merits. In fact, personally I feel Rangzen remains the core strongest force or basis for the resolution of Tibet issue.
Bhoe gyal lo !!
