"CEAC Commentary" introduces news analyses andopinions in Japan on the concept of an East Asian
Community, but they do not represent the views ofCEAC as an institution.

April 16, 2008

Ethnic Problem and Community Building
By TAKITA Kenji
The Tibet issue which remained under seal for a long time has flared up. Since
the “Liberation of Tibet” by People’s Republic of China in the beginning of 1950s,
Tibet had been a relatively “stable” region as riots which sometimes broke up inconjunction with Sino-Indo border dispute were suppressed. Especially after theinauguration of President HU Jintao, China and India has entered the détente process
based on the “peaceful rise” policy, though it was reported by some media that theIndian government took a wait-and-see attitude towards the violation by the Chinesearmy of the disputed border between these two countries. At the same time, China’s
high speed railway to Tibet has contributed to the rapid increase of the number ofdomestic and foreign tourists. Nevertheless, riots happened this time under such acircumstance. Therefore it was a shock to the whole world. Coincidentally Kosovo
declared its independence unilaterally and gained the support from the US and EU
member countries excepting Spain, Cyprus and Romania which have separatist
campaign within their own countries.
By observing this situation, we have realized again that ethnic problem which
can be called as “historical chronic disease” is still a problem of today even in the
21st century when regionalism and community building have been increasing theirroles in global governance. It was loudly proclaimed in the “Decree of Peace” byVladimir LENIN and Woodrow WILSON’s “Fourteen Points” peace principles thatethic self determination should be a principle for the formation of new world order.
But it failed to be adopted on the occasion of the establishment of the United Nations
after World War II. It is said that there exists some 7,000 to 10,000 ethnic groups orraces in the whole world. Therefore, if the principle of ethnic self determination
were applied to everywhere, we would have no end of conflict and confusion. MAO
Zedong did not accept the principle of ethnic self determination either at the birth ofNew China. Or rather, it was impossible for him to do so.
The Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 has stressed peaceful resolutions between
the parties concerned of territorial and border problems which arose after the end ofWorld War II in Europe. If ethnic self determination reflects the impulse which isdifficult for each ethic group to suppress, the key to peaceful resolutions is nowhere
except in the flexible thinking of sovereignty. As long as a predominant ethnic groupin “nation state” sticks to the classical notion of sovereignty, “nation” as “imaginedcommunity” held in their minds is never formed. Then we will see an “empire”

which rules different ethnic groups under the name of “nation state.” The 14th Dalai
Lama tried to compromise with the Chinese government by the request of “greaterautonomy” while he faced opposition from some parties of the government in exile.
But it is for sure that the rapid Sinicization of Tibet is the background of the recentriots.
In East Asia, not only China and Indonesia but also many other nation states
have their own ethnic problems. The transformation of classical sovereignty, such asgreater autonomy, federal system, shared sovereignty or dual sovereignty, throughwhich the identity of each ethnic group is respected, is indispensable for thesuppression of the impulse of ethic self determination and for the creation of stable
space for co-existence in this region.

(This is the English translation of an article written by Mr. TAKITA Kenji, Professorof Chuo University, which originally appeared on the BBS “Hyakka-Somei” of CEAC
on March 26, 2008.)