The Dalai Lama is frustrated by China's refusal to discuss "cultural" autonomy for Tibet, but sees a window to sway public opinion ahead of the Beijing Olympics, analysts said yesterday.
The Buddhist leader has used high-profile events such as a US Congress award ceremony attended by US President George W. Bush, meetings with heads of state in Germany, Canada and Austria and press interviews to raise the stakes with China, said Kate Saunders, spokeswoman of the International Campaign for Tibet.
"China has been stepping up its criticism of the Dalai Lama since the US visit, internationally and within Tibet, because they don't think it was a coincidence he started to talk about the succession issue in Washington," Saunders said in a telephone interview from Washington.
The latest salvo over selection of the next Dalai Lama flared on Tuesday when the spiritual leader said that if he were to die in exile, his successor would be chosen from outside Tibet.
His suggestion that other methods, possibly including a referendum, be used would change a centuries-old system of revered lamas searching Tibet for a child who was the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.
He also mentioned options such as a religious council similar to the Catholic cardinals who select the pope and naming someone to hold the post while he is still alive.
The comments were a thinly-veiled warning that the Dalai Lama would make broader appeals to Tibetan Buddhists living in India, Mongolia as well as China, said Robert Barnett, director of Tibetan Studies at Columbia University in New York.
"He played the democracy card," Barnett said in a telephone interview. "Not so much as saying that there will be a vote or that China would allow it in Tibet. But he believes he can win some kind of gauge of popular opinion though he's never going to be tested in a traditional way."
Barnett and Saunders, however, said that starting talks with China remains the Dalai Lama's focus and next year's Olympics means a period of intense interest in Tibet.
Barnett said that in "an ideal world" the comments by the Dalai Lama would have been made "in a closed room across a negotiating table."
"Now we have a situation where he makes a small statement and the Chinese respond in a big way and this is putting real pressure on them," he said.
The 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner maintained on Tuesday he would like to talk with Chinese leaders. Beijing has had a series of meetings with his emissaries in recent years, but has baulked at direct talks.
He also repeated charges that Tibet was becoming a victim of "demographic aggression" because an influx of Han Chinese had led to a "kind of cultural genocide."
"The reports coming from Tibet via the Internet and other means have given the Dalai Lama concern that acts of repression are being stepped up." Barnett said. "This will bring attention on China before the games."
The pressure is also aimed at heading off plans by the Chinese Communist Party to select a successor itself and set the terms for the process.
China, which has ruled Tibet since 1951 and has violently crushed protests there, recently announced that so-called Tibetan living Buddhas needed permission from the government, officially atheist, to be reincarnated.
The comments on Tuesday sparked an immediate response from China.
"The Dalai's remarks obviously violated the religious rituals and historical conventions," the foreign ministry said in a faxed statement.
The Dalai Lama's special envoy Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari replied in an e-mail.
"Such an uninformed response from Beijing betrays the Chinese Communist Party's lack of legitimacy in this area. His Holiness was referring to options that exist in the future and that are deeply rooted in Tibetan Buddhist practice," he said.
Uday Bhaskar, former director of India's Center for Defense Studies, said that China was unlikely to bend on talks even though the Olympics will be "a major showcase for them."
"This is splittism for China akin to Taiwan and Outer Mongolia," he said. "They want to control the succession in Tibet, plain and simple."
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS