So not surprised to note the statement of exile Tibetan Prime Minister, Lobsang Sangay, his words demonstrate the huge disconnect between the exiled Tibetan Administration and the struggle and objectives of its people inside occupied Tibet. Firstly shall we make clear Lobsang la that, the motivations and political objectives of those Tibetan martyrs who -self-immolated, are clear for all to see.
Anyone reading the political testaments from these Tibetans, or eyewitness testimony of such events cannot fail to note that what these heroes sacrificed themselves for was, Tibet’s national freedom and independence, along with declaring support for the Dalai Lama. Yet in your March 10 statement you choose not only to ignore that fact, but through implication of motive, to misrepresent their actions by claiming that:
“The self-immolations are an emphatic rejection of the empty promises of the so-called ‘socialist paradise.” http://tibet.net/2012/03/10/statement-of-kashag-on-53rd-tibetan-national-uprising-day/
This fact-free statement betrays what your compatriots offered their lives for, as they did not engulf themselves in fire, simply to protest undelivered policies or improvements made by China’s regime. It is extremely disappointing that as head of the exiled Tibetan Administration you have issued such distortions, which are aggravated by your comments on the nature of Tibet’s cause
“The Tibetan struggle is not against the Chinese people or China as a nation. It is against the PRC government’s policies” http://tibet.net/2012/03/10/statement-of-kashag-on-53rd-tibetan-national-uprising-day/
Such words avoid a reality of colossal dimensions, in that Tibetans are struggling, as evidenced by countless reports, for their national independence, in doing so it is natural and inevitable that your people see China and its occupiers for what they are, foreign oppressors. Moreover, Tibetans regularly expose themselves to arrest, torture and Chinese bullets not to seek, as you suggest, a moderation of policies or improvements in areas of employment, health, or education, but to demand Tibetan independence.
It is fine to close your statement with a hope for freedom and reunification, no one supportive of Tibet would oppose such a prospect, but perhaps you would care to explain why you take such detailed care to avoid and misrepresent whenever the subject of Tibet’s rightful independence arises?