The protests marking the 49th anniversary of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet have returned the attention of the world to the region and the question of its long-term relationship with China. These protests regrettably have brought with them the loss of life, emotionally charged exchanges between Tibetans and Chinese, and over the last week, a series of violent pro-Tibet protests in London and Paris disrupting the Olympic torch relay, the symbolic inauguration of the 2008 Beijing Games.  While this latest round of protests has further threatened to tarnish the image of the Games themselves, we must not allow this to take us away from the fundamental issue at hand--the work needed to be done to develop a solution for the status of Tibet within China, while fostering the conditions for peace and stability between the Tibetans and Chinese, now and into the future.  We have to ask, why is it so important to work toward this solution now, rather than wait another two or three or five years? What makes this moment so vital? I would argue that it is not simply because of the added political leverage gained from the Beijing Olympics. Indeed, this reality is removing us from reasonable and rational dialogue on the issue. Remember, His Holiness has not called for a boycott of the Games. In the end, however, the far broader threat to Tibetan culture as a result of globalization, economic expansion and migration is real.  His Holiness has stated that neither he nor his government were responsible for the March 10 protests. This statement raises the question as to the extent of his authority over a younger generation of the Tibetan independence movement--one that is less willing to follow the route of non-violence as part of a "Middle Way" approach. We must avoid a turn to violence and radicalism from these groups at all costs. We cannot afford another Northern Ireland or Palestine.  Since these protests, two sets of demands have been made. First, from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who has called for renewed dialogue with China on the basis of cultural preservation and cultural autonomy for all Tibetans, both inside and outside of the Tibetan Autonomous Region--this has been described as "meaningful autonomy" and not independence.  Second, from the Chinese, in particular Premier Wen Jiabao, who while responding quite forcefully to the protests has said the "door of dialogue still remained open," on the condition that His Holiness renounces both his claims for Tibetan independence and violent political action. There also have been numerous calls from heads of state for renewed dialogue, most recently on April 9 from President Bush.  Taken at face value, both of these demands seem compatible--His Holiness has stated repeatedly that he stands neither for political independence nor for violence.  However, ambiguity appears to creep in when we look at the direct demands that make up the Middle Way, which were updated as recently as 2006 and call explicitly for the creation of Tibetan political institutions to govern all Tibetan populated areas within China, as opposed to specific demands concerning cultural protections. Taking this ambiguity into account, the restart of substantial negotiations between His Holiness and the Chinese is not a foregone conclusion.  While six meetings have taken place between the Tibetan Government in Exile and the Chinese government since 2002, none of these meetings has featured direct negotiation on key issues with His Holiness despite a request by the Chinese, nor have they resulted in any progress concerning the fundamental issue of the status of Tibet within China.  I believe that this lack of progress is due to unrealistic demands made by His Holiness as part of his proposal for "meaningful autonomy" that extends the reach of Tibetan governance far beyond the borders of the Tibetan Autonomous Region to apply to all Tibetan populated areas. This extension has been conveyed to me by both the Chinese government in a white paper on the Tibet issue, and in a recent letter received from New York Tibetan representative Tashi Wangdi. While protections for Tibetan culture and environment need to be created and economic opportunity given, these protections need to be both realistic and pragmatic.  Still, I remain convinced that substantial negotiation is possible if His Holiness directly engages the fundamental issues concerning Tibet. I am further convinced that His Holiness will find a willing and serious partner in negotiation with the Chinese.  Why do I believe this to be the case? As part of the mandate of our LTB Foundation and our Global Creative Leadership Summit and its platform, we have been in contact with the Chinese Minister of Information--now the current Minister of Culture--Cai Wu, who is directly involved in the Tibet issue.  In meetings and correspondence since last November, Cai Wu has indicated that China is willing to host serious negotiations with His Holiness, and to focus these negotiations on the preservation of a distinct Tibetan culture within a greater China. He has also indicated that throughout the previous negotiation process, invitations for direct talks with the Dalai Lama went unanswered, which I believe was due to the personal pain felt by His Holiness over Tibet. Our meeting with Cai Wu ended with an understanding that China would provide us with further information on its position regarding Tibet. Once we received this information on paper, we agreed that our foundation would reach out to His Holiness in an effort to renew a dialogue with the Chinese.  This proved to be more difficult than anticipated. Since June 2006 we have made numerous attempts to speak with His Holiness and to develop a working relationship with his representatives. The first attempt was in Petra, Jordan, where I was the guest of King Abdullah as part of a Nobel Laureates conference. There, our foundation was turned away by the representatives of His Holiness as we sought an audience. A second attempt was made immediately following my contact with the Chinese Minister of Information last November, to no avail.  Recently, in the wake of the March 10 protests, we have been able to make more substantial contact with his representatives and discussed the Tibet issue with them, but again failed to obtain an audience with His Holiness who we were told had a tightly booked schedule over the next months.  In the intervening months, it had become increasingly clear to me that China was making an investment in culture on a scale unlike any other in the world. Moreover, Wu told me that the Chinese people deeply regretted the Cultural Revolution and were doing their best to make amends. With this we can see that China places great importance on the role of culture within society. What does this mean in terms of Tibet? The Chinese have come to recognize the need for the preservation of Tibetan culture.  It is understandable that His Holiness might be reluctant to meet and be party to a direct negotiation process on the Tibet issue. After all, His Holiness only made first contact with the Chinese over this matter in 1978, some 19 years after his flight from Tibet into exile abroad. This is certainly an extremely difficult and delicate process where there is much fear, remorse and recrimination on both sides. But it is a step that must be taken.  On Monday: A message for Western leaders: Learn the facts of Tibet, then seek reconciliation.  Louise Blouin MacBain is chairman of the Louise T. Blouin Foundation and the New Globalization Platform, part of the Global Creative Leadership Initiative.  The following table represents the official political demands of the Tibetan Government in Exile as part of the "Middle Way" approach, last updated in 2006; and from the Chinese government white paper provided to our foundation on relation to the Tibet issue in 2007.  Political Demands:Tibetan Government in Exile, Middle Way Approach (2006)  Political Demands: People's Republic of China, Tibet Policy (2007)  1. Without seeking independence for Tibet, the Central Tibetan Administration strives for the creation of a political entity comprising the three traditional provinces of Tibet.  1. The Dalai Lama must abandon his independence goal and stop his separatist activities.  2. Such an entity should enjoy a status of genuine national regional autonomy.  2. He must recognize that Tibet is an inalienable part of China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.  3. This autonomy should be governed by the popularly elected legislature and executive through a democratic process and should have an independent judicial system.  3. He must recognize that the government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China.  4. As soon as the above status is agreed upon by the Chinese government, Tibet would not seek separation from, and remain within, the People's Republic of China.  5. Until the time Tibet is transformed into a zone of peace and non-violence, the Chinese government can keep a limited number of armed forces in Tibet for its protection.  6. The Central Government of the People's Republic of China has the responsibility for the political aspects of Tibet's international relations and defense, whereas the Tibetan people should manage all other affairs pertaining to Tibet, such as religion and culture, education, economy, health, ecological and environmental protection.  7. The Chinese government should stop its policy of human rights violations in Tibet and the transfer of Chinese population into Tibetan areas.  8. To resolve the issue of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai Lama shall take the main responsibility of sincerely pursuing negotiations and reconciliation with the Chinese government.  Source, TGIE: The Middle-Way Approach: A Framework for Resolving the Issue of Tibet (2006).  (As of April 11, 2008 the Web site for the Central Tibetan Administration, Tibet.net, containing a detailed outline of the Middle-Way Approach, has been taken down.)  Source, PRC: The 14th Dalai Lama and the Chinese Central Governments Policy, a white paper on China's Tibet policy sent to the Louise T. Blouin Foundation from the Chinese Ministry of Information (2008).
China is prepared to negotiate an end to the stalemate. For the sake of its heritage, Tibet must as well.