I have serious doubts as to whether the Chinese government is really willing to have any meaningful talks with any portion of the exiled government, even if it is a retired leader.

There are very long and necessary steps for china goverment to do. One of them is tibetian rights to admit. Dalai explains this very clear and good. I think the governers come to live forum at tv and discuss the topic to bring real solutions to the matter.

What Dalai wants to do is like "the pope ruling all people in the world who are Christians"
He is actually just one of the political players in this nasty world.
Do you know why the monks and rulers of Tibet made the uprising in 1959? Because the communist Chinese forced them to give up slavery. They would have no slaves to serve them any more. Of course the monks love Dalai and the old system--they do not need to work to get food, but the slaves!!!!

Interesting to note another concoction of distortion and defeatism from Robert Barnett, whose specialism, once playing the rear end of a pantomime (Yuletide circus) horse, seems to have been relegated to that of repeating China’s propaganda line on Tibet. Note the following extracts from his recent piece, that appeared in Foreign Policy 21st January.

“This has helped push GDP growth rates to more than 12 percent annually for the last 15 years — higher even than the rest of China — and improved living conditions in Tibet.”

“5.5 million Tibetans in China, whose willingness to accept Chinese rule is at the root of the China-Tibet question.”

See: http://bit.ly/eL5NQ9

Mr Barnett has for some years now sought to present an image of objectivity and detached balance, such comments, and his troubling pedigree on maintaining a shameful silence and denial on the issue of Tibetan women being forcibly sterilized by China exposes such a presentation as highly questionable and undeserving.

Many have noted the consistent message of despair and sly circumspection that saturates his writing on Tibet’s cause, in addition to a willingness to infuse his comments with a toxic gloss of China’s disinformation.

There are a number of individuals who have carved a career for themselves upon the corpse of Tibet and in so doing have proved themselves to be callously indifferent and hostile to Tibet’s cause for independence. Clearly Robert Barnett is no friend of Rangzen (Independence)

Too bad Tibet isnt muslim, then it would be on the front page of every Western and Arab newspaper every day.

As it is, it gets the same treatment Hindus, other Buddhists, jews, Christians, and Atheists get when they get oppressed, a paltry call for independence followed by business contracts signed by pens dipped in their blood.

I suspect the PRC's disinclination to "allow" the Dalai Lama to retire has a fair bit to do with the fact the he didn't ask their permission.

Whatever comes next will have little actual effect on the perpetual heavy-handed handling of Tibet by the PRC, who makes lukewarm efforts to portray its mistreatment of the Tibetans as sovereign action or whatever but proceed as it wishes unilaterally anyway.

However, Han Chinese political ego is quite sensitive, clearly evident to all by official comments and belligerent posturing previously in this region and elsewhere. I doubt that the PRC believes that a replacement figurehead would actually rile up Tibetan nationalistic fervor but would have preferred that they be given the courtesy of a heads up or the chance to play a greater role in whatever transition.

... which makes perfect sense, of course, that the Chinese tell the Tibetans what to do with Tibetan internal organization, but I digress...

It's pretty clear that the government of China intend to rule all aspects of Tibet with an iron fist and that they hate the Dalai Lama. Tibet is ruled today by monks that have been vetted by the communist party in China. Also a lot of tibetian traditions have been stamped out and watered down. Many customs, rituals, religous songs, and ceremonious have been outlawed.

The Dalai Lama is doing the right thing by stepping down and asking for change and democracy. The Chinese government has ensured that Tibetians' traditional way of life cannot continue and must be changed fundamentally in order to thrive in this new century. This is very sad indeed.

If Robert Barnett titled this article, it is misleading because nowhere in the article does he give reasons why China does NOT want Dalai Lama to resign.

China may have denounced Dalai Lama’s resignation but it has NOT called for Dalai lama to retract his resignation.

It is Tibetans in exile who are rejecting Dalai Lama’s resignation for an obvious reason that they will loose only effective voice they have, that is listened to and respected by anti-Chinese foreign leaders and news media.

But Dalai Lama’s announcement about voiding 1963 and 1992 declarations by Tibetans’ exile parliament seeking Tibetan independence can easily play in China’s favor.

Now China can demand exile Tibetan parliament to nullify those declarations.

Since it represents 150,000 exiled Tibetans at the most, this exile parliament will wither in the wind anyway with the passing of their only effective leader. All China has to do is just sit tight and keep dong what it is doing - develop Tibet and change its demographics.

Nonviolent movement has run its course and it has become less and less effective in this age of ’might is right’ and especially for economic giant like China.

There is NO power on earth that can undo or roll back Tibet’s changing demographics and Tibetan culture is destined for dust bin of history, just like that of American Indians.

I'm sure there're China's policies are perceived by many Tibetans as an attempt to erode Tibetan culture. But if you have been to Vietnam lately, you'll find a lot Chinese series from TV and Chinese pop songs from radio. And if you ask Chinese people on the street, they'll tell you that Chinese culture is also a victim of foreign erosion (mostly from the US). So is there solid proof that the erosion comes from policies, or just because we're not living in an isolated world? I'm sure an isolated Tibet or China could have preserved their cultures more intact, but will that meet people's demand? Do those Tibetans in exile want people's lives in Tibet to be the same as in Nepal, the other side of the Himalayas?

And as to non-Tibetan population in Lhasa, have they ask those young Tibetan students studied and worked in Chengdu, Beijing or other big cities, why don't they just come back to Lhasa for the sake of demographics? And have they ask those Tibetans living in rural areas why don't they want to give up their nomadic lifestyle and move to Lhasa to do some business instead?

The culture of Tibet is another decrepit Old World culture which belongs only in a museum, however, the Old World dictatorship of China is another reactionary form of government that everywhere has been discredited by history due to its one party rule.

Tibet has sources of rivers and several watersheds that irrigate both China and South East Asia, which makes Tibet strategically important to the plans of the CCP in Beijing to create the People's Republic of Everywhere.

MARTY MARTEL: 6:43 PM ET: March 22, 2011
[Since it represents 150,000 exiled Tibetans at the most, this exile parliament will wither in the wind anyway with the passing of their only effective leader. All China has to do is just sit tight and keep doing what it is doing - develop Tibet and change its demographics.]

Hasn’t anyone clued on China’s method may be just to mess around with the Dalai Lama’s head. There’s nothing the DL can achieve. 150,000 exiles may just about fill a large sports stadium if you can get them all there. At least half will be born outside Tibet , are therefore not Chinese citizens and have no say in Tibet China affairs. The remainder, those who fled Tibet, in India and Nepal are stateless. The majority of these exiles have not been granted citizenship nor permanent residence by their host countries. They do not even have UN type refugee papers as they did not flee from a war zone. Other than generating a lot of hot air any political activity in their host countries will get them into serious trouble. In other words the exiles are a figment of imagination that they can be the nexus of Tibet’s future. The DL’s crusade dies with him.

But Dalai Lama’s announcement about voiding 1963 and 1992 declarations by Tibetans’ exile parliament seeking maxsikis Tibetan independence can easily play in China’s favor.

Why Doesn't China Want To Let the Dalai Lama Resign?
I don't think there will be an agreement between the China government and DL.
His story is so long, and in the past, I see nothing benefit his people for a better life, but some political voice. Of course, China government does not want him come back either.
After all, we'd remember what's the most important thing for Tibet people. The independence of Tibet culture, better health, never puzzled by their normal body temperature, not be hungry? Let's try our best to help common Tibet people and don't waste too much time on discussion about DL, the discussion is always no meaningful results.

Best regards!

Most people have no specific criticism of that process. Even if it is somewhat lamentable, it is neither moral nor practical to attempt to attempt to keep ethnics locked into some historical/cultural mold no matter how admired it may be. stavkove kancelarie But, given China's constant decrying of Western humanitarianism/democracy as an alien/foreign imposition upon their culture (to be resisted to the last breath if you listen to either the average fenqing or Wu Bangguo), you'd think that China would be more considerate of letting local/minority peoples decide on the pace at which outside cultural norms are adopted--and which must be. Which brings us to the point:
What both stavkove kancelarie the outside world and Tibetans themselves abhor are the government policies that act quite purposefully to neglect, fragment, and dissolve Tibetan traditions. Do ask a Uighur or Tibetan student, for example, exactly what traditional activities they are barred taking part in while--and in order to--pursue their studies and a place in modern society. I've heard from both that they are restricted in being able to attend sermons/ceremonies in the temple/mosque. Just a small sample of the hostility inherent in such policies--young people of ambition are essentially given a choice between cultural identity and success.