Dalai Lama's Envoys in Talks With Beijing Resign

[icy]

The two envoys who represented the Dalai Lama in failed talks with China on Tibet over the past decade have resigned to express their frustration over Beijing's unwillingness to consider any autonomy for the Himalayan region.

Officials announced the resignations of Lodi G. Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen in a statement Monday from the Tibetan government-in-exile based in the northern Indian town of Dharmsala. The two men had held nine rounds of talks with Chinese officials from 2002 to 2010.

Gyari and Gyaltsen said in a resignation letter that the situation in Tibet has worsened since large-scale public protests there in 2008, and that recent self-immolation protests in the region have added to their frustration with China's handling of the region.

"At this particular time, it is difficult to have substantive dialogue," the letter said.


In 2008, the envoys presented a proposal to grant Tibet greater autonomy within China, but Beijing rejected the plan. Chinese officials have repeatedly refused to discuss the status of Chinese-ruled Tibet, saying they would only address the return of the Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhists who fled to exile in India in 1959. Beijing has accused him of trying to split the country, a charge he denies.

China says Tibet has always been part of its territory and has sought to win over its population by boosting economic growth. But many Tibetans say their region was virtually independent for centuries until Chinese troops invaded in the 1950s, and say their language and culture are now being suppressed.

The Dalai Lama stepped down as the political leader of the Tibetan people in 2011, the same year that Harvard legal scholar Lobsang Sangay was elected prime minister of the exile parliament.

Gyari and Gyaltsen continued to be described as envoys of the Dalai Lama, but have also reported to Lobsang Sangay since he took office.

Tibetan government-in-exile official Thupten Samphel said there was no urgency to name new envoys because Beijing is showing "no willingness" for dialogue. New envoys would be named once Chinese officials send "a positive signal," he said.


It is now crystal clear that the envoys of the Dalai Lama have not made any headway in the quest for autonomy of Tibet which resulted the resignation of the 2 envoys.  It looks bleak Tibet will ever achieve autonomy.  A possible chance for Tibetans is through integration of Tibetan cultural heritage and Buddhism in China similarly how the Japanese cleverly conquer the world through integration in industralisation and economy instead of war.  Protests through self-immolation will only infuriate the Chinese and stop negotiation and nullified autonomy efforts.  Hence, Dorje Shugden practice is one of the most important gateways to integrate into China and allow Tibetan freedom of practice as I see it.

[Ensapa]

They should just go along with the Chinese government's wishes and make them happy as having self immolations and protests around the world will not do much except make things worse than they already are, as evident by the testimonials of the representatives of the CTA to China. They cant make any negotiations because the Tibetans are not united to begin with.

this shows how much has CTA progressed with China on the Tibet issue --  nothing at all. no results. zero. I wouldnt blame the Dalai Lama but rather on the CTA who are inconsistent with their actions, and their actions are not consistent with the rest of His Holiness' teachings on compassion, tolerance and patience, especially towards Dorje Shugden practitioners who are also Tibetan.

They have not shown any results for the longest time yet they still harbor dreams of having Tibet back, and if that was not enough, incite young Tibetans to waste their lives needlessly for something so not worth it at the end of the day as they lack the proper infrastructure and experience to govern such a big country as Tibet as they have proven themselves to be a failure for so many times.

This would be interesting tho, to see more and more tibetan ministers resign from the cabinet because they realize that they have joined a lost cause, not so much the cause but that their colleagues are not helping make the situation better but making it worse and more difficult for China to respect CTA or even care enough to start any talks with them. Who would want to talk to someone who keeps inciting hatred and lies?

[Ensapa]

And here's a brand new angle to the whole issue:

According to the above article “Kalon Tripa accepts resignations of the Dalai Lama’s Envoys.”

Soooo, this is so Oxymoron[ic].

Last I checked the Envoy’s were under the Office of the Dalai Lama. Both the Dalai Lama and the Envoys made that clear after HH’s resignation. So since when did the Kalon Tripa “accept resignations of the Dalai Lama’s Envoys” instead of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama?

Besides, I’ve been hearing all sorts of gossips on the disagreements between the current Kalon Tripa and Lodi Gyari.

So….the mystery remains, who gets to take over Lodi Gyari’s position? And who gets to decide that? The Dalai Lama or the Kalon Tripa?

And if the Kalon Tripa, would the dialogue’s officially be conducted under the Kaon Tripa and therefore the Tibetan Gov? But that would mean China wouldn’t talk to them right, cuz China said they don’t recognize the Gov.?

Also, would the next special envoy’s have the tittle “Special Envoy to Kalon Tripa Dr. Lobsang Sangay” instead of “Special Envoy to His Holiness the Dalai Lama”?

confusion confusion….

So they were initially hired by the Dalai Lama and they now answer to the Kalon Tripa? Weird. What is really going on?

 This is interesting because it could be the very reason why he quit, that envoys feels that the direction that LS is going with his operation poke China in the eye with accusations and rumors is undoing whatever relations they have fostered or improved with China so far and so, there is no need for an envoy since CTA is not even working together with their envoys and is going in different directions.

Lodi Gyari is also a tulku. Interesting that CTA has so many tulkus working for them and it seems that he is quitting too. hmm.

Lodi Gyari, Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, Lodi Gyari Rinpoche or Kasur Lodi Gyari (Pema Lodrö Gyaltsen) born in 1949 in Tibet is the special envoy to the 14th Dalai Lama in the USA.

Lodi Gyari Rinpoche was born in Nyarong in Eastern Tibet in 1949 and went into exile in 1959 in India, where he developed political activities. With others, he founded the Tibetan Youth Congress. More recently, he became and the Executive Chairman of the Board of the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT).
He was recognized as the reincarnation of a Buddhist master of the Nyingma lineage, named Khenchen Jampal Dewé Nyima from Lumorap Monastery in Tibet. His previous incarnation among the main teachers of Dudjom Rinpoche.

Interesting that he is also the founder of the Tibetan Youth Congress, or Tibetan provoke China congress....because all that they're doing is just making China angrier at them.

[dsiluvu]

It is now crystal clear that the envoys of the Dalai Lama have not made any headway in the quest for autonomy of Tibet which resulted the resignation of the 2 envoys.  It looks bleak Tibet will ever achieve autonomy.  A possible chance for Tibetans is through integration of Tibetan cultural heritage and Buddhism in China similarly how the Japanese cleverly conquer the world through integration in industralisation and economy instead of war.  Protests through self-immolation will only infuriate the Chinese and stop negotiation and nullified autonomy efforts.  Hence, Dorje Shugden practice is one of the most important gateways to integrate into China and allow Tibetan freedom of practice as I see it.

2 envoys Quit?!?! That does not sound very encouraging and positive! But Well said Icy about integration rather then fighting!!! And perhaps this is probably why His Holiness is starting to sing a different tune and tone to China saying he is like a "son" to Mao and all, which we discussed in on of the threads in this forum!

I certain think that CTA's strategy needs to change alright... it has not serve them and it's not gonna serve them much now. China obviously will not tolerate their demands. Look, if within your own community in exile there is a split... eh hmmm Shugdenpas and Anti-Shugdenpas... why should China bother listening to YOU CTA? It's like "pot calling the kettle black".

The only strong weapon you have is your "religion" CTA... which is about the biggest similarities you have with China at the moment. And I was just talking about similarities in a previous post lol. Well if you are not so smart... then copy Japan's strategy... INTEGRATION sounds to me like the KEY here.

Firstly to get in China's good books... it would definitely be smart for CTA, the PM, Mr. Lobsang Sangay to say something positive to the Tibetans in Tibet about the self-immolation  issues. They should be addressed and discouraged as this is what that is making their chance of any dialogue/negotiation with China an abyss. It would relief some of the fumes China has on Tibetans.   

The very fact that China is pretty happy with Dorje Shugden spreading is perhaps best thing Tibetans got going because ... Dorje Shugden practice is perhaps the only link and chance for an integration that would somehow bring people closer together. Well CTA looks like you better lift the ban if you'd like to see progress!

[Ensapa]

Here's what the CTA thinks of their resignation:

The Impact of the Resignations of Gyari & Gyaltsen
Phayul[Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:54]
By the editorial board of The Tibetan Political Review

One June 3, 2012, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile (TGIE) announced that Kalon Tripa Lobsang Sangay had accepted the resignations of Lodi Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen as the envoys for His Holiness the Dalai Lama in negotiations with the Chinese authorities.

In their resignation letter the two envoys stated:

“Given the deteriorating situation inside Tibet since 2008 leading to the increasing cases of self-immolations by Tibetans, we are compelled to submit our resignations. Furthermore, the [China’s] United Front did not respond positively to the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People presented in 2008 and its Note in 2010. One of the key Chinese interlocutors in the dialogue process[ii] even advocated abrogation of minority status as stipulated in the Chinese constitution thereby seeming to remove the basis of autonomy. At this particular time, it is difficult to have substantive dialogue.”

The Kashag responded by reiterating that the “Tibetan leadership remains firmly committed to non-violence and the Middle-Way Approach, and strongly believes that the only way to resolve the issue of Tibet is through dialogue.” However, the TGIE did not address why it remains committed to the Middle Way Approach when two of the Middle Way’s leading proponents have apparently given up on it due to the lack of positive response from China and the deteriorating situation inside Tibet.

The resignation of Gyari and Gyaltsen is a watershed event in the decades-long process of Chinese-Tibetan negotiations. To be clear, Gyari and Gyaltsen did not specifically say they personally no longer support the Middle Way. Nevertheless, their resignations strongly signal a lack of meaningful results under the Middle Way Approach and demonstrate a loss of faith in the dialogue process by two of its most visible proponents.


Change?

Kalon Tripa Lobsang Sangay was elected on a platform of “change”. Many of his supporters said they voted for Sangay because they thought he would bring change to the TGIE and come up with new ideas in Tibet’s struggle for freedom. However, since his election, Sangay has maintained a very solid and consistent position supporting the Middle Way Approach.

The Middle Way has been the TGIE’s policy since the Dalai Lama’s Strasbourg Proposal and Five-Point Peace Plan, which called for genuine Tibetan autonomy as part of People’s Republic of China. Over time the Middle Way proposal has been whittled down from essentially “everything except defense and foreign affairs” to accepting Chinese Communist Party rule while focusing more on Tibetans’ cultural rights. In 2008 the TGIE formally presented China with the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People (the Memorandum) and clarifying Note, which together present the most detailed explanation of the Middle Way to date. Sangay has repeatedly thrown his support fully behind the Memorandum.

Sangay said he is for dialogue with China at any time and any place. China responded by saying they would never negotiate with Sangay or the TGIE, and referred to him as a “terrorist.”[iii] Sangay may be hopeful for dialogue with China, but it is clear it will never negotiate directly with him or TGIE representatives. How Sangay’s administration intends to get China to the negotiating table with the TGIE, or even with Gyari’s and Gyaltsen’s possible replacements as envoys, is not clear – nor has the TGIE yet elaborated on this point.

In any event, China has said it will only negotiate with His Holiness’ representatives and will only discuss the conditions for His Holiness’ return to Tibet, never Tibet’s current or future political status.[iv] China has repeatedly said His Holiness must also give up the claim for Tibetan independence (which He has) and recognize Tibet and Taiwan as inseparable parts of China.[v] Chinese officials have also stated they would never agree to re-unite Amdo and Kham areas (where approximately 4 million Tibetans live) with the present-day Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR).

For the Tibetan side, the TGIE wants genuine internal autonomy for the entire Tibetan Plateau, which includes the TAR and all Tibetan autonomous areas in Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan provinces, as one autonomous region. In exchange, the TGIE would recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and “not challenge the socialist system of the PRC” (as stated in the Note, meaning that the Chinese Communist Party would remain in control). Yet China refuses to even acknowledge that there is an issue beyond His Holiness’s personal status.


What Now?

It is abundantly clear that the two sides remain vastly far apart on many issues. China has not agreed to any points proposed by the TGIE in the Memorandum. It often seems the Chinese and Tibetan delegates are talking past each other as they cannot even agree on what the dialogue is for, even though they have had nine and a half meetings in the last decade (counting the informal May 2008 meeting). This divide has been clear to many observers. However, until now, the TGIE and the envoys maintained that despite no positive movement from Beijing, they were firmly committed to the Middle Way Approach and the dialogue process.

The resignations of the leading envoys and their reasons for their resignations are a serious blow for the future of the Middle Way. If His Holiness’ leading representatives, who were deep in the trenches in dialogue with the Chinese, essentially no longer believe the Middle Way is feasible, then what (beyond inertia) is driving the TGIE’s support for the Middle Way?

Yet the TGIE remains firmly committed to the Middle Way Approach, even if it cannot clearly articulate why it supports it. Since the TGIE cannot provide a rationale, one can only conclude that it is because it is still the policy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In fact, in recent tours in the US and Europe, His Holiness again publicly supported the Middle Way.[vi] In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, His Holiness even said the majority of Tibetan people support the Middle Way (however, we have not seen any evidence to support this claim as it applies to inside Tibet, and polls suggest only a minority of Tibetans outside Tibet support the Middle Way as such.).

We believe His Holiness wants the TGIE, as a now fully-elected democratic government, to make its own decision about whether to pursue autonomy or independence for Tibet or some other option. Since His Holiness’ devolution of political power in 2011, He has made it abundantly clear that He is no longer the political head of the TGIE and the elected Tibetan leaders must decide political policies. The Middle Way Approach, though supported by His Holiness, is no longer His policy. The Middle Way is now TGIE’s policy and therefore, the TGIE can change the policy if it wishes. Indeed, any results, or lack of results, are now the responsibility of the TGIE.

The TGIE should not use His Holiness as an excuse to maintain a policy that does not appear to be working and has not achieved any meaningful results in the last quarter-century. If the TGIE continues the Middle Way Approach, it must justify that approach for its own reasons and explain those reasons to the Tibetan public. The Middle Way Approach, as a political policy, should rise or fall on its own merits. Deference to His Holiness, while understandable in the context of traditional Tibetan culture, should not be a basis to maintain a political policy that appears increasingly unrealistic.


Looking Back on the Middle Way

This is not to say the Middle Way Approach was a waste of time or was a mistake from the beginning. There was a potentially rational reason to support the Middle Way at one time, when China was liberalizing before the Tiananmen Massacre, and Deng Xiaoping supposedly suggested that anything but Tibetan independence was negotiable. To its credit, the TGIE patiently tried for many years to negotiate a resolution to the Tibetan issue that, in theory, would satisfy China and achieve self-rule for Tibetans.

However, in the last ten years the human rights situation in Tibet has greatly deteriorated. There was a nationwide uprising in 2008 and since 2009 Tibet has been convulsed by a wave of self-immolations. Hundreds of Tibetans have been imprisoned for expressing their support for a free Tibet and China has turned the entire Tibetan Plateau into a giant police state. China’s policies on Tibet have not become more liberal; instead they have become hardline and more draconian.

China has unequivocally rejected the Middle Way Approach, has refused to negotiate Tibet’s political status, and now high-ranking Party leaders are arguing that China should even eliminate ethnic regional autonomy from China’s Constitution and laws. Perhaps it is time the TGIE took an introspective look at the Middle Way Approach and decide whether it really is the best policy to pursue for the Tibetan people.

The Tibetan side’s exhaustive efforts to reach a negotiated compromise via the Middle Way Approach will leave at least one crucial positive legacy. Now, no one can deny that the Tibetans tried their utmost for a quarter-century, and the Chinese refused an eminently reasonable compromise. The fact that Tibetans can say “we tried” can now serve to justify a shift towards re-embracing Tibet’s historic right to independence and sovereignty, should the Tibetan people so choose.

yeah and...so....more self immolations would help progress their negotiations with China? And that the Dalai Lama's older middle way approach is now scrapped? But you adhere to the ban even when it is not making things progress....? what kinda logic is that? following instructions selectively? It's really funny to see what LS would pull out next, first the statement about self immolations and now this? Is he giving up on negotiations with China? I'm sorry to say this but please do take your position as the Kalon Tripa more seriously and implement reforms instead of making decisions that will only make CTA go lower and lower.

[biggyboy]

After all the years of pain and sufferings inflicted upon each and every person be they DS practitioners or not, direct and indirect, there's still no actions of the CTA to help.  Let alone CTA themselves nor to champion the course of achieving the Tibet autonomy fervently.  Is CTA on a waiting game? Or watch and see?  Or waiting for China government to turn around for the sake of DS practice?  I don't get it! Come on, do something and stop all this self-immolation happening so frequently now?  Who is on the loosing end?

Having all that is happening now and China's acceptance of Dorje Shugden practice, wouldn't it be great for Tibet be integrated and work along with the bigger force.  This would work in favour for all.

[Vajraprotector]

I was just thinking, after all that struggles, and if Tibet finally gain autonomy, would the Tibetans move back to Tibet? Would they be happy? Is that what they really want? Tibet today is not the same as before and they may not integrate well back into their own environment. Perhaps the 2 envoys foresee that the talks will lead to nowhere and even if it leads to somewhere, it will not be what they have wanted anyways?

Today, there's a massive protest in Hong Kong as it marked the 15 years since the return to Chinese rule. Hong Kong has a high level of autonomy due to the "One country, two systems" idea originally proposed by Deng Xiaoping, then Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Deng suggested that there would be only one China, but independent Chinese regions such as Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, could have their own capitalist economic and political systems, while the rest of China uses the socialist system. 

Mass protests as Hong Kong marks 15 years under China
1 July 2012
BBC

Tens of thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators have marched through the streets of Hong Kong as the former British colony marked 15 years since the return to Chinese rule.

The rally for human rights takes place annually, but has been bolstered this year by anger towards Beijing.

Earlier, China's visiting President Hu Jintao swore in businessman CY Leung as the territory's new leader.

During the ceremony, a lone heckler tried to interrupt Mr Hu's speech.

On the streets outside, massive crowds beat drums and waved flags as they marched though the city to call for full democracy and express their frustration with the mainland.

The BBC's Juliana Liu, who was at the protest, says there was a carnival atmosphere with political parties shouting slogans and civic groups showing off their singing and dancing skills.


One of the main complaints was that the system used to choose Hong Kong's leader is designed to install Beijing's choice.

A so-called electoral college of 1,200 business leaders and other influential citizens, mostly loyal to Beijing, selects the leader.

Elaine Mok, who was taking part in the protest with her family, said the march was about the right to universal suffrage.

"We're fighting for justice. We're fighting for the rule of law," she told the BBC. "The Chinese government is interfering with the workings of the Hong Kong government, and that's not right."

"We are fighting for the right to vote. It should have happened by now."

According to Paul Yip, a demographic specialist at the University of Hong Kong, some 82,000 people attended the rally - about 20,000 more than last year's demonstration.

Organisers, meanwhile, put the figure much higher, at 400,000.


'Joyous occasion'
 
Our correspondent says it Mr Hu's visit was a far cry from his last appearance five years ago, when he toured Hong Kong in a blaze of pre-Olympic glory.

At the swearing-in ceremony, Mr Hu offered "warm congratulations" to the 57-year-old Mr Leung and his team and described the 15th anniversary as a "joyous occasion".

He reiterated Beijing's commitment to the "one country, two systems" policy whereby Hong Kongers are allowed many more political freedoms than Chinese people on the mainland.

Mr Hu continued the address despite an interruption by a member of the crowd, who was heard calling for a condemnation of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and an end to one-party rule in China.

The man, who was a guest at the inauguration ceremony, was quickly bundled out of the harbourfront building by security.

Mr Hu, whose visit was carefully choreographed, left before Sunday's protests began.

But on Saturday, police had to shield the president from demonstrators, and officers used pepper spray to disperse crowds who were demanding an investigation into the death in China of a Tiananmen activist, Li Wangyang, last month.

His visit comes as public confidence in the Beijing government has fallen to a new low.

People are unhappy with record property prices, an increasing wealth gap, a lack of democracy and a string of political scandals, our correspondent says.

Hong Kong, a British colony until 1997, has a comparatively high degree of autonomy from Beijing.

But China's leaders in Beijing have resisted public pressure for full democracy in the city.

Mr Leung replaces Donald Tsang, who took office in 2005.
 
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18664132

[Ensapa]

I was just thinking, after all that struggles, and if Tibet finally gain autonomy, would the Tibetans move back to Tibet? Would they be happy? Is that what they really want? Tibet today is not the same as before and they may not integrate well back into their own environment. Perhaps the 2 envoys foresee that the talks will lead to nowhere and even if it leads to somewhere, it will not be what they have wanted anyways?

Today, there's a massive protest in Hong Kong as it marked the 15 years since the return to Chinese rule. Hong Kong has a high level of autonomy due to the "One country, two systems" idea originally proposed by Deng Xiaoping, then Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Deng suggested that there would be only one China, but independent Chinese regions such as Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, could have their own capitalist economic and political systems, while the rest of China uses the socialist system. 

Mass protests as Hong Kong marks 15 years under China
1 July 2012
BBC

Tens of thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators have marched through the streets of Hong Kong as the former British colony marked 15 years since the return to Chinese rule.

The rally for human rights takes place annually, but has been bolstered this year by anger towards Beijing.

Earlier, China's visiting President Hu Jintao swore in businessman CY Leung as the territory's new leader.

During the ceremony, a lone heckler tried to interrupt Mr Hu's speech.

On the streets outside, massive crowds beat drums and waved flags as they marched though the city to call for full democracy and express their frustration with the mainland.

The BBC's Juliana Liu, who was at the protest, says there was a carnival atmosphere with political parties shouting slogans and civic groups showing off their singing and dancing skills.


One of the main complaints was that the system used to choose Hong Kong's leader is designed to install Beijing's choice.

A so-called electoral college of 1,200 business leaders and other influential citizens, mostly loyal to Beijing, selects the leader.

Elaine Mok, who was taking part in the protest with her family, said the march was about the right to universal suffrage.

"We're fighting for justice. We're fighting for the rule of law," she told the BBC. "The Chinese government is interfering with the workings of the Hong Kong government, and that's not right."

"We are fighting for the right to vote. It should have happened by now."

According to Paul Yip, a demographic specialist at the University of Hong Kong, some 82,000 people attended the rally - about 20,000 more than last year's demonstration.

Organisers, meanwhile, put the figure much higher, at 400,000.


'Joyous occasion'
 
Our correspondent says it Mr Hu's visit was a far cry from his last appearance five years ago, when he toured Hong Kong in a blaze of pre-Olympic glory.

At the swearing-in ceremony, Mr Hu offered "warm congratulations" to the 57-year-old Mr Leung and his team and described the 15th anniversary as a "joyous occasion".

He reiterated Beijing's commitment to the "one country, two systems" policy whereby Hong Kongers are allowed many more political freedoms than Chinese people on the mainland.

Mr Hu continued the address despite an interruption by a member of the crowd, who was heard calling for a condemnation of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and an end to one-party rule in China.

The man, who was a guest at the inauguration ceremony, was quickly bundled out of the harbourfront building by security.

Mr Hu, whose visit was carefully choreographed, left before Sunday's protests began.

But on Saturday, police had to shield the president from demonstrators, and officers used pepper spray to disperse crowds who were demanding an investigation into the death in China of a Tiananmen activist, Li Wangyang, last month.

His visit comes as public confidence in the Beijing government has fallen to a new low.

People are unhappy with record property prices, an increasing wealth gap, a lack of democracy and a string of political scandals, our correspondent says.

Hong Kong, a British colony until 1997, has a comparatively high degree of autonomy from Beijing.

But China's leaders in Beijing have resisted public pressure for full democracy in the city.

Mr Leung replaces Donald Tsang, who took office in 2005.
 
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18664132

The talks will lead to nowhere because the CTA is hypocritical in their approach to this, calling their enemies chinese spies and spreading anti Chinese propaganda to anyone who listens and investing only very little in the people who are at the front lines negotiating with China. So how is it that this approach will help Tibet enter into negotiations with China at all? Obviously, they are not too keen on entering talks with China, but tells everyone else that they do just to get sympathy and attention.

[jagger]

I think the reason for their resignation is deeper than what is reported. Suppression from the Chinese isn't the only reason why their country is not given back to them. On many levels, the administration of the CTA is in itself a jumbled up story. For a government to work out in this current state would only mean putting their people's lives at stake.

What more when China has already invested in Tibet over the last half century, what good reason would China allow Tibetans in exile to return into their land when they are possibly inept to handle the facilities and platform provided?

From the top ruling administration to the commoners, there's no possible way that the Tibetans as a whole would be able to appreciate the advancement of the changed physical progress of Tibet. WHen these two envoys resign, it sends a loud message to those supporting the Free Tibet cause a strong message that their cause is nearing an end.

So, why don't we free Dorje Shugden instead of Tibet?

[Rinchen]

I too think that the resignation of them is deeper then what is being reported. There are many cases that the things that are reported are only partial to what the truth really is. This also leaves some space for people's imagination to work.

The resignation of the envoys might also be instructions that were given to them by H.H Dalai Lama. There might be something bigger would happen and would require this "sacrifice" of theirs to resign from their position.

It might also be like what is being reported, where they are really frustrated as the hard work that they have given into their job has not reap the fruits that they would like to have.

[Ensapa]

I too think that the resignation of them is deeper then what is being reported. There are many cases that the things that are reported are only partial to what the truth really is. This also leaves some space for people's imagination to work.

The resignation of the envoys might also be instructions that were given to them by H.H Dalai Lama. There might be something bigger would happen and would require this "sacrifice" of theirs to resign from their position.

It might also be like what is being reported, where they are really frustrated as the hard work that they have given into their job has not reap the fruits that they would like to have.

To me, I dont think so that their resignation was an instruction by the Dalai Lama, if it was then it would have been publicised. Also, those who have resigned did not mention about that. They only said "At this particular time, it is difficult to have substantive dialogue," which probably means that they lack cooperation from the CTA with regards to this issue. they cant say it outright, but this is most probably the case as we have seen or heard little effort from the CTA to engage in talks with China so far. All of it is just empty talk but no action taken whatsoever to communicate with China, understand what they want and to sincerely work out a resolution.

[DharmaSpace]

It is just karma coming back for CTA, it is so clear.

CTA denies freedom for Dorje Shugden practitioners and practice guess what no autonomy, no form of independence for Tibet.

Isn't it time to do something different already? The only thing that CTA has not tried is to lift this draconian ban on its own people. It seems at times CTA is doing a lot to gain freedom or autonomy for the Tibetan people. But all they are doing is pouring good food into a pot that is poisoned, the food cannot be eaten, like the contaminated pot always mentioned in the Lamrim.

Allowing Dorje Shugden practice to flourish is the one thing that CTA has not tried before. And the Chinese know this very well, why else would the Chinese government be more open to have a dialogue or the free passage for Dorje Shugden lamas?  A great reconciliation will happen between people, practitioners if Dorje Shugden is once again allowed to be practiced openly and freely, this energy is what is needed to move Tibet's autonomy agenda forward.

[Rinchen]

I still think that the resignation of the envoys is more then what it seems to be. If it is just because of the plain reason that they claim to be, then why is there no one else to take on the same position? Instead of making a news, then having different parties claiming different stories.

The envoys might be also taking direct instruction from the DL himself, but we will not know unless we are in their position I guess.

[Ensapa]

I still think that the resignation of the envoys is more then what it seems to be. If it is just because of the plain reason that they claim to be, then why is there no one else to take on the same position? Instead of making a news, then having different parties claiming different stories.

The envoys might be also taking direct instruction from the DL himself, but we will not know unless we are in their position I guess.

How is it that until now there has not been any new envoys to China that has been hired or appointed by the CTA yet? How can it be that CTA has not hired a new one by now? are they no longer interested in entering talks with China? I dont really believe that Dalai Lama has called for the cancellation and resignation of the envoys because if he did, it would mean the end of any chance of reconciliation at all with China and i dont believe that it is what the Dalai Lama wants at all.

[Rinchen]

How is it that until now there has not been any new envoys to China that has been hired or appointed by the CTA yet? How can it be that CTA has not hired a new one by now? are they no longer interested in entering talks with China? I dont really believe that Dalai Lama has called for the cancellation and resignation of the envoys because if he did, it would mean the end of any chance of reconciliation at all with China and i dont believe that it is what the Dalai Lama wants at all.

If it is not the Dalai Lama that pulls the plug, why is there no more conveys taking the place after it is open for so long? Would it be the CTA themselves that force the envoys to quit? But I highly doubt that that would happen because CTA is lazy and does not want to take on responsibilities, hence they will use the envoy to take on the responsibilities and also do their job.

The main question now would be where did the replacement conveys go?