Every day the media reports
incidents of terrorism, crime and aggression. I have never been to a country
where tragic stories of death and bloodshed did not fill the newspapers and
airwaves. Such reporting has become almost an addiction for journalists and
their audiences alike. But the overwhelming majority of the human race does
not behave destructively; very few of the five billion people on this planet
actually commit acts of violence. Most of us prefer to be as peaceful as possible.
Basically, we all cherish tranquillity, even those of us given to violence.
For instance, when spring comes, the days grow longer, there is more sunshine,
the grass and trees come alive and everything is very fresh. People feel happy.
In autumn, one leaf falls, then another, then all the beautiful flowers die
until we are surrounded by bare, naked plants. We do not feel so joyful. Why
is this? Because deep down, we desire constructive, fruitful growth and dislike
things collapsing, dying or being destroyed. Every destructive action goes against
our basic nature; building, being constructive is the human way.
I am sure everybody agrees that we need to overcome violence, but if we are
to eliminate it completely, we should first analyze whether or not it has any
value.
If we address this question from a strictly practical perspective, we find that
on certain occasions violence indeed appears useful. One can solve a problem
quickly with force. At the same time, however, such success is often at the
expense of the rights and welfare of others. As a result, even though one problem
has been solved, the seed of another has been planted.
On the other hand, if one's cause is supported by sound reasoning, there is
no point in using violence. It is those who have no motive other than selfish
desire and who cannot achieve their goal through logical reasoning who rely
on force. Even when family and friends disagree, those with valid reasons can
cite them one after the other and argue their case point by point, whereas those
with little rational support soon fall prey to anger: Thus anger is not a sign
of strength but one of weakness.
Ultimately, it is important to examine one's own motivation and that of one's
opponent. There are many kinds of violence and nonviolence, but one cannot distinguish
them from external factors alone. If one's motivation is negative, the action
it produces is, in the deepest sense, violent, even though it may appear to
be smooth and gentle. Conversely, if one's motivation is sincere and positive
but the circumstances require harsh behavior, essentially one is practicing
nonviolence. No matter what the case may be, I feel that a compassionate concern
for the benefit of others -- not simply for oneself -- is the sole justification
for the use of force.
The genuine practice of nonviolence is still somewhat experimental on our planet,
but its pursuit, based on love and understanding, is sacred. If this experiment
succeeds, it can open the way to a far more peaceful world in the next century.
I have heard the occasional Westerner maintain that long-term Gandhian struggles
employing nonviolent passive resistance do not suit everybody and that such
courses of action are more natural in the East. Because Westerners are active,
they tend to seek immediate results in all situations, even at the cost of their
lives. This approach, I believe, is not always beneficial. But surely the practice
of nonviolence suits us all. It simply calls for determination. Even though
the freedom movements of Eastern Europe reached their goals quickly, nonviolent
protest by its very nature usually requires patience.
In this regard, I pray that despite the brutality of their suppression and the
difficulty of the struggle they face, those involved in China's democracy movement
will always remain peaceful. I am confident they will. Although the majority
of the young Chinese students involved were born and raised under an especially
harsh form of communism, during the spring of 1989 they spontaneously practiced
Mahatma Gandhi's strategy of passive resistance. This is remarkable and clearly
shows that ultimately all human beings want to pursue the path of peace, no
matter how much they have been indoctrinated.
The reality of war
Of course, war and the
large military establishments are the greatest sources of violence in the world.
Whether their purpose is defensive or offensive, these vast powerful organizations
exist solely to kill human beings. We should think carefully about the reality
of war. Most of us have been conditioned to regard military combat as exciting
and glamorous -- an opportunity for men to prove their competence and courage.
Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels
that war is criminal or that accepting it is a criminal attitude. In fact, we
have been brainwashed. War is neither glamorous nor attractive. It is monstrous.
Its very nature is one of tragedy and suffering.
War is like a fire in the human community, one whose fuel is living beings.
I find this analogy especially appropriate and useful. Modem warfare is waged
primarily with different forms of fire, but we are so conditioned to see it
as thrilling that we talk about this or that marvelous weapon as a remarkable
piece of technology without remembering that, if it is actually used, it will
burn living people. War also strongly resembles a fire in the way it spreads.
If one area gets weak, the commanding officer sends in reinforcements. This
is like throwing live people onto a fire. But because we have been brainwashed
to think this way, we do not consider the suffering of individual soldiers.
No soldier wants to be wounded or die; none of his loved ones wants any harm
to come to him. If one soldier is killed, or maimed for life, at least another
five or ten people -- his relatives and friends suffer as well. We should all
be horrified by the extent of this tragedy, but we are too confused.
Frankly, as a child, I too was attracted to the military. Their uniforms looked
so smart and beautiful. But that is exactly how the seduction begins. Children
start playing games that will one day lead them into trouble. There are plenty
of exciting games to play and costumes to wear other than those based on the
killing of human beings. Again, if we as adults were not so fascinated by war,
we would clearly see that to allow our children to become habituated to war
games is extremely unfortunate. Some former soldiers have told me that when
they shot their first person they felt uncomfortable but as they continued to
kill it began to feel quite normal. In time, we can get used to anything.
It is not only during times of war that military establishments are destructive
By their very design, they are the single greatest violators of human rights,
and it is the soldiers themselves who suffer most consistently from their abuse.
After the officers in charge have given beautiful explanations about the importance
of the army, its discipline and the need to conquer the enemy, the rights of
the great mass of soldiers are almost entirely taken away. They are then compelled
to forfeit their individual will, and, in the end, to sacrifice their lives.
Moreover, once an army has become a powerful force, there is every risk that
it will destroy the happiness of its own country.
There are people with destructive intentions in every society, and the temptation
to gain command over an organization capable of fulfilling their desires can
become overwhelming. But no matter how malevolent or evil are the many murderous
dictators who currently oppress their nations and cause international problems,
it is obvious that they cannot harm others or destroy countless human lives
if they don't have a military organization accepted and condoned by society.
As long as there are powerful armies there will always be the danger of dictatorship.
If we really believe dictatorship to be a despicable and destructive form of
government, then we must recognize that the existence of a powerful military
establishment is one of its main causes.
Militarism is also very expensive. Pursuing peace through military strength
places a tremendously wasteful burden on society. Governments spend vast sums
on increasingly intricate weapons when, in fact, nobody really wants to use
them. Not only money but also valuable energy and human intelligence are squandered,
while all that increases is fear.
I want to make it clear, however, that although I am deeply opposed to war,
I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand
to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the
Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from
the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view,
the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually
developing a democracy. But we can only judge whether or not a conflict was
vindicated on moral grounds with hindsight. For example, we can now see that
during the Cold War, the principle of nuclear deterrence had a certain value.
Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess all such matters with any degree
of accuracy. War is violence and violence is unpredictable. Therefore, it is
far better to avoid it if possible, and never to presume that we know beforehand
whether the outcome of a particular war will be beneficial or not.
For instance, in the case of the Cold War, though deterrence may have helped
promote stability, it did not create genuine peace. The last forty years in
Europe have seen merely the absence of war, which has not been real peace but
a facsimile founded on fear. At best, building arms to maintain peace serves
only as a temporary measure. As long as adversaries do not trust each other,
any number of factors can upset the balance of power. Lasting peace can be secured
only on the basis of genuine trust.
Disarmament for world peace
Throughout history, mankind
has pursued peace one way or another. Is it too optimistic to imagine that world
peace may finally be within our grasp? I do not believe that there has been
an increase in the amount of people's hatred, only in their ability to manifest
it in vastly destructive weapons. On the other hand, bearing witness to the
tragic evidence of the mass slaughter caused by such weapons in our century
has given us the opportunity to control war. To do so, it is clear we must disarm.
Disarmament can occur only within the context of new political and economic
relationships. Before we consider this issue in detail, it is worth imagining
the kind of peace process from which we would benefit most. This is fairly self-evident.
First we should work on eliminating nuclear weapons, next, biological and chemical
ones, then offensive arms, and, finally, defensive ones. At the same time, to
safeguard the peace, we should start developing in one or more global regions
an international police force made up of an equal number of members from each
nation under a collective command. Eventually this force would cover the whole
world.
Because the dual process of disarmament and development of a joint force would
be both multilateral and democratic, the right of the majority to criticize
or even intervene in the event of one nation violating the basic rules would
be ensured. Moreover, with all large armies eliminated and all conflicts such
as border disputes subject to the control of the joint international force,
large and small nations would be truly equal. Such reforms would result in a
stable international environment.
Of course, the immense financial dividend reaped from the cessation of arms
production would also provide a fantastic windfall for global development. Today
the nations of the world spend trillions of dollars annually on upkeep of the
military. Can you imagine how many hospital beds, schools and homes this money
could fund? In addition, as I mentioned above, the awesome proportion of scarce
resources squandered on military development not only prevents the elimination
of poverty, illiteracy and disease, but also requires the sacrifice of precious
human intelligence. Our scientists are extremely bright. Why should their brilliance
be wasted on such dreadful endeavors when it could be used for positive global
development?
The great deserts of the world such as the Sahara and the Gobi could be cultivated
to increase food production and ease overcrowding. Many countries now face years
of severe drought. New, less expensive methods of desalinization could be developed
to render sea water suitable for human consumption and other uses. There are
many pressing issues in the fields of energy and health to which our scientists
could more usefully address themselves. Since the world economy would grow more
rapidly as a result of their efforts, they could even be paid more! Our planet
is blessed with vast natural treasures. If we use them properly, beginning with
the elimination of militarism and war, truly every human being will be able
to live a wealthy well-cared for life.
Naturally global peace cannot occur all at once. Since conditions around the
world are so varied, its spread will have to be incremental. But there is no
reason why it cannot begin in one region and then spread gradually from one
continent to another.
I would like to propose that regional communities like the European Community
be established as an integral part of the more peaceful world we are trying
to create. Looking at the post-Cold War environment objectively, such communities
are plainly the most natural and desirable components of a new world order.
As we can see, the almost gravitational pull of our growing interdependence
necessitates new, more cooperative structures. The European Community is pioneering
the way in this endeavor, negotiating the delicate balance between economic,
military and political collectivity on the one hand and the sovereign rights
of member states on the other. I am greatly inspired by this work. I also believe
that the new Commonwealth of Independent States is grappling with similar issues
and that the seeds of such a community are already present in the minds of many
of its constituent republics. In this context, I would briefly like to talk
about the future of both my own country, Tibet, and China.
Like the former Soviet Union, Communist China is a multinational state, artificially
constructed under the impetus of an expansionist ideology and up to now administered
by force in colonial fashion. A peaceful, prosperous and above all politically
stable future for China lies in its successfully fulfilling not only its own
people's wishes for a more open, democratic system, but also those of its eighty
million so-called "national minorities" who want to regain their freedom.
For real happiness to return to the heart of Asia -- home to one-fifth of the
human race -- a pluralistic, democratic, mutually cooperative community of sovereign
states must replace what is currently called the People's Republic of China.
Of course, such a community need not be limited to those presently under Chinese
Communist domination, such as Tibetans, Mongols and Urghurs. The people of Hong
Kong, those seeking an independent Taiwan, and even those suffering under other
communist governments in North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia might also
be interested in building an Asian Community. However, it is especially urgent
that those ruled by the Chinese Communists consider doing so. Properly pursued,
it could help save China from violent dissolution, regionalism and a return
to the chaotic turmoil that has so afflicted this great nation throughout the
twentieth century. Currently China's political life is so polarized that there
is every reason to fear an early recurrence of bloodshed and tragedy. Each of
us -- every member of the world community -- has a moral responsibility to help
avert the immense suffering that civil strife would bring to China's vast population.
I believe that the very process of dialogue, moderation and compromise involved
in building a community of Asian states would itself give real hope of peaceful
evolution to a new order in China. From the very start, the member states of
such a community might agree to decide its defense and international relations
policies together. There would be many opportunities for cooperation. The critical
point is that we find a peaceful, nonviolent way for the forces of freedom,
democracy and moderation to emerge successfully from the current atmosphere
of unjust repression.
Zones of peace
I see Tibet's role in such
an Asian Community as what I have previously called a "Zone of Peace":
a neutral, demilitarized sanctuary where weapons are forbidden and the people
live in harmony with nature. This is not merely a dream -- it is precisely the
way Tibetans tried to live for over a thousand years before our country was
invaded. As everybody knows, in Tibet all forms of wildlife were strictly protected
in accordance with Buddhist principles. Also, for at least the last three hundred
years, we had no proper army. Tibet gave up the waging of war as an instrument
of national policy in the sixth and seventh centuries, after the reign of our
three great religious kings.
Returning to the relationship between developing regional communities and the
task of disarmament, I would like to suggest that the "heart" of each
community could be one or more nations that have decided to become zones of
peace, areas from which military forces are prohibited. This, again, is not
just a dream. Four decades ago, in December 1948, Costa Rica disbanded its army.
Recently, 37 percent of the Swiss population voted to disband their military.
The new government of Czechoslovakia has decided to stop the manufacture and
export of all weapons. If its people so choose, a nation can take radical steps
to change its very nature.
Zones of peace within regional communities would serve as oases of stability.
While paying their fair share of the costs of any collective force created by
the community as a whole, these zones of peace would be the forerunners and
beacons of an entirely peaceful world and would be exempt from engaging in any
conflict. If regional communities do develop in Asia, South America and Africa
and disarmament progresses so that an international force from all regions is
created, these zones of peace will be able to expand, spreading tranquillity
as they grow.
We do not need to think that we are planning for the far distant future when
we consider this or any other proposal for a new, more politically, economically
and militarily cooperative world. For instance, the newly invigorated forty-eight
member Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe has already laid the
foundation for an alliance between not only the nations of Eastern and Western
Europe but also between the nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States
and the United States. These remarkable events have virtually eliminated the
danger of a major war between these two superpowers.
I have not included the United Nations in this discussion of the present era
because both its critical role in helping create a better world and its great
potential for doing so are so well known. By definition, the United Nations
must be in the very middle of whatever major changes occur. However, it may
need to amend its structure for the future. I have always had the greatest hopes
for the United Nations, and with no criticism intended, I would like simply
to point out that the post-World War II climate under which its charter was
conceived has changed. With that change has come the opportunity to further
democratize the UN, especially the somewhat exclusive Security Council with
its five permanent members, which should be made more representative.