Tsering warned that China should not delay until the Dalai Lama dies.

“There is a solution with the Dalai Lama,” Tsering said. “If the Dalai Lama passes away there will be a radical element [that will act in Tibet].”

When an audience member asked Sangay if a radical element meant terrorism, he responded by stating that “the Dalai Lama has always advocated non-violence but if the Chinese government doesn’t reciprocate, Tibetans will have to rely on traditional means.”

Sangay added that he didn’t think that violence would succeed. He also noted that there is a new leader, Karmapa, who is ready to fill the shoes of the Dalai Lama.

Another audience member asked Sangay whether, if he could choose freely, he would choose an independent Tibet or an autonomous Tibet within China.

“That’s like asking whether I would prefer a Rolls-Royce or a Honda,” Sangay said. “Tibet has sustained itself on its own for the last 2,000 years. Tibetans in exile have been extremely successful.”

Matt J. Aborny, a student at the Graduate School of Education, thought that the forum was informative.

“It helps clarify some of the tensions between China and Tibet. I was coming in naive about it so I was able to frame some elements better,” he said.

Pema Tsewang agreed.

“I found it very, very informative. Everyone spoke broad-mindedly with a far-sighted view. It’s important that there is interaction between Chinese and Tibetans,” he said.

Despite the more than 50 years of occupation, there was some hope for change at Friday’s panel.

Sangay said that the Tibetan side was more than willing to negotiate.

“All they need to do is send us an e-mail and we’ll be there.”