Talk:Central Tibetan Administration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greg Pandatshang (talk | contribs) at 15:19, 24 July 2014 (→Head of state). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:19, 24 July 2014 by Greg Pandatshang (talk | contribs) (→Head of state)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Tibet High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Himachal Pradesh Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Himachal Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Untiltled

I would please like to edit page, but I fear vandalism, I suggest editors take up issue. Please edit this (sorry, don't know how to do properly) and add further information as follows:

"The CTA is not recognized as a government by any country, but it receives financial aid from governments and international organisations for its welfare work among the Tibetan exile community in India. This does not imply recognition of the CTA as a government." >>replace with>>

The CTA is not recognized as a government by any country although it does receive special status from the Indian government. Tibetan independence advocates deny that this non-recognition means that the CTA does not really represent a state, although they do agree that normally an independent state is so constituted when or if it actually governs an independent area and people. "Recognition can provide evidence that foreign governments are willing to treat an entity as an independent state, but cannot create or extinguish a state." (International Campaign for Free Tibet). http://www.savetibet.org/tibet/history/legal.php Furthermore, the CTA maintains that in spite of the official non-recognition, the CTA "is now being recognized increasingly by parliaments and general public around the world as the legitimate and true representative of the Tibetan people." http://www.tibet.net/en/cta/

According to the CTA, it does constitute a "veritable" government with "all the departments and attributes of a free democratic administration." However, officially the CTA denies that this government plans to assume power should it return to Tibet. Instead, it explains that in case Tibet becomes "free," the Dalai Lama has directed the government to dissolve, he would name an Interim-President (or one would be elected somehow), ethnic Tibetans in China would take charge, a Constituent Assembly would write a new constitution establishing a parliamentary democracy, and then an election by Tibetans in Tibet would be held to establish a new government. http://www.tibet.net/en/cta/ The Dalai Lama has stated that he recognizes the CTA constitution and the demands of the Tibetan people require that he be the "supreme head" and "ultimate authority" of the government. http://www.tibet.net/en/ohhdl/future.html On the other hand, he has recently stated that he is in "semi-retirement" and has already handed over political leadership. http://metaphorsforlife.com/2007/05/13/hh-dalai-lama-to-lay-down-political-leadership/

The CTA has received money from various sources including non-government organizations to support its activities in exile. In 1998, it released a statement acknowledging that it received $1.7 million a year, dating from the 1960s, from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. According to news reports, "The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said in a statement." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E958260&scp=1&sq=cia+tibet+exile&st=nyt&pagewanted=all Furthermore, intelligence agencies of India and Nepal were said to have supported these operations. The CIA's Secret War in Tibet, Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, University Press of Kansas, 2002, ISBN 978-0700611591 http://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Secret-War-Tibet/dp/0700611592/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206846769&sr=8-1

Why is the Tibetan Government in Exile (the only legitimate government of Tibet) called an 'theocratic government'? The Government in Exile has a democratic system since the Tibetan Constitution was signed by the Dalai Lama in 1960. Although H.H. the Dalai Lama is still the Head of State, the political powers of the Government in Exile is in the hands of the Kashag and the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies, who are chosen by the Tibetan people in exile.

Any religous leader that is also a chief of state that can't be voted in or out constitutes a Theocracy,,,, that is why it is called a 'theocratic government'.

The Vatican City can be assimulated as well but since the Papal states were assumed into Italy in the mid 19th century, there is no real land to govern. since the 900 people that live there are pretty much "of the cloth"...

Iran has been an Islamic theocracy since the Pahlavi monarchy regime was overthrown on Feb. 11, 1979.

Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarchy until 1992, at which time the Saud royal family introduced the country's first constitution. The legal system is based on the sharia (Islamic law). Not much different...

So lets wrap up... If it's looks like an apple, is red and tastes like an apple, it might be----- an apple. call it a macintoch or a crab apple or a jonathan, but it's still an applechaz171 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

By that definition the United Kingdom is a 'theocratic government'. After all, the Queen is head of state and governor of the church of England, and can only be removed if there's a sudden revolution. Tom 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But the Queen has no real power over what goes on at all. She doesn't lead her people, she doesn't propose laws, she doesn't suggest what her people should be doing - she just reads a bit of paper once a year and sits about for the rest of it. Also, she's not the religious leader of the entire state - there are plenty of other religions represented proportionally in all of the countries that the Queen "lords it over". Unless there's been a major conspiracy all along, where the Queen helps get a Prime Minister elected only if s/he does her bidding, I don't see what relevance your comment has. (82.34.144.139 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

I think the more relevant point is that the Queen is the temporal head of the established church, and not the spiritual head. Were she both, then I think Tomothy would have a point. Fishhead64 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Why was Free Tibet movement redirected here? I think that there is a huge differnce between the government of Tibet and the movement of people all over the Earth. I for one do not support any sort of governmental rule, but agree with the claims of the movement to free Tibet and Tibetan people from China's rule. Beta m 11:48, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I have changed Free Tibet movement from a #REDIRECT to a real page. I have placed links to this page where appropriate. But more information on the movement itself is necessary, so if anyone is willing to contribute please do so. Beta m 11:10, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Why is Tibet independence movement redirected here? Shorne 04:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to change it to the redirect to Free Tibet movement... unless somebody minds. Beta_M , | (Ë-Mail)

"retaining their freedom until the 1951 Chinese occupation." the word "freedom" is obviously loaded with a POV. How "free" (in today's sense) could a theocratic society based on serfdom be? Should the word "sovereignity" be used instead?

While I understand the issue taken with the word "freedom", doesn't "sovereignty" simply mean "Freedom from External Control", or "Complete independence and self-government" (dictionary.com)?

Freedom may be considered by some to be a "loaded word", but it is used properly here when referring to the government attempting to maintain its freedom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ebs2002 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 December 2005.

Free Tibet. If tibet is to be 'free' It cannot revert back to the Theocratic serfdom it had before. The Government in exile is claiming soveignty over "historic Tibet". Land which hasn't been under their control for over 700 years. China claims all of Tibet based on the Mongol Conquest.

China may be in the wrong for their imperialistic assumtion of Tibet, but if Tibet is liberated, how will this benefit anyone if they revert to a system of government that was obsolete 1200 years ago?chaz171 16:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that that is up to the Tibetians to work out for themselves, to figure out what kind of government they want, without having to deal with another nation and culture colonizing them.Rbl 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

whats it matter if theyve been out of there homeland for 700 years? its still there land and the chinese control only because of military power. similar to what was the case for isreal and the jews for sevral millenia, or, more recentally, the native americans(though they still have some small lands) it dosnt matter how long there out of there homelnad, its still rightfully theres no matter howmany chinese moved ther. also, the tibet gov. in exile seems mostly democratic, with the dali lamai more like a king for a constituional monarchy ex. great britan. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have renamed this article and rewritten parts of it baed on information I have acquired during the visit to Australia of Samhdong Rinpoche. I removed the description of the Adminstration as "theocratic" because it has an elected legislature and an elected head of government. It is no more theocratic than the UK. How the lamas ruled Tibet in the past is no longer relevant, because the Dalai Lama has been committed to a democratic government for an independent or autonomous Tibet for at least 30 years. I am seeking further advice on which areas of "historical Tibet" the CTA now claims jurisdiction over, and indeed (since the Dalai Lama is no longer seeking Tibetan independence) whether it claims jurisdiction at all. I noted during the visit that Samhdong Rinpoche did not claim to be "Prime Minister of Tibet", only "Cabinet Head of the CTA." Adam 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is hopelessly biased against the Chinese government

It makes no attempt to address the claims of the Chinese government, instead simply states that the Chinese claim is illegitimate. POV to the extreme. The name of this article should be also be renamed to "Tibetan Government in Exile" as that is the common name. --67.175.167.158 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to discuss this matter with you. In the meantime I will revert your edits. Adam 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made 2 revisions. First, I changed the word "Tibet is under the control of the People's Republic of China" to "Tibet is under the administration of" as the latter is more neutral yet accurate. Second, I have added the counter statement that the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) is not recognized as a government by any other governments directly to the lead paragraph. Putting that counter statement in the second to last paragraph is deliberate concealment of factual and critical information regarding the Central Tibetan Administration, and is anything but NPOV. Mamin27 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for registering. I have no objections to those two edits.
I will however revert any attempt to describe the CTA as "theocratic". The Dalai Lama has renounced his former position as a theocrat and is now the ceremonial head of the CTA - although of course his real influence is still very great. The actual head of the CTA is the elected head of the cabinet - which is more than China can claim.
You said earlier that the article "makes no attempt to address the claims of the Chinese government, instead simply states that the Chinese claim is illegitimate." First, it is not this article's job to address China's claim to Tibet. This is an article about the CTA, not about the status of Tibet. Secondly, the article does not say that "the Chinese claim is illegitimate." That is obviously the view of the Tibetans in exile, but this article neither endorses nor rejects that view.
I agree that the CTA is commonly called the "Tibetan Government in Exile". However that is not its correct name, and is also seriously misleading, because the CTA does not in fact claim to be the government of Tibet. It claims to be an administration and a representative body for Tibetans in exile, which it is. Adam 02:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that the CTA does not claim to be the Government of Tibet. One can browse its constitutional provisions and see that it defines "citizenship" as any Tibetans by blood, including those who live currently in Chinese Tibet. By those provisions, the intent is clearly defined as seeking representation for all Tibetans, and thus representing their interests in exile.

if they are a democracy, then they cannot be considered a legal goverment or administration until actually GETTING ELECTED 1st. so were there any election held or are they just claiming they will have election when they gain power? it feel somewhat questionable atm to claim they are "rightful and legitimate government" if they are based upon democracy, they can at most claim to SUPPORT the creation of such a said government but cannot be considered as said government until they are legally elected. i am arguing technicality, but there is a destinction between plans and reality. because he's is only the "rightful and legitimate government" under theocratic system, not democracy. he must survive an election to be a democratic leader. Akinkhoo (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

if you read it, it says they have had elections. and i think "under control of" was better. it may seem biased, but its thetruth. just because the truth is against a group it still should be kept the truth.the chinese have no claim to tibet besides military control over it, similar to the muslims control over isreal. it dosnt matter that you kept the natives out of there lands for centuries or millenia, its still there lands. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I agree with Mamin that the statement that the CTA is not recognised by any other government should appear near the beginning. However, I don't think the statement, "This does not imply recognition of the CTA as a government" is necessary; it's redundant with what is said two sentences earlier.—Nat Krause 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is necessary to reinforce the CTA's lack of recognition as a government because the most common term for it (in my experience) is "Government in Exile", use of which implies recognition of government status, especially when combined with the far-from-NPOV tone of most news sources that mention it. I spent a long time under the impression that the CTA was recognised by our (the British) government for this reason. Leushenko (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Free Tibet Group Member Please Answer Me!

Tibetan Government in-exile claims that Tibet was an independent states because it was autonomous in 1912-1951.

But ridiculous that Dala Lama claims Greater Tibet, it includes Qinghai (you call Amdo). Don't forget Qinghai was under control of Nationalist China in 1911-1949. (see Ma Bufang)

198.155.145.88 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

...what answer did you want exactly? That's not a question (and I'm not an FTG member, I'm just nosy). Leushenko (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

he is asking how can austria claim germany. basically amdo was under chinese control and was not part of lhasa administed area, yet CTA claim amdo as their own. maybe palastine should claim all of israel? :) 222.165.76.171 (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

thats would be becuse originally all the lands hes claiming were tibetian. however over time the chinese took small parts, then later all of tibet. its more like the Jews being limited to isreal rather than palistine and sevral other areas that were theres of many years until they were tken militarily by muslims, than germany trying to take back lands that were once part of a large empires but spilit for various reasons. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

that is actually inaccurate as the land in question was not originally tibetan at all but of other minority group including some mongols, muslim tribe. the idea that Jews and Tibetan owns all the land when they are just one of the naive group is quite unreasonable isn't it? will you support naive american claiming all of US for example? Akinkhoo (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing reference to monthly arrival of refugees

For a long time, there has been a "Fact" template requesting sources to support the claim of monthly Tibetan refugee arrivals from China through Nepal. I'll go ahead and remove that statement. I believe this is also supported by the Misplaced Pages policy of "Material which is doubtful and harmful may be removed immediately, rather than tagged." (See Template:Fact). If anyone comes up with supporting citations, which meets the 3 standards (NPOV, Verifiability, No OR), please feel free to add this claim back. Steven li (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation from UNCHR and corrected the statement. A better citation could probably be found by going through various official documents re:refugees. It really wouldn't have taken long to find a citation yourself. --Gimme danger (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The referenced material is not available, please double-check the link. Steven li (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have two objections to using the USCR source to substantiate the claim on the refugees (by the way, I dug out the source at a different link, but I hope the original author fixes the bad link first before I attempt to do so).

USCR may be quite unreliable. According to the classifications in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCR) publications do not fall under the "scholarship" category nor the "news organization" category. It belongs to either the "self published" category or the "extremist sources" category, and therefore it's publications should be cited very carefully, and preferably to describe the organization itself. (See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Questionable_sources. In addition, the USCR being a political organization promoting the rights for the refugees, while admirable, makes it biased in this context.
USCR publications themselves do not support the claim. Secondly, according its own publications on the refugee situation in India, for as long as they keep their records (every year from 1997 to 2007), the USCR itself indicated (on their web site, under country report) that the number of refugees from China stood at a constant 110,000 for those 10 years. This is inconsistent with the statement of constant refugee flows from China to India at a claimed rate of 1,000 per year. And by the way, that claim that the refugees traveled mostly through Nepal seems unsubstantiated as well.

I hope interested parties review what I wrote here and make appropriate revisions. Steven li (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the web citation with the invalid link since nobody provided a valid link. I may also re-word the sentence regarding refugees if not credible sources become available in the next couple of days to substatiate the claims. Steven li (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

autonomous status similar to that held by Hong Kong?

I have posted this once before on another talk page, but I will post it again here. I saw a few editors say this on the talk pages of a few articles related to Tibet and it is used on the this article Central Tibetan Administration and a few other articles. I am wondering if this is an original research? I do not disagree that the Dalai Lama seeks the Autonomous status of Tibet, but I am afraid it's not similar to that of Hong Kong. My feeling is that the conditions that the Dalai Lama listed for the government of the PRC, for accepting China's sovereignty over Tibet, is very much different from the functions of the government of China in Hong Kong. I would like to ask to see a reference for this. Otherwise, if other editors disagree with me, we can talk about the conditions listed on Dalai Lama's website and compare them with Hong Kong Basic Law, and discuss the similarities and differences between the role of the government of China in Hong Kong and the role of govt. of China in Tibet that proposed by the Dalai Lama . Chadsnook (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what the Dalai Lama explicitly seeks is not very similar to the autonomous status of Hong Kong. One might argue that this is a negotiating tactic aimed at producing a result similar to what Hong Kong has, but that kind of speculation can be avoided in encyclopedia articles.—Nat Krause 04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

看不见的西藏～唯色: 阿坝僧人扎白当街自焚被枪击2009年2月27日 ... skip to main | skip to sidebar. 看不见的西藏～唯色 ... 阿坝僧人扎白当街自焚被枪击 ·唯色· 公历2月25日下午，在北京繁华的王府井，有三人自焚于 ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.6.203.238 (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand Chinese, but what is this? This has nothing to do with the topic and looks like a copy and paste without even delete the side bars. --Chadsnook (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Rinpoche.JPG may be deleted

I have tagged File:Rinpoche.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

wrong address?

hi all,

I think the address for this organisation is CTA,Dharamasala and not "CTA,Mcleodganj,Dharamsala." my source is http://tibet.net/en/index.php?id=36 You will notice that the address format is (some department),CTA,Dharamsala. Also the travel guide .Lonely Planet India, page 368

The local travel/taxi operators calls this place "library" in reference to the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives which is a popular place for visitors. http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=55&Itemid=76&lang=en

The tibetan resident calls this place "Gangchen Kyishong". The post office delivers your mail if you use this inplace of CTA in the address.

Google map does not have any high resolution images, but this organisation's main offices are not within the town of mcloeadganj.look at the map in lonely planet india page 370. It clearly shows "Gangchen Kyishong" to be halfway between the town of mcleod ganj and dharamsala.

Tdakpa (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag

Is there a reason why the flag is not featured in this article? 87.112.33.116 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why it should be? It has its own article. I am not sure about the relationship between this organization and that flag. The seal is prominent on the website, but the flag isn't. Quigley (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Congressional statement in 1991

Quigley removed this text:

The CTA is not recognized as a sovereign government by any country, although in 1991, U.S. president George H. W. Bush signed a Congressional act that explicitly called Tibet "an occupied country", and identified the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile as "Tibet's true representatives"<ref>Goldstein, Melvyn C., The Snow Lion and the Dragon, University of California Press, 1997, p. 119</ref>, a position not necessarily reflected in subsequent American policies

leaving only the first clause, "The CTA is not recognized as a sovereign government by any country ..." The explanation was "rm misleading. Congress does not determine foreign policy (e.g. Jerusalem Embassy Act, which unlike this was actually binding) and "subsequent U.S. policy" implies some other U.S. policy in past". I don't think is a very good reason to remove the text. Unlike the Jerusalem Embassy Act, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 was actually signed by President Bush. Congress plays an important role in determining foreign policy, but this language was also agreed to by the president. I don't think "subsequent U.S. policy" really implies that things were different before, but I don't see why we couldn't make it clearer by saying, "a position not necessarily reflected in American policies before or after."—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The placement was what concerned me most. "The CTA is not recognized as a sovereign government by any country, although..."—the 'although' implies that there is some contradiction between Congress's nonbinding resolution and the executive branch's independent foreign policy. In reality, there is often a contradiction, expressed as with, for example, Israel, between a Congress that caters to domestic needs and lobbyists and an executive branch that is less swayed by popular movements and perhaps more by power politics. Mr. Bush's signing the resolution does not make it his administration's policy. Important resolutions by the U.S. Congress that reference the CTA can be mentioned, but it is important not to conflate them as part of official diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the CTA. Quigley (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

strange...

It's strange that in an article on the Tibetan Administration, the Chinese government's view ("Position on Tibet") gets more more attention than the view of the subject of this article... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't really quantify "more attention", but if you add the position of the CTA and the position of the Dalai Lama together, they are longer than the PRC position, which still doesn't really focus on the PRC's own talking points, but on the CTA's. When the CTA makes such bold claims that challenge the dominant international view throughout history and even today (that there is a current "illegitimate military occupation" for example), there needs to be a rebuttal from reality, quite like how each belief listed in the traditional Chinese medicine article is abutted by the views of the scientific consensus. What is now characterized as the "PRC position" doesn't have to be so labeled. Though stranger still is the existence of a "position" section; as this article shouldn't be a brochure for a political party. Maybe the section can be transformed into a "history" section, from which the CTA's polemics can naturally flow. Quigley (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The "dominant international view" on Tibet is much more nuanced and critical than the PRC and its supporters often like to simplify it down to. Jawaharlal Nehru's comment back in 1959 about sums up the conventional view: "The whole world cannot bring freedom to Tibet unless the whole fabric of the Chinese state is destroyed," so there isn't much enthusiasm for trying.

I don't agree with Seb az, though: I think the first section of this article is well-balanced. There is 1/2 a sentence giving an incontrovertible fact about Tibet's current situation, then 1/2 a sentence on the CTA's opinion about the current situation, followed by one full sentence about the CTA's view of history. Then there is one long sentence about the PRC's view of both, which is followed by one sentence about the attempts by the leader of the CTA to moderate his views in response to the PRC. That seems very reasonable to me. We could go into more detail about the CTA's views and opinions, but it seems fundamentally quite simple and I'm not sure there's much more to say about it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Lobsang Sangay

This page needs updating with information on Lobsang Sangay, but I am unclear on how the government is structured. Is he the new Prime Minister, Head of State, or both? DFS (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He is neither at present, but he will definitely become the new Prime Minister under the current exile charter. Changes to the constitution have been proposed but the details are unknown, so he may become something like a head of state as well.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Head of state

According to the Central Tibetan Administration's website (accessed May 30, 2011), the Dalai Lama's title is "head of state". I don't think it matters whether the CTA is actually a state government, any more than it mattered whether it really made sense for the Black Panthers to have a prime minister, minister of defense, etc. However, as of May 29, 2011, the Dalai Lama has ratified amendments to the CTA's charter removing his role in the organisation (I imagine the page I linked to simply hasn't been updated yet), i.e. his proposed resignation is now effective, so we don't need to argue about what his current title is.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair the Black Panther's call their leader the 'honorary prime minister' :).

The reason I made the change is that there is a lot of posturing from the "free Tibet movement" that implies that Tibet was entirely independent of China before 1959 (when in reality they were ruled by at least the Yuan and Qing dynasties) and that they are the only legitimate government of Tibet (when in reality - like the Tibetan government of 1912 to 1950 - they are entirely unrecognised) - and I feel calling their leaders the "head of state" is part of that along with things like linking "Tibetan independence" to the Tibetan government of 1912-1950 without qualification.

If you feel I've over-reacted over the matter on any article, by all means revert me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

doesn't matter what the CTA call itself, the dalai lama himself no longer recognise it's existence! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0XlgfSgIeI Akinkhoo (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't not recognise the existence of the CTA; he denies that it is a government-in-exile.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

if it is not a government-in-exile, then it can't have a "Head of State" as is the subject of this thread. how can you have a "head of state" that is NOT A STATE? Akinkhoo (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying, "how can the leader of the Ku Klux Klan be the 'Grand Wizard'? There's no such thing as wizards!" The answer is, naturally, that he's not a real wizard ... but that is the title they gave him. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Tempa Tsering

I believe Tempa Tsering is the minister of foreign relations. The information in the article seems to be outdated. --C Coligniero (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The most recent source I could find is this article from October 9, 2012; it says that Dicki Choyyang is the foreign minister. Tempa Tsering had this role under the previous Kalön Tripa, and then he became the Dalai Lama's representative in New Delhi. Since the Dalai Lama no longer leads the CTA, it is unclear to me now whether this position has been converted to a CTA representative or whether the he is no longer associated with the CTA.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories: