While I agree with this Chinese writer's opinion that the Dalai Lama should get real about China's unwillingness to dialogue with him, her opinions betray the typical Chinese ignorance about the reality of Tibet. It is true that China will never allow any Greater Tibet Autonomous Region because as the author says, this "Greater Tibetan nation would lead to an even more assertive Tibetan nationalism." However,it does not follow that China would allow any real autonomy in the current Tibet Autonomous Region if the Dalai Lama were to give up his demand for a Greater TAR that would include all traditional Tibetan areas. Tibetan nationalism remains an existential threat to China whatever territorial extent within which it is allowed to exist. China has therefore decided not to allow any Tibetan autonomy or any Tibetan national identity to exist and has adopted its current policy of repression of Tibetan culture and national identity, assimilation, and economic development that justifies and facilitates Han Chinese colonization. The author's ignorance, or worse, is revealed by her statement that many of the Tibetans in the Provinces that border Tibet have arrived there only in the past 50 years. The areas the Dalai Lama suggests should be included in a Greater TAR are all PRC-designated Tibetan autonomous districts. They were so designated by the PRC precisely because they were areas of indigenous Tibetan inhabitation. It is the Chinese who have migrated to these areas in the past 50 years. The author thus reverses the history of these Tibetan areas to make the Tibetans the colonists and the Chinese the victims of Tibetan colonization! The Dalai Lama's demand that these Tibetan areas should be unified in one autonomous region is logical and consistent even with the PRC's national autonomy laws. The author is right, however, that China will never allow a unified Tibetan Autonomous Region because as she says, they constitute almost 25% of the territory of the PRC. China wants to preserve its divisions of Tibet so Chinese propagandists can describe Tibetan areas outside the circumscribed TAR as "Chinese provinces that border Tibet" and so that China can cover up its original crime of depriving Tibet of its independence and its right to naitonal self-determination. This writer's recommendations come down to that no one should make the Chinese people angry by demanding any rights for Tibetans. As such she is little different than the professional Chinese propagandists. Foreign Policy should think twice before publishing any Chinese writer's opinions about Tibet. At best they are uniformly ignorant and at worst they are actually propangandists.

Warren Smith, author of several historical works on Tibet.

Yeah, Barack Obama is pragmatic. That's why he has long ago adopted a passive tone towards evil regimes -- as apparently did the author of this article too -- would it be Iran or China that has no respect for a human life of its own citizens.

And poor and repressed Tibetans and Uyghurs, unfortunately, may only pray in secret (because China restricts their rights to do that openly) and hope that one day they will taste that freedom that is rightfully theirs. But don't expect any compromise from the present Chinni government as such a notion is alien to it.

Good news is that Barack Obama is not eternal. Americans historically dislike passive leaders. Some next republican president will certainly do kick ass.

I have no disagreement with your suggestion that the Dalai Lama needs to engage in realpolitik in order to accomplish the Tibetan Govt. in Exile's goals, but i take issue with the ways in which you frame Tibetan territorial integrity.

For Example:
"But the Tibetans have been anything but silent in their quest to proclaim the independence of "Greater Tibet," a territory that includes not only the autonomous region of Tibet but also any neighboring territory within China that has Tibetan inhabitants."

Your article seems to imply that 'Greater Tibet' is an arbitrary territory, only considered to be part of Tibet because of the presence of Tibetan minorities. 'Greater Tibet' exists not only in centuries of distinct Tibetan culture and history, but is also a disctinct geographic region. Take a couple of minutes to look at any geographic atlast (or google earth) and you will see that 'Greater Tibet' is certainly a distinct region from most of China.

I do not agree with many points in your overall analysis, but you seem to discount the legitimacy of Tibetan claims to a region which has been historically theirs for millennia.

I'm not an academic, but I hope I can contribute something to the discussion.

Since childhood, nearly sixty years ago, I have had a deep interest in Tibet. It began with my interest in mountaineering and the conquest of Mt. Everest. As a youth I loved hiking and climbing in the Pacific Northwest. I have followed the Dalai Lama's career and the evolution of the Tibetan nation since 1959, when he fled before Chinese bombardments into exile in India, at the age of 23. When I graduated from high school and first went to work, on August 2, 1965, I found myself working as a dishwasher alongside a Tibetan refugee, an actual Bhuddist Lhama from Sakya. He was ten years my elder and we became lifelong friends. I met his family--his elder brother and sister-in-law, his two younger sisters, his nephews--and I helped him to become an American citizen.

In college at the University of Washington I took a course entitled "The Political History of Tibet" from Dr. Turrell Wylie, the man who sponsored the Fulbright Scholarship that brought the Sakya family to Seattle. I learned about this isolated nation in the mountains so far away from the great cultures of the world. I studied the Bhuddist religion, I joined the Peace Corps and went to Thailand, another Bhuddist country.

I returned to Seattle. When the Dalai Lama first came here, I attended his visit to the Tibetan temple my friends had founded. At the time he was not the international celebrity he has since become. He was a Buddhist monk in exile.

So let's start with Reality: Communism is fundamentally hostile to religion--all religion. It doesn't matter whether it's Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaeism, whatever. According to Communist dogma, the pacifist Buddhist religion is evil. The Chinese communist attitude persists. Is this connecting with our readers? Fundamental hostility, as in "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses", from the 1848 Comunist Manifesto. The Chinese Communist government has always been hostile to the Tibetan Buddhist religion and all other religions.

Since 1914 China claimed Tibet as Chinese territory even though a legitimate historical argument could be made that it was an independent nation. Tibet had maintained such relentless isolation over the centuries that China's mid-20th Century argument was not effectively countered. No nation had diplomatic relations with them. During the Korean War Chinese troops invaded Tibet. A few years later the young Dalai Lama fled for his life. The Chinese Communists in the the Cultural Revolution killed monks and destroyed temples and monasteries all over Tibet. That really alienated Tibetans, whose whole culture is based on Buddhism. Can anyone blame them?

Let's get some perspective on what constitutes Tibet. It's mostly the sparsely inhabited Tibetan Plateau, averaging something like 14-16,000 ft above sea level. That's higher than the Rocky Mountains. The so-called populated part is down around 10-12,000 ft in elevation. The capital Lhasa is at around 11,000 ft. All Tibetans number around 7-8 million people. That's like the population of Sweden. China's population is well over a billion. Can you get your head around that? Most Tibetans live in the valley and tributaries of the Tsangpo River, which is the upper reaches of the Bramaputra River as it's called down in India. It's a really isolated part of the world. The "25% of China" that constitutes the Tibetan cutural region is like much of America: deserts, mountains, and prairie dog towns. So what if it's a big part of the map? It's wilderness. Uninhabited. Unlivable.

And oh, yeah--the 8 million people at max are not all inside the so-called Tibetan Autonymous Region. Half of them are in the adjacent regions of Amdo and Kham, which are in bordering Chinese provinces and not the tributary valleys of the Tsangpo. The Dalai Lama was born in Amdo, not in Tibet proper. Amdo and Kham are Tibetan, but outside Tibet. Somebody else drew the borders. Live with it.

The 14th Dalai Lama was born in 1935 and two years later recognized as the reincarnation of his predecessor. He was raised as a Buddhist monk from that point. His journey from Himalayan village child to world leader is astonishing, but we must remember that he is fundamentally a Buddhist monk. Anyone who looks at his writings and public presentations should not be surprised. Google it. He's not a politician--he's a Buddhist monk. Get it? He's the incarnation of the Chenrezi Buddha, the actual Spirit of Compassion. Check out his dozens of books--the're about Buddhism, not politics. He's not interested in taking over Chinese territory. He wants compassion for all people. The Chinese Communist government calls him a "Splittist" They're obstinately wrong. His words speak for themselves.

The Chinese government has been encouraging Han Chinese emigration to non-Han regions of China. The non-Hans resent that. Can that possibly be confusing? Han Chinese have moved up to Lhasa, and now constitute half the population of Tibet's capital city. They don't speak Tibetan of course, and don't give a damn about Tibetan Buddhism. For that matter, they don't much like living there. I have Chinese friends as well as Tibetan friends. One thing basic about the Chinese is that they have one of the finest cuisines in the world. They are easily as proud of their food as the French, and with good reason. Tibetan food is greatly inferior. There should be no confusion about that. Tibet is a horrible climate for agriculture and for cooking. It's so high that they can only grow a few short-season crops like barley and spinach. They can't grow rice--it has to be imported over the mountains from the lowlands. Worse yet, because of the altitude water boils at a lower temperature and a lot of things just don't cook right in boiling water (including rice). Tibetan cuisine is limited and not appealing to the Chinese. Proper Chinese food is hard to cook. As a result, even though there are Han Chinese moving up to Lhasa , there are Han Chinese saying I can't stand this and moving back down to the lowlands. It is Chinese government policy that makes Lhasa a half-Chinese city.

Why are the Uigurs in the West so hostile to the Hans? Why are people on the street attacking Han Chinese immigrants with hypodermic needles? Same damned reason the Tibetans are angry. The Han Chinese are moving in as a part of government policy, overwhelming the indigenous Muslim culture and denouncing their religious beliefs as evil. And while they're at it, they should stop speaking their stupid language and use Mandarin.

The Han Chinese, bearers of one of the great cultures of the world, don't accept the value of minority cultures such as the Uigurs and the Tibetans. There are many other minorities inside China. I bet most are equally unhappy. It's not politics. It's culture. There are so many Hans with a brilliant history going back thousands of years they simply ignore the others.

The author of this article is blinded by her cultural assumptions. The Dalai Lama is trying his best to preserve Tibetan culture in the face of Communist Han Chinese opposition. He does it from compassion. As a Buddhist monk.

Allan Swensson

China's has only one "solution" to the Tibet issue, and that is total assimilation and colonization. Autonomy was never more than a temporary expedient, based upon the Marxist assumption that the Tibetans could be convinced that their class interests lay with the CCP rather than their own upper class. Once the CCP found that Tibetan culture and national identity were much stronger than they imagined and that the Tibetans would not and could not be coerced and forced to assimilate to Chinese culture, almost all the previous promises of autonomy were abandoned. Tibetan national identity poses an existential threat to China's national security and teritorial integrity and therefore must be crushed. So, If I sound cynical about any "solution" to the Tibet issue it is because I am a historian. The Chinese author of the article so closely follows the CCP's current line on Tibet that there is almost no distinction. How is one to distinguish her from a professional propagandist, especially since the CCP is now using any and every media to promote its propaganda? The current line is to coerce all countries of the world to deny high-level metings with the Dalai Lama, which Wen Liao applauds. And the CCP is trying to coerce the Dalai Lama to abandon all his demands for autonomy or human rights for Tibetans so that the international issue of Tibet will disappear. After that they will talk to him, but only about his "personal status," meaning how abjectly he will have to apologize for his treason against the Celestial Empire by protesting about China's takeover of Tibet. Wen Liao's ignorance about the history and population of the Tibetan Autonomous Districts of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan is appaling. What is one to call it but ignorance? And it is echoed by Bob Chen, who says that Chinese people will not willingly give up 1/4 of their territory to a minority. This is exactly backwards. It is the Chinese who demand that Tibetans give up all their land to China. It is only because of Chinese imperialism against Tibet that Tibetans are a "minority" to whom the Chinese people are reluctant to allow any rights because they might remind the world that Tibetans are not Chinese and how then does China have the right to rule over Tibetans? There are no "civil conversations" about the issue of Tibet. Simply observe the racist reaction of the vast majority of Chinese to the uprising in Tibet in March 2008 and their total belief in the lies their governemnt told them about its origins. Tibet is an issue of the naked aggression of one nation against another. For the Chinese it was not even about the Tibetan people at all but only about their territory and its resources that China coveted. Mao said as much when he proposed to Tibetan leaders in the ealry 1950s that Tibet should provide China with resources and China would provide Tibet with people to exploit those resources. The Chinese complaint that Tibetans want 25% of "China's" territory reflect the fact that it still the territory of Tibet that is important to China, not the 1/2 of one percent of China's population that Tibetans represent. And, finally, I would repeat the warning to Foreign Policy or any other publication against accepting Chinese articles about Tibet as objective. How is one to distinguish the government propagandists from the rest when all are alike?

I didn't say you were brainwashed. I said that you were wrong that this is an issue of China giving 25% of "its" territory to a "minority," who were until recently the majority on that territory. You are right that "Stronger tribes prevail, weaker tribes either get absorbed or completely eradicated." Such is history, you are right. So, I agree with Wen Liao that the Dalai Lama should "get real." I have accused him, his government in exile and their supporters of engaging in a "cult of wishful thinking" that imagines that China will dialogue or negotiate about Tibet. I never imagined that China would allow Tibetan culture, or religion, or, especially, national identity to survive. China cannot allow such a separatist threat to exist. What irks me is the lies, the massive propaganda that China has produced and continues to produce that pretends that the opposite is true, that they "liberated" Tibet and that they have allowed Tibetan autonomy ever since. And, to justify the Chinese takeover of Tibet they have had to denigrate old Tibetan society to the point of absurdity. So, not only are Tibetans not allowed freedom, independence, or the right to national self-determination, they are not even allowed ot have their own history. China has distorted Tibetan history beyond recognition simply in order to justify Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. My interest in this issue is not Tibetan independence, that's up to Tibetans, not me. I adhere to the principle of self-determination, which means that Tibetans not only should have the right to decide for themselves but they have the responsibility to achieve their own destiny. If they are unable, then so be it. That's history, as you say. My only interest is that the historical record should acurately reflect what Tibet was and what China has done to it. My inspiration is to correct the historical record on Tibet and to refute China's lies and distortions, which, unfortunately, are repeated almost without question by almost all Chinese.

That's the whole point, to not be on the losing side, at least in the historical interpretation. Tibet can't win the war against China, but it can, with some help from friends, win the war of historical interpretation. China will get away with its conquest of Tibet but it can'r be allowed to get away with its distortions of Tibet's pre-1950 history and its lies about what China has done in Tibet since then. In that battle I and Tibetan historians can prevail over Chinese propaganda. One of the reasons for the intensity of Chinese propaganda about Tibet as well as the defensiveness of Chinese worldwide about it is because nobody but the Chinese themselves believe the Chinese verison of Tibetan history or the current reality there. So, we might have to accept that China will have its way in Tibet, but we don't have to accept China's lies and distortions about it.

Debate among Chinese people on Tibet in Foreign Policy is to be welcomed, but not when that discussion is based on false assertions and misrepresentations, as in Wen Liao’s “Why the Dalai Lama Needs to Get Real.”

Wen Liao recycles a fiction developed by the Chinese authorities by defining Tibetans’ reasonable demands for a measure of self-rule and freedom to practice their religion as nothing more than a power grab.

Wen Liao refers to the “major concessions” called for by the Tibetan side in their Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People and their call for self-rule of a “Greater Tibet.” But Wen Liao only needs to study a PRC map to note that the areas the Tibetans are seeking to protect are also defined by Beijing as “Tibetan autonomous.”

The Dalai Lama’s “Middle Way” approach for genuine autonomy within the framework of Chinese sovereignty as outlined in the Memorandum addresses the failure of the PRC to implement existing laws. This is a far cry from Wen Liao’s standard Party line depiction of the Tibetan side as seeking the disintegration of China and ethnic separatism.

According to the Chinese government’s own analysis of its law on regional ethnic autonomy, the Tibetan people are entitled to decision-making power in economic and social development undertakings and freedom to administer, protect and be the first to utilize natural resources. In reality they are marginalized and excluded.

One of the more baffling assertions of the article is that Chinese people are not allowed to move to Tibet. It is clear from Chinese government statements and official policy that Chinese are actively encouraged to go to Tibetan areas to work, in contrast to the situation in China, where the migration of people to cities and other areas is actively discouraged by means of a system of residency regulation.

Wen Liao also repeats the standard Chinese official line of the “violence” of “pre-Olympics protests” in Tibet. The reality is that while there were indeed a number of incidents of violence, which the Dalai Lama condemned, over the past year in Tibet there have been more than 160 protests, overwhelmingly peaceful, against Chinese policies. The dissent continues today despite an ongoing crackdown.

The Dalai Lama, a pragmatist respected worldwide for his tireless work seeking the resolution of conflict through peaceful dialogue, continues to reach out to the Chinese government and the Chinese people with a message of reconciliation. Far from “increasingly alienating” the Chinese population as Wen Liao claims, more and more Chinese are looking to the Dalai Lama as an unparalleled moral and religious leader of our times.

how much she was paid for writing this?

Dalai Lama needs to get real? What more can he do? Take up a ministerial post in the CCP?
-Tibet was not Chinese. It was invaded by the Chinese.
-Dalai Lama is a representative of Tibetan people not just people and refugees from TAR only.
Of course China will not grant Autonomy to Tibet and Tibetans because they are afraid that they will loose their iron-fist grip over Tibet. It is no secret that Tibetans in Tibet want to be free from the Chinese. It is the aspiration of the people who inhabit 25% of "Chinese" landmass. Loosing almost half their territory will be a nightmare (Tibet and East Turkestan). Chinese will never give up. So it is unto the Tibetans to either give up their hope or die believing. I am very sorry to say that there is a fraction in the Tibetan Refugee society that wants to use force. This is very unfortunate but very understandable.
Obama is going to do what he thinks is best (for himself). Why should he confront the Chinese over Tibet when Tibet matters so little to US. What could he gain from meeting with the Dalai Lama, some votes from the Hippie and Buddhist communities ? He already has those votes locked in. Besides the world has come to realize that money can freedom but freedom can't buy money.

"Pragmatism" - that's what politicians say when they can't admit that they are in a weak position, and they are not prepared to stand up for truth, honor, liberty, self determination, and other eternal values.

The Tibetan Autonomous Region could be granted real domestic autonomy to conduct its internal affairs, while still remaining an integral part of the People's Republic of China. This could be something very much like the situation in Spain, where regions such as Cataluna and the Basque Country have large degrees of autonomy internally, speak their own languages, maintain their local flavor and cultural heritage, but still remain very much within the constitutional framework of Spain. This also works in the United Kingdom---Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have a great deal of domestic autonomy, but London still ultimately has sovereignty. These examples show that the Dalai Lama's desire for just such a framework for Tibet within the PRC is not inherently splittist, but is very realistic, and has been proven to work elsewhere. And it would not threaten Chinese territorial integrity. Indeed, the Chinese nation would gain much from this kind of arrangement. When you go to Edinburgh, you feel like you're in Scotland, not England---but London doesn't mind. Most Londoners think it's quite right and proper---and cool. And the UK is better, and richer for it. Tibetan culture and religion has an enormous amount to offer the rest of China, and China has an enormous amount to offer Tibet---but the iron fist makes that help it offers Tibet heartless and moot. Let the Tibetans run Tibet, like it's really Tibetan, but within China---and let the Chinese unclench their fist. The Chinese will be able to relax that way. I've been to Tibet, and I've seen the Chinese fist---and I've spent lots of time in the UK and Spain, and I know it doesn't have to be that way, and China doesn't have to be afraid. The Dalai Lama is very realistic, indeed, and the Chinese can be assured by these models that the country won't crumble if they let go of the fear. China has nothing to fear from an autonomous Tibet. They are fortunate to have a negotiating partner like the Dalai Lama, who totally renounces violence, and has been promoting this idea of autonomy for several decades. The Chinese stand to benefit greatly, not least in the standing they will have in human rights, by taking the Dalai Lama's proposal up seriously, and taking him at his word.

The argument that one needs to be practical and grow up always comes from the one that holds all the cards and have nothing to gain or lose. It is rich to ask Tibetans to be practical and give up everything when China is the one who came uninvited to "liberate us". No thank you.

The Dalai Lama is doing what he is best at, trying to find a mutually beeficial solution. But many of us Tibetans want nothing less that our country back. You might have build your illusions about the legitimacy of CHinese rule of Tibet. But like Smith said before, no one but the Chinese govt seem to believe in this "fact".

See for me the real issue is not whether Obama or anyone else support us. Politicians comes and goes. I am a realist in this sense. But I know that my conviction to a free Tibet always remains firm. And I know that many Tibetans share this. Tibetans want what we want. And its a reasonable demand to be independent because we were till the Chinese invasion in the 50s. We are not asking for Chinese territory. We merely want what is ours.

Yes, China might be powerful today, but its a fallacy to think that it will be so forever.

I beleive the mayor of paris said it best when questioned about the city's decision to confer honorary citizenship to the Dalai Lama. "Given the choice I prefer to be an idealist rather than a cynic."

This article is a sad display of propaganda and a shamefull atempt to legitimize the colonialist and imperialist chinese dictatorship. It came as a sad surprise seeing this stuff in FP, which usually presents us with much more quality and independent material.

indeed sad and disappointing.

The author says: "Many of the Tibetans who live in the Chinese provinces that border Tibet and would be part of a Greater Tibet arrived in these areas only in the last 50 years." (para 11)

This comment by the author needs to be corrected in the light of the grave factual misrepresentation. Like many, she believes that the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is what constitutes Tibet historically. And in the process she understands that the other traditionally Tibetan regions of Kham and Amdo which are currently divided into four Chinese provinces of - Gansu, Sichuan, Qinghai and Yunan - have always been Chinese inhabited territories. Which is why in her article, she blatantly gives away her ignorance by stating that Tibetans came to these Chinese provinces only in the last 50 years !!!

For brevity's sake, let me just give a short evidence. The current Dalai Lama was born in Amdo in 1935, currently outside TAR and divided into Gansu, Sichuan and Qinghai provinces. Also, Amdo was and is the home of many important Tibetan Buddhist monks (or lamas), scholars like the the 10th Panchen Lama, and the great reformer Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419).

In that vein, since her understanding about Tibetan habitation pre-PRC and consequently, contemporaneously, is factually inconsistent, can we conclude that the basis of her entire paper is questionable. And in effect, her advise for the Dalai Lama to "get real" is on shaky grounds.

To see a map of cultural Tibet: http://old.thdl.org/collections/cultgeo/tibet/tibetmap.html
Tibetan areas in PRC: http://old.thdl.org/collections/cultgeo/tibet/tibetmap.html

Though I do not wish to go into details about the current Tibetan position: Suffice to state that they are demanding unification of all Tibetans areas under one autonomous administration/jurisdiction based on -- not historical claims to these areas.

Rather, on the logic that it makes technical and logistical sense to have the minority nationality - Tibetans - under one umbrella in order to govern them efficiently, while also being sensitive of their local needs (given their clutural/religious uniqueness, and needs). And the Tibetans argue that their demand is within the constitutional guarantees of the PRC's 1984 Law on National Regional Autonomy and the PRC's latest Constitution.