China has a long history of dealing with minorities, and a long tradition of theorising about ethnic relations, based largely on the Confucian tradition, and supplemented with Marxist belief in the twentieth century. These two very different traditions are still influencing the Chinese practice of minority rights and multiculturalism. They both stand in some contrast to the Western liberal model of minority rights. With the growing influence of liberalism in China, it is important to see how traditional Chinese political thought will respond to Western liberal ideas of multicultural citizenship, and how the Western liberal model of minority rights will impact on China's ethnic minority policy.

The above different theoretical traditions constitute paradigms through which we can think about the Tibet issue and the future of Tibet. Currently, the dominant Western theoretical paradigm is a liberal-democratic one with several features like self-determination, referendum and autonomy. While I subscribe to this theoretical paradigm, I think that it is necessary for us to look at different theories of autonomy which offer different answers and scenarios. One possibility is the Confucian notion of ronghe, a kind of civilisational intermingling or integration between peoples and different religions.

The above three theoretical traditions are difficult to reconcile, and create theoretical tensions and difficulties in addressing the autonomy question in Tibet. Currently Beijing's Tibet policy is a mix of Confucius’ assimilation, Karl Marx's classless society, and Adam Smith's market force which will diminish the importance of ethnicity. The critical question is to explore areas of convergence to help reduce the theoretical gaps, and also to assess how Beijing can go beyond the Confucian and Marxist traditions.

This chapter examines the theoretical sources of current Chinese policies on minority rights. It will trace a complex combination of various intellectual inheritances, combining echoes of Confucian ideas of paternalistic guardianship over ‘backward groups’ or ‘younger brothers’ with echoes of Marxist/Leninist ideas of ethnic autonomy, mixed with echoes of liberal ideas of minority rights and affirmative action policies for minority groups.

The structure of this chapter is as follows. It begins with a brief introduction of the competing views of autonomy so as to highlight how different theoretical traditions offer different solutions to the Tibet issue, followed by an examination of both Confucian and Marxist discourse on minority issues and minorities’ rights.