Pages
Our Mission
© 2011 International Campaign for Tibet
Now that the dust has somewhat settled on the Republican Party’s search for its presidential candidate, the time may be right to look at how the tiny Tibetan American community and Tibet supporters should be approaching the forthcoming American presidential elections.
The trend among new immigrants to the United States is to start with being a single-issue voter and gradually evolve into considering multiple issues as factors that will affect their voting pattern. Obviously, to Tibetan Americans, the issue of how a Democratic candidate (namely current President Barack Obama) or a Republican Candidate (Governor Mitt Romney) stands on Tibet will have considerable impact in who they vote for. I personally know of Tibetan Americans who profess being Democrats but nevertheless voted for President George W. Bush on account of his attitude towards Tibet.
In the Mitt Romney campaign website there is no specific reference to Tibet. However, there are two paragraphs on human rights under “China and East Asia” wherein it says, “Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the fact that China’s regime continues to deny its people basic political freedoms and human rights.” It continues, “A Romney administration will vigorously support and engage civil society groups within China that are promoting democratic reform, anti-corruption efforts, religious freedom, and women’s and minority rights.” It concludes, “Mitt Romney will seek to engage China, but will always stand up for those fighting for the freedoms we enjoy.”
Since President Obama had already served a term and been a Senator before that, we have records of his position on Tibet. If you visit the website of the International Campaign for Tibet, you will get an idea of how he has approached different aspects of the Tibetan issue, both when he was a Senator and as the President (please see our compilation of Obama Administration Statements on Tibet.)
Additionally, as yet, it is only President Obama who has responded to a questionnaire on Tibet that ICT had sent to potential presidential candidates some time back. (Tibetan Americans and ICT members may want to encourage Mitt Romney to respond to the questionnaire. The ICT questionnaire web page provides links to Governor Romney’s webmail, Facebook and Twitter sites).
In his response to the questionnaire, President Obama says, “As President, I have strongly supported the preservation of the unique religious, cultural, and linguistic traditions of Tibet and the Tibetan people throughout the world.” He adds that “I have met with His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama at the White House twice since taking office, in 2010 and 2011, and I commended his commitment to nonviolence and dialogue with China and his pursuit of the “Middle Way” approach.”
The Obama Campaign website interestingly has a section targeted at Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders. May be this is an area that those Tibetan Americans for whom multiple issues will be a factor in their voting decision should be looking at, too.
Whatever it may be, I hope to see the Tibetan American community becoming more proactive during this election and to strengthen the case that United States’ interest in Tibet is American interest, too.
The Bo Xilai affair is a development of seismic proportions in domestic Chinese politics. It is also one that should be put in proper perspective.
To recap, Bo Xilai, who until recently was the party boss of Chongqing and presumed to be ascendant to the highest rung of leadership in Beijing, was purged from the party and power. The downfall began when his deputy, Wang Lijun, went to the U.S. Consulate in Chengu with, reportedly, incriminating information about Bo. The intrigue deepened when the information included an accusation that Bo and/or his wife, Gu Kailai, were involved in the November 2011 death of Neil Heywood, a British businessman living in China.
Initially, the official Chinese media said that Heywood has died of alcohol poisoning, a charge that, along with his body’s cremation without autopsy, raised eyebrows. They changed their story by April 10, when Xinhua reported that Gu Kailai and an aide were “highly suspected” of “intentional homicide” of Heywood.
Many China watchers are keeping a keen eye on the Bo Xilai downfall for clues to the factional battles in the upcoming once-a-decade leadership transition in Beijing, and analyzing what it means for the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on power.
But the turn from a case of palace intrigue into a murder mystery has heightened interest. Here’s where a little perspective is in order.
Xinhua’s April 10 report said, “according to senior officials…China is a socialist country ruled by law, and the sanctity and authority of law shall not be tramped. Whoever has broken the law will be handled in accordance with law and will not be tolerated, no matter who is involved.” An April 18 Xinhua editorial promised a thorough investigation into the death, which it claimed showed the Communist Party’s adherence to the rule of law.
Were that it were so.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of “intentional homicides” are committed by the Chinese state every year. (The count is much higher if you count “unintentional” homicides, such as death as a result of torture wounds). In China and Tibet, impunity is a way of life for Chinese authorities.
We see little evidence that cases of killings by Chinese authorities are thoroughly investigated with the aim of bringing the perpetrators to justice. The U.S. State Department has reported that, on occasion, the Chinese press does report on prisoners who die of “unnatural deaths,” although there is no mention of anyone arrested or convicted in response. Official explanations can be outlandish, such as a depiction of a stab wound to the heart as a pimple scar (see below). As stated in the Tibet section of the Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2010:
There were numerous reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings; however, it was not possible to verify independently these reports. There were no reports that officials investigated or punished those responsible for the killings.
Official claims that the Gu Kailai case demonstrates the integrity of the Chinese criminal justice system must be challenged by foreign reporters writing about it (given the quality of the foreign press corps in Beijing, I am confident that they will). Moreover, they should put this case in perspective and use this opportunity highlight the pervasiveness of state-sponsored homicides committed with impunity in China and Tibet.
This is not to say that the Bo-Gu-Heywood affair shouldn’t be treated as a spectacle, because it is an extraordinary development. But it is important to remember that if justice is claimed to have been done in this case, it does not mean that there is justice in the People’s Republic of China.
Excerpts from the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2010 (most recent edition) for China (with Tibet section):
Continue reading »
Delegates to the London Book Fair today entered a hall adorned with five red Chinese flags and a picture of a Chinese child beaming happily as he holds a book.
For some well-known Chinese writers forced to live in exile and who expected more of Britain than to roll out the red carpet without question for the Communist Party it was like a punch in the stomach.
“When I saw the Chinese child on the hoarding waving an open book and looking happy, I didn’t feel happy, because I was thinking of the Chinese writers in prison,” said Ma Jian, author of the highly-acclaimed novel Beijing Coma, a powerful allegory of a rising China and the definitive novel on the Tiananmen Square protests. (Ma Jian is also the author of Red Dust, a story of his journey through Tibet.)
Ma Jian wasn’t invited to the London Book Fair by the organizers or the British Council, a public corporation that is the UK’s ‘international cultural relations body’ according to its website. Nor was Jung Chang, author of Wild Swans and a hefty tome on Mao Zedong, banned in the PRC (Jung Chang was invited by English PEN, and spoke to a packed crowd at their Literary Café).
The London Book Fair is one of the world’s leading trade fairs of its kind, attracting 25,000 visitors from 110 countries. This year, its ‘market focus’ is on the PRC. The Book Fair and the British Council had an opportunity to uphold cherished British values of free speech and send a strong message to the Chinese Communist Party that Beijing cannot export its censorship to a free western democracy. But they failed – even though no one in the British Council is going to be tortured for saying what they wish, as a Chinese, Tibetan or Uyghur writer can be, or giving space to independent and critical voices, or encouraging genuine dialogue.
Thirty-one state-approved authors were invited to the Book Fair and the honored guest is Minister Liu Binjie of the PRC’s General Administration of Press and Publication – whose Ministry is responsible for censorship and stifling of independent voices. Ma Jian said: “For China to be named guest of honor, for the British cultural establishment to be shaking hands with the Chinese head of propaganda, a man responsible for the banning and censoring of books and the imprisonment of writers, is disgraceful.[…] These big events give China’s Communist Party the international face it craves and helps normalize its repression of free speech back home.” (The Guardian: The British Council brings more shame on us).
At the Book Fair today, London-based China correspondent and scholar Dr Jonathan Mirsky was given a soft toy panda by a Chinese official after Minister Liu’s talk, apparently to symbolize the “cuddly and friendly” image they sought to convey. “Where is Liu Xiaobo?” Jonathan asked her. He also asked about Gao Xinjian, the only Chinese to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, and who now lives in exile (he wasn’t invited to the Book Fair either). The senior Chinese official snatched back the panda and walked away. (See: Why Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Peace Prize Matters to Tibet)
Another official said to a young assistant, “Don’t talk to that foreigner”, when Jonathan asked again about Gao at the information desk. When Jonathan said to him, in Chinese, that he spoke his language, the same assistant said, “But you’re a shit.” One of the Chinese manning the official stand did tell Jonathan she had heard of Liu Xiaobo “in here” and laid her hand on her heart, but wouldn’t say anything else.
Indefatigable Chinese scholar Shao Jiang silently maintained a presence during Minister Liu’s talk this morning, holding a small banner stating in both English and Chinese ‘Stop Literary Persecution’. Chinese officials erected screens around the open platform to block him from sight. In the afternoon, a number of us – Uyghur, Tibetan and Chinese writers and NGOs – attended a China-UK publishing forum to be addressed by UK Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries in the UK Ed Vaisey and Minister Liu.
It started late, and there seemed to be a lot of discussion behind the scenes and consultations with large men in suits wearing ear-pieces.
Ed Vaisey launched into a gung-ho speech about the amazing opportunities of the publishing industry in China and the huge potential for the UK to work together with China, not to mention his excitement about the ‘Nosy Crow’ books for children. He mentioned nothing about the importance of freedom of expression, nor the importance of diverse and independent voices, the lifeblood of a country’s culture. I was sitting next to Shao Jiang, who served 18 months in prison after his involvement in the Tiananmen Square protests (The Guardian: I survived Tiananmen Square), and novelist Ma Jian, whose books are banned in China and who is not able to return home to see his family. It felt like a parallel universe.
I thought of Ms Qi, a Chinese lady in her early seventies who had been imprisoned for more than ten years. This morning, she attempted to give a copy of her book about her experiences, The Black Wall: The True Story of Father and Daughter, two generations of prisoners to Minister Liu. Ma Jian had attempted to give him a copy of ‘Beijing Coma’, too, but was manhandled out of his path by British security personnel. “I am feeling very upset, very hurt,” Ms Qi told me.
Minister Liu didn’t turn up for the afternoon China-UK publishing forum. Perhaps he didn’t want to face questions or protests. He sent a junior official to read his speech instead. The London Book Fair interpreters translated his opening comments as saying he “was a puppet” of Minister Liu. As he started to speak, Shao Jiang quietly raised a small white banner with the words ‘Free Speech is not a Crime”. Security personnel arrived and tried to hustle him to the back but he remained in his seat. In front of us, in the middle of a row, several other placards emerged, one bearing an image of Liu Xiaobo, another bearing an image of the Tibetan imprisoned writer Buddha, and behind us, other banners were displayed.
The security personnel gave up; the banners were everywhere, and we were all polite and silent (the footage is well worth watching;
Afterwards, one of them came over to talk and apologized to Shao Jiang. I told him, “You have to be that stubborn to survive prison after confronting the Chinese Communist Party.” “So, he’s really suffered,” the security official said, admitting that they had been getting different instructions on their headphones every few minutes on how to deal with the protest.
As we had no official platform at the book fair, a Romanian cultural institute kindly hosted us for a discussion about Tibetan, Uyghur and Chinese literature today. We spoke about the richness of the Tibetan literary tradition; one of the most important in Asia and the world in both secular and spiritual terms, and read prose and poems by contemporary writers. Tienchi Martin-Liao, President of the Independent Chinese PEN Center, spoke about welcoming the official writers but being aware of the restrictions they worked under; Jung Chang, too, spoke of the “straitjacket in their minds” of self-censorship.
When awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, in absentia due to Liu Xiaobo’s 11-year jail sentence in China, Chair of the Nobel Committee Thorbjorn Jagland said that writers and thinkers like Nobel Laureate Liu, “Are not dissidents….[they are] representatives of the main lines of development in today’s world.”
It is a message that the London Book Fair and British Council would do well to heed.
Chinese, Tibetans and Uyghurs at the Chinese Independent PEN stand, London Book Fair - including writers Ma Jian, Jung Chang, and Bei Ling. Photo: Tibet Society, London
To Adam Yauch, with respect
In the post-1959 period a new expression took birth among Tibetans in exile reflecting the importance of nurturing the next generation. Young Tibetans were referred to as “seeds of future Tibet” and given lots of advices on the responsibility that the nomenclature came with.
A generation has changed since then but the term is still used as a slogan to encourage the younger Tibetans to be actively involved in their community, whether politically, socially, culturally or even spiritually.
I recalled this when I read the sad news about the untimely passing away of Adam Yauch, he of the Beastie Boys fame. I have had the privilege of meeting him and working with him in the course of my responsibilities at the International Campaign for Tibet. If there is any organization or individual that has single handedly shaped the mindset of a large number of youngsters regarding Tibet, that would be Adam. Helped by his colleagues, Adam used the power of music and the energy of the young Americans (and subsequently youngsters in many parts of the world) to pay attention to the plight of the Tibetan people and the injustice taking place in Tibet.
The most radical change, if you will, took place with the establishment of the Milarepa Fund and its organization of a series of Tibetan Freedom Concerts. I saw the concert held in Washington, D.C. in 1998 at close quarters. Not just the concert goers, but even nature seemed to have been energized that afternoon, what with an unexpected storm and lightning strike on the concert venue. I saw the birth of a new generation of Tibet supporters that day. It was certainly a milestone in bringing the Tibetan issue to the attention of the younger generation of Americans, and took the Students for a Free Tibet to a new level. Even though I could not generate a taste for hip hop I did buy one of the Beastie Boys’ CD that was released subsequently, looking at that as my way of showing appreciation.
Adam Yauch with His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 1995.
One of the issues that Adam and the Tibetan Freedom Concerts took up then was the boycott of the Holiday Inn in Lhasa because the Chinese authorities were using it in their propaganda to depict a peaceful view of the situation in Tibet. Subsequently, Holiday Inn announced the ending of its involvement in that hotel in Tibet.
I have also been a witness to Adam’s passionate way when Tibet supporters launched the campaign against a proposed World Bank support to a Chinese Government project to relocate Chinese to Tibetan areas in 1999. We were together in strategizing on how best to take up the issue in our negotiations with World Bank officials and holding press conference outside their office in Washington, D.C.
Everyone who had some knowledge of Adam know of his unassuming attitude. At the same time he was yet another example that a celebrity could be more than an ornament to any cause he or she endorsed, which is the general perception. During the time Adam served on the Board of the International Campaign for Tibet, I have seen him engage in deep discussions with fellow board members on different aspects of the Tibetan issue. Even as he did this I noticed that he did not forget, simple things, even if was to put the kettle to boil for tea to the participants of the Board meeting when it was held in his loft in New York City one year.
Adam’s marriage to Dechen Wangdu la could also be interpreted as a symbol of his unification with the Tibetan people, physically and mentally. My condolences to Dechen la and her family and pray that Adam will have a speedy rebirth to continue his socially useful productive work.