China’s foreign ministry has dismissed recent remarks by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio regarding Tibet, stating that the United States is in “no position” to criticise Beijing on the issue.
The response follows Rubio’s tribute to the Dalai Lama on the occasion of his 90th birthday, which China characterised as interference in its internal affairs.
Speaking at a regular press briefing on Tuesday, foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Washington should “fully recognise the importance and sensitivity of Tibet-related issues” and cease support for what she called “anti-China separatist” elements. She referred to the Dalai Lama as “a political exile engaged in anti-China separatist activities under the cloak of religion”, asserting that he holds “no right” to represent the Tibetan people or influence the region’s political future.
Rubio had issued a public message marking the Tibetan spiritual leader’s birthday on Sunday, praising him for promoting “unity, peace, and compassion”. He also reaffirmed U.S. support for “efforts to preserve Tibetans’ distinct linguistic, cultural, and religious heritage, including their ability to freely choose and venerate religious leaders without interference”.
China maintains that Tibet has been part of its territory for centuries and accuses the Dalai Lama of harbouring separatist ambitions. The Communist Party regards any international recognition of the Dalai Lama or his authority as a challenge to Chinese sovereignty.
At the heart of the latest dispute is the contentious issue of the Dalai Lama’s succession. The 14th Dalai Lama has stated that he will be reincarnated and that a non-profit organisation he has established will hold exclusive authority over the recognition process. This directly contradicts Beijing’s stance, which claims the right to approve the next Dalai Lama, citing historical precedent dating back to Qing-era imperial rule.
China’s position is codified in official policy: the 2007 “Measures on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas” stipulate that reincarnations of high lamas must receive government authorisation. Critics argue this constitutes state interference in religious affairs.
The Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile in India since fleeing Tibet in 1959, has rejected Beijing’s claims of religious authority. During his recent birthday remarks, he assured his followers that the reincarnation process would proceed independently of the Chinese state.
The question of succession is further complicated by the unresolved case of the Panchen Lama. In 1995, the Dalai Lama recognised six-year-old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the 11th Panchen Lama, the second-highest figure in Tibetan Buddhism and a key figure in identifying future Dalai Lamas. The boy disappeared shortly after and has not been seen in public since. Beijing later appointed its own candidate, Gyaltsen Norbu, who remains the officially recognised Panchen Lama in China.
In May this year, Rubio again called for the “immediate release” of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, renewing pressure on Beijing over its handling of the matter. China has consistently claimed the boy is living a normal life, though it has provided no independent access to confirm his whereabouts.
Beijing defends its policies in Tibet as promoting economic development, social stability, and religious freedom. Officials state that religious practice is protected under Chinese law, though human rights organisations and exiled Tibetan groups allege widespread restrictions on worship, cultural expression, and political dissent.
Tibet remains a core sovereignty issue for the Chinese leadership, and any foreign commentary on the region is typically met with sharp rebuke. Tuesday’s remarks by Mao Ning reflect this consistent diplomatic posture, emphasising China’s rejection of foreign involvement in what it considers a domestic matter.
While Washington continues to express concern over cultural and religious freedom in Tibet, Beijing is unlikely to shift its position. The current standoff over the Dalai Lama’s succession and the fate of the Panchen Lama underscores the broader ideological and geopolitical rift between the two powers.
