ReutersThe Tibetan government-in-exile and China are continuing to hold back-channel talks and the last round took place this month, just days before US President Joe Biden signed a legislation that seeks to press Beijing for a negotiated settlement to Tibet's demands for greater autonomy. "Last round of talks happened at the beginning of this month," Penpa Tsering, the Sikyong or political head of Tibet's government-in-exile, said on Wednesday.
The Tibetan side has been joining the back-channel negotiations with a long-term perspective and that it does not have any expectations from the Xi Jinping-led Chinese government, he told a small group of journalists.
"We just cannot think of the short term. We cannot only think about Xi Jinping. He will be there for sometime and then he will be gone. But we have to keep our communications (with Beijing) going," he said.
In April, Beijing rejected reports of the back-channel talks with the Tibetan government-in-exile and said it will hold negotiations only with the representatives of the Dalai Lama.
"The back-channel talks are going on. However China never acknowledges them. It is their policy not to acknowledge," Tsering said.
From 2002 to 2010, Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama's representatives and the Chinese government held nine rounds of dialogue that did not produce any concrete outcomes. No formal talks have been held since then.
The back-channel talks were seen as willingness by both sides to re-engage over a decade after the formal dialogue process hit a dead end in view of anti-China protests in Tibet and Beijing's hardline approach towards the Buddhist region.
Sikyong said the talks are taking place in a third country and it was Beijing which reached out to Tibet's government-in-exile for the negotiations.
At the same time, he said there has been no contact between the two sides since Biden signed into law the "The Resolve Tibet Act".
"My Administration will continue to call on the People's Republic of China to resume direct dialogue, without preconditions, with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, to seek a settlement that resolves differences and leads to a negotiated agreement on Tibet," Biden said after signing the Act on July 12.
The legislation, seen as significant in Tibet's struggle for autonomy, says it is Washington's policy that the conflict must be resolved in accordance with international law through dialogue without preconditions.
"If there has to be a resolution, it should be based on international law -- that is the first aspect of this act," the Sikyong said.
"Even though we are asking for some kind of autonomy under the Middle-Way policy, the concept of autonomy is not defined in international law. The only thing that is defined in international law is self determination," he explained.
"And that is what the US recognises that the Tibetan people have the right to self determination just as the UN General Assembly passed a resolution way back in 1961." Tsering said the Tibetan people are very committed to the 'Middleway' policy of the Dalai Lama to resolve the conflict.
"We are very very committed to the Middleway policy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama that is approved by the majority of Tibetans and unanimously adopted by the Parliament way back in 1997," he said.
"We remain committed to His Holiness's thinking and try to find a non-violent, negotiated, mutually-beneficial lasting solution to the cause of Tibet," he said.
"But we decided to change our policy a little bit in the sense that when we speak about the Middle-way, then there needs to be polarities. Without polarities, there cannot be a middle-way and without recognition of the polarities, there is no value for middle-way," Tsering said.
Explaining the two polarities, he said one is the present situation in Tibet under the "repressive" Chinese communist government and the other is the historical status of Tibet as an independent state.
Another significant aspect of "The Resolve Tibet Act" is the US's assertion that China is wrong in claiming that Tibet has been part of China since ancient times.
In its talks with China between 2002 and 2010, the Tibetan side pitched genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people in line with the Dalai Lama's middle way policy.
China has in the past accused the Dalai Lama of indulging in "separatist" activities and trying to split Tibet and considers him as a divisive figure.
However, the Tibetan spiritual leader has insisted that he is not seeking independence but "genuine autonomy for all Tibetans living in the three traditional provinces of Tibet" under the "Middle-Way approach".
After a failed anti-Chinese uprising in 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama fled Tibet and came to India where he set up the government-in-exile. The Chinese government officials and the Dalai Lama or his representatives have not met in formal negotiations since 2010.
Beijing has been maintaining that it freed "serfs and slaves" from a brutal theocracy in Tibet and bringing the region on the path of prosperity and modernisation.
The Tibetan side has been joining the back-channel negotiations with a long-term perspective and that it does not have any expectations from the Xi Jinping-led Chinese government, he told a small group of journalists.
"We just cannot think of the short term. We cannot only think about Xi Jinping. He will be there for sometime and then he will be gone. But we have to keep our communications (with Beijing) going," he said.
In April, Beijing rejected reports of the back-channel talks with the Tibetan government-in-exile and said it will hold negotiations only with the representatives of the Dalai Lama.
"The back-channel talks are going on. However China never acknowledges them. It is their policy not to acknowledge," Tsering said.
From 2002 to 2010, Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama's representatives and the Chinese government held nine rounds of dialogue that did not produce any concrete outcomes. No formal talks have been held since then.
The back-channel talks were seen as willingness by both sides to re-engage over a decade after the formal dialogue process hit a dead end in view of anti-China protests in Tibet and Beijing's hardline approach towards the Buddhist region.
Sikyong said the talks are taking place in a third country and it was Beijing which reached out to Tibet's government-in-exile for the negotiations.
At the same time, he said there has been no contact between the two sides since Biden signed into law the "The Resolve Tibet Act".
"My Administration will continue to call on the People's Republic of China to resume direct dialogue, without preconditions, with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, to seek a settlement that resolves differences and leads to a negotiated agreement on Tibet," Biden said after signing the Act on July 12.
The legislation, seen as significant in Tibet's struggle for autonomy, says it is Washington's policy that the conflict must be resolved in accordance with international law through dialogue without preconditions.
"If there has to be a resolution, it should be based on international law -- that is the first aspect of this act," the Sikyong said.
"Even though we are asking for some kind of autonomy under the Middle-Way policy, the concept of autonomy is not defined in international law. The only thing that is defined in international law is self determination," he explained.
"And that is what the US recognises that the Tibetan people have the right to self determination just as the UN General Assembly passed a resolution way back in 1961." Tsering said the Tibetan people are very committed to the 'Middleway' policy of the Dalai Lama to resolve the conflict.
"We are very very committed to the Middleway policy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama that is approved by the majority of Tibetans and unanimously adopted by the Parliament way back in 1997," he said.
"We remain committed to His Holiness's thinking and try to find a non-violent, negotiated, mutually-beneficial lasting solution to the cause of Tibet," he said.
"But we decided to change our policy a little bit in the sense that when we speak about the Middle-way, then there needs to be polarities. Without polarities, there cannot be a middle-way and without recognition of the polarities, there is no value for middle-way," Tsering said.
Explaining the two polarities, he said one is the present situation in Tibet under the "repressive" Chinese communist government and the other is the historical status of Tibet as an independent state.
Another significant aspect of "The Resolve Tibet Act" is the US's assertion that China is wrong in claiming that Tibet has been part of China since ancient times.
In its talks with China between 2002 and 2010, the Tibetan side pitched genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people in line with the Dalai Lama's middle way policy.
China has in the past accused the Dalai Lama of indulging in "separatist" activities and trying to split Tibet and considers him as a divisive figure.
However, the Tibetan spiritual leader has insisted that he is not seeking independence but "genuine autonomy for all Tibetans living in the three traditional provinces of Tibet" under the "Middle-Way approach".
After a failed anti-Chinese uprising in 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama fled Tibet and came to India where he set up the government-in-exile. The Chinese government officials and the Dalai Lama or his representatives have not met in formal negotiations since 2010.
Beijing has been maintaining that it freed "serfs and slaves" from a brutal theocracy in Tibet and bringing the region on the path of prosperity and modernisation.
Read More News on
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
Read More News on
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
