Articles

  • Cartoon: "The Noodle Maker" (Click to enlarge) By Tendor Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc
    Posted Jun 30, 2015, 6:08 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • MWA, Rangzen, and the Future By Jeffrey S. Inglis This article follows up on the Final Declaration of Rangzen Conference conducted in May 23 and 24 of 2015 in New Delhi. I wish to congratulate ...
    Posted by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Election Commission Announces Preliminary and Final Election Dates for Sikyong and 16th Tibetan Parliament    Source: Tibet.net (the official website of the CTA)   By Staff Writer Mr. Sonam Choephel Shosur, the chief Election Commissioner accompanied by Additional Election Commissioners Ven. Geshe Tenpa Tashi and ...
    Posted Jun 10, 2015, 7:57 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Under the Streetlight in Exile    By Lobsang Gyalpo   Some of you may know this story which is also known as the streetlight effect: A police officer sees a person crawling around under a streetlight and ...
    Posted Jun 10, 2015, 7:51 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • A Tibetan Netizen Asks: “Who Is to Blame for the Instability of a Society?” High Peaks Pure Earth presents the English translation of an online essay titled “Who Is to Blame for the Instability of a Society?” by a Tibetan blogger going by the ...
    Posted Jun 3, 2015, 5:47 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Was the Diplomat of the 13th Dalai Lama a Russian Spy?       By Tsering Woeser Ngawang Dorje, also known as Agvan Dorjiev, is a Buryat Mongolian, a “Geshe Lharampa” Lama from Drepung Monastery; he used to be a Minister of the Kashag ...
    Posted Jun 3, 2015, 5:47 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Aren't They The Lucky Ones?       By WoeserPublished on RFA on May 15, 2015Writer Tsering Woeser has used her blog "Invisible Tibet," together with her poetry, historical research, and social media platforms like Twitter ...
    Posted May 31, 2015, 6:16 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Sikyong speaks on ‘Care for the Future of Tibet?’ to Chinese Scholars in Washington DC       By Tibet.net (the official website of the Central Tibetan Administration)May 14, 2015Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay speaking to Chinese scholars and students during a dialogue organised by Initiatives ...
    Posted May 31, 2015, 6:11 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Message from Tendor and Lhadon to New Delhi Rangzen Conference       By Tenzin Dorjee and Lhadon Tethong Message given to participants in the International Rangzen (Independence) Conference held in New Delhi, India, May 23-24, 2015 Dear Friends, We are deeply ...
    Posted May 27, 2015, 7:02 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • SFT/USTC statement on March 10 controversy Date: April 15, 2015The above statement was in response to the following letter, released by the Office of Tibet on April 10, 2015:
    Posted May 17, 2015, 6:11 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • A Factual Account of the Tibetan Government’s Gold and Silver by Paljor Tsarong A 72 year old Tsarong arrested by the Chinese for leading the armed “rebellion" against the Chinese. He returned to Lhasa from India in early January 1959 ...
    Posted Apr 22, 2015, 5:11 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Making progress on Tibet     By Robert Barnett, Columbia University   Excerpt :  “... The Chinese government has responded with tighter controls on movement, worship, speech and information in Tibetan areas, together with increased mechanisms for surveillance. But ...
    Posted Apr 22, 2015, 4:52 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • “Using ‘Inter-Ethnic Marriages’ to ‘Fight Splittism’ is Essentially A Continuation of Colonialism”   By Woeser  The website China Tibet News reported on June 19, 2014: “The symposium for inter-ethnic marriages hosted by Chen Quanguo promotes ethnic unity using inter-ethnic marriage as ...
    Posted Apr 5, 2015, 7:30 AM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • ORIGINS OF THE MIDDLE WAY POLICY By Warren W. Smith, Jr. Ph.D.  Dr. Smith is also the author of Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations; China's Tibet?: Autonomy or ...
    Posted Mar 24, 2015, 8:52 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Tibet on the Cards of History: Revisiting the Tibetan National Flag By Nick Gulotta and Dicky Yangzom A number of publications on Tibet have created confusion regarding the historical status of the Tibetan national flag. Without qualification, these works assert that ...
    Posted Mar 23, 2015, 5:17 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Cartoon of the Day - by Tendor (Click cartoon to enlarge) Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:    
    Posted Mar 22, 2015, 4:44 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Why Tibetans were divided on the March 10th Tibetan Uprising Day By Choenyi Woser | March 21, 2015 The author is a reporter at Tibet Express based in Dharamsala, India; the views expressed in this piece are those of the author's ...
    Posted Mar 21, 2015, 1:31 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • A Tibetan Feminist's Response to Adele Wilde-Blavatsky By Tsechi Chuzom [In response to "Conflict at US-Tibetan Exile Event Symptom of Widening Rift" , published at Huffington Post] According to this “author,” I, Tsechi Chuzom, child of Tibetan ...
    Posted Mar 20, 2015, 5:05 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • SFT's statement regarding March 10 in New York March 20, 2015All of us at Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) were inspired by the global display of solidarity for the Tibetan freedom struggle shown on the 56th ...
    Posted Mar 20, 2015, 4:55 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • TNC Statement on the events in New York and Dharamsala on March 10 By Tibetan National CongressMarch 13, 2015The Tibetan National Congress (TNC) is deeply distressed by the divisiveness that has erupted at two of this year's March 10 commemorations ...
    Posted Mar 16, 2015, 5:49 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Time for unity, not division, says Kalon Gyari Dolma at Tibetan women's uprising anniversary Phayul [Thursday, March 12, 2015 22:43] Gyari Dolma speaks at TWA led Tibetan Women's Uprising commemoration, March 12, 2015, Phayul Photo: Kunsang GashonSpeaking at the gathering, Dolma ...
    Posted Mar 16, 2015, 5:39 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • There is no middle without the ends By Tenzin Gelek There is little doubt that what happened in NY on March 10 2015 was unpleasant to witness and certainly condemnable. But whatever be the immediate cause of ...
    Posted Mar 15, 2015, 5:48 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Education Kalon presides over 10 March Uprising Day in New York From Tibet.net (official website of the Central Tibetan Administration)March 13, 2015 Education Kalon greeting schoolchildren during a visit to the Tibetan community in the US DHARAMSHALA: Education Kalon ...
    Posted Mar 15, 2015, 5:38 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Commemorating or Rewriting March 10th? By Tenpa Gapshi Lately, a wind is blowing, leaving its musky entrails in its track; vacuous and immaterial, and yet twirling behind every unfinished sentences, and raised eyebrows, sometimes ominous ...
    Posted Mar 15, 2015, 5:34 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • The Paris Lessons By Wangpo Tethong Chitue (Member of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile) for Europe The Paris Declaration, a European initiative in support of Tibet, will be proclaimed this weekend. It is ...
    Posted Mar 12, 2015, 5:25 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Personal accounts of March 10 in NYC: "Free Tibet" banned By Pema Yoko Deputy Director, Students for a Free Tibet My heart broke today. For the first time in my life my own people tried to ostracize me for simply ...
    Posted Mar 12, 2015, 5:25 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Agenda for Urgent Meeting: Regarding March 10 Event in New York By Denzi Yishey After watching and reading numerous videos, postings and comments on social media networks including Facebook on the unfortunate March 10 Uprising event in New York, every Tibetan ...
    Posted Mar 12, 2015, 5:05 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Statement of Tibetan National Congress on March 10 March 10, 2015, marks the 56th anniversary of the Tibetan people’s uprising against the Chinese occupation army in Tibet.  Women and men, laity and clergy, and citizens from all ...
    Posted Mar 10, 2015, 6:32 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Statement of U.S. Tibet Committee on March 10 (New York) March 10, 2015. US-Tibet Committee (USTC) joins Tibetans and Tibet supporters around the world in commemorating Tibetan National Uprising. Fifty-six years ago today, Tibetans in Lhasa ...
    Posted Mar 10, 2015, 6:25 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Statement of Students for a Free Tibet on March 10 March 10th is one of the most historically significant days representing the Tibetan people's aspirations for a future free from Chinese government rule. On March 10, 1959, tens of ...
    Posted Mar 10, 2015, 6:22 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
Showing posts 1 - 30 of 744. View more »

Cartoon: "The Noodle Maker"

posted Jun 30, 2015, 6:04 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Jun 30, 2015, 6:08 PM ]



(Click to enlarge)

By Tendor



Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc

Facebook Twitter Google+ Addthis

MWA, Rangzen, and the Future

posted Jun 30, 2015, 5:57 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated ]




By Jeffrey S. Inglis



This article follows up on the Final Declaration of Rangzen Conference conducted in May 23 and 24 of 2015 in New Delhi.

I wish to congratulate the leaders, the organizers and the participants of this important conference. It has the potential to become an ongoing event that will be of fundamental importance to the future of Tibet.

H
owever, if that is to happen, I suggest that the conference agenda become much more comprehensive in at least acknowledging the vast array of complex and challenging issues.


Introduction

Tibet is not in control of its own destiny. Try as he did in the 1980’s, His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL) was not able to convince China to negotiate a new relationship and status with Tibet. And while sympathetic, the rest of the world did very little to push or encourage China. They did give HHDL a Nobel Peace Prize for at least trying.

The future of Tibet is inexorably tied to the future of China. Since none of us can predict how the future will unfold, it is most beneficial to be as prepared as possible for whatever may occur. Think of it as long-term contingency preparedness planning.

MWA and Rangzen


In the Declaration, reference was made to what is apparently a state of discomfort and anger between some of the adherents of Rangzen and others, who I take to include adherents of the Middle Way Approach (MWA). Apparently everyone is calling for "unity," apparently in the hope that people will join "their side." I was dismayed to read that message.

It is very clear in my mind that MWA and Rangzen are not in competition with each other, but that they work best when they coexist together in complementary benefit to Tibet and the Tibetan people. One is not better than the other, nor is one more right than the other. Their ultimate value can only be known in the future.

Historical Background

There are four conceptual frameworks for viewing and discussing the political relationship between China and Tibet.

1) The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), first declared in 1954. Much of it is modeled after the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union, but there are some significant differences. For example, while the Soviet constitution creates a federal system and contains an explicit right of secession, the Chinese constitution creates a unitary multi-national state that explicitly forbids secession. (1)


In reading the Constitution, it is not difficult to note that countless actions undertaken by the state are not in compliance with the Constitution; nor is it difficult to understand that the lack of compliance enjoyed by the state is due to the absence of legal and political accountability mechanisms. (2)

2) In 1984 the PRC promulgated The Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law (REAL). It appears to be the implementing legislation for those sections in the Constitution dedicated to the issue of regional autonomy. Perhaps it originated as a quid pro quo for something else. (3) In any case, while it details a wide range of rights and powers related to regional autonomy, it also contains a multitude of provisions giving the central authorities broad powers to inhibit and otherwise control any decisions made by regional authorities. What Beijing may giveth, Beijing may also taketh away.

According to a review and analysis of REAL by the Loyola University Chicago International Law Review:: “The deficiency of legal and political mechanisms to put the ethnic autonomous laws into force not only resulted in limited exercise of the autonomous power but also, in some extreme cases, threatened the mere existence of the ethnic minority autonomous areas.” (5) Page 259

On the next page, it summarizes the reduction of the six articles on regional autonomy in the 1954 version of the Constitution to one article in the 1975 version in this way: “These absurd constitutional changes clearly demonstrate the historical shortage of legal guarantees of ethnic minority autonomous powers.” (5) Page 260

3) MWA Given the legal conundrum/morass of REAL, it is not surprising that HHDL, the CTA and, indeed, the entire Tibetan movement makes little or no mention of it, instead preferring to promote their own version of regional autonomy as described in the many documents relevant to the Middle Way Approach (MWA). (6) The MWA is a loose collection of goals and principles enunciated over the span of a few years by HHDL. It is wonderfully reasonable, compassionate and idealistic, creating hopes of significant autonomy and visions of Tibet becoming a buffer “Zone of Peace” in between the Asian giants of China and India. It is also woefully deficient in structural and implementation mechanisms.

4) The final conceptual framework is Rangzen independence, which gives the most autonomy possible within the structure of a contemporary nation-state. As I understand Rangzen, there is at least a general agreement that it means the achievement of independence for Tibet through non-violent efforts and struggle. An admirable goal, and it is philosophically consistent with HHDL’s vision of a Zone of Peace.

Zone of Peace


The idea of His Holiness to create of Tibet a Zone of Peace is a wonderful idea. Now if only we could make the whole planet into a Zone of Peace. Unfortunately, his presentation of the concept may have created some problems for our “friends” in Beijing.


Imagine for a moment that you are a CPC Political Analyst sometime back in the 1980’s, and your assignment is the Dalai Lama and Tibet. One fine morning someone brings to your attention the new MWA webpage, which you note contains the following two statements:

“Treading a middle path between these two [status quo and independence] lies the policy and means to achieve a genuine autonomy for all Tibetans living in the three traditional provinces of Tibet within the framework of the People’s Republic of China. (6)

“At the same time, they [the Tibetan people] do not seek independence for Tibet.” (6)

So, you print off copies and bring them to the next Staff meeting, where the boys from the Politically Correct Ideology section have a look at them. “Not bad,” they’re saying. “At least he’s moving in the right direction.”

Sometime later, the webpages for the Five Point Peace Plan and the Strasbourg Proposal are brought to your attention. Contained within them are the following statements:

“The establishment of a peace zone in Tibet would require withdrawal of Chinese troops and military installations from the country.” (7)

Every Tibetan hopes and prays for the full restoration of our nation’s independence.” (8)

Upon reading these, the boys from the Politically Correct Ideology section break out into laughter and guffaws, offering up the Mandarin equivalent of: “Yeah, right. Don’t think so, Jackson.”

With that, the decision is made to revive the “Dalai Splittest” theme.

Analysis of Perspectives


In the eyes of the Chinese, Tibet belongs in the REAL structure, and it may never willingly agree to have Tibet in an MWA-type framework, with its greater autonomy, for two reasons:

1) the other ethnic groups would demand the same status, and

2) that would be tantamount to conceding that the Tibetans are correct; that they are an invaded and occupied land.

In the same way, Tibetans would never agree to live under the existing REAL framework for two reasons:

1) no real autonomy exists under the REAL structure, and

2) that would mean that they would be agreeing that Beijing is correct, that Tibet is a part of China.

This situation appears to be a perpetual stand-off, with both sides talking past the other and neither side able or willing to move off its stance.

If nothing changes within China, nothing changes for Tibet.

Getting There from Here

One of my disappointments in the Rangzen Declaration is the absence of discussion on how Rangzen might be realized. Nothing was said about how to get there from here. In fact the only stated goal is the return of HHDL to the Potala.

Now, if one is talking about HH the 14th DL, then there is a finite and limited amount of time remaining and available to achieve this goal. What is the vision for how this will occur? What are the plans for making this happen?

Rangzen


As I understand Rangzen, there is at least a general agreement that it means achieving independence for Tibet through non-violent efforts and struggle. That may be possible, but sustaining and protecting Tibet as modern nation-state without violence may not be a realistic goal.

The vast majority of contemporary nation-states have military resources and security infrastructures necessary and sufficient to defend themselves against hostile external threats, as well as to protect its citizens from internal strife and violence. Small states with insufficient resources have usually made security arrangements with their large neighbors.

For example, San Marino, Andorra and the Vatican depend on Spain, France and Italy for their security and existence. The Baltic nations are scrambling to increase their security arrangements with the West now that they have watched the Russian bear chewing on the Ukraine’s backside.

The decision on what to do about violence will be fundamental to the sustainability of Tibet as a nation-state.

Scenarios

Collapse

China has a complete collapse a la USSR. The Soviet Union ceased to exist and all of the previous member republics were technically free to go their own way. The Baltic Republics, the five “Stans” (Kazahkstan, etc.), Georgia, etc. all left and set up their independent shop.

Belarus and Ukraine achieved technical independence, but Moscow put a Stalinist stranglehold on both, from which only the Ukraine has escaped, and only partially at that.

This scenario would have Chinese security forces either being withdrawn to the Han heartland, or being abandoned in place. One assumes that either India or the UN would assume temporary control of security, while Tibetans from around the world poured into their homeland eager to rebuild their country. Rangzen achieved.

But an easy victory does not ensure the safest future. The question remains: how good are the Tibetans going to be at defending themselves and their new-found freedom, especially in a decade or two when China gets back on its feet and starts feeling grumpy about having “lost” Tibet.

Will Tibet be ready? Or will it repeat what it did in 1950? (9)

Weakening


China goes through an internal crisis resulting in a considerable weakening, but not a total collapse. This scenario would have minimal Chinese security forces remaining in place to guard the important buildings and transport facilities. This scenario is the most challenging for Tibetans, for it leaves three options.

1) Do nothing. Then nothing inside Tibet will change

2) Begin negotiations with China on an MWA-type of configuration.

Negotiations with China will be very tough, especially when negotiating styles and methods are so different. Recently we have seen an example of the Chinese style with the students in Hong Kong. The final outcome had already been decided in Beijing before sitting down with the students. My understanding of the Tibetan style is one of openness and sharing, making sure that everyone gets some benefit from the process.

The western style is different yet again, with the final outcome to be determined by the negotiating process, and with details being revealed only as negotiations proceed. The goal is to get your opponent to agree to what you want. Their motivation includes believing that it is the best deal they are going to get from you, and that any alternative would be worse.

Somewhat akin to the game of poker, which can include bluster and bluffing as techniques.

3) For Tibetans and the Chinese, the worst case scenario is armed rebellion. Are the Tibetans prepared to do that if negotiations break down?

Will China be bluffing when they say they can bring more troops in? Maybe the Uyghurs and the Mongols are so successful with their own rebellions that they are tying down every available division of Chinese troops, and they have none to spare. This is where intelligence information comes into play, to help one side interpret the extent and truth of a bluff.

The decision to fight or to settle can only be made at the moment based on an assessment of probabilities. If the likelihood of winning an armed rebellion is low, a negotiated settlement a la MWA is likely to be the best option. That would mean an agreement to significant levels of autonomy, and a permanent status guaranteed by China and the other involved parties. It would certainly be better than the current status quo, and would avoid the many headaches that go along with being an independent nation-state. And it keeps everything consistent with Ahimsa.

On the other hand, if the likelihood of armed rebellion being successful is high, it might make worth the shedding of Ahimsa in order to achieve full independence. The benefit to this is that, by engaging in a successful armed insurrection, Tibetans would learn how to manage violence and to organize and administer themselves in an efficient manner, giving them the experience that they would need to successfully build, manage, defend and sustain Tibet as an independent country. This will be needed when China regains is strength and decides it wants Tibet “back.”

The model for this can be found in Yugoslavia during WWII. Tito was the leader of the Partisans fighting against the occupying Axis armies.

The Allies decided to support him, and in two years of fighting and organizing, he had the basic components of a government in place. Thus was born the new Yugoslavia. That the Serbs later demolished everything that Tito built up does not detract from his accomplishments. (10)

Conclusion

One can only wonder about the wisdom of the decision by the PRC to proclaim areas such as Tibet and Xinjiang to be historically and integrally part of China, for it does tend to limit their options. If, instead, they had proclaimed areas such as these to be conquered lands, they could have then changed their minds and cut them loose at any time. As it is, they have shackled themselves, and have eliminated that easy option.

The future is impossible to predict. That said, if Tibetans are sufficiently prepared, they will be able to take full advantage of opportunities that present themselves. That will require leadership that is flexible, pragmatic and sufficiently dynamic so as to be able to deal effectively with all possible scenarios.

It might be worth considering adopting REAL to meet the needs of the Tibetans. Even if an MWA type of negotiated settlement is arrived at, it will still need to be written into Chinese law. If the Tibetans can find a way to make a version of REAL acceptable, what with the appropriate changes and adjustments, the Chinese might feel less threatened and may take it very seriously. REAL 2.0

Closing Whimsy


My favorite fantasy scenario is this: “Padmasambhava is reincarnated and goes to work kicking some serious Chinese booty. Rock 'n' Roll, Guru Rinpoche. May your Vajrapani be pure and potent. Om Mani Peme Hum.”

(1) Wikipedia

(2) http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html

(3) My speculation is that it was part of a deal arrived at when Nixon and Kissinger went to China in 1972. When the agenda turned to Tibet, Mao and Zhou Enlai might have asked that the U.S. cease their support of the Khampas. Nixon would have rightfully responded with: “Well, what are you going to do for the Tibetans?” To which Mao and Zhou might well have asked: “How do you handle the issue of the Indians in the USA?” To which Nixon would have responded: “They have their own laws and legal standing.” To which Mao and Zhou could have said: “Well, what if we pass a new law dealing with the rights of all of the ethnic minorities in China?” To which Nixon would have said: “Works for me.” (Speculation all mine. JI)

(4) http://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/regional-ethnic-

autonomy-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-amended

5) The Loyola University Chicago International Law Review: published in Issue 2 of Volume 9, Spring/Summer 2012:

6) http://dalailama.com/messages/middle-way-approach

7) http://dalailama.com/messages/tibet/five-point-peace-plan

8) http://dalailama.com/messages/tibet/strasbourg-proposal-1988

9) Into Tibet, 2002, Thomas Laird

10) Eastern Approaches, 1949, Fitzroy Maclean





Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 


 


Election Commission Announces Preliminary and Final Election Dates for Sikyong and 16th Tibetan Parliament

posted Jun 10, 2015, 7:56 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Jun 10, 2015, 7:57 PM ]


 
 Source: Tibet.net (the official website of the CTA)
 
By Staff Writer
Mr. Sonam Choephel Shosur, the chief election commissioner accompanied by Additional election commissioners Ven. Geshe Tenpa Tashi and Mr. Tenzin Choephel.

Mr. Sonam Choephel Shosur, the chief Election Commissioner accompanied by Additional Election Commissioners Ven. Geshe Tenpa Tashi and Mr. Tenzin Choephel at the press conference, 10 June 2015.

DHARAMSHALA: The Election Commission of the Central Tibetan Administration today announced the dates for the preliminary and final election of Sikyong of the 15th Kashag and members of the 16th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile.

“The preliminary election for Sikyong and members of the 16th Tibetan Parliament is slated for 18 October 2015. The final election would be held on 20 March 2016,” Mr. Sonam Choephel Shosur, the Chief Election Commissioner, said. The Election Commissioner is accompanied by the two Additional Election Commissioners appointed recently by the standing committee of the Tibetan parliament in lieu of the upcoming elections.

The election commission also announced the new rules regarding campaign expenses and activities of the candidates.

“The total campaign expense for a Sikyong candidate should not exceed INR 8 Lacs and the campaign expense for a candidate for the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile should not exceed INR 3 Lacs,” the Election Commissioner said, adding that all campaign activities should cease two days before the final Election Day.

The election commission urged the candidates to submit their names and details to their local election commission before announcing their candidacy. They also urged the candidates to refrain from excessive campaigning in sensitive areas such as Nepal where the local people are recovering from a severe natural tragedy.

The 2016 general election will elect the fourth directly elected Sikyong (earlier Kalon Tripa) and the 16th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile. The 16th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile would be composed of 45 members with ten representatives each from the three traditional Tibetan provinces; two representatives each from the four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Bon religion, two representatives from North and South America, two representatives from Europe and Africa, and one representative from Australia and Asia (excluding India, Nepal and Bhutan).

For a complete detail of the announcement, click here.

 

Originally published at http://tibet.net/2015/06/election-commission-announces-preliminary-and-final-election-dates-for-sikyong-and-16th-tibetan-parliament/



Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 




 


Under the Streetlight in Exile

posted Jun 5, 2015, 6:01 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Jun 10, 2015, 7:51 PM ]


 
 By Lobsang Gyalpo

 


Some of you may know this story which is also known as the streetlight effect:

A police officer sees a person crawling around under a streetlight and asks him what he is doing. “Looking for my keys,” replies the person. “Where’d you lose them?” asks the officer. “‘Across the street,” comes the answer. “Then why look here?” questions the surprised officer. “‘Cause there’s lots more light here,” explains the person, continuing his search.


 


The streetlight syndrome reflects pretty much, in my opinion, our (Tibetans) approach or strategy to regaining our independence or autonomy or cultural survival or whatever.  Whether this goal is to be achieved by violence or non-violence or through the middle way is one aspect that has to be considered. However, there is also another equally, if not more important, issue that has been completely ignored. The crux of the problem here is that our entire effort has been and continues to be concentrated on actions outside Tibet (under the street lamp) as opposed to inside Tibet (across the street) which is where the holy grail, be it independence or autonomy, etc.,  is to be achieved.


Obviously it is easier to search under the street lamp. Outside Tibet we are able to hold protests, lobby governments, organizations, politicians and celebrities, raise awareness of the Tibet issue through the media and public-awareness events, etc. However, the reality is that our goal for change inside Tibet cannot be achieved without actions that take place “across the street” i.e. inside Tibet. I am not aware of any freedom struggle that was successful solely through efforts undertaken outside the country in question. Understandably, we continue to search under the streetlight because we are comfortable with doing this. We know how to do this since we have been doing this for quite some time now and are now well trained in this type of support activity.  We can see under the streetlight.


Searching across the street poses problems. It is more difficult to search there because we cannot see there.  This difficulty forces us to confront the question whether we really want what we say we want.  If we really want what we say we want, we would then start searching across the street even though it is dark there.  We would then do something about the lack of light there. As Confucius has pointed out, “It’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”




Strategy without execution


I am not discrediting what we have been doing so far nor do I mean to belittle the invaluable assistance provided by our supporters through their lobbying activities. This is certainly something that also needs to be done but cannot by itself alone attain what we claim we want. This glaring shortcoming in our efforts to date is something that has been completely overlooked in the ongoing, endless debates on rangzen, autonomy, middle way, etc.


It has been all about what we want and nothing at all about how to get it. Our obsession with this topic in this context is simply puerile. Simply saying we want this or that is not going to change the status quo. The Chinese government is not going to all of a sudden get all jittery and keel over just because we opt for rangzen or whatever.


“Strategy without execution is hallucination”, as pointed out by Mike Roach, CEO of CGI, a 31,000 person IT firm, in a presentation to a McGill MBA class.  Even if we were to achieve consensus on this contentious topic it would still not bring us any closer to our goal. Rangzen was the de facto vision prior to the advent of the Middle Way but that still did not get us any closer to our goal then. If non-violence is our strategy, great but it has to be related to non-violent actions inside Tibet. Rangzen? OK but here too we need activity inside Tibet that will lead to rangzen there.  And yes, there are things that can be undertaken inside Tibet. Once we accept the premise about where the focus should be directed, then we start coming up with ideas about what can and needs to be done.  



The non-struggle


The aspirations and activities of the Tibetans in exile are often referred to as a “struggle”. However, to be brutally honest, apart from the period of armed resistance carried out from Mustang in Nepal, there is no “struggle” in exile. Whereas Tibetans in Tibet, those that have not thrown in their lot with China, are truly struggling, our actions outside Tibet to date, cannot be termed a struggle.  We are now doing pretty much the same as or maybe even less than the “injis”, our non-Tibetan supporters, and that definitely cannot be construed as a struggle. Organizing and taking part in 10th March demonstrations once a year is not a struggle. Our non-struggle in exile should not be confused with the genuine article in Tibet.



What’s in a name?


The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) is basically living up to its name. It is dedicated, as far as I am able to ascertain, to administration. Administration has nothing to do with what Tibetans claim they want. Administration was crucial for survival in the early years of exile and the CTA has fulfilled its initial role superbly. Now, however, after more than 50 years in exile, administration should not be the primary focus of this organization unless no other more pressing agenda exists for the continued existence of this organization.


Currently, the CTA operates more like some kind of a Ford Foundation, fully occupied with keeping itself running albeit without similar financial resources. If a more pressing agenda does exist, either the focus of this organization should be changed or a parallel organization should be created fully dedicated to addressing the needs of this more pressing agenda or someone else or some other group must step in to ensure that the goals of this overriding agenda are met.  This, of course, assumes that we do have such a higher priority agenda other than pure administration.  Could this perhaps be that of a government-in-exile?  


The Miriam Webster dictionary defines government-in-exile as “a government temporarily established on foreign soil following the occupation of its own territory by another authority”.  The keyword here is temporary. Unfortunately, in our case, the CTA is beginning to look more and more like a permanent establishment.  A more pressing agenda would imply the goal of moving from the status of a government-in-exile to that of government of a country which would further imply implementation of actions to achieve such a goal.



Our success is our enemy


Tibetans enjoy the dubious distinction of being the most successful refugees. While survival in exile was obviously the top priority during the early days in exile, our very success in adapting to life in exile is now our enemy. The good life, relatively speaking, has led to complacency and a lack of urgency that weighs down the Tibetans in exile to the point of inertia. Hence the current execution strategy of all parties concerned, be it proponents of rangzen or autonomy or middle way, of simply sitting and waiting for something to happen e.g. China imploding internally due to domestic strife and political dissent and  resulting in our wishes being fulfilled.


Of the around 140,000 estimated Tibetans in exile, how many are actively engaged in doing something concrete for Tibet? Sadly, the answer is only a few. Simply holding or participating in protest rallies is not enough. After more than 50 years in exile, we certainly do not suffer from a lack of highly educated professionals or financially stable Tibetans or Tibetans who have the time and capability to engage actively for their country.


We have been busy all these past years mobilizing support among the international community for Tibet but have failed to mobilize the Tibetans in exile. The majority of the Tibetans in exile have washed their hands of all responsibility by conveniently placing the entire burden of achieving the goal of freedom in Tibet on the CTA and His Holiness. Richard Gere recently, in an appeal to Members of European Parliament, quoted His Holiness: “It is not enough to be compassionate, we must act.”  This hits the mark, for us Tibetans, unfortunately and painfully dead center.



Proactive vs Reactive


We must act, as opposed to just reacting only to events inside Tibet as we have being doing till now. Resorting to solely criticizing the CTA is nothing else than weaseling out of our responsibility. If the CTA is not doing what it should be doing, then we Tibetans need to step in ourselves and start taking matters into our own hands by doing what needs to be done with or without the CTA. Business as usual just does not cut it in our precarious situation.


In our recent past, Tibetans have taken the initiative to act in times of crisis. In the 1950s, concerned individual Tibetans acted on their own to form the People´s Association or Mimang Tsongdu to counter the growing influence of the Chinese in Tibet. Armed resistance to Chinese rule in Kham was initiated beginning in 1956 by Tibetans who chose to act rather than wait for the Tibetan government or someone else to do something.


Placing all our bets on the international community is also definitely not a winning proposition. We may chide and deride governments and organizations that kowtow to China for economic benefits but it would be the height of naivety for us to expect them to act otherwise. Quite possibly, we would also act in like manner if the roles were reversed.  


Living in Dharamsala within the Tibetan establishment, being surrounded by supporters and being witness to the various and frequent pro-Tibet activities that take place seduces us into the illusion that progress is being made in the political arena.  However, all one has to do to shatter this delusion, is to be on the ground in Tibet itself to realize the insignificance of our efforts to-date to bring about change

there.



Wake-up Call


We may be winning a few skirmishes and battles here and there outside Tibet as a result of our lobbying and public awareness activities but we are losing the war in Tibet where our presence is, as far as public knowledge goes, non-existent and which has been undergoing momentous and far-reaching negative changes over the years of a magnitude that we cannot even begin to comprehend from our comfortable armchairs in exile. We might as well be light years away on another planet for all the difference we have been able to make to the people in Tibet. Simply wringing our hands and bemoaning our fate as we impotently watch events unfold inexorably and relentlessly in Tibet from the sidelines can only lead to total victory for China.


China will never, of her own free will, give up Tibet. There is simply too much at stake – geopolitics, economics and highly charged, emotional nationalism - for China to do so. The international community is a dead end, a characteristic that has plagued Tibet since the early days of the invasion. Commenting on the important factors that led to the demise of Tibet in the period leading up to the invasion by China, Melvyn Goldstein makes the following observation:

“Equally important was the refusal of Tibet’s traditional friends and neighbors to provide effective diplomatic and military support  … When Britain left India in 1947, it abandoned its interest in Tibet, yielding all initiative to the newly independent Indian state. …  And two years later, in December 1950, when Tibet appealed to the United Nations for help, it was the British delegate who spoke first, informing his colleagues on the world body that after a half-century of intimate relations with Tibet, His Majesty’s Government felt that the status of Tibet was unclear and suggesting that Tibet’s appeal be postponed.”  [1]  


As for India then, Nehru saw Tibet as a threat to Sino-Indian friendship and Melvyn Goldstein concludes that as a result “The Tibetan policy pursued by the Indian government forced Tibet into a settlement with China on China’s terms.” [2]  Tsering Shakya too confirms this lack of support then and notes that this “refusal of the British Government and others to provide any kind of assistance was, in the Dalai Lama’s words, ‘terribly disheartening’.” [3]


For over 60 years now we have been singing the same old song:


The situation in Tibet is getting worse.

The world must help Tibet.


However, after 60 years of repeating this mantra we still continue to lack significant political support. So my fellow countrymen, it is high time to ask not what the world can do for our country but instead to ask what you can do for your country.


We keep admonishing the world that time is running out for Tibet. On the other hand, however, the urgency of the situation in Tibet has not been enough of a concern for us to warrant any changes or adjustments to our modus operandi.


The current situation in exile mirrors eerily the conclusion drawn by the British in 1946. During the period of the regency following the death of the 13th Dalai Lama, Tibet fell into a state of political chaos:


“In a letter to the Foreign Office in New Delhi, A. J. Hopkinson reveals British frustrations with the situation in Lhasa;


The Tibetan Government, as had been said often enough during the past two years, are going through a particularly bad state of supineness and apathy. It is difficult to help them, unless they are willing to help themselves; and unless they are anxious to help themselves and likely to do so effectively, we do not particularly want to get identified with any particular party, or marked out as hostile to any other. It is for the Tibetans themselves to pull their own chestnuts out of the fire, if they want to, which they have not shown much signs of during the last few years.” [4]


We must not repeat the “ostrich–head-in-the-sand mentality” that “rendered Tibet unable to function effectively”  [5]  in the time period leading up to the signing of the 17-Point Agreement in 1950. Hence, whatever the goal, if we don´t do anything ourselves, no one else is going to pull our chestnuts out of the fire for us. In which case, let´s face it, barring a deus ex machina, we will never achieve whatever it is we claim we wish to achieve.



CTA Reloaded


With this thought in mind and also bearing in mind my initial reference to the streetlight effect, the following quote from a stirring scene in the movie, The Lord of the Rings, conveys, in my opinion and figuratively speaking, a fittingly applicable message to us all:


“Forth, and fear no darkness!

Arise, arise! Riders of Théoden!

Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!

Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,

a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!

Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!"


— J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King, Book V, Chapter 5: The Ride of the Rohirrim, in which the beacons of Gondor are alight, calling for aid and the riders of Rohan ride to the aid of and lift the siege of Gondor.


The beacons in Tibet have been lit - over one hundred and forty and counting. It is up to each one of us to heed this CTA – Call To Action. To this end, I quote from the Final Testament of His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama wherein he makes a coincidentally identical appeal with respect to the imminent danger to Tibet that he foresaw from the communists in China:


Use peaceful methods when they are appropriate; but when they are not appropriate, do not hesitate to resort to more forceful means


The future of our country lies in your hands. Whether you are a chief minister or

simple government official, monk or lay person, teacher or disciple, secular leader or

ordinary citizen, I urge you to rise up together and work for the common good in

accordance with your individual capacity.” [6]



Footnotes



  1. Goldstein, Melvyn C.  “A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State”.

  2. Ibid.

  3. Shakya, Tsering. “The Dragon in the Land of Snows - A History of Modern Tibet since 1947”.

  4. McGranahan, Carole. “Arrested Histories: Between Empire and Exile in 20th Century Tibet”:

  5. Goldstein, Melvyn C.  “A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 2, The Calm Before the Storm, 1951-1955”.

  6.  Mullin, Glenn H. Path of the Boddhisattva Warrior: The Life and Teachings of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.






Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Facebook Twitter Google+ Addthis

 


A Tibetan Netizen Asks: “Who Is to Blame for the Instability of a Society?”

posted Jun 3, 2015, 5:47 PM by The Tibetan Political Review



High Peaks Pure Earth presents the English translation of an online essay titled “Who Is to Blame for the Instability of a Society?” by a Tibetan blogger going by the name of “Zur Sum Ma”* and which was published on the website Korawa on January 12, 2015.

In this essay, the author addresses the question of stability in society, a sensitive topic in Tibet and the PRC. The word “stability” is widely associated with former leader Hu Jintao, along with the concept of the “harmonious society” (hexie shehui 和谐社会), and Hu’s obsession with “stability maintenance” (weihu wending 维护稳定, also shortened to weiwen) has been well documented, both in terms of for China and inside Tibet. “Maintaining stability” is a key policy issue in Tibet and it continues to be used to justify high levels of security and restrictions on movements in Tibet.

In the China Digital Times Grass Mud-Horse Lexicon’s entry for “Stability Maintenance”, it says: According to the New York Times, the Chinese government budgeted US$111 billion for social stability maintenance in 2012, US$5 billion more than the military budget.

In China today, large scale episodes of social unrest are occurring with growing frequency and these are officially defined as “mass incidents”. An unofficial gathering of more than 100 people is recorded as a “mass incident” and the official Annual Report on China’s Rule of Law No 12 (2014)  researched 871 mass incidents involving more than 2.2 million people between Jan 1, 2000, and September 30, 2013. However, according to this China Daily article from last year, the research was flawed as it did not take into account any incidents that were only reported on social media. Among the reasons for these “mass incidents” were pollution, labour strikes and forced demolitions.

As recently as last month, China stressed the need for stability in Tibet in their White Paper titled, “Tibet’s Path of Development Is Driven by an Irresistible Historical Tide”, published The State Council Information Office of the PRC. In the conclusion it says, “Only by upholding stability and opposing turmoil, can the future of Tibet be assured” and “In the years to come, the people of every ethnic group in Tibet, […] , will progress on the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, […] , to develop a prosperous, harmonious socialist society, and to join with their fellow Chinese in accomplishing the Chinese Dream of the great renewal of the nation.”

The website Korawa is proving an interesting platform for Tibetan writers and intellectuals. Zur Sum Ma’s outspoken writing style is reminiscent of Shokjang’s, the Tibetan writer whose current whereabouts are unknown. The essay “Man & Freedom” by Buddha was also published on Korawa.

Thank you to Dhonling Bhu for the translation from Tibetan to English.

*Zur Sum Ma (zur gsum ma) literally means something that has three sides, or is a triangular shape

“Who Is to Blame for the Instability of a Society?”
By Zur Sum Ma

Translation by Dhonling Bhu

Generally speaking, stability is a necessity. If any region, society or country is not stable, then it destroys the happiness of the people who live there. However, when it comes to the individual citizen, is stability necessary? There are two types of stability that can exist: real stability under democratic rule and fake stability under an authoritarian state. Stability under authoritarian rule is through the suppression of people’s freedom and power. But stability under democratic rule is the opposite; it gives people freedom and equality.

The leaders ensure stability, not out of a genuine interest for their citizens, but to protect their own power. If a leader loses his power, then he loses the personal benefits that he made from his power. Anger, fear and doubt often stir up instability. In the name of a “harmonious society”, “people’s interests”, “the stability of the country” and “the prosperity of the region”, authoritarian leaders skilfully and deceitfully hide their own interest and fool many people. At some point, citizens would understand their authority’s real deceitful objective while the authorities were speaking about the stability. During that time it is obvious that citizens would react angrily and look down on their leaders. Certainly the younger generation citizens will also spit on their leaders’ face. On the contrary, the leaders were not mindful about this because they were simply infatuated by their personal benefits and cannot reflect on their work.

The two types of stability are maintained in different ways. Stability under authoritarian rule is maintained by oppression and by using force on people’s freedom and equality. For example, a leader can maintain stability under authoritarian rule by limiting their citizens’ freedom of speech. However, maintaining stability through deprivation of freedom of expression is unstable and impermanent. Not only that, it also creates cause for instability. Another way a leader can maintain stability is by deceiving citizens with financial favours. For example, whether it is necessary or not, the latter grants help to the citizens to create a positive image of benevolence. In turn, the authorised media makes the citizens seem grateful to the state for its kindness. In fact, whatever money or wealth the state have is owned by the citizens of the country whereas the state doesn’t own anything. Still, the leader explains it by saying, “the country and the government has given financial support to you”. Actually, it is appropriate to receive all this financial support from the government to citizens. Therefore, the citizens need not feel grateful towards the government.

In short, the country and government are made up of the citizens. On the other hand, those citizens who receive the most support become the greatest tool to maintain the stability of the country and encourage others to keep the peace. If they feel gratitude towards the leaders, then the door of misfortune will open spontaneously. It is common sense that if someone is grateful, then they will be courteous to their benefactors, and believe in their morality. This blocks “grateful” citizens from feeling doubtful towards their leaders or viewing anything they do as bad.

Even if they do identify their actions as bad, they would still not react because of their past good deeds. In that way, the authorities maintain stability because people do not think critically about the authority’s actions, and do not recognise that they are indebted to them. Thus, citizens become part of the problem by helping to oppress the freedom and equality of human beings, including themselves. If the leaders were not fulfilling their goal by deceiving citizens with financial favours peacefully, then they would implement the first method by force and oppression.

If citizens would know that their leaders were undermining people’s freedom and power then those citizens would not like them. This also disheartens those citizens. At the beginning there would be only a few citizens who were aware of this, but surely the number would gradually increase more and more. Freedom of speech cannot be stopped by force. There is a Buddhist saying that “the mouth of sentient beings cannot be shut off, even by Buddha.” Moreover, it is without question that people become thoughtful and more aware with the development of society.

What we can understand from the above is that maintaining stability while undermining people’s freedom and equality is actually same as maintaining stability while disturbing people’s state of mind. It is merely maintaining stability while creating wounds in the hearts of the people. Authoritarian rulers who have no limits on the ways in which they can control and manipulate their people create instability. In conclusion, the faults and crimes committed by the authoritarian rule are the direct cause of instability by the people.

Disrupting the “stability” of people’s state of mind is the first step in creating social instability. If a leader misuses their power, then they will disrupt their people’s state of mind, which then leads to the instability of society. Sometimes I admit that maintaining stability by “suppressing from the top” through condemning people’s freedom and equality is a dangerous and unsure future for the powers that be. In fact, this gathers up the causes of the instability. But for the leaders, they only care about stability during their tenure and feel no responsibility for maintaining stability after their leadership. The next leader would also implement the “suppressing from the top” strategy of power. Perhaps the leaders lack  political wisdom and courage to eliminate the causes and conditions of instability.

Furthermore, there is a saying that “before ripening the cause of the instability, we have to destroy it completely”. This gives a huge opportunity for the leaders to condemn people’s freedom and power. It also gives the leaders a useful base to claim to destroy the “thorn of the heart” before it ripens. What does “before ripening” mean? How can one measure the difference between ripen and unripe, and what causes instability? Who would know whether a heart is ripened or not yet ripened? Therefore, “maintaining stability” is a direct cause of instability. It is possible to reach a certain point where citizens who are under oppressed and “maintained stability” have no other choice than to disrupt the “stability”.

Thus, who is to blame for instability after all?

The misuse of power by the authorities hurts the freedom and power of citizens, which leads to the disturbance of people’s mental happiness and ends with its helpless citizens disrupting “the stability” of the country. The authorities put “a cap of crime” on the people’s heads by accusing them of disrupting the stability and harmony of society.

Do the authorities feel that citizens will be silenced if they just fulfil their basic needs such as food and shelter?

Do the authorities think that the so-called “citizens” will sing “joyous songs” and abandon their freedom and power merely because they are comfortable and fed?

Do the authorities think that the so-called “citizens” do not care that someone is stepping on their heads? Also, do they think their citizens will just sit quiet as a mouse, without any opinions of their own?



Originally published at http://highpeakspureearth.com/2015/a-tibetan-netizen-asks-who-is-to-blame-for-the-instability-of-a-society/ and republished in TPR with permission.



Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 






 

Was the Diplomat of the 13th Dalai Lama a Russian Spy?

posted Jun 3, 2015, 5:42 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Jun 3, 2015, 5:47 PM ]


 
 
 
By Tsering Woeser


2015 05 18 Was the 13 Dalai Lama Diplomat 1
Ngawang Dorje, also known as Agvan Dorjiev, is a Buryat Mongolian, a “Geshe Lharampa” Lama from Drepung Monastery; he used to be a Minister of the Kashag and acted as a diplomat under the 13th Dalai Lama.

 
High Peaks Pure Earth has translated a blogpost by Woeser written in August 2014 for the Mandarin service of Radio Free Asia and published on her blog on August 19, 2014.

This post looks at the fascinating historical figure of Buryat Lama Ngawang Dorje, also known as Agvan Dorjiev.

Was the Diplomat of the 13th Dalai Lama A “Russian Spy”?
By Woeser

 

2015 05 18 Was the 13 Dalai Lama Diplomat 2

The book given to me by the Tibetologist from Buryatia

Not long ago, I was fortunate to get to know a few Tibetologists from Buryatia (Russia) who were all of Mongolian ethnicity; they were researching Tibetan history, Tibetan medicine, traditional Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan language. I admired them for their ability to not only speak Buryat Mongolian and Russian, but also English, Tibetan, and Chinese.

During our conversation, I learnt that Moscow also has a University like the “Minzu Universities” in Beijing, Chengdu, Lanzhou and so on; their Russian equivalent could be translated into “Ethnic Friendship University”. The youngest of the scholars said jokingly that it was only after he had entered this “Ethnic Friendship University” that he realised the existence of various non-friendly ethnic sentiments. Even though Buryatia is called an “Autonomous Republic”, it is said to be very similar to the Tibet Autonomous Region (but of course the Buryatia Autonomous Republic holds a great deal more power than the TAR). Out of the one million inhabitants, Buryat Mongolians only make up around 30%, the remaining 70% are Russians. The lingua franca is Russian. Buryat Mongolians basically only speak their mother tongue at home.

The Tibetologist Nikolay Tsyrempilov gave me his book about the 13th Dalai Lama and the famous Buryat Lama Ngawang Dorje that he had written with the Tibetan scholar Jampa Samten and published in English and Tibetan as a present. It includes the many letters that His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama and Ngawang Dorje exchanged.

2015 05 18 Was the 13 Dalai Lama Diplomat 3

The original “Tibet Mongolia Treaty”

Ngawang Dorje, also known as Agvan Dorjiev, was a Buryat Mongolian, a “Geshe Lharampa” Lama from Drepung monastery; he used to be a Minister of the Kashag and acted as a diplomat under the 13th Dalai Lama. He was entrusted to compile the first draft of the famous “Tibet Mongolia Treaty” that was signed on December 29, 1912; he was one of the Tibetan representatives who signed the treaty that declared the Tibetan and Mongolian independence from the Qing government and broke off all political relations with China.

The Mongolian writer, Daxi Dongribu, who lives in Japan, wrote in his essay “The Tibetan-Mongolian Past”: “In this treaty, Tibet and Mongolia proclaim mutual recognition, the preface stipulates: ‘Given that Mongolia and Tibet have already broken away from the Manchurian dynasty, are separated from China, and have become independent countries, and given that both countries share the same religion, with the aim of strengthening the two country’s historic mutual friendship…’ the following articles explicitly specify friendship, mutual help, the intimate friendship between two Buddhist countries, trade relations etc. The document makes occasional use of the Tibetan word ‘Rangzen’ which means ‘independence’.”

The Tibetan writer Jamyang Norbu, in his article “A brief overview of events that led to the 13th Dalai Lama’s Proclamation of Tibetan Independence”, called Ngawang Dorje “a seminal figure in bringing about the reformist and nationalist awakening in the court of the young Dalai Lama, but has by and large been overlooked.”

The 14th Dalai Lama says in Thomas Laird’s “The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama” that Ngawang Dorje “was in fact an outstanding scholar and pious Buddhist monk, and he was always loyal to the 13th Dalai Lama.”

Ngawang Dorje was persecuted by Stalin and died in 1938 at the age of 84.

2015 05 18 Was the 13 Dalai Lama Diplomat 4

Zhang Boshu’s recent book

The Chinese government always has hated Ngawang Dorje (whose Chinese name is De Erzhi), labelling him as a “Russian spy” who “illegally signed the ‘Tibet Mongolia Treaty’ declaring the ‘separation of Tibet and Mongolia from China, splitting up the country and founding two independent nations’”. The Chinese government has been vehemently rejecting and vilifying Ngawang Dorje. Interestingly, the Chinese political scientist and constitutional scholar Zhang Boshu who currently resides in the US, in his most recent book “The Tibet Issue in China’s Democratic Transition”, adopts a very similar language to the CCP, calling Ngawang Dorje a “Russian spy who used Buddhism to gain the Dalai Lama’s trust”, and quoted large parts of the biggest social scientific project to revise Tibetan history, “The History of Tibet–Turquoise Beads”, showing that he entertains exactly the same viewpoint as the CCP.

The famous international Tibetologist and professor at Indiana University, Elliot Sperling, cannot help but laugh about the CCP’s and Zhang Boshu’s misrepresentations of Ngawang Dorje’s life story: “If Ngawang Dorje had really been some kind of ‘special agent’, then he must have been a special agent of the 13th Dalai Lama. It is true that he implemented Russian policies, but he did so for the advantage of Tibet and not as part of a Tsarist Russian conspiracy. Tibet was at the time facing the invasion of the British Empire. Russian politics were naturally directed at containing the British Empire; and when the Dalai Lama was in Mongolian exile he also entered into a political dialogue with Tsarist Russia.”

It is, however, strange that the Central Tibetan Administration’s department in charge of communications with the Chinese world, regards a nationalist scholar like Zhang Boshu as an important person “increasing Chinese people’s truthful knowledge about the current Tibetan question”.

August 2014


Originally published at http://highpeakspureearth.com/2015/was-the-diplomat-of-the-13th-dalai-lama-a-russian-spy-by-woeser/ and republished in TPR with permission.



Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 






 

Aren't They The Lucky Ones?

posted May 31, 2015, 6:16 PM by The Tibetan Political Review

 
 
 
By Woeser
Published on RFA on May 15, 2015



Writer Tsering Woeser has used her blog "Invisible Tibet," together with her poetry, historical research, and social media platforms like Twitter, to give voice to millions of ethnic Tibetans who are prevented from expressing themselves to the outside world by government curbs on information. In a recent commentary, she says Tibetans shouldn't play into mainstream fantasies about their own heritage:


Recently, a young Tibetan couple's wedding photos were labeled with all kinds of epithets, such as "dazzling the nation," "beyond dogma," "moving into secularism," and other eye-catching headlines, going viral on the Chinese Internet.

Then, even the Chinese official news agency Xinhua reported the wedding, calling it an example of a  modern Tibetan wedding of the post-1980 generation, with the groom on one knee, holding a ring to propose, while the bride cried with happiness. "So with the zeitgeist," [Xinhua proclaimed.]

This young Tibetan couple hail from Kardze [in Chinese, Ganzi] Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (the husband, Gerong Phuntsok) and from Barkham [Ma'erkang] county in Ngaba [Aba] Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan province (the wife, Dawa Drolma).

They are Tibetans who come from largely agricultural regions, with the highest level of penetration of Han Chinese culture.

From these reports, we learn that Gerong Phuntsok graduated from Beijing's Central Nationalities University and runs an advertising agency in Chengdu, while Dawa Drolma studied music at the Ngaba Teachers' College and now runs an online jewelry business.

Their wedding album can be sorted into two different types of photos: images showing them as "modern Tibetans" wearing suits, skirts, and shades, and a wide-brimmed hat, drinking coffee and wine, running, listening to rock music, driving a sports car or flying in a helicopter, just like the children of so many Hollywood stars, cutting a dash in Chinese and foreign cities on holiday, looking no different from the models in today's Chinese fashion magazines. 

They are fit for display in the window of a wedding photography shop.

Worthy of comment


In the other group are the "traditional Tibetan" photos, in which they appear in so-called national dress, wearing prayer beads, hands clasped and heads bowed as if in prolonged devotion. These are taken atop the Potala Palace, or in Jokhang temple, or spinning wool outside a yurt with a yak on the grasslands. But they still look like models, and they seem to be performing. 

These, too, are fit for display in a bridal boutique window.

If such a wedding album is just made so people can have photos of themselves to hang on the wall on share among a small circle of friends, there is nothing wrong with it. If it is used for commercial publicity, it is a different matter, and if it is used for political propaganda, then it is worthy of comment.

But these young Tibetans' wedding album has gone viral, and not just in China. Even the BBC and the New Yorker picked up on it.

It seems the photos are being read as a demonstration of the modernization of the lives of young Tibetans who are different from their forebears, who possess a dazzling modern style to rival their peers, but who also harbor feelings of nostalgia and a sense of tradition.

This makes me want to laugh. The fact is that this young Tibetan couple has no real experience of pilgrimage or herding and the fact that, for all their traditional appearances in the photos, they are still the petty bourgeoisie of today's China.

Fantasy Tibetans


Such fantasy Tibetans are to be found in the minds of Chinese Tibet enthusiasts, and can often be found wearing Tibetan clothing against the backdrop of the Potala Palace and Barkhor bazaar and various temples, providing wedding photos for Han Chinese tourists ... who pose in traditional Tibetan stage costumes or bridal gowns for commercial photographers.

Gerong Phuntsok and Dawa Drolma are doing no more than imitating them.

It goes like this: Chinese Tibet enthusiasts and supermodels dress up as Tibetans, then young Tibetans imitate the Chinese and the supermodels imitating them. There is only one word for this: pseudery.

Dressing up in traditional, ethnic minority clothes against the backdrop of the Potala Palace, temples and prayer wheels, or pastoral nomadic scenes may seem like you're coming home to something, but it's all an act; the appearance of coming home. It's so staged.

Tibetans can see right through this sort of act, but non-Tibetans will be dazzled by it. It caters to a lot of things; to Chinese people's idea of modernization, to their misunderstanding of Tibetans.

Self-negation

For young Tibetans to dress up in these costumes, far from being an expression of their Tibetan identity, is in my view a form of self-negation.

This negation turns them into passive objects in an increasingly mainstream and "civilized" world which has secularism as its focus. There is no true expression to be found here, nor any true self-acceptance or identity.

Still less is there any sense of an authentic self or a modern Tibetan identity. It's grotesque, like a painting of a tiger based on a photo of a cat.

Such images are of "otherized" Tibetans: a pale reflection of oneself in the eyes of others. They have little new to offer, other than being the empty productions of the current culture among young Chinese people and among young Tibetans who imitate Han culture and its imitation of what looks like Western culture, but is actually Chinese.

Not really free

The big irony lies here: Can this young Tibetan couple get into the Potala Palace to pray? As Tibetans whose hometowns lie outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region, can they go to Lhasa without having to hand in their ID cards to the police? Can they stay in guesthouses not approved by police?

Do they have the freedom to travel freely? Do they have the freedom to have their own ideas and to determine how they will live their lives?

Can these young Tibetans leave the country to go on holiday whenever they want? Clearly they have passports, something that 99 percent of Tibetans can't get.

Aren't they the lucky ones? 

They should know that the deputy chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region's writers' association recently tweeted: "Why can't we Tibetans go on overseas trips? Why have our passports been confiscated by the authorities for the past three years? Why don't they give them back to us? Everyone else in China gets to go overseas on holiday, why not Tibetans?

Perhaps this couple were able to get passports because their hometowns are outside the Tibetan region, but I happen to know that it's very hard for Tibetans to get passports, even if they live in Chengdu [the Sichuan provincial capital].

A happy life?

All this is intentionally or unintentionally ignored by the official Chinese media, and the two have already been portrayed as the Tibetan representatives of modernization, living the happy life of their choice and enjoying various rights that enable them to realize their dreams.

No wonder so many Chinese people online are envious.

But there is a coincidence here, and it's a sad one, noted by The New Yorker. On the day that this wedding album went viral, a 47-year-old Tibetan nun set fire to herself on the streets of Kardze town in the Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, burning to death on the spot.

She became the 142nd Tibetan and the 23rd Tibetan woman to succeed in self-immolating as a form of protest at the Chinese government.

There have been so many self-immolations, of old and young, monks, nomads, and farmers.

And at least half of them come from the same hometowns as this happy young Tibetan couple in the photo album.

Quite a few of them are young, too, about the same age as the couple in the photographs.

Maybe some of those photos of them on the grasslands, on horseback, or in front of pastoral tents in some Xanadu idyll were taken near the homes of some of those people who self-immolated.

Transplanted story

To use the language that is current in China, self-immolation is a dark, negative force, evil, and related to Tibetan independence, and must be snuffed out.

The positive energy lies with this young bride and groom, who must be crowned with the halo of "modernization," feted, and brought into the light.

In a political environment where there is no true personal freedom and no true psychological freedom, the label "modern" rings fake and empty.

Secularism isn't the same as modernism, and it's not a panacea for the Tibet issue, nor a defense against it.

This has been a story about authenticity and parody. The real thing would suffice, not some image of success created to boost sales.

The young Tibetan couple may have written "A story about the two of us" on their album, but in fact all they have done is transplanted someone else's story into their own lives.

But they did actually get married, and for that, I wish them the greatest happiness.


RFA Editor's note: RFA counts 139 self-immolations by Tibetans in China since 2009 [as of May 15, 2015].

Copyright © 1998-2014, RFA. Used with the permission of Radio Free Asia, 2025 M St. NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036. 



Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 
 

Sikyong speaks on ‘Care for the Future of Tibet?’ to Chinese Scholars in Washington DC

posted May 31, 2015, 6:10 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated May 31, 2015, 6:11 PM ]

 
 
 
By Tibet.net (the official website of the Central Tibetan Administration)
May 14, 2015

Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay speaking to Chinese scholars and students during a dialogue organised by Initiatives for China.

Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay speaking to Chinese scholars and students during a dialogue organised by Initiatives for China in Washington DC, 12 May 2015.

WASHINGTON DC: Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay, the democratically elected political leader of the Tibetan people, yesterday spoke to over forty Chinese scholars and students in Washington DC on the topic ‘Care for the future of Tibet?’

The meeting took place at a dialogue organised by Initiatives for China (IFC), a grassroots movement towards democracy in China, which was moderated by Dr. Yang Jianli, Founder/President of IFC and a fellow Harvard scholar and close acquaintance of Dr. Sangay.

Sikyong, in his address to the scholars, underlined the importance of interaction between the Chinese and the Tibetan people to restore the historic trust and friendship shared by the two people. The trust and friendship between the two people has however strained lately as a result of Chinese government’s continued propaganda to create misunderstandings and disharmony, he noted.

Without over simplifying the essence of the Tibet issue, Sikyong explained that the Tibet issue could be described in four M’s, as in Mistake, Mistrust, Middle Way and Misunderstanding or Misinterpretation.

He said that the occupation of Tibet by the Communist Chinese forces and the continued repression of the Tibetan people by the Chinese government is a mistake.

“If you look back in history, at least from Tang dynasty all the way to Qing dynasty to the Kuomintang era, Tibet invaded China at one time and Chinese armies also came to Tibet. But then the Chinese army never stayed in Tibet for this long, the repression has never been this severe, hence I think even from a historical context it is a mistake,” he said.

Sikyong reasoned that this mistake is the root that has sown mistrust between the two people. “Instead of redressing the mistake, the Chinese government continued its policies of political repression, cultural assimilation, social discrimination, economic marginalisation and environmental destruction in Tibet which led to the Tibetan people’s mistrust of the Chinese government,” Sikyong said.

Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay highlighted the Jokhang temple as the epitome of the mistrust that has prevailed in Tibet as a result of the Chinese occupation and repression.

“The Jokhang is the holiest shrine for Tibetan Buddhists. What’s interesting is that, the Jokhang houses a statue of Buddha, which was brought to Tibet by Wencheng, a Chinese princess who married Tibetan king Songtsen Gampo. For centuries, Tibetans have worshipped the temple. However, if you visit the Jokhang now, there are surveillance cameras and sharpshooters perched on rooftops everywhere, which is making the Tibetan people apprehensive about going to the Jokhang now,” he said.

“This drastic change in the behavior of the Tibetan people towards the Jokhang begs the question, how did a sacred place of worship turn into a feared police station? Perhaps this is the biggest example of the mistrust between the two people that has risen as a result of the Chinese occupation of Tibet,” Sikyong asserted.

Speaking on the Middle Way Approach, Sikyong said that the Middle Way Approach was envisioned by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and implemented by the Central Tibetan Administration to address the enduring mistrust between the two people.

“The Middle Way Approach seeks for a genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the framework of the Chinese constitution. The Chinese government always allege that Tibetans aim to split the nation, which is why we have taken into consideration not to challenge the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China,” Sikyong explained, adding that this proposal is as reasonable and moderate as one can get to resolve the issue.

“However, instead of responding to this proposal positively, the Chinese government has resorted to misinterpretation and misinformation, hence misunderstanding,” Sikyong exclaimed.

Sikyong quoted a statement from the recent Whitepaper on Tibet issued by the Chinese government to elucidate his point. “The recent white paper stated that Tibet was part of China since antiquity. However, in 2004, a similar Chinese White paper on Tibet said Tibet was part of China since the 13th century,” Sikyong argued.

“But if you go by the writers of the republican era, Tibet became a part of China during the Republican or Kuomintang era. Then again, if you read the 17 point agreement signed by an under duress Tibetan delegation with the Chinese government on 21 May 1951, you will see that the preamble of the agreement say,  ‘Tibet shall return to the Motherland’,” Sikyong remarked, arguing that if Tibet was always a part of China, where was Tibet returning from?

“There are a lot of contradictions in the Chinese government’s narrative on Tibet.,” Sikyong said.

To buttress his case, Sikyong recalled a reputed Chinese historian from Fudan University, who sits on the advisory board of the Communist party, who has said that China cannot claim Tibet as a part of China since antiquity, as Tibet was a sovereign nation during the Tang dynasty.

He also asserted that the recent white paper on Tibet was a deliberate attempt by the Chinese government to misinterpret and mislead the world.

“The white paper’s allegation on the Middle Way Approach has less relevance with the Tibetan proposal and more with a false propaganda to create misunderstandings on the issue of Tibet,” he said.

Sikyong concluded his address by reassuring the Chinese scholars about His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people’s deep commitment to non-violence to resolve the Tibet issue.

The talk was followed by a question/answer session where Sikyong clarified and responded to the doubts and remarks expressed by the scholars.

Sikyong Dr. lobsang Sangay shares a close relationship with overseas Chinese intellectuals and scholars as he was among the first Tibetans to reach out to Chinese students and public through organising Sino-Tibetan dialogues in the 1990s, in collaboration with Dr. Yang Jianli.

This dialogue is also a part of Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay’s continuous efforts to enhance mutual trust and understanding between the Chinese and the Tibetan people and hopefully a positive solution on the issue of Tibet.

The dialogue in progress at Washington DC.

The dialogue in progress at Washington DC.

 


Originally published at: http://tibet.net/2015/05/sikyong-speaks-on-care-for-the-future-of-tibet-to-chinese-scholars-in-washington-dc/



Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 
 

Message from Tendor and Lhadon to New Delhi Rangzen Conference

posted May 27, 2015, 6:50 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated May 27, 2015, 7:02 PM ]


 
 
 
By Tenzin Dorjee and Lhadon Tethong

Message given to participants in the International Rangzen (Independence) Conference held in New Delhi, India, May 23-24, 2015



Dear Friends,


We are deeply encouraged that this gathering - one that brings together so many thoughtful, passionate and committed Tibetan freedom fighters - is taking place in New Delhi at the India International Center. We send our regrets that we’ve not been able to join the meeting in person, but we are grateful for the opportunity to share our thoughts with you.


Many people, including ourselves, continue to pursue Tibetan independence as the goal of the struggle. From a principled and strategic standpoint, Rangzen must be kept alive in our world for reasons we all know well and, thus, we won’t restate them here. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing misperception that advocating independence is synonymous with endorsing violent separation of Tibet from China, opposing the Central Tibetan Administration, and even opposing His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and we would like to address these dangerous myths here.


We wholeheartedly believe in, practice and promote nonviolent means of achieving change in Tibet and ultimately, independence. But our belief in nonviolence is not based on faith or morality alone, it stems from our study and practice of nonviolent theory that shows us a peaceful resolution to the Tibetan issue is possible if we wage a struggle that combines strategy and nonviolent discipline. We believe the only way for Tibetans to secure our long-term interests – including the preservation of our culture – will be through active and creative resistance that gives future Chinese leaders no option but to address Tibetan grievances. No small nation, like Tibetans, can protect its long-term interests without making noise, taking action and agitating for change. It is never the inclination of the majority population – certainly not in a situation of colonial occupation as in Tibet – to truly address the needs of the minority unless clear demands are made and backed up by constructive as well as agitative action. The status quo in Tibet is unacceptable and must be challenged, but the only feasible way to do it, while maximizing participation and minimizing destruction, is through nonviolent means.


As for our position in relation to the official policy of the Tibetan Government, we believe that promotion of either genuine autonomy or independence does not need to pit people against each other. In fact, to achieve either of these goals, Tibetans and our supporters must continue to engage in activism and advocacy in order to create the pressure on the Chinese leadership that will compel them to change at all. In addition, a firm stand on independence in fact significantly strengthens the Middle Way Approach by positioning genuine autonomy as a real compromise. Without people advocating for independence, the Middle Way would no longer be a compromise – and, in the eyes of the Chinese, genuine autonomy then becomes a radical position that seeks to separate Tibetans within the People’s Republic of China. From this perspective, it can be understood that multiple approaches and diverse positions actually bolster our struggle for freedom instead of weakening it.


Furthermore, our advocacy of independence does not mean that we are opposed to dialogue or negotiations – far from it. We recognize the importance of both as a means of resolving conflict. At the same time, we believe that dialogue and negotiations achieve major changes only when both parties have a high degree of influence and power vis a vis each other. In the Tibetan case, this means negotiations would be effective only when there is enough at stake for the Chinese leadership that they feel compelled to compromise. This is true whether the Tibetan negotiators are ultimately pursuing autonomy or independence. We have every certainty that this pressure and influence on the Chinese leadership can be created through purely nonviolent means, if carried out strategically and according to the lessons of the many nonviolent struggles, both successful and unsuccessful, seen throughout history. Though the current Chinese leadership appears unwilling to change now, we believe the situation in China will evolve and that future Chinese leaders can be compelled to engage in meaningful dialogue, whether they want to or not.


As Tibetans and global citizens, we have always been encouraged and inspired by His Holiness’ openness and acceptance of diverse political opinions. We have taken to heart His advice that as members of a democratic society we are free to have our own opinions and political stance but that we should make sure to pursue our work with the right motivation and, of course, through nonviolent means. We have tried our best to do this, over many years of working with various Tibetan NGOs and support groups. We believe that we and the organizations we have had the privilege to lead are making an impact, especially amongst youth all over the world.


Lately, however, we have been concerned to see a situation emerging where advocates of independence and Middle Way are perceived as being in irreconcilable opposition to each other, and people increasingly seem to feel that they must choose a “side.” As this choice is often presented by a misguided few as being a choice to be either “with” or “against” His Holiness the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan Government, it has proven extremely divisive and toxic to our struggle. This year’s March 10th commemorations in New York City and Dharamsala show the extent to which this wrong-headed thinking has progressed in our society and, sadly, it appears only to be growing worse.


We believe that unity of Tibetans must come from a positive common purpose of ending the suffering in Tibet and supporting the efforts of our people there to restore human rights and freedom. A climate where Tibetans seem more focused on working against each other rather than focusing on China, and where people are afraid to openly speak their views for fear of being ostracized or wrongly charged with being “against His Holiness”, severely hinders our ability to do this. Many of us, who are working earnestly to organize nonviolent campaigns and activities to strengthen the Tibetan struggle, feel alarmed by this situation. We are also concerned to see that among the educated youth – many of the most active, committed and progressive members of our society – and among our supporters, the perceived shrinking of space in the Tibetan community for diverse views is leading to disillusionment and doubts in the leadership of the movement. This is damaging for our entire movement, because we all – Tibetans inside Tibet and in exile – need our government to be strong, credible and genuinely representative of all Tibetans.


As youth who have the great fortune of living in the same era as His Holiness, we believe His great legacy of democracy for the Tibetan nation is critically important and one of the greatest assets in our struggle that we must safeguard. We must ensure that His Holiness’ fundamental, lifelong commitment and contribution to democratizing Tibetan society and government is not just recognized and celebrated but, more importantly, practiced and promoted within Tibetan society. It is clear that His Holiness’ promotion of democracy is not limited to just electoral democracy, but rather one with critical attributes including, in the words of democracy scholar Larry Diamond, substantial individual freedom of belief, opinion, discussion, speech, publication, broadcast, assembly, demonstration, petition and Internet.


To achieve any meaningful political solution to the Tibetan issue – whether genuine autonomy, independence or some other outcome that would protect Tibetan rights – there are many more years of difficult work ahead of us. And our hope lies in our collective trust in each other as Tibetans, determination to end the suffering inside Tibet, and strategic nonviolent action. When people in our community are sidetracked into criticizing each other or trying to shut out voices of those who have different opinions than our own, rather than finding ways to work together for a positive result, all of us lose, and most of all, Tibetans in Tibet who rely on those of us in the free world to help advance our common cause.


The nearly 150 Tibetans who have committed the act of self-immolation in the last three years have achieved the monumental goal of propelling the Tibetan people’s fundamental desire for freedom onto the conscience of the global community. They have proven with the utmost eloquence their unquestionable allegiance to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, reaffirmed the unparalleled strength of the Tibetan spirit of resistance, and exposed the immensity of the suffering brought upon Tibet by Chinese rule. Their actions, which will enter our history books, have forever changed the future of our nation.


But we fear for a future where the most committed and impassioned Tibetans in Tibet feel burning their bodies is the only way to demonstrate their opposition to Chinese rule and loyalty to His Holiness. The purpose of our work in exile should be to pursue strategies and tactics that encourage and give hope to Tibetans inside Tibet and help build more political space and breathing room there so that they feel it is possible to engage in long-term change-making actions that are lower in risk but high in effectiveness.


We can do this by educating and training ourselves and the younger generation in the art of nonviolent resistance, waging strategic campaigns that advance the cause of Tibetan rights and freedom, using our love of life, culture and freedom to bring an end, once and for all, to China’s oppression in our land. As Tibetans and Rangzen activists, let us commit to live and work together with all our people so that we can continue this fight until we reach our goal of freedom and independence within the lifetime of our revered and beloved leader, His Holiness the Dalai Lama.


With best wishes for a successful conference and thanks to the organizing team and all in attendance,


Tenzin Dorjee & Lhadon Tethong, May 19, New York City




Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Facebook Twitter Google+ Addthis





 

SFT/USTC statement on March 10 controversy

posted May 17, 2015, 6:11 PM by The Tibetan Political Review

Date: April 15, 2015




The above statement was in response to the following letter, released by the Office of Tibet on April 10, 2015:



1-10 of 744

Comments