United Against Repression: Tibetans and Uyghurs Forge a Common Front in Berlin

On 12 June 2026, at the 3rd International Uyghur Forum in Berlin, Sikyong Penpa Tsering of the Central Tibetan Administration delivered remarks that marked a significant turn in how the communities affected by Chinese government policies understand their shared situation. Speaking on a panel titled “Testing Global Red Lines: East Turkistan, Tibet and Taiwan,” the elected leader of the Tibetan exile administration called for coordinated and collective action among Tibetans, Uyghurs and others facing repression under Beijing. His central message was clear and consequential: these are not separate struggles to be pursued in isolation, but related fronts in a single contest that demands a united response. In making that case before a forum convened by Uyghurs, Penpa Tsering gave formal expression to a solidarity that has been steadily taking shape the deliberate coming together of peoples whom the Chinese state has long sought to keep a

A Panel with a Pointed Message

The significance of the gathering lay first in its framing. By placing East Turkistan, Tibet and Taiwan together in a single panel title, the forum presented three causes often treated as unrelated as connected aspects of one larger problem. The discussion brought together prominent political leaders and representatives from Europe and Asia, indicating that the effort is aimed at securing mainstream international support rather than remaining a gathering of advocates alone.

That a Tibetan Buddhist leader should address a forum organised by Uyghur Muslims is itself notable. The two communities differ in faith, language, history and tradition. What unites them, the forum underlined, is a common experience of state policies that threaten the survival of their distinct identities.

From Isolated Advocacy to Coordinated Action

The core of Penpa Tsering’s address was an appeal to move beyond symbolic solidarity. He noted that Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese have, for many years, conducted their advocacy independently. The time had now come, he argued, to move beyond occasional meetings and to develop coordinated strategies, joint planning and sustained collective action in defence of human rights, religious freedom and democratic values.

This call to organise distinguishes the Berlin forum from earlier expressions of mutual sympathy. “We must understand the larger objective first,” the Sikyong stated. “If necessary, we must come together and demonstrate that freedom-loving peoples can stand united in the face of common challenges.” The emphasis fell not on shared grievance alone, but on shared strategy.

A Single Policy, Many Communities

The reasoning behind this unity rests on a recognition that the communities face the same methods of control. Penpa Tsering described the steady erosion of Tibetan identity through restrictions on monasteries, limitations on Tibetan-language education and the expansion of state-run boarding schools that distance children from their culture. He drew attention to extensive surveillance, including facial recognition systems, DNA collection and digital monitoring measures long reported in the Uyghur region of Xinjiang.

He situated these within one overarching policy. Under President Xi Jinping, he observed, Beijing’s campaign to “Sinicise” all nationalities is eroding the linguistic, religious and cultural distinctiveness of Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia alike. Where the policy is shared, he reasoned, the response to it must be shared as well.

Religious Freedom and the Dalai Lama’s Succession

Religious freedom provided the forum with a particularly powerful focus. Penpa Tsering firmly rejected the Chinese government’s efforts to assert authority over the future reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, describing it as contradictory for an officially atheist state to claim the power to determine the rebirth of a religious leader. He affirmed that this responsibility rests with the traditional Gaden Phodrang Trust and recalled the Dalai Lama’s declaration that he would be reborn in a free country should Tibet remain unfree. He also cited the case of the 11th Panchen Lama, recognised in 1995 and missing since, as evidence of the consequences of such interference.

Challenging Beijing’s Historical Claims

The Sikyong further questioned China’s account of history. Drawing on scholarly research, he disputed the assertion that Tibet has been an integral part of China since ancient times and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the “Golden Urn” system that Beijing invokes to justify its role in recognising Tibetan lamas. He also pointed to a contradiction in China’s narrative, noting that it speaks frequently of its own past humiliation by foreign powers while remaining silent about its conduct in Tibet.

A Defence of Freedom Itself

Perhaps most significant was the broader framing of the cause. Penpa Tsering presented the struggle not merely as a matter of ethnic rights but as part of a wider contest between democratic values and authoritarian governance one in which the world’s democracies hold a direct stake. By defining it in these terms, he opened the movement to allies well beyond the affected communities.

Beijing rejects these characterisations, describing its policies as lawful governance and development. Yet the message from Berlin was unambiguous. The peoples China has long sought to divide are increasingly resolved to stand together and as the Sikyong reminded his audience, silence in the face of repression serves only those who impose it.