Eye of the Beholder
On the surface at least things are now moving quite fast. Last month the Chinese announced that they are willing to hold talks with the Dalai Lama anywhere he chooses. This month the Tibetan side proposed not only the venue—Geneva, but also the date—January next. At press time there has been no official response from Peking. However, there is no reason to suspect that the Chinese will find either the venue or the date objectionable.
Anything else is far from certain. The Chinese have said that they do not recognise the Tibetan government-in-exile and that the Stragbourg proposal cannot become the basis for talks. However, the Tibetan negotiating team is composed of high ranking members of the government. And it is prepared to talk only on the basis of the Strasbourg proposal.
Not only that. The Dalai Lama has promised his people that there will be no further concessions from our side. At the moment the Tibetans are divided on the Dalai Lama’s proposal : some think he should not have given up the demand for independence so easily: others agree with their leader that this is the only realistic approach. However, if this “realism” is further extended in Geneva, more Tibetans are bound to feel let down. What more can the Tibetans be expected to give up? Allowing large parts of Kham and Amdo to remain under Chinese control, for instance, will never be acceptable to the inhabitants of those regions.
One should always keep in mind two important details in the Strasbourg document. First, the final decision on whether or not to accept any proposal will be made by a referendum among the Tibetans. Secondly, the Tibetan side will hold talks only to work out details on how this proposal might be implemented. There is no question of devising some new formula.
On the other hand, Peking has not made any concessions at all from her side. The willingness to talk with the Dalai Lama and letting him choose the venue—despite the ecstatic reaction of the Tibetan government—are not concessions on the issue at hand. And there is no sign that they will make any concessions as far as Tibet as a nation is concerned. They are still thinking in terms of “negotiations on the Dalai Lama’s return,” not the future status of Tibet. It is clear that Peking and Dharamsala see the Tibetan issue as two very different things. It is anybody’s guest what they will find to talk about in Geneva.
On the surface at least things are now moving quite fast. Last month the Chinese announced that they are willing to hold talks with the Dalai Lama anywhere he chooses. This month the Tibetan side proposed not only the venue—Geneva, but also the date—January next. At press time there has been no official response from Peking. However, there is no reason to suspect that the Chinese will find either the venue or the date objectionable.
Anything else is far from certain. The Chinese have said that they do not recognise the Tibetan government-in-exile and that the Stragbourg proposal cannot become the basis for talks. However, the Tibetan negotiating team is composed of high ranking members of the government. And it is prepared to talk only on the basis of the Strasbourg proposal.
Not only that. The Dalai Lama has promised his people that there will be no further concessions from our side. At the moment the Tibetans are divided on the Dalai Lama’s proposal : some think he should not have given up the demand for independence so easily: others agree with their leader that this is the only realistic approach. However, if this “realism” is further extended in Geneva, more Tibetans are bound to feel let down. What more can the Tibetans be expected to give up? Allowing large parts of Kham and Amdo to remain under Chinese control, for instance, will never be acceptable to the inhabitants of those regions.
One should always keep in mind two important details in the Strasbourg document. First, the final decision on whether or not to accept any proposal will be made by a referendum among the Tibetans. Secondly, the Tibetan side will hold talks only to work out details on how this proposal might be implemented. There is no question of devising some new formula.
On the other hand, Peking has not made any concessions at all from her side. The willingness to talk with the Dalai Lama and letting him choose the venue—despite the ecstatic reaction of the Tibetan government—are not concessions on the issue at hand. And there is no sign that they will make any concessions as far as Tibet as a nation is concerned. They are still thinking in terms of “negotiations on the Dalai Lama’s return,” not the future status of Tibet. It is clear that Peking and Dharamsala see the Tibetan issue as two very different things. It is anybody’s guest what they will find to talk about in Geneva.
posted by editorla at
9:18 PM
<< Home