Published by: World Tibet Network News, Thursday, May 23 1996

Source: `Politiken', Copenhagen, in Danish 16 May 96 p 4

Text of report by the Danish newspaper `Politiken'

The Chinese government's representative in Denmark rejected point by point the interpretation of the dispute between China and Tibet which Tibet's leader, the Dalai Lama, had hammered home during his visit to Denmark.

The embassy counsellor at the Chinese embassy stressed that China quite simply does not believe the Dalai Lama's assurances that he does not want a sovereign independent Tibet.

"The mere fact that he travels around as the so-called leader of a so-called exile government reveals his true intentions," said Wu Quangda, who is handling China's interests while ambassador Zheng Yaowen is away.

The Chinese reaction to the Folketing hearing on Tibet on Monday [13th May] and the Dalai Lama's statements here in Denmark - which according to Tibet experts were extremely accommodating towards China - show that China is standing very firm in this dispute.

In a five-page long press release the embassy writes, among other things, about the Dalai Lama's proposal of June 1988 which was the first time the Tibetan leader wrote off independence and proposed Tibetan self-government, where foreign and security policy would remain in Chinese hands. The 1988 proposal is still the point of depature for the Dalai Lama who has stressed since then that he is ready for negotiations "without preconditions" .

"The purpose of a proposal like this is to change Tibet's legal status from that of being part of China's internal affairs to a relationship something like `supremacy-autonomy' or `protectorate'. In essence there is nothing new in the proposal; it is rather a cosmetic version of the claim that China only has supremacy, not sovereignty over Tibet. An interpretation which is ultimately the same as autonomy with some of the characteristics of sovereignty for Tibet. The Chinese government has solemnly declared that `Chinese sovereignty over Tibet can never be relinquished, and that neither independence, semi-independence nor disguised independence are possible.'"