Hope vs Despair
How the Tibetan media reads the recent vicissitudes in the dialogue between envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Beijing
By Dhundup Gyalpo
After a decade-long deadlock, talks between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Beijing finally revived in Sept. 2002. A four-person delegation led by Kasur Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, His Holiness’ special envoy in USA, with Kelsang Gyaltsen, His Holiness’ envoy in Europe, and two senior assistants, Sonam N. Dagpo and Bhuchung K. Tsering, already visited China twice, in Sept. 2002 and May 2003. The same delegation made its third visit this September.
![]() |
Dharamsala was rife with “guestimated” commentaries of local political pundits again as the envoys, awaiting the return of His Holiness, took a momentary pause of seclusion from the limelight.
The much-awaited press conference finally came on 13 October.
Special Envoy Kasur Lodi Gyari said that their mission was to talk to the government of China as representatives of His Holiness, and see that the Sino-Tibetan dispute is resolved in the manner desired by His Holiness. “We are not entrusted with fact-finding…. Our main responsibility is to establish contact, sustain it, and gradually, without any significant loss of time, commence negotiation.”
The envoys met Minister Liu Yandong, Vice Chairperson of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and head of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party; Vice-Minister Zhu Weiqun; Deputy Head Chang Rongjun; and other officials in Beijing.
The envoys visited Guangzhou city, and the special Economic Zones of Zhuhai and Shenzen of Guangdong province. The Chinese officials have appreciated that “we come not as tourists. We have important reasons. Therefore, they have arranged for us to visit three different areas”, the envoy said. The envoys also visited Chengde city in Hebei province, where Manchu emperors had build replicas of the Potala Palace, Tashi Lhunpo and Samye monastery of Tibet. Other than the “tremendous economic progress” that he was expected to convey to His Holiness, the envoy also pointed out that in one recently built museum, the historic meeting between the 5th Dalai Lama and the Manchu Emperor portrays the actual equality between the two.
The envoys also visited six counties of Karze Tibetan autonomous prefecture. They expressed concerns over the prevailing state of the Tibetan language, religion and culture in these counties. For instance, the envoy said: “while shuttling inter-counties, we noticed the billboards all along the route were written in Chinese.”
Although the envoys were unable to interact with the common Tibetans, they did meet, as before, most of the Tibetan officials of the counties they visited. “We found most of the officials well-educated, competent and dedicated”, the envoy said. “For the vision of His Holiness to come to fruition, Tibetans both within and without Tibet must stand united. Outside Tibetans alone cannot achieve that. Therefore, in every place we went, we explained what is the vision of His Holiness.”
A New Step Forward
“Of all the meetings between the representatives of His Holiness and the important officials of the Chinese Government thus far, this one had by far the most serious and extensive exchange of views”, said envoy Gyari, who also accompanied the high-level delegation for exploratory talks in 1982 and 1984.
On the face of it, the visit appears to have bode well, at least for most of the Tibetan media people, who thronged the press conference.
“The visit marks a new step forward”, said Tsering Migmar, the reporter of the Voice of America. “China appears to have responded to our demand for substantive dialogues to commence negotiation. As only after both sides put all their cards on the table, disagreements can be winnowed. Besides, China has also expressed the need for continued dialogue to reach a mutually agreed position. This, I take on a positive note.”
The reporter of Voice of Tibet, Pachen Dorjee, also thinks that the relationship now has “reached some depths. In the previous two press conferences, envoys appeared to be in their most conciliatory mood. They were extremely careful. They would say nothing that may hurt China. But this time, it was different. They were highly critical on many issues like that of the deteriorating state of Tibet’s distinct culture, religion and linguistic heritage.”
Fundamental Differences
On several issues, including some fundamental ones, the divide between the two sides is planetary, the envoys admitted. Although the envoys did not spell out on what fundamental issues, almost all the Tibetan reporters see eye to eye on those issues. “I believe a high degree of autonomy for a unified Tibet with all its three provinces is our fundamental stand”, said the reporter of Radio Free Asia, Dukhar Boom.
China has as of now offered no other interpretation of the Tibet issue, different than that of the recent White Paper, admitted envoy Kelsang Gyaltsen.
In its effort to create a conducive environment for dialogue, the Central Tibetan Administration chose not to respond to the latest White Paper on “Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet” issued by the Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China on 23 May, even though many Tibetans and their supporters called for a befitting response. On the 69th birthday celebration of His Holiness, Kalon Tripa Samdhong Rinpoche delivered this statement:
…. The White Paper contains much ultra leftist rhetoric and obviously there are a number of issues where we disagree with the views presented in it. Periodic white papers on Tibet cannot hide the true sad state of affairs in Tibet…Obviously there are two different views and versions, “a Tibetan and a Chinese”, of issues relating to Tibet. We need to recognize this reality. It is our firm belief that these differences need to be reconciled through dialogue and negotiations and not imposed…1
Many believe fundamental differences also exist in the interpretation of dialogue and negotiation per se. “While we see dialogue as discussion, they see it as ‘counselling’. Besides, for us dialogue is a stepping-stone to negotiation, where as the same cannot be said of them”, said Pachen Dorjee.
The Road Ahead
Although there are major differences on several issues, both sides agreed on the need to bridge the divide separating the two through more such meetings, the envoys said. “Because of face-to-face meetings, we continue to keep the contacts we have established thus far.” There was no mention of any dates for future visits, however.
It is but common knowledge that the uphill road before is long and arduous. In every step of the way, Tibetan patience and perseverance will be tested beyond its limits.
Serta Tsultrim, editor of the Tibetan fortnightly newspaper Bod-Kyi-Bangchen, writes: “The major differences on many issues should not come as a bombshell. As it is only because they exist, that we face what we face today. However, we have already pawned our maximum on the negotiating-table, and in the light of the deep chasm dividing the two sides, it appears but inevitable that we make further painful concessions.”2
Many, like Tsering Migmar, believe, “China sure understands that it is only during the lifetime of His Holiness that the Tibet issue can be resolved through the Middle-Way Approach”.
There are also sceptics who harbour serious reservations about the willingness of China to negotiate. In the editorial page of the Tibetan fortnightly newspaper, Bod-Kyi-Dus-Bab, Lhaksam writes: “Some people believe, by inviting His Holiness’ envoys, China only wanted to thwart any possible political disturbance during the 2008 Olympics. Besides, the way some foreign media has covered this visit, the issue of Tibet has been diluted from one of 6 million Tibetans to the personal status of His Holiness.”3
One thing that has sparked fierce backlash among Tibetans is China’s continued effort to downplay the envoy’s visit. “As on the two previous occasions, the Chinese do not even acknowledge that the envoys of His Holiness had been invited for a visit”, writes Pema Thinley, editor of Tibetan Review. “The two sides are clearly at cross-purposes.”4
Although the baton of Zongnanhai has smoothly slid into the hands of the fourth-generation leaders, in the absence of the magic-solution of economic crisis, political stalemate and international changes that can nudge avowed authoritarians towards democratic choices, any remote possibility of a Chinese Gorbachev still lingers high and far on the horizon of chimera.
All in all, one need not be too optimistic to be able to spot isles of agreement in a sea of disagreements, starting from everything-but-independence. From these isles, whether we are able to sail against the wind, or the wind is taken out of our sails, only time will tell. As for now, the latest visit of His Holiness’ envoys does rekindle a hope-the proverbial cause of our damnation-at least for a possible negotiation in a not-too-distant future.
(The article features in the November-December issue of the Tibetan Bulletin, which will be online at www.tibet.net/tibbul)
Footnotes:
- Kashag’s Statement, Tibetan Bulletin, Sept.-Oct. 2004
- Envoys and Sino-Tibetan Issue, Bod-Kyi-Bangchen, 18 Oct. 2004
- About Dialogue, Bod-Kyi-Dus-Bab, 30 Sept. 2004
- Envoy Visits in Times of Leadership Change, Tibetan Review, Oct. 2004