The 1979 Sino-Tibetan dialogue marked a historic moment, one filled with promise and disappointment. It was a rare instance where representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government directly discussed the fate of Tibet and its people. For the first time since China annexed Tibet in 1950, there was a glimmer of hope for a peaceful resolution. However, this dialogue did not lead to reconciliation, but rather a deeper entrenchment of differences.
That the dialogue occurred at all was a breakthrough. After nearly three decades of estrangement, these discussions symbolized a recognition of the Tibetan issue — a step forward from Beijing’s unilateral policies. Five Tibetan fact-finding delegations were able to visit their homeland, and saw the devastation and resilience of Tibetans living under Chinese rule. Their observations led to greater international awareness of the conditions in Tibet, bringing global attention to the suppression of Tibetan culture and religious practices.
Another achievement was the temporary opening of the border between Tibet and India, allowing Tibetan families to reunite. For thousands of Tibetans in exile, this was a profound moment, an opportunity to embrace lost relatives and see the land they were forced to leave behind. That also symbolized the possibilities of reconciliation.
While the dialogue began with hope, it ended with frustration. The Chinese government’s unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussions about Tibetan autonomy or self-determination meant that the fundamental grievances of Tibetans remained unaddressed. The delegations said that Tibet was suffering under Chinese rule, but Beijing dismissed any criticism as exaggerated or politically motivated.
The border opening did not indicate a genuine commitment from China to reassess its approach to Tibet; it was a momentary gesture that did little to alleviate the growing tensions over Tibetan identity, religious freedom and governance. The “agreeing to disagree” stance taken by both sides highlighted the reality that China viewed Tibet as a part of its territory, while Tibetans in exile continued to seek autonomy and recognition.
The dialogue served as a critical turning point in Tibet’s struggle for identity, but also reinforced the divide between the two sides. While it gave Tibetans in exile insight into the conditions of their homeland and momentary reunions, it failed to initiate long-term solutions. The discussions were less about negotiation and more about positioning — both sides walked away holding firm to their original views.
The lessons of the dialogue remain relevant in ongoing discussions about Tibet. Any future negotiations must go beyond symbolic gestures and delve into substantive policy changes that respect Tibetan culture, governance and autonomy.
Khedroob Thondup is a former member of the Tibetan parliament in exile.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS