What to negotiate with Dalai Lama?

By Lao Lin

    To most people, no matter in the old Tibet or in Dharmsala today, where Tibetan government-in-exile locates, Dalai Lama is both a political and a religious figure. Although Dalai himself frequently refers to the "government-in-exile" as a "democratic government", he has never denied he is the political leader. But it does not make any sense at all to compare theocracy to a democratic system. If it did, people would assume he either lacks or ignore common sense.

    Theocracy was abolished in Tibet. This is the reason why Dalai left Lhasa in 1959, and it is also the result of his absence.

    Tibet is an autonomous region, so the Tibetan autonomous government is the only legal government to represent Tibet, not that government-in-exile.

    Therefore, to negotiate with China is actually to negotiate Dalai's future. Because he is not able to represent neither Tibet nor Tibetan on any legal grounds, and China will never consent to negotiate with him when he claims himself as the political figure of the "government-in-exile". I am not sure whether Dalai is clear about this or not.

By Jin Canrong

    Following the March 14 riots in Lhasa, the central government held a meeting with the Dalai Lama's representatives on his request on May 4. Some officials of central government departments will meet the personal representatives of the Dalai Lama again early this month. The central authorities have maintained a constant and clear policy towards the Dalai Lama.

    It is hoped that the Dalai side cherish this opportunity, see the situation clearly, and take concrete measures to build the foundation for future dialogue.

    The Dalai Lama appears to be more interested in fanning up international pressure on China than in talking seriously with the central government of China. The Olympics has been used by some Westerners as a means to "liberate Tibet from China" through intense media propaganda.

    Since 2002, six rounds of discussion have taken place between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the central government.

    But the Dalai Lama's concept of "high-level" or "maximum" autonomy cannot possibly be accommodated within the Chinese Constitution.

    His demand for "Greater Tibet" or "one administrative entity" means breaking up Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces, and causing enormous disruption and damage to China's society and political system.

    Such a demand is ruled out, as any comparable demand to break up states in any country would be.

    Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th century and there is no country in the world that has ever recognized Tibet as an independent state.

    China's sovereignty over Tibet is indisputable from the standpoint of international law. China is the only nation that has been capable of ensuring human rights by eradicating poverty and improving the living standards of millions of people.

    We should not only hear what the Dalai lama says, but also see what he dose. Only when the Dalai Lama truly stops the plots to split Tibet from China and to sabotage the Olympic Games is he qualified to talk about sincerity.

    It is high time the Dalai Lama got real about the future of Tibet, and engaged in a sincere dialogue with the Chinese central government to find a reasonable, and sustainable political solution within the framework of one China.

[1] [2] [3] [4]