Tibetan official: 'EU must send delegation to Tibet' 

Tashi Wangdi represents His Holiness the Dalai Lama at the Bureau of Tibet in Brussels. 

To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here. 

If you could ask for one thing from European Union politicians, what would it be? 

We would like the EU to send a delegation to visit Tibet. We would want them to secure agreement with the Chinese authorities that the EU could visit all parts of Tibet and speak to people without any minders or restrictions. And we would want that people who speak to European politicians or journalists are not punished afterwards. What we want is the truth to be understood. 

The Chinese version of the story is that people in Tibet are happy and there has been great progress. They say serfs have been liberated and are dancing in the streets enjoying a free life. We are saying this is far from the truth. 

In terms of EU-China relations, do you have much input in raising human rights issues? 

One of my major responsibilities is to keep the Commission, Council and of course the European Parliament – which has taken an active interest – informed about the situation. And request them to raise the issue with the Chinese government whenever the opportunities arise. 

Do you think European politicians do this in an effective way, or are they just paying lip service to human rights while focusing on trade? 

They try their best. We see there are some limitations to having an impact on Chinese policy. I think it's important that every time they have a meeting with Chinese leaders, they make a point of expressing concern about the situation in Tibet and urge them to find a solution to negotiations. It's important and useful for EU leaders to encourage China to respond to His Holiness the Dali Lama's initiatives. 

In spite of the fact that the Chinese show their displeasure and can sometimes be quite blunt, I think European leaders have been willing to face these unpleasant situations. 

Does China do anything in response or can they just ignore it? 

In immediate terms, Chinese leaders try to be dismissive and give the impression that they don't care. But on the other hand, if world leaders make a consistent effort to have a common position in expressing their concerns about human rights and democracy, it can have an impact. 

The Chinese leaders want to be recognised as responsible people and they like to be seen as having an important role to play in world affairs, but this is a dark spot for them. It's very important to keep on reminding them. We are quite sure that if a persistent effort is made it will make a difference – maybe immediately, but over time. 

Does this public support have any effect on people inside Tibet? Can they access global media? 

People in Tibet are going through a very difficult time; sometimes they are almost desperate and hopeless. And out of desperation comes violence, so a consistent effort must be made to keep the movement non-violent. But there is some limit to it. One of the reasons people become more radical and resort to violence is that they argue nobody pays attention to non-violence. 

The argument is that politicians only start to pay attention when there is unrest, and nobody pays any attention to peaceful means. But if people inside Tibet know there are people in the international community paying attention to their suffering, it helps. We have three stations broadcasting Tibetan language news, and it can help support peaceful means. 

Have things gotten worse or better since the riots last year? 

Worse. There is tighter control and a larger military presence. Since last March, one of our appeals to the Chinese government would be to allow observers and journalists into Tibet to see things for themselves. There are two versions: the Chinese version and our version – the truth is in there somewhere. But unless independent parties can visit Tibet freely, it's impossible for the world to know what's really happening. 

How reliable is the information you get from inside Tibet given that most of it comes from activists? 

We have our own sources. His Holiness often says that we treat ourselves as free spokesmen of those inside Tibet. There are six million people in Tibet and 130,000 outside. We have to faithfully and honestly represent their views, their feelings, their aspirations. We have our own ways of finding out what is really happening, but we also cross-reference with other sources. However, it's a highly controlled system and it takes time for information to get out – but it does come out. 

It has been reported that there is a split in the Tibetan movement and that younger activists want to push harder for independence, while the Dalai Lama wants to compromise and negotiate autonomy for Tibet. Is the movement divided? 

I think these are facts. Before he left Tibet in 1959, he wanted to democratise the political system, and when he went into exile, one of the first things he did was create an elected parliament. Democracy is a very important agenda for us. When you have a democracy, people are free to express their views and there are different opinions on the way forward. 

Was the Olympics seen as an opportunity to draw attention the world media’s attention to Tibet? 

The Dalai Lama said the Chinese people deserved the Olympics, and some say that helped China win the bid. He also discouraged a boycott of the Games last year. And when there were clashes along the route of the Olympic Torch relay, he used his influence to appeal to the Tibetan community in the US to avoid problems on the San Francisco leg of the relay. 

China accused the Dalai Lama and people close to him of orchestrating the problems, but we have told them they can examine our records and recordings of Dalai Lama's meetings to show that this is not the case. 

It is fifty years since the Dalai Lama went into exile. What is the strategy for the future? 

Well, you're right in saying most of the younger people – and some others – have a strong view about complete independence. And then there is His Holiness and the parliament, supported by referendums of the Tibetans in exile, advocate autonomy as the best approach. We had a consultation process and this reaffirmed the middle way approach of seeking autonomy. 

Last year, we came to a stalemate – we got stuck with the Chinese leadership – and we are in a difficult period. So it's up to everyone whether to prefer independence or the middle way approach. Of course the question of violence and non-violence is a separate issue. Ultimately, the people will have to decide. The people were consulted again after events last year and there has been no change. 

Has Beijing engaged in real, constructive talks? 

No, actually they have not. We have had direct contact since 1979 but it has been start-stop – very erratic. Looking back over the past 30 years, unfortunately our conclusion is that the Chinese leaders have never really given us the impression that they were sincerely interested in finding a solution. 

So if they will not change their position and you have not changed your position, how can things ever change? 

They have not changed, but I think we have been very accommodating since 1979. Before that, independence was the issue. The Tibetan leadership took a decision that if there was a possibility of talks with the Chinese leaders that a solution within the larger framework of the Chinese constitution would be the best approach. We have made a major compromise. 

If the Chinese side make things clear to us, we can make progress. We've always said that the negotiation process means you have to make compromises. If they really come forward and pinpoint practical difficulties, our side would be willing to accommodate it. If there's a serious effort, we don't see any insurmountable obstacles. 

How can China be given an incentive to change their policy?

China is now economically, militarily and, in terms of population, a huge power. But they are still full of suspicions and almost lacking in self-confidence. They take any criticism quite badly. So once they become more confident and start to see things with a more open mind, then things like this can be addressed. 

They are developing relations and being accepted internationally, and I think this is important in the long run. They are so nervous, even about their own democracy movement. There is some weakness in the minds of the leadership. 

When you talk about autonomy, do you look at the model of Hong Kong, which is a democracy within the Chinese system, or are you attracted by power-sharing agreements in places like Northern Ireland? 

It's not modelled on any outside examples. We are seeking to address concerns they [the Chinese government] have. We have outlined a solution that fits within the Chinese constitution. We have consulted experts in Chinese law, and we are advised that what we have been seeking for 30 years is very much in line with China's constitution. We have referred in detail to regional government laws. What we are asking China to do is to implement some of the assurances that have been given to us over the decades.