[Senate Hearing 106-869]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-869
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TIBET: ONE STEP FORWARD, THREE STEPS BACK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN AND
PACIFIC AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-771 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Ackerly, John, president, International Campaign for Tibet,
Washington, DC................................................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Napper, Dr. Elizabeth, co-director, Tibetan Nun's Project, San
Geronimo, CA................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Sperling, Dr. Elliot, professor, Department of Central Eurasian
Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Taft, Hon. Julia V., Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues,
Department of State, Washington, DC............................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 6
(iii)
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TIBET: ONE STEP FORWARD, THREE STEPS BACK
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on East Asian
and Pacific Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Thomas and Kerry.
Senator Thomas. Good morning. I think we will go ahead and
begin.
The Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs is
meeting today to examine and discuss the situation in Tibet and
what progress, if any, is being made by the central Chinese
authorities in Beijing to safeguard the human, religious, and
economic rights of the people of Tibet. I will keep my opening
statement brief so we can hear from our witnesses, which is the
more important thing in this hearing.
At least for some time, this is the first subcommittee
hearing dedicated solely to the topic of Tibet. I believe it is
a good idea to make it more visible. Many people are interested
in what is going on in Tibet and yet some of these other things
sort of overshadow it sometimes.
In addition, it is the first hearing on Tibet as a topic
since the creation of the Office of Special Coordinator for
Tibet within the State Department. So, I believe it is overdue.
There has been a great deal of focus in the Congress on
China, of course. Most of the focus, not surprisingly, has
centered around trade, WTO, and granting China permanent normal
trade relations [PNTR] status. It is true that some of the
debate on the trade bill in the House mentioned that China's
current policies on Tibet were difficult and a problem. But I
believe, in general, Tibet has sort of fallen off our radar
screen and hopefully this hearing will raise its profile.
I wish I could say things have gotten better in Tibet since
I became chairman of this subcommittee in 1994. I am not sure
that they have. China's treatment of Tibetans, especially those
with religious backgrounds, continues to figure prominently in
the State Department's religious human rights reports, hardly
an encouraging distinction. Beijing still obstinately refuses
to sit down with the Dalai Lama to discuss the wide range of
issues facing the Tibetan people, and insists on installing
their own Panchen Lama, much to the despair of some of the
Tibetans.
There is one area we have arguably improved. That is the
economy. Yet, of course, it has its down sides in the tradeoffs
that have taken place there. It has raised the living standards
apparently for Tibetans, but at some cost to their tradition
and cultural identity.
So, I hope this morning we can bring ourselves up to date
on the situation in Tibet, what steps the U.S. Government,
through the Office of Special Coordinator for Tibet, is taking
to ensure that Beijing both halts its violations of accepted
international norms of human rights, and resumes the kind of
dialog that is meaningful with the Dalai Lama.
I also would suggest that, for those of you who are
testifying, if you have a vision of where we want to be, it
would be good to share that. It seems to me in the things we do
around here we get all involved, but we are not always clear as
to whether the things we are doing are going to lead to our
perception of where we ought to be, not only in this instance
but in many. So, if you would give that some thought as we go,
I think that might be useful.
Let me welcome, first of all, the Honorable Julia Taft,
Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues from the Department of
State. Ms. Taft, welcome. Glad to have you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA V. TAFT, SPECIAL COORDINATOR FOR
TIBETAN ISSUES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Taft. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am really
very pleased that you are holding this hearing. We have a
number of initiatives that are underway, but as you mentioned,
sometimes the issue of Tibet does get eclipsed by other higher
profile questions, and the fact that you are holding this
hearing I think will help bring a balance to that.
I was appointed 18 months ago to serve as Special
Coordinator for Tibet and have had really two primary goals.
One is to promote the substantive dialog between the Chinese
Government and the Dalai Lama and his representatives, and
second, to help sustain unique culture, religious, and
linguistic heritage of the Tibetan people. Both of these tasks,
as you have noted, are quite difficult.
Disputes over Tibet's relations with the Chinese Government
have a long and complex history dating back centuries. Rather
than focusing on this historical perspective, I would rather
just focus on the current circumstances in Tibet and highlight
some of the major developments over the past year.
As our human rights report on China for 1999 makes clear,
tight controls on religion and other fundamental freedoms
continued and intensified during this year in which there were
very many sensitive anniversaries and events. The report
documents in detail widespread human rights and religious
freedom abuses. Besides instances of arbitrary arrests,
detention without public trial, and torture in prison, there
was also an intensification of controls over Tibetan
monasteries and on monks and nuns. Religious activities were
severely disrupted through the continuation of the government's
patriotic education campaign that aims to expel supporters of
the Dalai Lama from monasteries and views the monasteries as a
focus of anti-China separatist activity.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees reported last year
that 2,905 Tibetans left Tibet during the year and went to
India via Nepal. The Tibet Information Network [TIN], reported
that approximately a third of all of those refugees had left to
escape the campaigns and to pursue religious teaching in India.
In fact, Tibet's two most prominent religious figures have left
Tibet in the past 20 months reportedly for religious
persecution reasons.
The 14-year-old Karmapa, who is the leader of the Kagyu
sect and the third most revered leader in Tibetan Buddhism,
left Tibet in late December and arrived in India on January 5
to pursue religious teachings in India.
Agya Rinpoche, a former abbot of Kumbum Monastery, a senior
Tibetan religious figure and an official at the Deputy Minister
level, left China in November 1998. Among the reasons he said
he left were the increased pressure on Kumbum Monastery,
including the stationing of 45 government officials and
imposing stringent patriotic re-education requirements. It was
demanded of him by the government that he support and
legitimatize the campaign of Gyaltsen Norbu, the boy recognized
by the Chinese leadership as the 11th Panchen Lama. For these
reasons, he left.
You mentioned in your opening comments about China's
economic progress, and this is true. Although China has devoted
substantial economic resources to Tibet over the past 20 years,
we have to recognize that China's poorest region is still
Tibet. Language problems severely limit educational
opportunities for Tibetan students. Illiteracy rates are said
to be rising sharply, and most non-urban children are
chronically undernourished.
Recent reports suggest that the privatization of health
care, increased emphasis on Chinese language curriculum, and
continuing Han migration into Tibet are all weakening the
social and economic position of Tibet's indigenous population.
Lacking the skills to compete with Han laborers, ethnic
Tibetans are not participating in the region's economic boom.
In fact, rapid economic growth, the expanding tourism industry,
and the introduction of more modern cultural influences have
also disrupted traditional living patterns and customs, causing
environmental problems and threatening the traditional Tibetan
culture.
Because of the deterioration of the Chinese Government's
human rights record, the U.S. Government introduced a
resolution focusing international attention on China's human
rights record at this year's session of the U.N. Commission of
Human Rights in Geneva in March. Unfortunately, the Chinese
countered with a no-action motion, which effectively blocked
discussion and resolution of this vote.
In addition to addressing the human rights situation in
China through multilateral fora, the President and Secretary
Albright have continued to urge the Chinese leadership to enter
into a substantive dialog with the Dalai Lama or his
representatives. President Jiang said at our June 1998 summit
in Beijing that the door to dialog and negotiation is open as
long as the Dalai Lama publicly affirms that Tibet is an
inalienable part of China and that Taiwan is a province of
China. Despite our repeated efforts to foster such a dialog and
the willingness expressed by the Dalai Lama to enter into
discussions, the Chinese leadership has not followed up. We
remain committed to pushing this issue even though at this
point we are seeing no progress.
We have also continued to raise individual cases of
concern. Probably the most notable was the whereabouts of
Gendhun Choekyi Nyima, who was the boy that the Dalai Lama has
recognized as the Panchen Lama. He and his parents have been
held incommunicado for the past 5 years. This past fall, we
received some very disturbing reports that the boy had died in
Gangsu province and was cremated in secrecy. As soon as we
heard this, the embassy made formal representations expressing
concern about his whereabouts. We subsequently heard from the
Tibetan exile community. They did not believe that these
stories were true, but we have continued to urge the Chinese to
at least show this child to some international community figure
just so that we can assure his safety and well-being. We want
him identified. We want him returned home freely. To this date,
the Chinese Government has continued to refuse any direct
confirmation of his well-being.
In response to an inquiry from Congress, the Chinese
Government acknowledged the whereabouts and earlier ill health
of Ngawang Choephel. He is the Tibetan ethnomusicologist and
former Middlebury College Fulbright Scholar who was
incarcerated in 1996 and is now serving an 18-year sentence on
charges of espionage. Throughout the past year, we and Members
of Congress have continued to raise the plight of Ngawang and
have urged that the Chinese release him on medical grounds as a
humanitarian gesture because of his illness.
We have also been pressing for his mother, who is Sonam
Dekyi and living in India, to be able to go and visit her son.
This is very important because, according to Chinese law, a
parent can visit a child in incarceration, and we are pressing
that this be done. We have heard recently that the Chinese have
agreed to allow this visit to go forward. We want to thank
very, very much both the House of Representatives and Members
of the Senate who have been very helpful on this.
Now, among the things that we have been working on to get a
vision of where we want to go is to figure out if it is just
the United States who cares about the Tibetan issue. I have
spent quite a lot of time meeting with representatives from
other countries, particularly Western countries, who also have
constituencies that are quite supportive of Tibet and have
their own human rights dialogs with China. We think it is very
appropriate that these dialogs be pressed forward with the
Chinese and we are also exploring how we can join forces with
other members and parliaments in the West to be able to send a
very strong signal to China that we believe they must go
forward with the dialog.
In my full testimony, I go into a number of details on what
we have been doing with other countries and all parliamentary
fora, but I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking
about what we are doing as the U.S. Government to actually
physically help the people that are in exile and help those
that are still in Tibet.
In January, I visited Dharmsala in my capacity as Assistant
Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration. The purpose
of this trip was to evaluate the $2 million that we spend on
assistance programs to Tibetan refugees, and I can assure you
this money is well spent. We had an opportunity to meet with
many of the members of the Central Tibetan Administration and
found a really overwhelming sense of good will and a strong
community in exile.
What was especially impressive was the fact that so many of
the Fulbright scholars who had benefited from the U.S.
Government program had returned. Ninety-six percent have
returned and are working somewhere either in southern India or
in Dharmsala to reinvest what they have learned and to help the
Tibetan settlements. I think this shows what an incredible
contribution the Fulbright opportunity has given to them.
We also viewed the recent arrivals that had come across the
Himalayas into Nepal and then come down to India at the transit
center. There the U.S. Government is funding the transit center
reception facilities and health care, as well as some
vocational training programs. Again, this assistance is very
much appreciated.
While most of our programs have focused on the Tibetans in
exile in Nepal and India, we have also shared the concern of
the Dalai Lama about the condition of people in Tibet that have
not had a chance to leave. In this regard, Congress last year
earmarked $1 million for programs of cultural and sustainable
development for Tibetans in the Tibetan regions and we are in
the process now of spending those resources and my office will
be heavily involved in making sure that these investments are
directly benefiting the Tibetan people. What is particularly
interesting--and this is part of our vision too--is that all of
those investments will be done in consultation with the Tibetan
people and managed by the Tibetan people so that their benefits
can accrue directly to them.
During the course of the past year, I have met twice with
the Dalai Lama and look forward to seeing him again later this
month and in July. I am particularly appreciative, if you are
not aware of it, that the Smithsonian Folk Life Festival, is
going to feature the Tibetan culture, and His Holiness, the
Dalai Lama, will be there for these events. This is a wonderful
way to help preserve the endangered culture.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the treatment of
Tibetans by the Chinese Government over the past 50 years has
been inconsistent with international standards of respect for
fundamental human rights. The Dalai Lama has shown enormous
courage in his call for genuine autonomy but within Chinese
sovereignty. There is considerable common ground between the
Dalai Lama and the Chinese leaders. I wish they could just talk
together about it and they would find that there is common
ground. We are continuing to urge the authorities in Beijing to
establish this kind of a dialog.
There are really very significant Chinese interests that
could be advanced in moving along toward Tibetan autonomy.
Important is that the Dalai Lama is still active and healthy.
His prestige is crucial in carrying the opinion of the Diaspora
and most Tibetans in the autonomous regions. We believe that
the political will does exist to achieve implementation of a
negotiated settlement.
China's widespread abuses have been noted widely by the
international community, and we think it is in China's interest
that they be responsive and that they have a more enlightened
policy toward Tibet. We have to continue on message. We have to
keep on pressing this, and it is our sincere hope that, in the
remaining course of this administration, we will be successful
in getting the Chinese to talk with the Dalai Lama and his
representatives.
Let me stop there and answer any questions you have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Taft follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Julia V. Taft
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a great honor to
appear before you today to testify on the current situation in Tibet.
I was appointed 18 months ago to serve as Special Coordinator for
Tibetan Issues. My policy goals are twofold: first to promote a
substantive dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama
or his representatives, and second, to help sustain Tibet's unique
religious, linguistic, and cultural heritage.
Mr. Chairman as you and your colleagues know, disputes over Tibet's
relations with the Chinese government have a long, complex history,
dating back centuries. Rather than focusing this testimony on the past,
I would like to describe the current circumstances in Tibet,
highlighting key developments over the past year, and what I've been
doing since my appointment.
CURRENT SITUATION IN TIBET
As our human rights report on China for 1999 makes clear, tight
controls on religion and other fundamental freedoms continued and
intensified during a year in which there were several sensitive
anniversaries and events. The report documents in detail widespread
human rights and religious freedom abuses. Besides instances of
arbitrary arrests, detention without public trial, and torture in
prison, there was also an intensification of controls over Tibetan
monasteries and on monks and nuns. Religious activities were severely
disrupted through the continuation of the government's patriotic
education campaign that aims to expel supporters of the Dalai Lama from
monasteries and views the monasteries as a focus of ``anti-China''
separatist activity. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
reported that 2905 Tibetans left Tibet during the year, and Tibet
Information Network reported that approximately 1/3 of those left to
escape campaigns and pursue religious teaching in India. In fact, two
of Tibet's most prominent religious figures have left Tibet during the
past 20 months reportedly for these reasons. The 14-year-old Karmapa,
leader of Kagyu sect, and the third most revered leader in Tibetan
Buddhism, left Tibet in late December and arrived in India on January 5
to pursue religious teachings in India. Agya Rinpoche, former abbot of
Kumbum Monastery, a senior Tibetan religious figure and an official at
the Deputy Minister level, left China in November 1998. Among reported
reasons for his departure were increased government pressure on Kumbum
Monastery including the stationing of 45 government officials, the
imposition of patriotic re-education, and a heightened role demanded of
him by the Government in its campaign to legitimize Gyaltsen Norbu, the
boy recognized by the Chinese leadership as the 11th Panchen Lama.
Although China has devoted substantial economic resources to Tibet
over the past 20 years, it remains China's poorest region. Language
problems severely limit educational opportunities for Tibetan students,
illiteracy rates are said to be rising sharply, and most non-urban
children are chronically undernourished.
Recent reports suggest that privatization of health care, increased
emphasis on Chinese language curriculum, and continuing Han migration
into Tibet are all weakening the social and economic position of
Tibet's indigenous population. Lacking the skills to compete with Han
laborers, ethnic Tibetans are not participating in the region's
economic boom. In fact, rapid economic growth, the expanding tourism
industry, and the introduction of more modern cultural influences also
have disrupted traditional living patterns and customs, causing
environmental problems and threatening traditional Tibetan culture.
Because of the deterioration of the Chinese Government's human
rights record the U.S. Government introduced a resolution focusing
international attention on China's human rights record at this year's
session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in
Geneva in March. Unfortunately, the Chinese countered with a no-action
motion which effectively blocked discussion of the resolution and a
vote. We succeeded, however, in focusing international attention on
China's human rights practices.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
In addition to addressing the human rights situation in China
through multilateral fora, the President and Secretary Albright have
continued to urge the Chinese leadership to enter into a substantive
dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. President Jiang
Zemin said at our June 1998 summit in Beijing that the door to dialogue
and negotiation is open as long as the Dalai Lama publicly affirms that
Tibet is an inalienable part of China and that Taiwan is a province of
China. Despite our repeated efforts to foster such dialogue and the
willingness expressed by the Dalai Lama, the Chinese leadership has not
yet followed up on Jiang's public remarks. Nevertheless, the
Administration remains committed to implementing an approach to human
rights that combines rigorous external focus on abuses while
simultaneously working to promote positive trends within China. In the
case of Tibet, President Clinton, Secretary Albright and all senior
Administration officials have repeatedly urged the Chinese to engage
with the Dalai Lama to resolve Tibet issues. I am convinced that this
principled, purposeful engagement is the best means we have to produce
results over the long-term.
We have also continued to raise individual cases of concern. Most
notable is the issue of the welfare and whereabouts of Gendhun Cheokyl
Nyima the boy recognized by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama and his
parents, who have been held incommunicado now for 5 years. When we
received disturbing, unconfirmed reports the boy had died in Gansu
province and was cremated in secrecy, our Embassy made formal
representations expressing concern about his whereabouts and welfare.
Although the reports of his death were unsubstantiated and thought to
be untrue by the Tibetan exile community, the Administration publicly
urged the Chinese Government to address continuing concerns of the
international community about the safety and well-being of the child by
allowing the boy and his family to receive international visitors, and
to return home freely. The Chinese government has continued to refuse
to allow direct confirmation of his well-being.
In response to an inquiry from the Congress, the Chinese Government
acknowledged the whereabouts and earlier ill-health of Ngawang
Choephel, the Tibetan ethnomusicologist and former Middlebury College
Fulbright Scholar who was incarcerated in 1996 and is now serving an
18-year sentence on charges of espionage. Throughout the year, we have
continued to raise Ngawang's case and have urged China to release
Ngawang on medical grounds as a humanitarian gesture. We are aware of
strong interest in this case in the Congress. We appreciate the support
and cooperation we have received in advancing this case.
WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING OVER THE LAST YEAR?
Over the past year I have made it a point to learn all that I can
about Tibetan issues so that I am able to ensure the effective
presentation of these issues in our U.S.-China bilateral discussions. I
have maintained close contact with the Dalai Lama's Special Envoy to
Washington, Lodi Gyari. Throughout the year, I requested meetings with
the Chinese Ambassador, however, such meetings have not been granted. I
will persevere this year in my efforts to discuss with the Ambassador
the Chinese government's views on social, political, and economic
issues related to Tibet, as well as explore ways we can help get the
dialogue back on track.
I've met with scores of people from like-minded countries,
government officials, people from foundations and academia, experts in
U.S.-China relations and NGO officials. Each meeting has produced ideas
on how to improve the situation inside Tibet, as well as substantive
thoughts about how to restart dialogue. Despite the fact that I am the
only Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues world wide, my appointment
has prompted other nations to identify counterparts to discuss this
issue. I realize now that there is a wealth of knowledge and talent
around the world interested in helping to improve the situation in
Tibet. In fact, I recently visited Brussels where the European
Parliament held an all-Party Parliamentarian Session on Tibet to
discuss multilateral efforts and how we can best coordinate future
strategies.
In January I visited Dharmasala, India in my capacity as Assistant
Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration. The purpose of my
trip was to evaluate and review the $2 million in assistance programs
the United States provides for Tibetan refugees.
After receiving a very warm welcome, I had the opportunity to meet
with many members of the Central Tibetan Administration to discuss the
grant. I was overwhelmed by the tremendous sense of good will and
community, especially among the younger generation despite the fact
that this generation has never even seen Tibet. I learned on my visit
that nearly the entire Central Tibetan Administration is made up of
Fulbright Scholars. These bright, young adults undoubtedly had much
more lucrative opportunities in the United States, Europe or India, yet
a remarkable 96% have returned to Tibetan settlements to make their
talents available to the Central Tibetan Administration. Equally
impressive is how traditional Tibetan culture is integrated into nearly
every facet of daily life.
However, having just been to Nepal in October where I met with new
arrivals who were traumatized and had endured great hardship while
crossing the Himalayas, I was anxious to visit the transit center in
Dharmasala where all new arrivals spend some time before being placed
in settlements throughout India. During my visit the center was crowded
with refugees. The new arrivals were quiet, but far more animated than
the refugees I had seen in Kathmandu just three months earlier. The
rooms were crowded, but clean and orderly. Many were wearing the new
shoes and dark pants they received after arriving at the Kathmandu
reception center. Attached to the transit center was a small, three-
room medical clinic for routine medical care.
The USG grant makes a very positive impact on the lives of these
refugees by providing support for the reception centers, preventive
health care, basic food, clothing, clean water and income-generating
projects.
Additionally, I met with the Dalai Lama twice over the past year
and I look forward to seeing him either later this month or in early
July when he is here for the Smithsonian Folk Life Festival. On a
personal note, I would like to express how pleased I am that the
Smithsonian has decided to highlight Tibetan Culture at this year's
festival. It's through programs like these that people learn to
appreciate different cultures and how important it is to preserve
endangered cultures such as Tibet's.
During the two meetings I have had with Dalai Lama, he has
reiterated his concern about the marginalization of the Tibetan people
living in Tibet and requested that I devote some attention to finding
ways to improve the lives of those still in Tibet through culturally
sustainable enterprises. As I began to narrow down options on ways to
be helpful, Congress appropriated $1 million to support activities
which preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development
and environmental conservation in Tibet. The responsibility of the
earmark was assigned to the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs and
my office will have an important role in managing the money and
monitoring the performance of these new programs over the course of the
next two years.
CONCLUSION
The treatment of Tibetans by the Chinese government over the past
50 years has been inconsistent with international standards of respect
for fundamental human rights. The Dalai Lama has shown enormous courage
in his call for ``genuine autonomy'' within Chinese sovereignty. There
is considerable common ground between the Dalai Lama and Chinese
leaders. We urge the authorities in Beijing once again to establish a
dialogue with the Dalai Lama. There are significant Chinese interests
that could be advanced in moving forward on Tibetan autonomy. The Dalai
Lama is still active and healthy; his prestige will be crucial in
carrying the opinion of the Diaspora and most Tibetans in the
autonomous regions. We believe the political will exists to achieve the
successful implementation of a negotiated settlement.
Widespread knowledge of China's human rights offenses in Tibet has
brought about pressure on China's leadership to explain its Tibet
policy to the international community. My impression is that the
situation in Tibet deeply troubles China's international partners and
foreign leaders and that this is affecting China's diplomatic
engagement in Western countries.
Chinese leaders may find that a more enlightened policy toward
Tibet would be an important step toward enhancing the respect they have
earned from the economic transformation of their country. It is my
sincere hope that parties will resume dialogue that looked so promising
in 1998. Preservation of Tibet's unique cultural and religious
traditions depends on it.
In closing, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to
testify today. I look forward to working with you another year on this
extremely important issue.
Senator Thomas. Very good. Thank you.
Let me go back to what I mentioned. Let us just say that
you could cause to happen what you would like to have happen.
What would that be? How would you transform the situation into
what? What is it you would like to see accomplished?
Ms. Taft. Well, I appreciate your asking it of me, but my
answer--and I do not mean to be oblique--has to be not what I
believe should be the future of the Tibetans, but what the
Tibetans believe is there future. And to do that, we have got
to find a way to consult with them, to have them consult with
the Chinese authorities so they can design their own future.
You know there was a very interesting thing that happened
at the human rights meeting in Geneva. We had a roundtable
where a number of Tibetan leaders and Chinese exiled leaders
and Richard Gere were making presentations to a large, large
NGO audience. We were talking about the human rights dialogs,
and one of the countries got up and said, well, we are very
frustrated. Our human rights dialog is not going forward with
China, and we do not want the Chinese to be upset with us
because we want this dialog to go forward. A couple of other
countries said the same thing. One of the Chinese exiled
leaders said, this is all very encouraging that you want to
have your human rights dialogs go forward, but the real dialog
China needs to have is the dialog with the Chinese people. So,
I would just say that we have got to find ways to get to the
table the Chinese and the Tibetans.
To specifically address where it will all lead, it seems to
me that the Tibetans have been disempowered. They are not
decisionmakers in their own region. Their education is
frustrated and inadequate for them. So, we need to encourage
through foundation support, through whatever development
assistance can go into the region, to make sure that the young
people have vocational education and their own linguistic
training so that they can thrive.
We have got to help get economic development in the hands
of the Tibetans. There is money going into Tibet but it is
going in for Han employees and Han enterprises. It is not going
to really help the Tibetans. We have got to see if we can
change that dynamic.
With regard to the politics, His Holiness has very clearly
expressed his idea about community decisionmaking and Tibetan
decisionmaking, and I would like to submit for you his idea of
how he would see the transition taking effect. I think his
words are obviously much better than mine.
The bottom line is that the U.S. Government believes Tibet
is part of China, and so we do not view any separatist future
there. But it has to be a future where the people of Tibet are
able to come up with their own autonomy, their own control of
their social and cultural and linguistic well-being. That can
only be done if we get the major parties talking.
Senator Thomas. Well, I understand. I guess I am a little
impatient. I am not a diplomat. But it seems like if the main
issue is dialog, that we at least hope we know where the dialog
is going. Is this going to be an independent state? You say
probably not. It is going to be a part of China. Fine. Let us
identify that. Is it going to be like Hong Kong? Is it going to
be one country, two systems? As much dialog as you have had
apparently with Tibetans, it seems to me like there is not a
very clear notion. We talk about these generalities. We want
human rights. We want economy. How do you do that? It just
seems there ought to be a little clearer articulated position
of where we want to go to cause those things to happen.
Ms. Taft. Yes, sir, I understand that. There are statements
that clarify where the Tibetans in exile, led by the Dalai
Lama, would like those conditions to be. The United States has
never purported to be the negotiator.
Senator Thomas. I am not suggesting that we tell them what
to do, but we ought to able to identify so we know. For
instance, it seems to me that most of the things that you have
done, that you listed, are things that are assistance to
refugees and so on. I understand that and that is fine and that
is a good thing to do. But that does not necessarily move you
toward a resolution. All that does is help the people that are
displaced.
Ms. Taft. Yes, sir, but from a political standpoint,
President Clinton and Secretary Albright and every senior
official that ever talks to any of the Chinese keep on message
pressing the Chinese to talk with the Tibetans.
Senator Thomas. So, that is our position to talk.
Ms. Taft. Well, our position is at least try to talk.
Senator Thomas. I understand.
Ms. Taft. I have not even talked with the Chinese. They
will not even talk with me because they say that this is an
internal matter within China. The presentations of our
administration have gone forward to say this is important for
China to be able to have this dialog.
If you have other suggestions, we are willing to try to do
anything, but we cannot force the Chinese to a table that they
do not want to set up.
Senator Thomas. I understand. However, you have said in
here somewhere that Jiang Zemin said if they agreed to be part
of China, that they would have--do the Tibetans agree to that?
Ms. Taft. The Dalai Lama has publicly said that.
Senator Thomas. So, that is generally accepted by the
Tibetans.
Ms. Taft. Yes, but it is not believed by the Chinese. Our
sense is if they would sit down together, that the Chinese
would be much more understanding of what a Tibetan system would
look like. You mentioned the two-China system. There is a
different system for Macau. There is a different system for
Hong Kong. There can be a different system for Tibet. We do
have ideas and a whole booklet of different types of autonomy
arrangements around the would that they could choose from or
adapt. But we cannot get any agreement from the Chinese to even
initiate discussions with us or with the Tibetans.
Senator Thomas. How do you see the human rights? And, of
course, the religious freedom abuses probably are more unique.
Do they differ in Tibet from other parts of China?
Ms. Taft. I think they differ in that there are fewer
Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists than there are other religious
sects within China. The focus of the intimidation is mostly on
the monasteries and the monks and the nuns that they are not
allowing photographs of the Dalai Lama. They are penalizing
people who try to worship according to their traditional
beliefs. The Chinese have asserted themselves in this
interesting religious dimension of reincarnation. Chinese
atheists are determining who are reincarnated Buddhists. That
is pretty dramatic. And we have documented a number of serious
infractions and beatings.
Senator Thomas. Do you think they treat the Buddhists
differently than the Falun Gong, for example?
Ms. Taft. Probably not. Both bad.
Senator Thomas. You mentioned 2,900 Tibetan refugees. How
many Tibetans are there?
Ms. Taft. Well, it depends on how broad a geographic swath
you have, but about 6 million.
Senator Thomas. Six million?
Ms. Taft. Yes, sir. There are about 100,000 that are in
India and India has provided very congenial asylum and
tolerance for them throughout the years.
Senator Thomas. So, the Dalai Lama does agree that Tibet is
an inalienable part of China.
Ms. Taft. He has agreed it is part of China. He would like
it to be a self-governing, autonomous region of China.
Senator Thomas. What are your immediate goals in terms of
your being the person working with Tibet?
Ms. Taft. Well, one of them is to try to find really
reliable focal points in other countries that care about Tibet.
When I was in Brussels at the inter-parliamentarian meeting,
all the Europeans were so pleased to know that the United
States had a Special Coordinator for Tibet, and I had to tell
them I was really quite lonely because I did not have many
people to talk to on a reliable basis in Europe. They passed a
resolution to encourage each of the parliaments to establish a
focal point, and they are doing that.
So, one of the hopes that I have is that we can have a
meeting of focal points and discuss what are the best
initiatives we can collectively do particularly with our
European partners to push together with the Chinese on having
this dialog be coupled with something else, whether it is human
rights or an economic initiative or whatever. We have got to
get all of us to say the same thing to the Chinese about the
importance of a dialog. So, I am hoping that will happen.
The second thing is we still have several more months in
this administration, and there are other opportunities for us
to again press the Chinese on the dialog. Right now the Deputy
Assistant Secretary in charge of China is meeting with her
Chinese counterparts again to push this. We hope that there
will be some breakthrough. When the Dalai Lama is here for his
July session, we are hoping he will have senior level meetings
and can share with us again his suggestions on how we can push
even harder.
Senator Thomas. When was the Special Coordinator created,
this position?
Ms. Taft. It was created in 1997, and Greg Craig, who was
my predecessor, was designated for the first 10 months, and
then I have had it for 18 months.
Senator Thomas. Now, in both cases, you have each had other
responsibilities.
Ms. Taft. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. So, how much of your time is dedicated to
this issue?
Ms. Taft. Depending on what else is happening in the world,
I would say I spend 2 hours a day on this issue.
Senator Thomas. So, it is a relatively small percentage of
your time.
Ms. Taft. Well, I am in charge of refugee issues and
humanitarian issues at the State Department as well. So, I have
a lot of----
Senator Thomas. I understand. The point is how much----
Ms. Taft [continuing]. Other jobs, but I have a full-time
assistant. I have the assistance of the people within the State
Department who help us and our Economic Bureau as well as in
the EAP region. We have in Chungdu--we get very active
participation and monitoring from the Consul General there. We
work actively with our embassy in India and in Nepal on these
issues. I am kind of an orchestra director, but there are lots
of players out there who are engaged in this. We try to track
all the talking points, all the visits that are forthcoming. We
were heavily engaged in the China resolution. In fact, because
these issues are so closely related to my other portfolio, I do
not split hairs on it. I hope I feel like I have given it all I
can.
Senator Thomas. Would it be fair to say then in the last 3
years or so, 4 years, probably the most imperative task for
this has been to promote the dialog, but we have not seen much
progress. Is that fair?
Ms. Taft. That is correct. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. All right. Well, a tough job.
Ms. Taft. Thank you for your attention and help.
Senator Thomas. Just hold on a second. I think Senator
Kerry is out here. He may wish to ask you a question. If he
does not, we will got on to the next panel.
Ms. Taft. If I can just say one----
Senator Thomas. Let me say I do not mean that to be
disparaging, but I think we have to take a look at whether what
we are doing is making progress. If it is not, then--I guess I
have gotten this feeling a lot lately about all of government.
If we keep doing the same thing and we are not progressing,
then we ought to really take a look at doing something else.
Ms. Taft. Well, may I tell you, sir, if you have any ideas,
please help. I mean it. The Chinese will not talk to me, but
they do talk to our other interlocutors. I think now we have
passed over these sensitive anniversaries of last year, which
were really very tough, and the bombing of the embassy, which
now is behind us. Now with PNTR and the progress on WTO, I
think the time is right, and I also believe that their change
in attitude about something that we have pressed on, which is
the visit of Sonam Dekyi to her son, is because we all stayed
on message and we all kept pushing it. So, it seems to me just
your having this hearing is a wonderful signal to the Chinese
that there is a constituency out there. And we are trying, but
we cannot force them to come to a table they do not want to
come to.
Senator Thomas. No, it is true. On the other hand, it would
seem, again from an outsider's point of view, that since they
know and we know that one of your principal tasks in this job
is to bring on the dialog, then they may resist that, but that
does not keep our Ambassador to China from talking about it. It
does not keep our President from talking about it. It does not
keep other people from doing it even though you may find some
resistance because they recognize your task.
Ms. Taft. Oh, but everybody does. I talk with Ambassador
Preuer all the time. He was just in recently. He carries on an
effort to do this, but they have got to hear it not just from
us, but from the French and the Norwegians and the Brits and
all the rest of them. That is why I want these focal points to
make sure we are all pushing in the same direction. But your
help would be very welcomed.
Senator Thomas. Senator Kerry, nice to see you, sir. We are
just about through with Ambassador Taft, but wanted you to have
a chance to make a statement and questions if you would like.
Senator Kerry. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
apology to you and to the Secretary for not being able to be
here throughout. I guess everybody here is familiar with and
used to the process around here.
I am pleased you are holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. It
has been a long time since this subcommittee has focused on the
question of the situation in Tibet and the status of talks or
lack of talks, as the case may be.
Two years ago this month, the President held a rather
remarkable public dialog in China with President Jiang Zemin,
and it was extraordinary for the comments solicited from
President Jiang Zemin about his recognition of the importance
of this issue to the American people and, indeed, his
preparedness to have a discussion with the Dalai Lama, with His
Holiness. That has not happened, and I think a lot of us have a
nagging suspicion that other things are more prominent on the
radar screen. No progress has been made at all really since
that historic meeting. None. Zero.
So, convince me, can you please, Madam Secretary, that this
is really front and center, that this is something that is
reflective of a legitimate initiative and effort by the
administration?
Ms. Taft. You started off by talking about all of the other
things that are on the plate. We have nuclear weapons
discussions. We have Taiwan discussions. We have trade
discussions. We have human rights discussions. We have Tibet
discussions.
Senator Thomas. Who has the Tibet discussions?
Ms. Taft. Well, Secretary Albright, Sandy Berger, President
Clinton.
Senator Kerry. Did Sandy Berger have Tibet discussions on
his most recent trip a few weeks ago?
Ms. Taft. He did discuss it, yes, sir.
Senator Kerry. And do you know what the outcome of that
was?
Ms. Taft. The Chinese have indicated that it is not time to
pursue this. They do not believe it is the time to go forward.
Senator Kerry. Have they been articulate at all about what
the timing issues are or what might constitute the right time
to proceed forward?
Ms. Taft. I wish I could answer that question.
Senator Kerry. I mean, it cannot be so painful to talk.
Ms. Taft. Well, last year we were told it was not the right
time because of all the sensitive anniversaries. Then we were
told it was not the right time because of the bombing. And then
it was not the right time because we had lots of other
discussions of high import from national security and economic
standpoints.
I think that all of these other discussions actually
complement what we are trying to do, and let me say that while
I am very frustrated--you are looking at a very frustrated
person here. My primary task of trying to get the dialog going
is not working. But one of the things we have tried to do is
include this issue in other issues with other voices. In other
words, where there are academics meeting with academics,
working with them to say please raise this issue so that it has
more resonance there. We have done it with religious visitors.
We did it with a staff CODEL that raises these questions. The
military-to-military discussions have not yet talked about
Tibet, but we are hoping that they will get to it. In other
words, the Chinese need to hear from the businessmen, the
academics, the diplomats, the military folks.
Senator Kerry. Well, speaking of the businessmen for a
minute, I am voting for permanent normal trade status. I think
the chairman is too. But this raises the question: Should
someone perhaps have said, well, we are not going to proceed
forward on that until you enter a dialog? These are the
linkages that often people bring up. If you tell me that they
keep saying it is not the right time, it is not the right time,
it is not the right time, it certainly builds a compelling case
for the notion that someone has to help----
Ms. Taft. Tell them it is the right time.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Create the moment, so to speak.
Now, how do you respond to that?
Ms. Taft. Well, my sense is that the PNTR debate and
discussions also with businessmen have been very important for
the Chinese to realize that there are international standards
of behavior, international rules, and an international
community that they have to live up to certain standards for.
Now, that is sure on the trade side. But this is all very
important. I think the more familiar they become with the
international community's rules of engagement and standards of
behavior, in this case vis-a-vis trade, they will then start
understanding why we find their attitudes on human rights with
Tibetans so objectionable. I think this is a process and I am
not thinking it is going to be solved overnight, but I think it
is really important.
They were very interested in being able to identify--and we
are working with them on identifying--what are the laws that
the country of China has to modify so that they can come into
an ability to live up to the trade standards. They are working
on this, and I think we have got to keep pushing them and say,
OK, you work on these but you also have to pay attention to the
human rights. Eventually if we are all pushing in that
direction, sir, I think we will make some progress.
Senator Kerry. What do you think the tools are that are
available to us? If I were just to ask you as sort of an
academic exercise, what tools are available to the United
States, if you were going to make a list of those things that
we can use to leverage behavior legitimately, what do you think
they are? If we are not going to have the linkage to PNTR, what
are the others?
Ms. Taft. Well, I think some of the things that you are
doing are very important. The Fulbright Scholarship Program is
very important. I think the support of VOA and Radio Asia, very
important. Trying to increase STAFFDEL's and CODEL's. I would
like you to go to Tibet. I think people who go to China ought
to be asking to go to Tibet and ask the kind of questions and
look and see whether or not there are so many Han that are
going in to Tibet or not. It would be very helpful for you to
do that.
I think that the pressure and the visibility on the
discussions with PNTR has certainly raised the awareness of the
Chinese that human rights is an important issue and they have
got to be recognizing it. I do not know whether there is any
linkage between that and the willingness of China now to offer
a visa for the mother of Ngawang Choephel, but I think there
probably is a connection there. I think we all have to keep
saying that there are connections even though they say there
are not. We need to just keep these on the front burner.
Now, the fact that the Smithsonian is having the Folk Life
Festival feature on Tibet is certainly not going to go
unnoticed by the Chinese. It shows an attachment and an
importance that we have to----
Senator Kerry. What about leverage? Those are sort of
signals.
Ms. Taft. Yes, sir.
Senator Kerry. And those are kinds of messages. Is there
any clout anywhere?
Ms. Taft. I have struggled with this. I do not think there
is anything that we can do.
Senator Kerry. What about a multilateral effort? Is there
not an international community that supposedly shares these
values and standards?
Ms. Taft. Yes, and I am trying to work with them.
Senator Kerry. What are we doing with them?
Ms. Taft. Well, we are meeting with our friendly
parliamentarians. We tried to introduce the China resolution
without much success.
Senator Kerry. Do you think the world is enough aware of
what happened to that?
Ms. Taft. I think they were aware. I do not think there was
enough discussion as to why no other country would support us
on that resolution. We certainly signaled our indication to
table it very early on. It was this past January. We had 3
months. Our Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and our
representative to the Human Rights Commission and myself and
others worked very hard, and at the end of the day, most of the
countries said that they did not believe that, for their own
economic interests, that they should support it.
Senator Kerry. But really it did come down to the economic
interests.
Ms. Taft. A lot of it was economic and also their interest
in not destabilizing their own human rights dialogs with the
Chinese authorities.
Senator Kerry. What is your sense, Madam Secretary, of
those dialogs? Do you think that they are real?
Ms. Taft. Well, at least ours is moribund right now. It has
not happened since January 1999. Most of the European ones are
just forums for chatting and do not have any teeth. Before you
came in, we were talking a little bit about this, that it would
be very helpful for all the people who are sponsoring human
rights dialogs with China to get together and talk about the
question: Are they effective? What are we trying to achieve?
Are we just trying to make ourselves feel good, or are we
really presenting an opportunity to press these issues forward
with the Chinese? I think that needs to happen. I think all of
the human rights sponsors have to get together and sort of
share their views and maybe even do a common demarche with the
Chinese and say we all want to sit down with you together and
have at the table Tibetans and Chinese in exile and other
people who represent the human rights community in exile.
Senator Kerry. Well, I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
It is a very vexing and extraordinarily frustrating issue.
Obviously I know people care about it, but I have increasingly
come to the opinion there is precious little unilaterally in my
judgment that a country can do. It is a conclusion I am coming
to after years of watching this. There is precious little you
can do directly to exert leverage. On the other hand, you can
directly leverage through that circuitous route of reaching out
to the allies. I think it is the multilateral response that
really needs to be stronger and it is sorely lacking. There
must be better ways, I think, of trying to do it.
But the other thing that is also necessary is, I think, the
administration needs to stay constant in keeping it at a high
level of concern and visibility, and I think that in a sense is
above your pay grade. It is really the President and the
Secretary of State directly. It is very ministerial and very
directly principal to principal. Absent that, they just slide
by with these excuses--well, the time is not right--and they
have a polite conversation with you and the heads nod and they
go through these perfunctory meetings, but nothing comes out of
it. So, I think it is a question of how high it is on the
agenda.
Ms. Taft. I believe it is quite high on our agenda. I
believe it is quite low on the Chinese agenda. That is why your
voices are very important. You all have very strong
relationships with other Asian leaders as well. You raise this.
We raise it. I think they will hear that this is not just an
internal matter. It really is not an internal matter in our
view, but that is what the Chinese think. It makes my position
even more difficult because they say, well, how would you like
China to have a special coordinator for Native American
affairs? That is how they view the equivalent of me.
So, you are right. We have to have more voices. We have to
have high level voices. The administration has tried, and if
there are some other multilateral levers we can use, I would be
delighted to come and talk with you and your staff and get some
ideas on this because we only have a short time left in this
administration, and I do not want to have to admit that we have
not----
Senator Kerry. Fair enough. Just a last question, a very
short answer. Who is the highest level Chinese official you
personally have brought this up with?
Ms. Taft. I have not been granted any audience with any
Chinese official, and after many written requests to our
Ambassador, many verbal requests from other senior officials,
and I have asked for visas to go to China, visas to go to
Tibet----
Senator Kerry. So, you have basically been stiffed.
Ms. Taft. Well, I have but there are a lot of voices----
Senator Kerry. This is your job.
Ms. Taft. Yes, sir, I know.
Senator Kerry. If they are not paying attention to the
person whose job it is, it seems to me that we are not in the
ball game.
Ms. Taft. Well, I hope you do not read into that that it is
useless having me there.
Senator Kerry. No, I do not read that into it.
Ms. Taft. You are right and I am very frustrated by this,
but I think it is really useful to have an office in the State
Department where you keep prodding, you keep looking at the
talking points, you get ideas from people who come in, you keep
in touch, you ask the embassy to do things. Even though I have
no face-to-face contact, I assure you there are----
Senator Kerry. I understand. I am not suggesting it is and
I think you have done wonderful work on the refugee and other
issues that are in front of you. I do not suggest that at all,
but it underscores the predicament we are in and that is why I
asked the question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Appreciate it.
Let us go on to our panel two please: Mr. John Ackerly,
president, International Campaign for Tibet; Dr. Elliot
Sperling, professor, Department of Central Eurasian Studies,
Indiana University; Dr. Elizabeth Napper, co-director, Tibetan
Nuns Project. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here.
We will include your total statements in the record. If you
would like to sort of consolidate them a little, why, try that.
We are stretching this a little longer than we had thought. So,
in any event, why do we not start with you, Mr. Ackerly.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ACKERLY, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN
FOR TIBET, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Ackerly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
inviting me to testify.
I also want to thank the committee for your support and
leadership in addressing the problems in Tibet and specifically
for your help in initiating and sustaining important programs
such as the Office of Special Coordinator. I think it is
important that during the next administration to make sure that
there is another powerful person in that office. Also the Voice
of America and Radio Free Asia, Tibetan language programs,
Fulbright scholarships for Tibetans, and humanitarian
assistance to refugees are all programs which have been
extremely beneficial and which would not exist but for your
efforts.
I also certainly share your frustration and that of Senator
Kerry with the lack of progress on negotiations. I want to
thank you for raising it so strongly with the Secretary. We
believe that this administration has not been strong enough in
sending the right signals to Beijing, but in a matter of weeks
when the Dalai Lama comes, the White House, as well as the
State Department, as well as this Congress, will have an
opportunity to make sure that a very loud and clear signal is
sent. This will be the best, final opportunity of this
administration for this to happen.
I do want to say I believe there is a lot more that they
can do. I think there is a lot more Julia Taft herself can do.
For example, she could hold her own conference with Tibetan
experts and leaders on the issue. During the next
administration, a summit. There will be a summit, I imagine, on
China and that will be another very important opportunity. So,
I think these are some of the things that you may be getting to
in looking for more specifics in what we should be doing and
looking for.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about the World Bank.
This is a very important issue for us now because it is still
pending. As you know, the bank approved a project last year to
move 58,000 Chinese and Muslims up onto the Tibetan plateau
into traditional Tibetan areas. It delayed funding pending an
inspection panel investigation. The panel finished that
investigation in April and submitted their report to the bank.
Yesterday the bank was supposed to issue its response to the
inspection panel, but China blocked them and delayed their
response for a week presumably because they were not happy with
what the bank was going to propose.
However, this project is still approved and no one yet in
the bank has had the courage to cancel it. So, we are still
very concerned that China and some people in the bank may try
to find a way to continue this project in some format.
It is our position the World Bank should have no business
resettling Chinese onto the Tibetan plateau. It is difficult to
imagine circumstances where the bank would want to fund
resettlement of any ethnic majority on the lands of
dispossessed and disenfranchised minorities, particularly when
resettlement is also a tool of an authoritarian government to
dilute or quell political unrest by that minority. The bank
tried to do this in Brazil and Indonesia, and it was a
resounding failure. Secretary Summers has been quite good on
this. He said on April 17, ``Cases such as the Western China
Poverty Reduction Project serve only to erode the credibility
and endanger public skepticism.''
I do want to thank Members of the Senate and the House for
being very supportive of trying to cancel this project. We
still need your help because, as I mentioned, it is still an
approved project. Specifically I would like to ask help from
this committee and other legislatures and institutions to
demand that the World Bank release the inspection panel report.
The report is confidential still, but we believe that it is
vital for the stakeholders to have a right to know what is in
that report before the bank decides on their fate, not
afterwards. When we see this report, I think we will see a
detailed story of mismanagement, duplicity, and broken
promises.
Transparency should mean that information decisionmakers
are using to affect people's lives is shared with those people,
not deliberately and intentionally kept from them. During the
weeks leading up to the decision about whether 58,000 people
will move onto Tibetan lands, the bank is keeping those people
and the Tibetans in the dark.
One of the main reasons we need to get this report is to
share it with the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, who are
both here covering this today, so that they can broadcast it
into the region to let affected people know what is in this
report and how the bank is going to use it.
This project has also brought to light much more far-
reaching problems with bank-funded resettlement projects in
China, and one outcome should be more aggressive scrutiny of
these projects.
Another group, Human Rights in China, has initiated a
groundbreaking study which undermines the myth that the bank
has also been promoting, that China should serve as a role
model for countries involved in resettling populations. I would
urge this committee to look into these problems in the future.
In the area of human rights in Tibet, the conditions remain
extremely grim. I will not go into too much detail. You have
heard from Ms. Taft and you will hear more from Dr. Sperling
and Betsy Napper. Of course, we remain extremely concerned with
the Panchen Lama, who now is serving his fifth year under
detention. He is only 11 years old.
Ngawang Choephel, who is familiar to many of you primarily
because he has been championed by Senator Leahy and Senator
Jeffords of Vermont and by this committee which passed a
resolution calling for his release. As Julia Taft mentioned,
there is some movement. China has agreed to give his mother a
visa to come and we hope that China, working with the U.S.
Government, will facilitate that trip smoothly. She is very
elderly. She cannot make this trip alone. She needs help and we
want to ensure that she has a good meeting with her son. Of
course, we want to see him free.
I also want to touch on the issue of the United Nations
Human Rights Commission and thank this committee for leadership
in urging the U.S. administration to sponsor resolutions
against China in the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
Now, even though these resolutions have not passed, I want to
say how important I think they are and how important I think it
is for the United States to continue sponsoring them. They give
the Chinese and Tibetans, whose rights have been abused, a
voice in the international community where they otherwise would
have none. They force the Chinese Government to defend itself
in front of the international community and they serve as a
strong reminder that these grave and systematic abuses
occurring there will not be overlooked and the victims not
forgotten.
Now, this year, the United States sponsored the resolution,
and as Ms. Taft said, they did so quite early. And we applaud
the administration for this initiative. However, the United
States needs to put its weight behind the resolutions. We feel
this year the White House did not do that. They need to do so
to avoid any appearance that these resolutions are being used
to appease domestic constituencies, including to appease
yourself and members of this committee.
I think it is also important for the administration and
members of this committee to take the extra step and work more
closely with your colleagues in Europe and elsewhere. One
reason the resolution did not pass this year is because the
European Union would not cosponsor it, which points to the need
for greater consensus building prior to introducing the
resolution.
I have traveled to Tibet six times in the last 12 years to
monitor conditions. It is clear Tibet is under occupation now.
This does not mean there are tanks or troops in the streets
every day, although this is not uncommon, but the military
presence in Tibet is staggering if you take time to look around
the outskirts of Lhasa, where compound after compound are
military facilities. Military presence serves both to
intimidate the local Tibetan population and to make the Chinese
settler population feel more secure.
Now, in a few weeks, the Dalai Lama, as I mentioned, will
be here. I hope you will have an opportunity to have a dialog
with him.
I want to say in response to your earlier question about
what specific vision we have for the future by mentioning that
there is a very specific transition plan which has been put
forward by the Dalai Lama to facilitate a transition between
the current situation and a democratic government. He lays
forth a plan which relies on Tibetans who are living in Tibet
and have remained in Tibet, and it dissolves the Tibetan
Government in exile. It is not a plan to transplant a
government in exile back in Tibet, but it is a plan to rely on
Tibetans who have remained there. Many patriotic Tibetans,
although they are serving in the Chinese puppet regime there,
are very able and very patriotic, and the Dalai Lama is looking
toward them to constitute a new government.
In closing, I would urge the committee to be vigilant in
efforts to support those Tibetans and Chinese who are demanding
greater respect for human rights and keep the spotlight on
people, on both the tortured and the torturers.
Last, your vigilance is also badly needed to help keep the
pressure on the World Bank which is still capable of making
colossal mistakes by undermining the legitimate rights of
persecuted minority peoples.
One additional point. I do want to mention that there is a
huge project which is about to be undertaken in Tibet, probably
the largest construction project in the history of Tibet, and
that is the first large-scale gas pipeline which is planned to
be built across the northern plateau. This will take Tibet's
resources to China with virtually no benefits accruing to the
Tibetans themselves. The construction is being done by
PetroChina, but they have a very large foreign investor, and
that is BP Amoco. I want to assure this committee that the
International Campaign for Tibet is very supportive of
development in Tibet. Development is badly needed. As was
mentioned earlier, Tibet is the poorest part of China, but what
we are seeing is not development to benefit primarily Tibetans,
but development that benefits the Chinese settler population
and which takes resources out of Tibet to China.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerly follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Ackerly
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify. Most of all, I
want to thank this Committee for your support and leadership in
addressing problems in Tibet. As a result, the Congress and the
American people have gained a better understanding of the impact of
China's occupation of Tibet and the Dalai Lama's efforts to halt the
persecution of his people and find a peaceful resolution to the issue.
More specifically, you have helped to initiate and sustain
important programs for Tibetans which, I am happy to report, are having
a very positive, direct and tangible impact on the lives of Tibetans.
These include:
The Office of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues
at the Department of State,
The Voice of America and Radio Free Asia Tibetan language
programs,
Fulbright scholarships for Tibetans, and
Humanitarian assistance to Tibetan refugees.
The most immediate issue for us today at the International Campaign
for Tibet is the World Bank's proposal to resettle 58,000 Chinese and
Muslim farmers onto the Tibetan plateau. The Bank approved the project
on June 24, 1999, but delayed funding for a review by the independent
Inspection Panel, which was completed and submitted on April 28, 2000.
Just yesterday, Bank management was supposed to issue its response to
the Inspection Panel report to the Board of Executive Directors. China
requested, and was granted, a week delay before the Bank issued its
recommendations as to whether this project should proceed or not.
It is our position that the World Bank should not fund the
resettlement of Chinese into Tibetan areas under any circumstances. It
is difficult for me to imagine circumstances where the Bank would ever
want to fund resettlement of ethnic majorities onto the lands of
dispossessed and disenfranchised ethnic minorities, particulary when
resettlement is also a tool of an authoritarian government to dilute or
quell political unrest by a minority population. When the Bank tried to
do this in Brazil and Indonesia, it was a resounding social, economic
and political failure. The World Bank has no business funding such
schemes in the tropics, the Himalayas or anywhere else. Moreover, as
Secretary Summers said on April 17 of this year, ``cases such as . . .
the Western China Poverty Reduction Project, serve only to erode
credibility and engender public skepticism. And they shortchange
development effectiveness.''
The United States has been on the right side of the Tibet
resettlement project, as has Germany and many other countries also have
serious problems with this project. I know that foremost among leaders
in this government opposed to the project are Members of the Senate and
the House and I want to express my deep appreciation for all of your
efforts.
We still very much need your help because this project is still
formally approved by the Bank. Specifically, I urge this Committee, and
other legislatures and institutions, to demand that the World Bank
release the Inspection Panel report because the stakeholders have a
right to know what is in that report before the Bank decides on their
fate, not after.
While we understand that the Inspection Panel report is harshly
critical of the Bank's handling of this project, stakeholders derserve
the report regardless of the nature of its content, in a timely manner.
When we do see this report, I think we will see a detailed story of
mismanagement, duplicity and broken promises.
The alleged purpose of the Bank's strategy of delaying any funding
was to provide a more full and factual discussion of the contested
issues. President Wolfesohn himself said in the press release
announcing the decision that ``the fact that this component of the
project will not start, nor will any monies be drawn for it until the
results are known, should allow critics and supporters alike the space
and time for full and open consideration of all issues.'' The
government of China added: ``we are in favor of transparency.
Transparency brings to light facts and scorches rumors.''
But it turns out that the Bank and China define the word
transparancy differently from you and I. Transparency should mean that
information decisionmakers are using to affect people's lives is shared
with those people, not deliberately and intentionally kept from them.
During these weeks leading up to the decision about whether 58,000
people are moved onto Tibetan lands, the Bank is keeping those people
and the Tibetans in the dark. One of the main reasons we need the
report is to get it to VOA and RFA to be broadcast in Tibetan, Chinese
and Uyghur languages so that people in the affected areas can know what
is in the Inspection Panel report before the Bank takes final action on
that report.
This project has brought to light much more far-reaching problems
with Bank funded resettlement projects in China and one outcome of this
should be more aggressive scrutiny of other projects. I am very happy
that one group, Human Rights in China, has initiated this and done a
ground-breaking study which undermines the myth that the Bank has been
promoting that China should serve as a role model for countries
involved in resettlement. The report concludes that ``the World Bank
effectively waives its own guidelines in its work on resettlement in
China, while ignoring evidence contradicting the favored image of China
as resettlement paragon.'' I would urge this Committee to look further
into these problems in the future and to take appropriate action.
In the area of human rights, conditions in Tibet remain extremely
grim. One of the most blatant examples is the detention of a 11-year-
old boy who has been kept incommunicado for 5 years now--since he was 6
years old. He is being kept in detention because he is widely revered
as a future religious leader of Tibet, having been recognized by the
Dalai Lama in the traditional manner as the next Panchen Lama. Also of
particularly concern is Ngawang Choephel, a young man familiar to many
Senators because his case has been championed by Senator Leahy and
Senator Jeffords of Vermont delegation and the Committee on Foreign
Relations which passed a resolution calling for his release. Ngawang
was on a Fulbright scholarship in ethnomusicology at Middlebury College
in Vermont and returned to Tibet to film traditional song and dance. He
is now serving the fifth year of an 18 year sentence in Tibet and has
been having serious health problems.
Systematic human rights abuses are also pervasive in monasteries
and nunneries where the government places strict limits and controls
over many activities, and outlaws others altogether. These controls
drive some aspects of Buddhism underground, and they deepen Tibetan
animosity towards their Chinese overseers. This phenomenon is described
in more detail by Betsy Napper in her testimony today about nuns, and
in an excellent new book, ``Tibet Since 1950: Silence, Prison, or
Exile'' by Human Rights Watch and Aperture. While this is a stunning
book of photograghs, the text illustrates the extent of China's
repression and the ongoing violation of basic human rights in Tibet,
through arbitrary arrest, torture, unfair trials, the secular takeover
of religion, and the absence of freedom of association, expression, and
assembly.
I want to thank this Committee for its leadership in urging the
U.S. Administration to sponsor resolutions against China at the United
Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. And, I want to urge the
Committee to continue their support of these resolutions on China as
long as human rights conditions in China and Tibet do not improve. As
you well know, the resolution did not pass this year, and it has not
passed in previous years. However they still serve exrtremely important
functions and are very beneficial. They give Chinese and Tibetans whose
rights have been horribly abused a voice in the international community
where they otherwise would have none. They force the Chinese government
to defend itself in front of the international community. And, they
serve as a strong international reminder that these grave and
systematic abuses will not be overlooked and the victims not forgotten.
This year the U.S. sponsored the resolution and we applaud the
Administration for this initiative. However, the U.S. needs to put its
weight behind the resolutions to avoid any appearance that it is using
the resolutions to appease domestic constituencies. It could also be
important for this Committee to take the extra step and work even more
closely with your celleagues in Europe and elsewhere. One reason the
U.S. resolution did not pass is because the European Union would not
co-sponsor it, which points to the need for greater consensus building
prior to introducing a resolution.
Scrutiny of rights abuses has also been an important part of the
annual review of Normal Trade Relations with China. The International
Campaign for Tibet supports the annual review of NTR as long as China
remains a totalitarian state. Maintaining the status quo does not
affect tariff rates and is not a barrier to China joining the World
Trade Organization. There was some confusion about the Dalai Lama's
position on these matters but he has a clear record of supporting
China's inclusion in multilateral rules-based organizations such as the
WTO, but the Dalai Lama has not taken a position on legislative issues
such as PNTR.
I have traveled to Tibet six times in the last 12 years to monitor
conditions there. It is clear to most politically-savy visitors that
Tibet is under occupation by its neighbor, China. This does not mean
there are tanks and troops in the streets every day, although this is
not uncommon. But the military presence in Tibet is staggering if you
take time to look around the outskirts of Lhasa where compound after
compound are military facilities and infrastructure dominating the
landscape. This presence serves to both intimidate the local Tibetan
population and make the Chinese settler population feel secure.
Today there are not as many street demonstrations by Tibetans
demanding independence. This has been achieved by intimidation
campaigns, surveilance systems, undercover police and brutal reprisals
for those who confront the system. In these respects, Tibet is a far
more repressive place today than nearly all parts of China, with the
possible exception of areas in Xinjiang.
In a few weeks the Dalai Lama will be in Washington and I hope that
you will have an opportunity to have a dialogue with him and hear his
proposals for improving conditions in Tibet and initiating negotiations
with China. I also hope that you can do the same with representatives
of the Chinese government. Because of our enormous trade relationship
and other ties with China, we have an even greater responsibility to
ensure that we do not further entrench the occupation of Tibet, but
rather help to alleviate it.
I believe that we will soon look back at the brutal occupation of
Tibet just as we look back at apartheid in South Africa and Communism
in Eastern Europe. Those systems became cultures of arrogance, fear of
change and intolerance. Cultures like that cannot last forever. This
country should have the integrity to admit that some of the effects of
our policies serve to prop up and enrich this culture which is embedded
in the Communist leadership, while at the same time, other effects
serve to undermine it. Sometimes it is difficult to untangle those
effects, particularly the effects of our trade relationship, which I
believe are contradictory.
In closing, I would urge this Committee to be vigilant in efforts
to support those who are demanding greater respect for human rights and
to keep the spotlight on people--on the tortured and the torturers.
Lastly, your vigilance is also badly needed to keep the pressure on the
World Bank, which is still capable of making colossal mistakes by
undermining the legitimate rights of persecuted minority peoples.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Dr. Sperling.
STATEMENT OF DR. ELLIOT SPERLING, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CENTRAL EURASIAN STUDIES, INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON, IN
Dr. Sperling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to you
for giving me this opportunity to appear before you. I am
essentially an academic working as a specialist in Tibetan
studies. I am in the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at
Indiana University where I teach. I have also been for some
time a consultant to Human Rights Watch. It is in that
capacity, as a consultant to Human Rights Watch, that I address
the committee this morning.
Gross violations of human rights in Tibet remain a
continuing fixture of the situation there in spite of the
efforts of various concerned governments and NGO's--and by the
way, among those governments is the United States Government--
to focus attention on the issue. It is, thus, crucial that
measures for putting effective pressure on China to adhere to
accepted international human rights norms be a key component of
U.S. policy toward China and, where appropriate, be built into
legislation governing U.S. relations with China.
Human Rights Watch has a number of concerns that cover
ongoing human rights violations in Tibet. One of our concerns
is the continued implementation of Chinese policies aimed at
subordinating religious practices and sentiments to serve the
political needs of the state that impinge upon the freedom of
many Tibetans to peacefully practice or even express certain
vital aspects of their religious beliefs. These policies are
implemented through the use of coercion, violent repression,
and imprisonment.
Particularly prominent in this regard has been the campaign
of patriotic education and an increasingly heavy-handed turn
toward putting certain monasteries and temples under secular
management. This is closely tied to the well-known case of
Gendhun Choekyi Nyima, the child who was recognized as the
Panchen Lama by the Dalai Lama. This case has been alluded to
already this morning. I will not go into it, but it is a very
major concern of Human Rights Watch.
In addition to that, we are also concerned about the
continued abuse of prisoners in Tibet and the use of torture
against them. Torture, in fact, we believe has become
entrenched in Tibet as part of the price for political
activism.
As I have said, the case of the Panchen Lama has been
brought up. There is no need to go into it in detail, but I
would like to point out that he and his family continue to be
kept in effective isolation from the outside world, and human
rights monitors have not been able to independently verify
their condition. The list of those who have tried to visit him
in the 5 years since he was spirited away, includes Mary
Robinson, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights; Harold
Koh, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor; and just this past month, Raymond Chan, the
Canadian Secretary of State for Asia and the Pacific. In all
cases, the requests were rebuffed; China continues to state
simply that the child is in good health but will not allow any
independent verification of that statement.
In addition, we have also noted that the state has assumed
a visible presence in certifying certain incarnations and in
harshly suppressing dissenting voices in the matter.
Most recently, of course, we have seen the management of
the recognition of Reting Rinpoche, another important Lama
within the Dalai Lama's sect. By all appearances, this is part
of a continuing effort to control such searches in order to
ultimately stage manage the discovery and enthronement of the
next Dalai Lama.
Human Rights Watch is concerned about the gross
infringement on the freedom of conscience that this
constitutes; all the more so because China has arrested people
who have peacefully opposed this process. In connection with
the question of the recognition of the Panchen Lama, there has
been, of course, a campaign of patriotic education which has
inflicted a harsh regimen of political tests in order to root
out any allegiance to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan monasteries. In
places this has resulted in the expulsion of monks and nuns
from their cloisters and the imprisonment and torture of some
who refuse to accept state control over what they perceive as
vital aspects of their religious lives and beliefs.
There has not been a uniform application of this campaign,
and in some places it appears to be winding down. But it is
speculated--and there are good grounds for speculating--that
this is because the authorities perceive that it has achieved
success in certain areas, success that is in subordinating the
Tibetan clergy to the political control of the state. But the
effects of this campaign remain. Clergy have been required to
demonstrate their rejection of the Dalai Lama and of the child
recognized by him as the Panchen Lama, Gendhun Choekyi Nyima,
as well as their acceptance of Tibet's status as an inalienable
part of China. There have been sharp clashes between monks and
the authorities over this campaign with resulting expulsions
and arrests.
Recent and unusually harsh Chinese denunciations of the
Dalai Lama and his followers may be the prelude to a renewed
and intensified campaign of attacks on him. We do not know.
In addition, Human Rights Watch is also concerned about the
fact that arrests and imprisonment in Tibet are frequently
carried out as a result of peaceful dissident activity, that
is, in violation of accepted human rights norms. There are
serious abuses following detention. Human Rights Watch is
particularly concerned about the fact that incidents of severe
beatings at the time of arrest and torture during incarceration
have been reported with sufficient frequency and from a number
of credible sources as to put the issue beyond doubt. In a
number of instances, we have political prisoners in Tibet who
are reported as having died in custody and then in many
instances the official report is that they committed suicide.
When there have been protests--and there have been several
instances that we know of--these protests have been followed
by, in many cases, beatings. There have been cases of death
following these protests and extension of sentences for the
peaceful, nonviolent expression of dissident opinion. There are
a number of incidents of this which we have come across. Just
last week, it was reported that nine Tibetans in Kandze, an
important town in the eastern reaches of the Tibetan plateau,
had their 5-year sentences, which were meted out for
participation in a peaceful protest last October, doubled to 10
years.
We note too that several cases have been raised by the
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning
the imprisonment of a number of Tibetans. China has refused to
explain or justify to the working group its actions in these
cases. So, in this regard too, we must express our concern at
the detention late last month of 50 students who had left Tibet
to obtain educations in India and who were arrested, upon
returning to Tibet via Nepal. It is important that steps be
taken to see that the Chinese Government respects their rights
and, if there are no legitimate grounds for detention, that it
releases them immediately.
I am going to be brief here. Let me express to you what the
recommendations of Human Rights Watch are with regard to the
situation.
First of all, time and again since 1989, the U.S.
Government has voiced its intention to hold China to account
for its abysmal failings in safeguarding some of the most basic
human rights of its citizens. The President and other senior
administration officials have raised the issue of human rights
violations in Tibet with President Jiang Zemin and other senior
Chinese officials during summit meetings and other official
gatherings. This has been useful.
In fact, if I may depart from my statement to say something
on a personal note, for many years, prior to the President's
visit in 1998, we were often told that one cannot mention human
rights in public with Chinese officials because it involves the
loss of face. One does not do that publicly. One has to discuss
this very quietly in the background as a background topic
otherwise there can be no progress.
One of the most gratifying things about that visit in 1998
is that the President did raise the issue of human rights
publicly, very publicly, and since that time, I would say
happily, people have stopped talking about this rather arcane,
orientalist notion that somehow you cannot discuss these things
in public with the Chinese Government. You can talk about them
in public. They ought to be talked about in public.
But the other part of it, of course, is that in spite of
all of the efforts at dialog, as Ambassador Taft has noted,
there has not been meaningful positive change. In fact, human
rights conditions in China have noticeably deteriorated in the
past year or more, something attested to in the State
Department's annual reports. But China is clearly sensitive to
its international image and standing. This is why it has
vigorously resisted any debate on its human rights record at
the annual meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in
Geneva.
Human Rights Watch recommends that if Congress chooses to
end the annual trade review and grant China PNTR, the review
process must be replaced by a credible mechanism to keep the
spotlight on China's human rights record. We support the
formation of a standing bipartisan human rights commission, as
proposed by the House of Representatives in the bill it passed
last month granting PNTR. We urge the Senate to join in
enacting legislation to create such a commission with both
congressional and executive branch members and a permanent
staff to monitor human rights conditions in China and Tibet, as
well as the state of religious freedom and worker rights, and
to issue an annual report.
The legislation establishing the commission should call for
some of its staff to be based in Beijing and Lhasa. I cannot
say this with any greater emphasis. You have already heard from
Ambassador Taft about the difficulties that she has meeting
with Chinese counterparts at any level. I would say that the
legislation calling for the formation of this commission should
incorporate language that would mandate the stationing of
personnel in Beijing and Lhasa. This should be done in order to
conduct effective monitoring on the ground.
In addition, it is crucial that the annual report by the
commission with findings and recommendations for U.S. policy
actions should be debated and voted upon by a certain date each
year after it is delivered to the House and the Senate. This
will help ensure that human rights abuses in Tibet and China
remain a key issue on the U.S.-China agenda.
We would urge the President in his contacts with Jiang
Zemin, including the expected summit meeting this fall during
the APEC conference in Brunei, to speak out both publicly and
privately urging China to fully comply not only with its
commitments to respect global trading rules, but also with its
international human rights obligations.
Specifically with regard to Tibet, Human Rights Watch urges
that there be an end to the re-education campaigns in Tibetan
nunneries and monasteries; the unconditional release of all
Tibetan political prisoners. We recommend that the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child or another
international body be granted immediate access to the Panchen
Lama, and we ask that United Nations, foreign journalists,
diplomats, and independent human rights monitors be given
unhindered regular access to Tibet. This would be a positive,
constructive confidence-building measure.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sperling follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Elliot Sperling
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN TIBET
I am grateful to the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
for affording me this opportunity to appear before you. In addition to
my academic work as a specialist in Tibetan Studies, I have also served
for some time as a consultant to Human Rights Watch. Most recently, I
collaborated with Human Rights Watch on a new book, ``Tibet Since 1950:
Silence, Prison, or Exile'' (published with Aperture Foundation)
graphically detailing the reality of exile from Tibet today and the
role that human rights violations play in forcing many Tibetans to
leave their homeland. It is as a representative of Human Rights Watch
that I address this Subcommittee.
I am here today to speak to Human Rights Watch's concerns about
human rights conditions in Tibet. Tibet has been, for more than a
decade, a place where some of the most visible and egregious human
rights violations committed by the Chinese state have occurred. It is
well known that Tibetan nationalism forms the background to this
situation. Human Rights Watch does not endorse any particular political
arrangement to resolve the issue of Tibet, but we do advocate that the
right of all Tibetans to peacefully articulate and express themselves
on political questions must be respected under existing and future
political arrangements, whatever they may be.
Since 1987, Human Rights Watch has monitored and reported
extensively on abuses that have transpired in Tibet. In general, we are
pleased to note, greater attention is now being paid by the United
States government to the situation in Tibet; for example, human rights
violations there are now given significant exposure in the State
Department's annual review of international human rights conditions.
Unfortunately, however, gross violations of human rights remain a
continuing fixture of the situation in Tibet, in spite of the efforts
of various concerned governments--including the U.S.--and NGOs to focus
attention on the problem. It is crucial, therefore, that measures for
putting effective pressure on China to adhere to recognized
international human rights norms be included as a key component of U.S.
policy towards China and be built into legislation governing U.S.
relations with China.
In my testimony I will briefly describe several areas of continuing
human rights violations in Tibet that are of particular concern to
Human Rights Watch.
One of our concerns is continuing violations of religious freedom
and the implementation by the Chinese government of policies aimed at
subordinating religious practices and sentiments to serve the political
needs of the state. This is not just a question of propaganda and
persuasion. Rather, these policies impinge upon the freedom of many
Tibetans to peacefully put into practice or even express certain key
aspects of their religious beliefs; and they are implemented through
the use of coercion, violent repression, and imprisonment. Particularly
prominent in this regard has been the ongoing campaign of ``patriotic
education,'' aimed at undermining and eliminating the Dalai Lama's
influence in Tibet. But there has also been an increasingly heavy-
handed turn by the Chinese authorities towards putting certain
monasteries and temples under secular, government-backed management in
order to implement greater government control of Tibetan religion.
Such policies are closely tied to the well-known case of Gedhun
Choekyi Nyima, the child whom the Dalai Lama formally recognized as the
incarnation of the Panchen Lama. This child has been subjected to
virtual house arrest for the last five years simply because most
Tibetans have accepted him as the incarnation of the Panchen Lama and
rejected the child whom the Chinese government named as Panchen Lama.
Neither he nor his family have freedom of movement.
I will also discuss disturbing evidence that torture of prisoners
in Tibet continues, in a number of cases resulting in death in custody.
Torture has become entrenched in Tibet as part of the price that
political activists must pay.
Finally, I would like to draw upon our new book ``Tibet Since 1950:
Silence, Prison or Exile'' for a case study which illustrates what the
effects of human rights abuses can be in one individual's life.
MAKING RELIGION SERVE POLITICS
The issues of the Panchen Lama and ``patriotic education'' are
closely bound up with each other, since it was the Dalai Lama's
announcement of the recognition of the incarnation of the 11th Panchen
Lama that precipitated the campaign of ``patriotic education.'' When
the Dalai Lama formally recognized the Panchen Lama in May 1995, the
Chinese authorities reacted by virulently denouncing him and by taking
harsh measures against the child whom he had recognized. The boy and
his family have been kept in effective isolation from the outside
world, and government representatives and human rights monitors have
not been allowed independently to verify their conditions, in spite of
many attempts to do so. Those who have tried to visit him in the five
years since he was spirited away include Mary Robinson, the U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights; Harold Koh, the U.S. Assistant Secretary
of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; and, most recently,
Raymond Chan, the Canadian Secretary of State for Asia and the Pacific,
who tried to see the child earlier this month. In all cases the
requests were rebuffed; China simply states that the child is in good
health but will allow no independent verification of that statement. In
December 1995, China enthroned its own choice as Panchen Lama.
The Panchen Lama is generally considered to be just below the Dalai
Lama in stature within their particular sect of Tibetan Buddhism and as
such has great prestige within Tibet. China's actions are designed to
exert unquestioned state control over religion, to the point, in this
case, of dictating whom Tibetans may revere as a religious hierarch. In
other instances the state has assumed a visible presence in certifying
certain incarnations and in harshly suppressing those who dissent. In
the case of the Karmapa Lama, the head of the Karma Kagyupa sect of
Tibetan Buddhism, the restrictions on his movement made it impossible
for him to receive proper teachings from his traditional mentor; as a
result he had no choice but to flee Tibet. He arrived in India at the
beginning of this year.
More recently, the Chinese government alone managed the search for
another important incarnation within the Dalai Lama's sect, Reting
Rinpoche. By all appearances, this is part of a continuing effort to
control such searches in order ultimately to stage manage the discovery
and enthronement of the next Dalai Lama.
Human Rights Watch is concerned about the gross infringement of the
right to freedom of conscience that this constitutes, all the more so
because Chinese authorities have arrested people who have peacefully
opposed this process. They include, most notably, Chadrel Rinpoche, a
high-ranking lama from the Panchen Lama's monastery of Tashilhunpo: he
is imprisoned along with several other Tibetans accused of working with
the Dalai Lama from inside Tibet to identify the incarnation of the
Panchen Lama. The issue here is not simply a question of polemics and
intellectual disagreements, but of methods and tactics involving clear
violations of human rights.
As I have noted, the struggle over the recognition of the Panchen
Lama led to a campaign of ``patriotic education'' that has imposed a
harsh regimen of political tests on residents of Tibetan monasteries in
order to root out any allegiance to the Dalai Lama. Again, this has not
been simply a peaceful polemical issue: the campaign resulted in the
expulsion of monks and nuns from their cloisters and the imprisonment
and torture of some for refusing to accept state control of what they
perceive as vital aspects of their religious lives and beliefs.
The application of this campaign has not been uniform. Over the
last year, it appears to have been winding down, but this may be
because it is thought to have achieved sufficient success in
subordinating Tibet's clergy to the political control of the state. On
the other hand, recent and unusually harsh Chinese denunciations of the
Dalai Lama and his followers may be a prelude to a renewed campaign. In
any event, the campaign's effects remain, with many monks and nuns
still barred from their cloisters and other, vocal dissidents still in
prison.
The campaign, widely implemented, has required clergy to
demonstrate their rejection of the Dalai Lama and the child he has
recognized as the Panchen Lama, as well as their acceptance of Tibet's
status as an inalienable part of China. In the region that Tibetans
know as Amdo, covering parts of the Chinese provinces of Qinghai and
Sichuan, monks at Kirti and Rebgong monasteries have clashed sharply
with the authorities, with resultant expulsions and arrests. This
enforced subordination of religion to politics has brought about
noticeable changes in the running of monasteries and nunneries: in some
cases, the secular authorities have taken over their management; in
others, monastic leaders have simply resigned themselves to
accommodating the political directions of the state. In short, it is
absolutely clear that unfettered religious practice does not prevail in
Tibet's monasteries today.
TORTURE AND ABUSE IN PRISON
In addition to the fact that arrest and imprisonment in Tibet are
frequently carried out as a result of peaceful dissident activity--in
violation of international human rights law--there are serious abuses
following detention. Incidents of severe beatings at the time of
arrest, torture during incarceration, and severe beatings of inmates
already sentenced have been reported with sufficient frequency and from
a number of credible sources as to put the issue beyond doubt and,
moreover, to demonstrate that these abuses are not isolated incidents
but rather the product of a policy for dealing with political
dissidents. Such reports continue to emerge.
Human Rights Watch estimates that there are approximately 600 known
political prisoners in Tibet, most of them monks and nuns.
A Tibetan arrested in Lhasa in August 1999 for trying to raise the
Tibetan flag in a public square, Tashi Tsering, was brutally beaten
before being taken away by Public Security officers. In March 2000, he
was reported to have committed suicide in prison a month earlier. In
April 2000, a further death in custody was reported, that of Sonam
Rinchen, a farmer from a town near Lhasa. He had been arrested with two
others in 1992 for unfurling a Tibetan flag during a protest and was
sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Although information is difficult
to obtain, a study by the Tibet Information Network suggests the
incidence of deaths in detention in Lhasa's Drapchi prison among
prisoners due for release in 1998-1999 averaged approximately 1 in 24.
Several such deaths were reported as suicides.
In one notable incident in May 1998, political prisoners in Drapchi
staged major protests to coincide with a visit from a European Union
delegation. The protests were non-violent, but the authorities'
reaction was severe: one monk, Lobsang Gelek, died after he was shot.
His family was later told that he had committed suicide. The
authorities also attributed the deaths of several others prisoners who
had demonstrated to suicide, despite credible reports that they had
been beaten. Four nuns who had protested all died on the same day in
the same way while held in strict solitary confinement. The authorities
claimed they had committed suicide, but unofficial reports said they
were singled out for particularly harsh treatment as suspected
ringleaders of the protests.
At least ten prisoners are believed to have died in the aftermath
of the protests. Those subjected to beatings are reported to have
included several nuns known to already have had their original
sentences extended for continued non-violent protests in prison. Most
prominent among them is Ngawang Sangdrol, one of several nuns who
smuggled a recording of political protest songs out of prison in 1993,
and whose sentence was increased to 18 years.
To date, the Chinese government has been evasive in responding to
European Union and NGO questions about the Drapchi protests, but it is
clear that the imposition of arbitrary extensions to their sentences is
a further abuse affecting Tibetan political prisoners. Only last week
in fact, nine Tibetan prisoners in Kandze, an important town in the
eastern reaches of the Tibetan Plateau, were reported to have had their
five-year prison sentences for participating in a peaceful protest in
October 1999, increased to ten-year terms.
The Chinese authorities have also been unresponsive to concerns
expressed by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
about the cases of three Tibetans who had their sentences extended for
staging a peaceful political protest during the Working Group's visit
to Drapchi in October 1997. To date, Chinese authorities have refused
to adequately explain their actions. Nor have they explained their
failure to release Ngawang Choephel, the well-known Tibetan
musicologist who was arrested while doing research in Tibet in 1995,
and whose detention the Working Group has formally declared to be in
contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Human Rights Watch is also concerned about fifty Tibetan students
detained late last month when they sought to return home via Nepal
after previously leaving Tibet to further their education in India.
They, too, may be victims of arbitrary detention. The Chinese
government should release them immediately absent evidence that they
have engaged in criminal acts. None should be held for peaceful
political activity and all should be granted internationally recognized
due process protections, including the right to be informed of the
charges against them.
THE INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
One account included in the new Human Rights Watch publication,
``Tibet Since 1950: Silence, Prison, or Exile,'' tells the story of a
young Tibetan student from the eastern reaches of the Tibetan Plateau,
outside the boundaries of the Tibet Autonomous Region. (Such areas to
the east of the TAR are composed of lower level Tibetan autonomous
units. They are distinct from the regions that comprise the TAR but
they are very much a part of the Tibetan world, in terms of history,
culture, and nationalist identity and activity.) Although this young
man's story does not exemplify the brutality of imprisonment
experienced by many of those whose cases I have raised, it gives a
broader picture of the reality of living under conditions in which
respect for basic human rights is not a given. In the account, the
student describes his struggle, in his region's minority institute, to
have several courses taught in Tibetan rather than Chinese, and to have
a Tibetan language publication reinstated to serve as an outlet for the
creativity and intellectual activity of the institute's Tibetan
students. The publication was reinstated, but was soon subjected to
official censorship, which weighed more and more heavily on the
student. Finally, when he himself authored a piece which alluded
indirectly, but clearly, to the subordinate status of Tibetans, he was
confined to the school compound and effectively barred from classes. In
one stroke, he saw his future possibilities dashed; not for vocal
protests for Tibetan independence, not for denouncing human rights
violations, but simply for expressing discontent with the lot of
Tibetans in China as he saw it. At that moment, he decided that his
only alternative was to leave his family, friends, and the life he had
known behind and flee into exile. That flight in itself was not without
danger, but he made it over the border into Nepal and then into India.
This student's story will serve, I hope, to demonstrate that human
rights concerns in Tibet are important beyond the cases of those who
engage in the most vocal forms of protest, or whose religious
veneration of the Dalai Lama is under attack. Violations of human
rights in Tibet resonate broadly into the everyday lives of Tibetans
across the board.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Time and again since 1989, the U.S. government has voiced its
intention to hold China accountable for its abysmal failings in
safeguarding some of the most basic human rights of its citizens. The
President and other senior administration officials have raised the
issue of human rights violations in Tibet with President Jiang Zemin
and other senior Chinese officials during summit meetings and other
official gatherings. This is to be welcomed, but it has not resulted in
meaningful, positive change. In fact, human rights conditions in China
have noticeably deteriorated in the past year or more, something
attested to in the State Department's most recent annual report.
On the other hand, China is clearly sensitive to its international
image and standing. That is why it has vigorously resisted any debate
on its human rights record at the annual meetings of the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. And under pressure, it has
signed, although not always ratified, a number of important U.N. human
rights treaties, including, most recently, the international covenants
on civil and political rights, and on economic, social, and cultural
rights.
We recommend the following:
(1) If Congress chooses to end the annual trade review and grant
China PNTR, the existing review process must be replaced by a credible
mechanism which can ensure that there is a continuing spotlight on
China's human rights record. To this end, Human Rights Watch supports
the formation of a standing, bipartisan human rights commission, as
proposed by the House of Representatives in the bill it passed last
month granting PNTR. We urge the Senate to join in enacting legislation
to create such a commission, to include both Congressional and
Executive branch members and a permanent staff and to empower it to
monitor human rights conditions in China and Tibet, including the state
of religious freedom and worker rights, and to publish an annual report
on its findings.
The legislation establishing the commission should provide for some
staff to be based in Beijing and Lhasa, as well as in the U.S., in
order that effective, on-the-ground monitoring can be undertaken. In
addition, the commission's annual report, including its findings and
recommendations relating to U.S. policy and action, should be the
subject of regular Congressional debate and vote, to take place before
a designated date each year, after the report's delivery to the House
and Senate. This will help ensure that human rights abuses in Tibet and
China remain a key issue on the U.S.-China agenda.
(2) The President, when he meets President Jiang Zemin, as at the
expected summit meeting this fall during the APEC conference in Brunei,
should speak out both publicly and privately, urging China's full
compliance not only with its commitments to respect global trading
rules but with its commitment to respect its international human rights
obligations.
Specific steps the U.S. should recommend to help improve human
rights in Tibet include:
Ending the reeducation campaigns in the Tibetan nunneries
and monasteries;
Releasing unconditionally all Tibetans imprisoned or
detained for their peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of
expression;
Allowing the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the
Child or another international body immediate access to the Panchen
Lama recognized by the Dalai Lama;
Permitting the U.N., foreign journalists, diplomats, and
independent human rights monitors regular access to Tibet. This would
be a positive, constructive confidence-building measure.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
All right. We are down to our last witness, Dr. Napper.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH NAPPER, PH.D., CO-DIRECTOR, TIBETAN NUNS
PROJECT, SAN GERONIMO, CA
Dr. Napper. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
allowing me to be here today. My name is Elizabeth Napper and I
have a Ph.D. in Buddhist studies from the University of
Virginia. After teaching there and at Stanford and an
intermediate teaching stint at the University of Hawaii, since
1991 I have been working full-time with the Tibetan Nuns
Project.
I have been going in and out of Tibet during those years,
but I am mostly based in north India working with the refugees
who are coming out as a result of the appalling human rights
and political situation in Tibet. I have a long-term view of
this, having been going in for so many years, and although
things briefly got better over the 1980's, since the early
1990's, it has been a steady tightening up and really moving
backward.
We support about 500 nuns now, and of that number, 80
percent of them have come from Tibet since 1990. I would say
40--I do not have an exact figure, but approximately 40 of them
have been imprisoned. They have engaged in peaceful
demonstrations in Tibet. A demonstration is holding up a flag
and saying, free Tibet, or saying, long live the Dalai Lama.
What constitutes grounds for beating, imprisonment, and torture
is the smallest thing. All of these demonstrations have been
peaceful.
And the reaction is immediate and severe. It is beatings as
you are on the way to the prison, and it has been documented,
and electric cattle prods in all the orifices of the body. One
of the most popular ones is the arms get tied behind the back
and pulled up and hung over something in the ceiling so that
the shoulders tend to get dislocated. I myself have heard these
stories many times from those who have come out of Tibet. I do
not doubt for a moment they are true. They are repeated with
such--the details are so much the same.
Now, what has happened over the years is that the process
of stopping these demonstrations has really been refined to the
point where they almost cannot happen anymore. It used to be
you had 15 minutes. Now you have maybe 15 seconds, a half a
minute. There are surveillance cameras. There are secret police
everywhere. There are police all around.
A detail I just learned yesterday from someone who had
recently been in Tibet. The monks and nuns have especially
demonstrated because they are individuals, and so they do not
have the same repercussions on the family, which is what gave
them the freedom to take this upon at least themselves. But now
it has been linked to the other members of the monastery or
nunnery, so they know that if they demonstrate, there is a
chance that everybody in the nunnery will lose their ration
cards or be evicted. So, the process of demonstrating has
really been clamped down on. The need for it has not lessened
at all.
Over the years, photographs of the Dalai Lama are not
allowed. I have been taking tour groups into Tibet. One year it
was just so poignant. We got into a back room of a nunnery and
the nuns were just in tears talking to us as they described the
re-education committee that had moved into the nunnery and was
going to stay until everyone signed a denunciation of the Dalai
Lama, and their choice was sign or be kicked out. There were
not choices. That is why this steady stream of refugees into
India continues because there is no religious or political
freedom.
Now, the other thing that has happened alongside of this,
because a number of nuns were coming out and every year we
would get four or five, and this year for the first time no
nuns came out. Last year it was three, and they had been 1 year
out of prison before they came out. They tend to leave once
they are out of prison because, assuming they have survived
this--and they do not all survive. But once they are released,
they are not allowed to go back to their home nunnery. They are
sent back to their families, to their villages, told not to say
anything about what has happened to them. They are denied
access to the medical system, and they have all been beaten and
have had such poor nutrition that they are in terrible health.
Usually they give up after a while and they come out into
India. Now, that is not easy because they can get a ride near
the border, but they still have to walk 3 weeks to a month over
the mountains. So, pretty much the people who were getting out
of prison were coming out.
Well, they are not getting out of prison anymore. As Elliot
said, the sentences are being increased. There is one young nun
who demonstrated when she was 15 and was arrested, and over the
years, her sentence has gone up and up. She has been in prison
for 7 years now, and her sentence is up to 17 years.
What are the things that they do that cause this? A group
of them made a tape singing freedom songs and smuggled it out
at Tibetan New Year about 2 years ago. And the authorities
tracked down who had made that tape and all of their sentences
went up. These visiting delegations come through and the
prisoners are desperate to get the word out, so they stage a
demonstration, and then they are beaten and their sentences go
up.
So, at this point I do not know the exact number. Nobody
does because there is no monitoring of the prisons, but
certainly 100 nuns languishing in prison and more or less the
key has been thrown away. So, it is a very difficult situation
in Tibet.
Now, in India we sort of get the overflow of this, and a
lot of refugees come out. It has been hard organizing the aid
to help them. So, I guess the recommendation that I would like
to make is that people remember that things are going on on
many different levels, that the dialog with the Dalai Lama is
absolutely important in working out the political situation.
But there are smaller levels of it going as well. There are
refugees coming out who need help and support.
Aside from the immediate political situation, we are
building up an educational system, and what we are really
trying to do is train a generation of women who will be leaders
in Tibet. What we would really like is for the climate to
loosen up, for it to be possible for them to go back and set up
nunneries and teach, not just religious education, but building
in a modern Tibetan, English, social studies, mathematics.
There has not been much education in Tibet. There is a
tremendous need for education, and we are training a generation
who could go back and teach.
The pressure needs to be kept on on all these different
levels. The human rights issue should not go away because the
political issue is kind of not moving ahead. Pressure for
education, to try to get the dialog going on different levels
so that maybe some of the education that is being gained in the
exile community can be made available to the people in Tibet.
Actually it is going the other direction. This group of
students who were arrested--the government does not like the
fact that the education is out and people come out to get it,
and then they all want to go back to Tibet. But it is getting
harder and harder for that to happen.
So, I guess what I would press for--and especially working
with women, and we are a bit of a subset. We tend to get
overlooked in some of the funding decisions because people
think the big picture is more important--is what I see as
important is to push it on many different levels at once and
keep pushing steadily because over time I think the human
development is happening and I hope there will come a time to
slot that into Tibet and really help the situation there.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Napper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Elizabeth Napper
the current situation in tibet: one step forward, three steps back
My name is Elizabeth Napper. I have a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies,
with a focus on Tibetan Buddhism from the University of Virginia. I
have taught at UVA, at Stanford, and at the University of Hawaii. My
current position is Co-Director of the Tibetan Nuns Project.
I have been visiting Tibet on a regular, almost annual, basis since
1987, and since 1991, I have been spending the bulk of my time in India
working with Tibetan refugees there. More specifically, I work with
refugee Buddhist nuns, almost all of whom have fled Tibet in the years
since 1990, and therefore most of my remarks have to do with the
situation regarding nuns.
I find the title ``The Current Situation in Tibet: One Step
Forward, Three Steps Back,'' very appropriate, as it certainly mirrors
my experiences in Tibet over the years. I would say that the one step
forward took place in the mid-eighties and that the steps backwards
have been happening from 1988 or 89 on, with the current situation in
Tibet being the most restricted and tightly controlled that it has been
since the liberalization that began in the early 1980's.
The Tibetan Nuns Project, based in Dharamsala, India, with a small
U.S. office in Berkeley, California, supports almost 500 nuns living in
North India, most in the Dharamsala area. Of that number approximately
80% have fled Tibet in the years since 1990. Included among them are
approximately 40 nuns who demonstrated for Tibetan independence in the
years from 1987 to 1995 or 1996 and as a result were arrested, beaten,
tortured, and imprisoned, as well as a number more who fled Tibet in
fear of arrest because they had either demonstrated or engaged in other
activities that are punishable in Tibet by arrest and torture such as
putting up posters in support of Tibetan freedom.
The stories they tell of their experiences are quite uniform. If
one demonstrates--and these demonstrations are all peaceful, generally
consisting of standing up and waving a Tibetan flag while chanting
slogans such as ``Free Tibet,'' ``Chinese go back to China,'' or ``Long
Live the Dalai Lama,'' one is immediately arrested. The beatings start
in the vehicle on the way to the police station and continue through an
interrogation that can take place over several days. Various
instruments of torture are routinely used such as electric cattle prods
inserted in the orifices of the body, electric shocks that knock a
person across the room, described by one nun as ``a pain that pierced
the heart,'' another called ``the airplane'' in which the arms are tied
behind the body and then the rope is put over something hung from the
ceiling so that the person is pulled up in such a way that shoulders
are often dislocated.
As far as I can make out from the accounts given, sentencing
generally takes place without a trial, and for most of the nuns we work
with, time spent in prison was two to three years. During that time,
the systematic torture ceased, but they were still beaten for the least
thing considered an infraction. Many were put to work in fields. Many
more describe having to clean toilets--this in itself might not seem a
torture, but they were given no implements and had to use their hands.
After the work was completed, they had no soap or facilities for
cleaning up and so had to live all the time with the smell of human
excrement on their hands.
Upon release, nuns were not allowed to return to their nunneries.
They were told to return to their families and not speak at all about
their prison experiences. Most had health problems stemming from the
abuse and poor diets they had endured. I have heard some accounts of
nuns released from prison into the hands of the Tibetan Medical
Hospital at times when they were close to death and the authorities
preferred to have them die in the hospital rather than in prison.
However, the more common situation is that the nuns leave prison with
serious health issues and are then denied access to medical care,
sometimes because they cannot afford the treatment, but more often
because they have been labeled politically suspect and thus the
treatment system is instructed not to offer them care. It is these
impossible conditions that they face upon release that has impelled so
many to undertake the arduous trip across the Himalayas to freedom in
India.
Over the years, we have seen a change in this pattern from two
sides. First, the number of demonstrations has definitely lessened as
the authorities have stepped up their means of apprehension. There are
now surveillance cameras at strategic locations all around the Barkhor,
the central square in Lhasa where most demonstrations have occurred.
Thus if a demonstration does take place, the authorities have a visual
record and can track down all who participate, if they should happen to
escape. However, few do escape because their are police stations all
around the square and plain clothes police always mingling with the
crowd, so that a demonstration that used to last for fifteen minutes to
a half hour before the police moved in has now been quelled and the
demonstrator dragged away within a maximum of two to three minutes.
Since this has reduced a demonstration to a nearly futile gesture sure
to lead to years of imprisonment, the number of demonstrations has
definitely diminished.
The other factor that has changed is the length of imprisonment. In
the early years, it was, as I mentioned above, generally two to three
years. Every year a certain number would be released and every year
four or five would escape to India and eventually arrive in Dharamsala.
In recent years, although there are still large numbers of nuns in the
prisons around Lhasa, very few are being released. Two years ago at
Tibetan New Year, a number of nuns made a tape singing songs about
their imprisonment and about freedom and smuggled it out of the prison.
It eventually reached India and was widely disseminated. The Communist
authorities tracked down the nuns who had made the tape and all of
their sentences were increased. Sentences are also increased for a
variety of reasons, such as speaking out to visiting delegations, as
well as many things more petty, and so, for instance, one nun who was
arrested at the age of fifteen and has already served seven years is
now up to a sentence of seventeen years. This year for the first time
no nuns who have served in prison have come to us in India seeking
assistance. The three who arrived last year had already been out of
prison for a year before they decided the situation in Tibet was simply
untenable and they fled into India.
However, the fact that there are not a lot of new releasees from
prison fleeing into India does not mean that the nuns are not still
coming. They are, still in substantial numbers, because all over
central Tibet, the level of repression continues to escalate in the
monasteries and nunneries. In 1987 while taking a group of tourists to
visit one of the nunneries in the Lhasa area, our visit became a very
emotional one as a group of nuns in an inner room broke into tears
telling us about how a reeducation unit has just moved into the
nunnery, and they were now being subjected to daily reeducation
sessions, the purpose of which was to cause them to sign a written
denunciation of the Dalai Lama. Their choice was to sign that
denunciation or face expulsion from the nunnery. The year before in
Shigatse with a different group, I met two aged and very poor nuns who
had recently been expelled by the Communist authorities along with
forty others from the small nunnery they had recently rebuilt with
their own hands. The reason was that they had rebuilt it without
official permission and the authorities suddenly arrived one day,
forced the nuns to leave, tore the buildings they had worked so hard to
restore down once again.
At the same time that this process has been going on over the past
two to three years, the Communist authorities have introduced and
enforced a policy forbidding the display of any photographs of the
Dalai Lama. At first they were taken out of public displays in the
monasteries and nunneries but still allowed in monks and nuns rooms.
Eventually this too was banned, and a systematic search was undertaken
to make sure that every single picture had been removed. In 1997 it was
still possible to see the occasional picture that was tucked away in a
discrete corner. By late 1998 there was not a single one left, and in
fact, when taking a tour group to visit a village farmhouse along the
road from Shigatse to Lhasa, I was disheartened to see that the family
was no longer even allowed to display a family altar, which is
traditional in every Tibetan home. That indicated to me a return to
levels of repression I had not seen in Tibet--when I first visited
Tibet in 1987, most houses had altars except for those of some of the
higher placed cadres who were still being politically cautious. (What
they tended to have up was an old photograph from mid-1950's that was a
group shot of the Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama, Mao Tse Tung, and Zhou
En Lai.) By the early 1990's, everyone again had an altar, and I
consider it an ominous sign that they have once again been forbidden. I
don't know how widespread that rule is; I do know that pictures of His
Holiness the Dalai Lama are now absolutely not allowed.
I was last in Tibet in October of 1998 and I found the political
climate there the most repressive that I have experienced in Tibet. The
atmosphere of fear was palpable. Monks serving as caretakers in the
monasteries I would take my tour group to were noticeably cautious
about speaking to me, and I found the general climate so alarming that
I did not contact old friends I've made over my years of visiting Tibet
because I really feared the repercussions that might come from their
having contact with a Tibetan speaking American. This sense of Tibet is
echoed by the stories the most recent arrivals to India tell, by
conversations I have with other American friends who go regularly into
Tibet. Certainly, as far as political and religious freedom are
concerned in central Tibet, the situation is dire and in fact steadily
worsening.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Very good. I thank all of you. I
really do appreciate it very much. I guess in general terms I
doubt that anyone would disagree with many of the things that
you have said. The question is how do we cause this to happen,
to change.
The bank thing is interesting. Could you just be really
very brief? Who thought up this bank relocation business?
Mr. Ackerly. As far as we know, it was a plan devised by
Chinese planners who brought it to the bank.
Senator Thomas. I am sorry. Who did?
Mr. Ackerly. Chinese planners.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Ackerly. And it was brought to the bank. It is
something that just absolutely fell through the cracks at the
bank. But then when it was brought to the attention of the
bank, instead of distancing themselves from it, they circled
the wagons. Instead of improving the documents, we believe they
just doctored the documents to make the project look better.
So, it has been a very really discouraging experience dealing
with them and trying to get them at this point, now that they,
I think, realize what is going on, to get them to distance
themselves from it.
Senator Thomas. I understand the difficulty, but if Tibet
is to be part of China--I presume that is what people expect to
happen in the long run, a part of China--you indicated that
building this pipeline then takes Tibetan resources into China.
How do you separate? That is like saying Indiana's resources
are going to Illinois.
Mr. Ackerly. I think it would be more comparable to
resources that were under a Native American reservation and the
idea that there should be a contract which is enforceable.
Senator Thomas. So, your view is that Tibet ought to be a
separate country--two Chinas, two, three Chinas, four Chinas--
and it ought to have its own resources. It ought to have its
own government and all those things. That is your view of the
future.
Mr. Ackerly. Essentially. They should have some
decisionmaking over those resources and benefit from those
resources.
Senator Thomas. Some decisionmaking is quite different than
being an independent government that runs itself pretty much
apart from China. Is it not?
Mr. Ackerly. It is. I think there is a lack of specificity
here on the part--it is the Dalai Lama who has been
negotiating. I think partially he does not want to be too
specific yet before getting to the table. He wants to try to
work this out and not set up too many things which the Chinese
will object to.
Senator Thomas. I understand that. It is hard to know.
I guess the human rights thing at the U.N. was not just
Tibet, though, was it? It was human rights in all of China.
Mr. Ackerly. That is right. It was a China resolution which
mentioned Tibet.
Senator Thomas. Dr. Sperling, you indicated that not having
the annual review of so-called most favored nation and going to
this permanent one then requires--what was unique about doing
it every year? It was approved every year.
Dr. Sperling. Yes, but at least it focused the spotlight,
and it was not always taken for granted. As the years went on,
yes, it began to be taken for granted, but I can remember back
several years ago when this was a very serious issue of debate
and it really did focus the spotlight on human rights in China,
much as you are doing with the hearing that we are having this
morning. It is extremely important. Human Rights Watch believes
that the spotlight must be kept on China and that what is
transpiring in Tibet be known.
Senator Thomas. Do you think the human rights in Tibet are
different, worse than they are in other parts of China?
Dr. Sperling. Well, I do not know if monks and nuns in
Guangzhou or in Beijing--well, in Beijing actually you could
make that case--are also being required to swear their
allegiance to the Chinese state and to disavow the Dalai Lama.
I am saying this somewhat facetiously because the cases are
qualitatively different. They are qualitatively different
because with one you are dealing with, first of all, a Tibetan
tradition. There is a lot of nationalism behind this. Now,
Human Rights Watch does not take a position on the structure of
relations between Tibet and China, but we do believe that
whatever the Tibetans wish to express politically, they should
be allowed to express in an atmosphere free of any coercion, or
any violation of their human rights. Now, that nationalist
background is really very much emphasized in the context of
this struggle because of the elements of Tibetan Buddhism.
Tibetan Buddhism is markedly different from the Buddhism that
was and is practiced in China in terms of its rites, its
rituals, and its language. All this has imbued the Tibetan
situation with a qualitatively different structure and air than
any other human rights issue that you have in China. It very
much becomes a national issue.
So, the methods used to suppress it and the harshness of
those methods are often quite different than what you have in
China. In addition, and here I am talking simply about the
context, Tibetans see this not as a question of some political
ideas, suppressing certain other political ideas which the
state does not like, but as a question of their very identity.
Now, we can disagree with this view, but this is how it is
perceived by Tibetans: to them these issues of religion really
impinge upon their identity.
Senator Thomas. Dr. Napper, I am really interested in your
views. If the Buddhists were able to exercise their religious
activities, is it the religion they are protecting, or are they
protecting the political sovereignty of Tibet? Could you
separate those two? Could there be an active Buddhist community
there living under a Communist government?
Dr. Napper. I think there could be if the government would
back off a bit. It has become very linked. Peoples' Buddhist-
ness is their Tibetan-ness. Now allowing them to practice their
religion really is not allowing them to be Tibetans.
Senator Thomas. Well, let us assume that they do allow
them, but they do not govern themselves.
Dr. Napper. If they were allowed that, then a lot of this
problem would go away. I actually I think a lot of the Chinese
policies are foolish because they are making their life harder.
Senator Thomas. It is a little hard for some people who are
not involved to differentiate between does the Dalai Lama want
to govern Tibet or practice a religion perhaps under another
kind of government? Do you want to respond to that?
Dr. Sperling. Well, you know, the traditional Tibetan
political system has been termed by the Tibetans as chos srid
zung 'brel which means basically a combination, a union of
religion and politics. But the Dalai Lama himself has
explicitly said that once the political question is resolved,
he does not want to have political authority in Tibet. He said
that very clearly.
Dr. Napper. He says that again and again publicly.
Senator Thomas. That is an important issue I would think. I
understand because the Chinese are persecuting other people in
religious things as well, not just Tibet. But as you say, it is
unique.
Well, thank you so much. I do think, as you have suggested,
there needs to be a focus continued. You all are helping to do
that, of course. I do think, Dr. Sperling, it has been talked
about in public some. I have been to China several times. We
always bring it up. The last time I was there, there was a
Mormon activity there and so on. But certainly it is not as
focused as it ought to be.
So, thank you so very much for being here. We appreciate
it. I hope you will continue to work at it and stay in touch
with us if you think there are things we can do. Thank you so
much.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]