Just on the former day of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games, "New York Times", an American newspaper, published an article titled "An Olive Branch from the Dalai Lama" by Nicholas D. Kristof, a journalist who once worked in China. The article introduces the Dalai Lama's new opinions about Tibet.

Before analyzing the Dalai Lama's new ideas, I would like to share two points which puzzle me most.

Firstly, the Chinese government always opens doors to the Dalai Lama for talks. As a matter of fact, from 2002 to the beginning of this year, the departments concerned have conducted six rounds of talk with the Dalai Lama. In addition, after the March 14 Riots the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Communist Party of China (CPC) had dialogues with the Dalai Lama twice although local people in Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) were very angry with separatists due to great damages caused by riots. If the Dalai Lama has any new ideas indeed, he should communicate with the central government directly instead of conveying his comments by western media. The proposition from a western journalist not only makes people disbelieve its authenticity but also doubts the Dalai Lama's sincerity. Does he wish to solve the issue or just to strengthen public relations among the western world for another time?

Secondly, one point of the Dalai Lama's new allegation is that the object of the dialogue should be changed to the supreme leader from the United Front Work Department of CPC, which is out of all reason. That would do no good to the following dialogue. On the contrary, it will set new blocks to the progress. So I have to suspect the Dalai Lama's sincerity of resolving issues.

The first point of the Dalai Lama's new ideas is that "the Dalai Lama is willing to state that he can accept the socialist system in Tibet under Communist Party rule", which he regards as an important compromise. Actually, this is what the Dalai Lama should do according to the dialogue. It is really wise enough to interpret an inevitable thing as a big compromise, in terms of negotiation skills. It is a popular tactic in western public relations to put forward a fake topic and then gain virtual profit by making compromises. With the establishment of the Tibet Autonomous Region in 1965 after the democratic reform in 1959, the socialist system has become the foundation of Tibet's society today. The result of changing the reality is unimaginable. On the foundation of current social system, TAR has made great progress on the way to modernization. Further promoting the autonomous region is millions of Tibetan people's requirement and rights. It is selfish that some few people hope to change the progress of the history, which is impossible as well.

The second point of view is about the Dalai Lama's so-called "greater Tibet".  He can accept the current boundary between TAR and other provinces but calls for "greater Tibet" "to be placed under one administration" and demanded "to create a Regional Authority for Tibetan Affairs that would administer key aspects of life" in greater Tibet. That is to say, he would like to gain the practical domination over greater Tibet by superficially giving up greater Tibet. Here we can learn the negotiation tactics of "moving forward two steps by moving back one step". In history, there has never been "all Tibetan areas" with an effective and consolidate administration. In the rule of law, his claiming greater Tibet disregards other nationalities' rights completely. As for politics and real life, if the plan of greater Tibet takes effect, a race launder with unprecedented scale will happen. Thus the plan of greater Tibet itself is ridiculous and persisting this plan is one of the greatest barriers for the dialogue between the central government and the Tibet separatist group. The Dalai Lama changed the expression way of the issue of greater Tibet without giving up the preposition actually, which is the essence of the problem of the so-called new ideas.

After recommending the new policy of his highly-praised Dalai Lama, Kristof raised a series of detailed requests on behalf of the Dalai Lama, such as allowing the Dalai Lama to arrive in or depart from China according to his will; restricing other ethinc people's migration; stopping the patriotism education in monasteries; permiting pre-school age children to go to school; promoting the status of Tibetan language and boosting the occupancy of Tibetan cadres. In my opinion, it is the Dalai Lama's rights to raise requests, but all those requests should be based upon rationality and reality.

Let's have a simple discussion at some topics. Firstly, the so-called migration problem. In terms of the modern nomology, except the well-organized and large scale migration to some areas based upon governmental public power and resources, it is the basic rights under the guarantee of constitution for citizens to migrate according to one's own interest demand within the frontier. It is wrong to restric individual free migration according to the nomology and according to the modern human rights view, it is also improper. Now the fact is that there is no issue for government to organize migration to Tibet or some other Tibetan-inhabited areas while the government should respect and protect the behavior of individual migration according to market economy demand.

Secondly, permiting pre-school age children to go to school. The key problem is the balace of rights claim. China respects citizens' religion freedom according to the law and in opposite, the citizen must respect the law to fulfill the legal obligation and this is a kind of balanced contract relationship. It is the rights for children to enjoy education and the duty of parents and the government to help children to finish compulsory education. The reasonable claim is to help those children finish education and allow them to choose their religion belief after they have ability to fulfill their rights to perform their rights according to the constitution.

Thirdly, about the Tibetan language. With the development of modernization, any nationality will meet the challenge of adjusting to the modernization and protecting the tradtional cuture. A clear fact is that since the Reform and Opening-up, the Chinese Government has done a lot to popularize Tibetan language, protect and develop the Tibetan culture and has also made a lot of progress. In stead of criticism without any fact basis, the Chinese Government deserves affirmation and encouragement for its efforts on Tibetan language and Tibetan culture.

In Kristof's quotation cited from the Dalai Lama, a marked paragraph shows that he pays much attention to those words:"The main thing is to preserve our culture, to preserve the character of Tibet, That is what is most important, not politics." It sounds really good, but if you read carefully, you will still feel that culture is just used as an excuse as what the Dalai Lama cares most is the politics.