(TibetanReview.net, Jun12’26) – Mr Penpa Tsering, the Sikyong (executive head) of the Central Tibetan Administration has reiterated Jun 11 that back channel contacts with the Chinese government continues to take place, but that the communications are “inconsequential right now”.
In an exclusive interview with hindustantimes.com Jun 11, Penpa Tsering, who was sworn in on May 27 for a second five-year term, has said the exile Tibetan leadership still has back channel contacts with China and these will continue, though the communications are “inconsequential right now”.
He has spoken of three main tasks for the next five years, one of which is to try to seek a resolution to the Sino-Tibet conflict. The others are looking after the welfare of the Tibetan diaspora in India and other countries, and adopting technology to improve governance,
On the Sino-Tibet conflict, he has said: “If you look at the policies of the communist dispensation in Beijing, it doesn’t look like there is much space. We do have some back channels which we always mention but nothing consequential. Till a sensible leadership comes to Beijing and resolves the Sino-Tibet conflict in a non-violent way that will be lasting, we have to reach out to the international community.”
Reaffirming his commitment to the middle way approach of seeking genuine autonomy, not independence, for Tibet, the Tibetan Sikyong has said, “Tibet is already called Tibet Autonomous Region. We have to seek recognition for the historical status of Tibet as an independent state, so that China may be forced to negotiate with us, to gain value and leverage for the middle way.”
On the current status of the back channel contacts with China, the Tibetan Sikyong has said: “It continues and everybody claims this is an important channel and that when the right time comes, it will be useful. They [Chinese] don’t want us even to say the back channels are going on, that’s the Chinese way of doing things. But we can’t lie about it. If we are asked questions, I cannot lie about it.”
He appeared to indicate that the top leadership was apparently not involved while the lower level officials could do only so much. “At present, unless the top leadership decides something, the mid-level and bottom level hesitate to do anything. Because at this point of time, nobody knows whether they are going to get praised or get whipped for what they do.”