Has the Dalai Lama left “history” to determine the validity of war?

August 2004

Christopher Titmuss
International Advisory Board Member of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship

In February 2004, the kindly Indian Abbot of the Thai Monastery in Sarnath, India, the village where the Buddha gave his first teachings on the Middle Way and Right action, called me into his room. The Abbot, a sprightly 84 year-old, who had worked with Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence, had cut a small newspaper item out of The Times of India. It consisted of a few paragraphs. The news item stated that the Dalai Lama and President George Bush had met in the White House where George Bush had assured the Dalai Lama that “Tibetan culture must be protected” and the Dalai Lama responded by telling the President that the “war in Afghanistan may have been justified.”

It sounded like the kind of statement world leaders notoriously engage in - a “you pat my back and I’ll pat your back” posture - that sadly features in international political life. I took little notice of the report, suspecting that it was probably a journalistic interpretation rather than factual. The Abbot declined to comment, though I felt that by showing me the news item he revealed a concern.

The next day in Sarnath, where we were conducting our annual 15-day Open Dharma Gathering, another newspaper cutting appeared stuck on the wall of the chai shop near the Tibetan Monastery also stating that the Dalai Lama had spoken again in Washington, DC of possible justification for the war. The item generated some discussion among the international dharma community attending our gathering with the general assumption that the report came from an international news agency for the India press. “We can’t believe what we read in the newspapers” was the general conclusion.

In April of 2004, the Dalai Lama paid a visit to Scotland to give teachings, where a senior reporter from BBC Television interviewed him I watched the interview on television at home. I heard the Dalai Lama repeat his earlier remarks. He said, “I think history will tell whether the war on Afghanistan was justified.” He added that World War 11 and the Korean War helped “protect the rest of civilisation and democracy.”

The Dalai Lama has repeated such views, also with regard to Iraq, on several occasions in the past couple of years in different parts of the world. A view that “history will tell” sounds ominously like the claims of the President of the American Empire, George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, sometimes referred to here in Britain as the America’s First Consul for the European Union. In expressing these questionable views, the Dalai Lama seems to ignore the resolution against the Iraqi war of the UN, and of the international community, forgotten that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found and the US-led wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, two Islamic nations, have brought about a degree of fear and mistrust between the Western and Arab world, not seen since the Crusades.

In Afghanistan, there may have been much repugnant under the Taliban regime but since the US invaded the country, the Afghani warlords are virtually back in control outside Kabul. Western newspaper report that drug trafficking from Afghanistan to the West has increased several fold since late 2001 with all the subsequent impact on our streets, and there is no resolution in sight to the military occupation of Iraq and the daily terror for its citizens.

Nobel Prize winner in 1989, one of the world’s foremost advocates of a civilised approach to conflict, the Dalai Lama, has appeared to have made a massive u-turn, and lost faith in the process of constructive engagement to resolve acts of terror implemented by the nation state or political organisation. Sadly more and more Buddhists and peace activists have had their faith shaken in the Dalai Lama and his current position that “in the condemnation for terrorists, some using some violence, yes, in particular circumstances, yes it could be justified. However this is the not full answer for the long run.” (CBC National, April 2004).

In an interview with an Associated Press reporter, the Dalai Lama said that the US led “war in Afghanistan may have been necessary to win a larger peace…In principle I always believe non-violence is the right thing’ and added that the war on Vietnam increased suffering and so was a “failure.”

A representative of the Dalai Lama sent a letter to the New York Times claiming that a report in that newspaper gave the “misleading impression His Holiness is endorsing violence as a way to confront terrorism.” There is now confusion about the Dalai Lama’s position amongst Buddhists and those who work for peace and justice in terms. I am left asking the question: Has the Dalai Lama adopted the Christian theological argument for the Just War?

1. It must be winnable

2. It must be just

3. It must be in self defence

4. It must be to destroy evil.

There are few people on the planet who carry such moral stature so his views are important and deserve a response.

In Melbourne, Australia, (May 17, 2003), the Dalai Lama said that counter violence did little to solve the original problem. He then went onto say: that “World War 2 protected Western democracy and the Korean War protected South Korea’s prosperity and freedom.”

“(With) the Afghanistan scene, it seems as if the majority of local people seem to welcome the new situation, so you may have some justifications,” commented the Dalai Lama.

Not surprisingly, one seasoned journalist wrote at the end of an article on the Dalai Lama’s current views: “I remain perplexed. I can’t help but wonder: Would Gandhi or Martin Luther King waver at this crucial historic juncture. Please enlighten me, my Buddhist friends.”

In a direct transcript, a journalist asked the Dalai Lama about terror and war. Hans Gartner:. “The violence (referring war on Iraq) under certain circumstances you could see as justified?
Dalai Lama: Possible, Look, First World War, Second World War. War is some kind of legalised maximum violence… Only time will tell whether the war in Iraq was justifiable.”

Assuming that reporters and news agencies around the world interviewing the Dalai Lama or covering his public lectures have not misquoted him, then it would appear that the Dalai Lama has shifted away from offering uncompromising teachings on the Buddhist tradition of constructive engagement to resolve issues of terror and war. Instead, he seems to have adopted views that would be acceptable to George Bush, Tony Blair and Christian theology on war.

Like Jesus and Gandhi, the Buddha remained unwavering in his opposition to war, steadfastly declared the Four Noble Truths, that there is suffering, there are caused and conditions for it, there is the utter resolution, and there are skilful means for that the resolution. If it is accurate reporting then, in the past two years, the Dali Lama has justified three wars (World War 1, World War 2 and the Korean Wars, called the Vietnam War a “failure” and adopted a “maybe” position on the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. It is hardly in accordance with the Buddha’s maxim “hatred (including terror) does not cease with hatred but through non-hatred. This is an eternal truth.” To kill and brutalise others for political purposes is the unleashing of hate.

Since 1950 the US government has sent in the armed forces to 19 countries around the world, as well as engineered the downfall of various governments in central and South America, Asia and Africa, and economically and militarily supported regimes that systematically violate human rights of its citizens and/or its ethnic communities or its neighbours. Since 900 AD, the British government has been engaged in war on average for around 56 years out of 100 years, more than any other country on Earth, apart from Spain.

Is it really so necessary to give the Dalai Lama and other world leaders reminders of what war is all about – bombing, killing, maiming, brutalising, raping, torture, malnutrition, denial of basic rights to life of soldiers, prisoners and citizens. There are neither lists of the dead, wounded, and suicidal nor lists of adults and children permanently traumatised by war. There are endless lies, deceits and propaganda that our so-called democratic leaders feed us.

An Associated Press reporter wrote: “I was taken back by his (Dalai Lama’s) remarks because they sounded more like a secular liberal seeking office, than a holy warrior for peace. Has his viewpoint shifted or does he shift his viewpoint according to his audience.
In another interview with Amy Goodman in New York, the Dalai Lama said: “You can’t blame America. Some of kind of use of force by dictatorship, authoritarian or democratically elected, at least use of force by elected government is much better.”

Resolution of differences

Prior to the war on Iraq, the Dalai Lama had issued a statement showing his opposition to the invasion The current views of the Dalai Lama seem a far cry from what he told the Tibetan People in March 2003 in Dharamsala, India on Tibetan Prayer Day: “ The real losers will be the poor and defenceless; ones who are completely innocent, and those who lead a hand to mouth existence... The only sensible and intelligent way to resolve differences and clash for interests today, whether between individuals, communities or nations, is through dialogue in the spirit of compromise and reconciliation.”

Instead of questionable personal opinions on justifiable wars and the view of ‘history,’ I believe it would be far better for the Dalai Lama to use his considerable influence to speak publicly about the causes and conditions for war – the arms trade, exploitation of natural resources, the claims of the nation state, abuse of power, fundamentalist beliefs in all the major religions, desire to punish and humiliate ‘others’, rhetoric about peace and democracy, leaders desire for a place in ‘history,’ etc.

In the 1980’s, voices in the peace movement in the UK murmured about trying to establish a Ministry for Peace in the heart of government. In the last couple of years, there has been positive movement in this direction with a small but growing campaign to establish a future Department for Peace in the White House and a Ministry for Peace in Downing Street. This would act as a counter force to war-making that is such a feature of the history of the US and British governments.

As one British Member of Parliament told me in a committee meeting in Parliament about our proposal for the Ministry for Peace: “We have to catch the wind. The people of the world demand an end to war. We have an opportunity to make a fundamental change in the very early years of the new millennium.” In February 2003, more than 30,000,000 people in 600 cities around the world marched on the streets to protest against the impending war on the Iraqi nation by the USA and United Kingdom. Has the Dalai Lama compromised his position? To put it diplomatically as possible, the Dalai Lama’s current views are “unhelpful.” He is at risk of losing his credibility as a moral force in the world, and that would be a great pity.

Countless numbers have immense love and respect for the Dalai Lama and feel deep concern for the plight of the Tibetan people. I believe his current views not only reduce his standing as one of the senior voices for compassion in the international community but also send a disheartening message to Buddhists and dedicated peace workers, who believe that we, as people on the Earth, must resolve our conflicts through international dialogue, end to production of arms and develop a fair and equitable world trade, rather than wait to rely on ‘history’ to justify the murderous destruction of people’s lives and their environment.

The Buddha addressed this issue of war. A professional soldier went to the Buddha deeply concerned about his involvement in killing and wounding others on the battlefield. He said that his religious leaders told him that if he died in battle, he would go to heaven..

‘What do you say about that?’ he asked the Buddha. The Buddha seemed reluctant to answer the worried soldier. The soldier asked him the same question three times before the Buddha responded. Looking at him directly, the Buddha said that those who strive in war have a mind that is ‘low, depraved and misdirected.’ ‘Upon dying in a battle, the soldier will find himself in hell,’ the Buddha added. The soldier burst into tears.

The Buddha said he knew this would be very distressing to hear which is why he had hesitated to say anything. ‘I’m not crying because of what you said’ replied the soldier ‘but because I have been tricked, cheated and deceived for a long time by other soldiers and religious leaders.’ (Samutta Nikaya Volume 11, page 1134)

In Rajgir, an angry Brahmin, a holders of religious authority, tried to find a way to put down the Buddha and his teachings when a woman, named Dhananjani, praised the Buddha in front of the Brahmin. The angry Brahmin asked the Buddha: “What is the one thing whose killing you approve?”
The Buddha replied: ‘The killing of anger. This is the killing the Noble Ones praise.” (SN. 1.255)
May all beings live in peace.