Support our efforts to ensure human rights for all Tibetans.
Sign-up for Tibet updates, action alerts, event invitations and more.
Pages
Our Mission
© 2011 International Campaign for Tibet
This month has seen the tragic recurrence of self-immolation in Tibet, as four Tibetans set themselves on fire. (See our fact sheet on the individuals and a map of the locations.)
As for their motivations, no foreign or independent entity has been able to interview the survivors to hear their story. The Chinese authorities have not denied reports regarding what the individuals have shouted as they set fire to themselves, which were along the lines of the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet and freedom for Tibet.
In November, Kirti Rinpoche testified to Congress about the self-immolators, “They want their appeal heard by peace-loving governments and people around the world, including world leaders and human rights organizations, so that they could appeal to China to stop oppression in Tibet.”
ICT has consistently asked governments around the world to speak out on the self-immolation tragedy. Many have (see our list and see below). We argue that governments speaking out will let Tibetans inside Tibet know that the world is hearing their plea. This, we hope, will discourage further acts. Early on, we were sometimes asked whether speaking out would encourage more self-immolations, but we haven’t heard this concern lately.
The timeline below juxtaposes the dates of the acts of self-immolation and statements on them from various governments. I defer to others who may want to debate any correlation between the two.
Recent reports of protests in relation to past or potential self-immolations raise the specter of an escalation and broadening of the crisis, including Monday’s report that three Tibetans may have been shot by Chinese security forces. We hope that governments around the world will not only respond through further statements, but also by directly engaging their Chinese counterparts to urge a withdrawal of the disproportionate security response in places like Ngaba and Draggo, as well as a re-thinking of underlying policies that feed resentment.
Tibetan self-immolations and governmental statements on them 2011-2012
Tibetan Self-Immolations Government Statements
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, India, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Tibet (in exile) and, maybe soon, even Burma. Connect these locations on a map, and you have an almost complete arc of (mostly) democracies encircling the Middle Kingdom from its east to its southwest.
Tomorrow, Taiwanese citizens go to the polls to vote for their next president. The election is apparently a toss-up between the incumbent, Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang (KMT) party and Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive party (DPP). A third candidate, James Soong of the People First party, could draw votes that could determine the winner.
This will be the fifth popular vote for Taiwan’s head of state since its turn to democracy in the 1990s. These elections give the communist leaders in Beijing fits, as they represent free elections in a Chinese polity denied to those on the mainland and give Taiwanese a tool to self-identify. More importantly, they offer uncertainty and the possibility of a victory by the pro-independence DPP (which was in power from 2000-2008). It is no secret that Beijing favors the re-election of President Ma for the sake of “stability” and because of the KMT’s pro-unification stand. It must be noted that the U.S. – quite unofficially – is also said to favor Ma for “stability.”
In the past, Beijing meddled in Taiwan’s elections, but has had to reel back, as evidence of interference could help the DPP. This is an important point. Democracy, in itself, is serving as an obstacle to the Chinese Communist Party’s ability to advance its own interests. As the circle of democracies widens, Beijing may encounter this obstacle with more frequency. Concurrently, to the extent that other nations (including the U.S.) worry about countering the apparent expansionist trends in Chinese foreign and military policies, they should look to democracy as an integral tool.
In Burma, developments are happening fast. Just today, Burma President Thein Sein announced the release of hundreds of political prisoners, as well as a ceasefire agreement with the Karen National Union. In a statement, President Obama called it a “substantial step forward for democratic reform,” and restored full diplomatic relations. This follows the government decision to allow Aung San Suu Kyi’s previously banned National League for Democracy to re-register and take part in elections in April 2012.
It is too early to call Burma a democracy, but the trend is in the right direction. What does this mean for China? Recall that a few months ago, Burma announced the cancellation of a controversial hydroelectric dam project to be built by a Chinese state-run company. This was credited to both civic opposition and nervousness in Nay Pyi Taw about Beijing’s influence inside Burma. This combined assertion of constituent responsiveness and sovereign concern can’t be a comfort in Beijing.
Let’s look at the rest of the circle. Japan is East Asia’s oldest democracy. South Korea and the Philippines joined the club around the same time as Taiwan. Like Taipei, Seoul has its own complicated domestic politics of reunification to deal with. Manila is now dealing with Beijing’s new territorial assertions in the South China Sea (or as they call it, the West Philippine Sea).
The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy index map for 2012, with lighter colors representing more democratic countries. Countries with DI below 2 (clearly authoritarian) are in dark red.
To the south/southwest, India wears its democracy (however imperfect) as a badge of honor, defining its national identity in part through a distinct contrast with the other country of a billion-plus people.
Since 2006, both Bhutan and Nepal have made steps toward democracy. The Bhutanese King willingly ceded his seat to his son and power to democratic institutions. Nepal, recovering from civil war, disestablished its monarchy and became a republic. While political paralysis in the interim government has hampered progress, all parties appear committed to instituting a full democracy.
And of course there is Dharamsala. Last year, the Dalai Lama ended his formal role in the Central Tibetan Administration, handing over all governmental responsibilities to the elected parliament and executive branch. Like the Bhutanese King, his decision represents a willful yielding of power to the people, concept as alien as it is poisonous to the Chinese Communist Party.
Concurrently, the Tibetan exile population successfully conducted free and fair elections for a new Kalon Tripa, Lobsang Sangay, and a new parliament. This democratic transformation has not only a moral motivation, but a strategic one as well. The 14th Dalai Lama has served as the unifying force for Tibetans for decades. He wants democratic values to be a unifying force once he is gone, a binding agent for the Tibetan struggle for freedom into the future. Again, not a desired development for Beijing.
Unlike the rest of the nations in the circle, Tibetans don’t rule their own country. What they do share is a common experience, a common cause, and a common commitment to the universal values of democracy and the right to determine one’s own leaders and future. This dynamic should not be understated as we monitor trends in Asia. Just as Chinese military assertiveness in the waters of the East China and South China seas had the effect of driving nations on its seaboard periphery (plus the United States) closer together, perhaps we are seeing a similar reaction, under the banner of democracy, as a response to Chinese political, economic and cultural assertiveness.
Our challenge is to make sure that policy-makers see, and include, Tibet in that analysis.
When a dog is cornered it tends to bark ridiculously. I was reminded of this when reading the Global Times editorial of January 11, 2012 concerning another three Tibetans who have committed self-immolations in recent days. How else can we interpret its effort to blatantly ignore the real cause of the self-immolations by Tibetans by questioning their power of judgment and virtually calling them tools of the West?
Global Times, which “dares to touch the sensitive issues,” is surpassing the official Chinese propaganda in its effort to divert blames for the Tibetan self immolations being put rightly on the policies of the Chinese authorities. I would have thought Global Times would have shown its daringness by going deeper and objectively into the causes leading to the Tibetan self-immolations, something like those Chinese Lawyers who did a report about the 2008 Tibet-wide protests. Even a person with little or no education would know that no one commits such extreme actions for the pleasure of it. Blaming outside forces for interfering in China’s “domestic affairs” is just an easy excuse and merely sweeps the problem under the carpet without addressing it.
On November 30, 2011, Chinese Ambassador to the UN, Li Baodong, made a statement at the 66th Session of the General Assembly on Review of the Middle East Situation and Palestinian Issue” saying, “China has all along supported the Palestinian people in their just cause to restore the lawful rights of the nation.” China did not think it was interfering in the domestic affairs of others here. However, if Global Times does not want outsiders raising questions about developments in Tibet, why is it not using its daringness to look at the concerns of the Tibetan people? I know what the answer would be, but I wanted to say this to keep up with the pretense that the Global Times is different from the People’s Daily.
Here I am reminded about how Global Times covered the Chinese police action against Uyghurs on December 28, 2011 leading to the death of some and the detention of five children. Amnesty International, in a statement on January 6, challenges the version published by Global Times and the Chinese Government. “The official explanation that people were killed because they ‘resisted arrest’ doesn’t answer how seven people ended up being shot dead, and a number of others injured,” said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Director for the Asia-Pacific. Amnesty has said that “The Chinese authorities must reveal the whereabouts of up to five Uighur children reportedly detained” and Global Times should use its daringness to question the Chinese Government on this.
Coming back to the Tibetan issue, I do not think Global Times has to go far in searching for topics if it has the courage to address the sensitive Tibetan issue. It could look at its own editorial, referred to above, and I can find at least two points that could be addressed.
Global Times said, “It is cruel to put political pressure on young Tibetan monks.” While it mentions this in the context of the “Dalai group” (whatever this may mean), I challenge it to look at the Chinese Government’s policies over Tibetan monasteries, from the most recent regulations on recognition of reincarnations to the denial of freedom to undertake daily and traditional religious activities, both the ritual and the philosophy aspect of it, that are putting not just political, but emotional, physical and even social pressures on Tibetan monks, both young and old. That will be something writing to the Party about.
Similarly, the Global Times concludes, “As time goes by, the believers of Tibetan Buddhism will finally know the Dalai Lama’s true intentions.” I wish they really mean this in its true sense and followed up with articles that will enlighten the Chinese minds. This is because the H.H. the Dalai Lama’s “true intentions” have been known to Tibetans throughout Tibetan history and it is this that has resulted in the special bond between him and the Tibetan people. It is this knowledge that is also leading to increasing admiration and reverence for him by people throughout the world. The Dalai Lama has gotten these not from spending millions of dollars in soft power diplomacy, as some countries do, but through the simple and positive messages that he conveys.
To conclude, While I would concur with Global Times that “China’s Tibetan region has been affected by outrageous political influences,” I do not think it is happening “under the name of religion.” Rather, it comes from a Chinese leadership that is giving the Tibetan people an outrageous choice of choosing between the Communist Party and the Dalai Lama (in the process not being able to face with the Tibetan people’s choice).
Messages from the Tibetan self-immolations
On January 20, 2012 I participated in a Voice of America TV discussion on the Tibetan self-immolations in their Tibetan language program, Kunleng. I made the following points.
When discussing the possible reasons for the developments in Tibet, I mentioned that there was “One Central Factor and Two Major Points.”
The one central factor is obviously the broader issue of Chinese rule over Tibet for the past 60 years or so. While Chinese authorities continue to call it peaceful liberation, their policies during these period did not correspond to a liberation.
The two major factors may be, what could be called “immediate causes.” The first is that in the wake of the pan-Tibetan protests of 2008, the Chinese authorities launched a policy of relentless repression that alienated the Tibetans. Tibetans found that their concerns were not being given a hearing. This was further exacerbated by deliberate encouragement of nationalistic fervor among ethnic Chinese by the authorities that resulted in increased tensions between Tibetans and Chinese.
The second factor is that Chinese policies have increasingly let to the virtual absence of any space for Tibetans to express themselves even on matters relating to their religion, culture, and way of life. The misguided Chinese official attitude of seeing all Tibetan activities as “political” has resulted in an environment that has no escape valve for the expression of Tibetan grievances.
What is the message from the Tibetan self-immolations? I would venture to say that there are at least three.
In any case, the developments have caught the Chinese authorities, the international community and the governments by surprise. As a result there are indications that governments are having internal discussions on the best approach to be adopted. Similarly, there is no doubt that hectic discussions would be going on within the Chinese leadership on this. The Chinese authorities should not commit the mistake of believing that increased repression is a solution to the ongoing crisis.
It is encouraging to see a Chinese nun, Miao Jue, in China writing about the Tibetan self-immolations and expressing her solidarity. Similarly, Chinese scholar Wang Lixiong has also given his analysis of the development on the blog of his wife, Woeser. These will strengthen the emerging Chinese public discourse on Tibet. In his essay, Wang Lixiong says, “The Dalai Lama has been pursuing autonomy within the frame-work of Chinese constitution, while China has always been implementing the laws of village self-rule. Then why can’t the struggle for Tibet’s genuine autonomy start with seeking autonomy for each Tibetan village?” He hints that Tibetans may want to learn from Wukan in China and make effort at the grassroots level, in the form of village elections. I see no contradiction between this and the Tibetan policy of finding an overall solution through dialogue with the Chinese leadership. Given that Tibetan areas are already dubbed autonomous, Tibetan villages should actually be having more freedom than a village like Wukan.
Even if the Chinese authorities do not want to consider the feelings of the Tibetan people, it is in China’s own interest that the Tibetan people’s concerns are redressed. Therefore, the Chinese people have as much a stake in encouraging a positive approach towards the crisis in Tibet as Tibetans have. They need to bear in mind the “One Central Factor and Two Major Points.”