On July 16, despite the Chinese Government's strong opposition, U.S. President Barack Obama insisted on meeting the 14th Dalai Lama for the second time during his presidency. The White House spokesman responded to China's opposition and his explanations were almost the same as the reasons offered in past cases of meeting the Dalai Lama: First, the Dalai Lama is a "internationally recognized important religious and cultural leader"; second, meeting him will help resume dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government; third, the meeting will not change the United States' policy of opposing "Tibetan independence." It's predictable that if future U.S. presidents are to meet the Dalai Lama, these will always be the U.S.'s reasons. But, it is the Dalai Lama himself who has shattered these reasons.

Has the Dalai Lama retreated from politics?

Since the 1980s, major politicians in the United States and other Western countries began to frequently meet the Dalai Lama, all claiming, "the Dalai Lama is a religious leader". While they are enthusiastically praising the Dalai Lama's "retirement" from politics and "giving up power" and that he will from now on be a true "religious and cultural" leader, they seem to neglect they are ridiculing themselves.

The difference this time is, this May, the Dalai Lama announced formally transferring his political power to the new leader of the "government in exile," according to U.S. media,

On July 10, the Dalai Lama miserably regretted his past zeal for politics in his speech made in Washington D.C. "I always told others in past decades, a religious leader is different from a political leader, but while telling others so, I was both a religious leader and a political leader. This is a hypocritical practice." He even swore: "For the rest of my life, I will never touch politics, but will always follow Buddha."

It's not so simple at all. As for a person who has become used to telling lies, we have reasons to hold a suspicious attitude toward the Dalai Lama's "honesty." Sure enough, on March 11, the Dalai Lama declared in his letter to his "parliament" that once the new system "encounters difficulties, I'll help solve the problems" and "never will I give up political, religious and public affairs. I will continue to devote myself to the righteous cause of Tibet."

In an interview in the United States on July 12, the Dalai Lama claimed that "if the new leader needs my help, I'm ready to help at any moment." The problem is who of the Dalai Lama's clique dares to say, "I don't need your help?" His crew knows too well about his interest in politics and then there are loud calls for the Dalai Lama's help. The "chief minister" told Indian media, "the Dalai Lama will never leave the fight." A "parliament member" said, "As long as the Dalai Lama lives, naturally he issues the orders."

The Dalai Lama's "special envoy" to the United States made it even clearer: "The Dalai Lama's leadership of Tibetan people will not sway even after his retirement." An official of India's Foreign Ministry pointed out directly, superficially the "exile government" has changed, but the Dalai Lama remains at "the center of power." As for the newly elected "chief minister," who earnestly hopes the Dalai Lama "will stably hand down the power and the cause to the young generation," and let him "act as the political leader of the administrative authority to sign on laws, appoint representatives and special envoys and implement major policies," these ideas show his naivety.

Let's have a look at what he has done after his "retirement." In early June, a week after retiring, the Dalai Lama could not wait to carry out a new round of visits, which first took him to New Zealand and Australia and then to the United States and Canada. Wherever he was, he always tried his best to meet major political figures, make speeches, and hold interviews. He appeared to be more energetic about politics than ever before. His favorite thing is always the same: To criticize the Communist Party of China and the Chinese Government. On June 10, the Dalai Lama said at a gathering in Melbourne, "China's oppression will not sustain long," and "China will finally change and we, the refugees who have run away from dictatorship, have enough reasons to be optimistic."

On June 12, the Dalai Lama claimed in Melbourne when meeting overseas rebels, "after 60 years' rule, it's time for the CPC to step down." On July 10, the Dalai Lama claimed in a seminar held in Washington D.C., "the CPC is growing older and older, so the best way is to let it gradually go into retirement."

Moreover, the Dalai Lama is also trying to be the "political teacher" of the U.S. government. According to U.S. media, after meeting President Obama, Dalai claimed: The President has recently encountered some difficulties, so as an old friend, I have the responsibility to bring him comfort. He also said, "It's normal for the Democrats and the Republicans to differ in interests, but when the nation faces a crisis, party differences are secondary. Economic problems are not about the two parties' interests, but about the whole country's interests…" treating himself as the savior of the United States. Do you still believe that this is not a political figure when actually he has offered 12 days' political education to the Americans?

Is the Dalai Lama really interested in dialogue?

To provide him a promising future through contacts and negotiations shows the Central Government's tolerance to the Dalai Lama. The Central Government has put forward explicit principles for contacts and talks: First, the Central Government will only talk to the Dalai Lama's private representatives, rather than the so-called "government in exile," which is a continuation of the rebellion force of 1959 and is thus illegal; second, contacts and negotiations on his personal future will be possible only after the Dalai Lama has given up the stance of "Tibetan independence" and stopped secessionist activities, and no talks will be held on the so-called "Tibet issue" and there is not such a issue at all. The contacts and negotiations are totally China's internal affairs and China is opposed to any foreign interference in them. Relevant departments of the Central Government have already made this very clear to the Dalai Lama's private representatives and will never change under any circumstances.

But, believing it is backed by the U.S. government, the Dalai Lama clique openly violated the two principles. On July 12, in an exclusive interview with U.S. media, the Dalai Lama openly said, in talking about contacts and negotiations with the Chinese Government, he would never participate, because he no longer takes charge of those issues.

The new leader of the "government in exile," however, said: "If Beijing would only like to talk to the Dalai Lama's special envoy, great! I will send special envoys to Beijing," as if he has really taken over the negotiations affair from the Dalai Lama." While talking about his contacts and negotiations with the Central Government, the Dalai Lama claimed at the same seminar that "the Tibet issue is not the Dalai-Lama's personal issue, but it relates to the well-being, interest and freedom of millions of Tibetans. If the Chinese side can't cope with the Tibet issue, there is no need to talk about the Dalai Lama's return to Tibet. As for my personal future, I have never demanded anything from the Central Government and never will I in the future." Meanwhile, the new leader of the "government in exile" repeatedly claimed he would like to negotiate with the Central Government on his "Memorandum on the Genuine Autonomy of all Tibetans." This "memorandum" that aims at "Tibetan independence" was directly rejected by the Central Government the moment it was proposed. The Dalai Lama and his partners' actions clearly show that their standpoint is totally and directly opposite to the Central Government of China. They are not sincerely interested in the talks and they have blocked the roads for talks. One thing is certain: If there are any contacts or negotiations in the future, there is only one possibility: The Dalai Lama gets closer to the Central Government's principles and requirements. The Central Government will never concede.

The fact the U.S. President met the Dalai Lama, the head of a secessionist clique, not only totally contradicts its declared stance, "Tibet is a part of People's Republic of China," but is also fueling the Dalai Lama's illusions and allowing him to set up barriers to dialogues with the Chinese Government. As a matter of fact, thanks to "help" offered by the United States, the 76-year-old Dalai Lama is farther and farther away from his home.

Has the Dalai Lama given up the aim of "Tibetan independence"?

During his latest visit to the United States, the Dalai Lama brought with him the old and new "chief ministers," the speaker of the counterfeit parliament and heads of the "Tibetan Youth Congress." Wherever he went, he took the hand of the new "chief minister," talking to his "old friends" and repeatedly stressing, "political responsibilities have been totally taken over by the new 'chief minister'." It seems that he was entrusting the new "chief minister" to his "old friends."

What's in the new "chief minister" worthy of Dalai Lama's trust? In a seminar on July 10, this new leader, who studied law in the United States and was arranged as the new leader of the "government in exile" by the U.S. Government, first made use of his knowledge of laws to invent a "historical basis" for "Tibetan independence".

He said, "In history, Tibet was really an independent country. According to international laws and the U.N. Assembly's resolution in 1961, Tibet has the right of self-determination." Later he tried to seek a "realistic basis" for "Tibet independence." "In this election, my opinion is to take the middle course. If in the future the people have changed their minds or voted for other people who want to adopt policies different from the middle course, we will try to make a decision at that time." That is to say, the "middle course" is only a temporary policy. As long as the situation has changed, they are free to carry on with "Tibetan independence" in the name of "the people" at any time. What reflects this new leader's mind better is his interview with the Indian media on June 9: "'Tibetan independence' is not contradictory to 'Tibetan autonomy'. From a dialectic perspective,'Tibetan independence'is the principle objective while 'Tibetan autonomy' is the realistic objective." Then, this new leader originally from the "Tibetan Youth Congress" openly revealed his idea of "Tibetan independence," and this is what the Dalai Lama values.

It's impossible that the U.S. government can't recognize the Dalai Lama's intention for "Tibetan Independence" and it's impossible the U.S. government does not know how ridiculous the reasons are for the President meeting the Dalai Lama. The key is, since the 1950s, it has been the trend of thought and policy in U.S. political circles to make use of this general representative of a past feudal serfdom system intertwining politics with religion to make trouble for China. That's why, no matter how despicable the Dalai Lama is and how his behavior contradicts the U.S. government's declaration that "Tibet is a part of the People's Republic of China," the United States will never feel embarrassed. However, 60 years of the Sino-U.S. relations clearly show that such a policy trend in the U.S. government has never triumphed. It is not only unable to reverse the major trend of China's development and unification, but will also seriously damage Sino-U.S. relations, including damaging the United States' image among the Chinese people. The U.S. government provided countless resources (It's reported that the Dalai Lama's "religious ceremony" held in the United States this time charged every one $35 to $475 a day, and this program only brought him an income of $ 5.99 million) and sympathy to the Dalai Lama, but it's really a losing business. It's time for the U.S. government to recognize the situation and make a decision to get rid of the hijacking by the Dalai Lama and a small fraction of statesmen in the country.