Report Review: US State Department’s Annual Report on Tibet Negotiations, March 2009 – February 2010 (http://tibet.net/en/pdf/usaTibetReport2010.pdf)

A brief overview of the China-Tibet conflict is directly related to China’s claim that Tibet is a part of China. The Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) representatives indicate that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) suppress the Tibetan people’s religious, linguistic and traditional heritage. The US State Department’s report is focused upon official relations between China and Tibet, indicating that the US recognises Tibet as the TAR of China and acknowledges that the Dalai Lama is not pursuing state sovereignty or independence and is instead seeking to retain cultural, linguistic and religious traditions that make up the Tibetan lifestyle. The report outlines that US foreign policy is to focus on the encouragement of “substantive dialogue” between the PRC and FAC, believing progressive relations to have an overall stabilising effect for China and that China’s failure to respond in an appropriate manner is likely to lead to future problems, both internally and externally, that may hinder “social and economic development”. The US indicate that they do not engage in direct diplomatic relations with the Dalai Lama as Tibet is not an independent state but they do have relations through political and non-political groups, with President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton meeting with the Dalai Lama in February 2010 as a “religious leader”. The Dalai Lama is not referred to as the leader of Tibet, but rather as a voice of the Tibetan people and a reflection of their views and desires. The Dalai Lama’s White House visit on 18 February 2010 saw praise given to his “Middle Way” approach, with Obama reinstating support for the Tibetan people and their unique way of life. China is said to have urged the US not to meet with the Dalai Lama at this time and is subsequently criticised for exercising a negative rhetoric toward the Tibetan religious leader. This, along with a statement outlining China’s continued repression of Tibetan religious freedoms in 2009 are the only time criticisms of this type are made toward the PRC. The report outlines China’s need to uphold human rights, to recognise religious and ethnic minority groups within China (with Tibet a specific focus in this aspect) and also consistently emphasises the need for continued dialogue between the PRC and TAR.

US Ambassador-designate to China, Jon Huntsman, is given as advocating for human rights and dialogue at the US Embassy in Beijing and US Consulate General in Chengdu, aimed at Chinese officials and US officials are permitted to travel from China to Tibet to monitor the situation, reporting limited access to some areas in Tibet. Although this is state-led, it represents efforts of the PRC to work with US officials and potentially improving their public image abroad. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) recently announced the government’s approval of private visits to China of Tibetan “compatriots”, although the Dalai Lama himself was excluded from entering China until such a time as he publically announces Tibet as a part of the PRC. While the report highlights the government permission of US officials and Tibetan representatives into other areas of the TAR for monitoring purposes, it makes no clear indication of findings or evidence to support or deny claims of Tibetan cultural suppression. 2002 saw the Dalai Lama’s brother visiting China as a representative of the TAR, with the report indicating that after 17 years of continual tension, was hoped to ensue a significant improvement in relations, however, the outbreak of protests and riots in Tibet in 2008 disproved such notions. China is given as suggesting that such protests were aimed at diminishing their Beijing Olympic efforts. The report states that the PRC perceive Tibet’s engagement with international organisations as an expression of separatist tendencies, even when undertaken within a peace-building capacity as illustrated by the Dalai Lama’s involvement with the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (www.imtd.org 2011).

Overall the report consistently cites dialogue between the PRC and TAR as a key tool for moving forward, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the Dalai Lama or affiliated officials as a government-in-exile. This can be seen to perpetuate China’s claim toward Tibet, along with Taiwan, as being part of China and the PRC subsequently refuse to engage in talks that suggest otherwise. The US talks with the Dalai Lama (as a ‘religious leader’) ultimately encourage his current “Middle Way” approach whereby Tibet is accepted as a Chinese autonomous region, although the Dalai Lama urges for “genuine autonomy that will enable the Tibetan people to govern themselves in accordance with their own needs”, something which the PRC has been reluctant to do so far and hence the 50 year stalemate between the two sides. While the PRC has made token-gestures to promote the Tibetan lifestyle and livelihood, it does so within a restrictive state-led strategy that places China’s economic and social prosperity above that of the Tibetan’s. In March 2011 China published a ‘manual on Tibet’ which is aimed at offering basic information about Tibet, although the publication was not available from the Chinese Government’s official website (www.gov.cn 2011). The US report, while illustrating historic and continual tensions between the PRC and TAR, appears to skirt-over many of the more pressing issues such as economic development, environmental degradation, human rights abuses and progressive steps to ensure the retention of the Tibetan way of life. The report instead, consistently urges for dialogue between the two sides, as well as stating that whenever US officials have the opportunity, they will publically call for China to engage in dialogue with Tibet and respect minority rights. The report lacks adequate evidence, solutions or suggestions of an alternative approach that would see future progressive developments and appears to condone China’s position toward Tibet, while at the same time offering its sympathies to the Tibetan people. In this manner, the report adopts an observatory role and can be seen to offer very little in relation to public and cultural diplomacy efforts of either side. Having said this, it can perhaps be argued that as the Dalai Lama is not considered an official government representative, only a religious leader, that all of China’s activities in relation to the TAR are undertaken within a cultural diplomacy manner as they are working toward, albeit not very successfully, cultural understanding and engagement with Tibet.

Sources:

·Chinese Government’s Official Web Portal, ‘China Publishes Manual on Tibet’, available as of 14 April 2011 at http://www.gov.cn/english/2011-03/22/content_1829276.htm

·The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy: Peacebuilding through Collaboration, ‘Country Project: Tibetan Government and Community in Exile’, available as of 13 April 2011 at http://www.imtd.org/country-projects/government-of-tibet-in-exile/