By Phuntsok Yangchen
DHARAMSHALA, April 17: The Students for Free Tibet and the US Tibet Committee have expressed their reservations over a letter posted on the Facebook Page of the Office of Tibet, Washington DC, which claimed that representatives of the six organizations agreed upon the points mentioned in the letter published after a meeting on April 4.
“We were not given an opportunity to see or approve the statement before its publication and we found some of the key points outlined in the statement to be substantially different from the proposed language presented verbally during a meeting on April 4th,” said Students for a Free Tibet and US Tibet Committee in a statement. disagree
The letter from the Office of Tibet was made public on April 10 after Representative Kaydor Aukatsang along with two North American Tibetan Parliamentarians Norbu Tsering and Tashi Namgyal met with representatives of the six Tibetan organizations in New York; Tibetan Community of New York and New Jersey, Regional Tibetan Youth Congress, Regional Tibetan Women’s Association, Dokham Chushi Gangdruk, Students for a Free Tibet and US Tibet Committee on April 4.
The letter, signed by the incumbent Representative Kaydor Aukatsang and which has now been removed from their Facebook page, acknowledged and appreciated the work of the Tibetans Community of New York and New Jersey and other organizations in planning and organizing the March 10 event this year. “We believe the organizers kept the collective interest of the Tibetan people and the current policy of the Central Tibetan Administration at the core. The planning was well documented and communicated to the public in advance and decisions were reached in a democratic manner,” reads the statement.
The letter further reads that the organizers should agree on banners to be displayed on March 10 in advance and the banners should have a unified message.
“Organizers can refer to the banners used during the Tibetan People’s Solidarity Campaign organized by the Kashag and the Tibetan Parliament in New Delhi in January 2013. As for slogans, the organizers should try to be as inclusive as possible.”
It also says that certain individuals have marred the March 10 event by seeking to “disrupt things” on the streets and then escalating the arguments online. Several videos of March 10 event in New York were uploaded in social networking sites.
During the Tibetan Uprising Day in New York this year, Tibetans advocating for Tibet’s independence were barred from taking part in the March 10 event. The representatives of the Tibetan Community of New York and New Jersey have allegedly asked the police on patrol to barricade themselves from the members of Students for a Free Tibet and Tibetan National Congress, both of which stands for independence for Tibet, a position that is rejected by the Tibetan government in exile.
The members of the Tibetan Parliament have expressed their disappointment over the “sad incident” in New York during the recently concluded Parliament session and condemned it as a matter that “pleases the enemy and disappoints the friend” (Daga Nyenduk).
The March 10 New York event, perhaps for the first time, brought the disagreements in ideologies and implementation among various Tibetan associations and NGOs in public and in the parliament.
