Posts of Articles

Anonymous Chinese Blogger: To Kill the Spirit of Tibet

2012-02-24T03:08:47.424Z

China Digital Times has teamed up with Hexie Farm (蟹农场), an anonymous Chinese blogger, to produce a series of political cartoons. The first in this series is entitled To Kill the Spirit of Tibet:

China Digital Times provides an interesting interview with Hexie Farm, and an explanation that this cartoon is based on Goya's masterpiece, The Third of May 1808, which immortalizes Spanish resistance to the invading armies of Napoleon:

Hexie Farm's cartoon may also recall Paul Revere's famous engraving of the Boston Massacre, where three colonial Americans were killed by British troops in 1770, an incident that helped spark the American Revolution.

Art historians may notice that in the works of both Hexie Farm and Goya, the executioners are anonymous and faceless, whereas Paul Revere chose to give the British soldiers faces and thus individuality:

-TPR editors

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Reinventing The Art of Protest?

2012-02-24T02:50:50.935Z

By Denzi Yishey

From the 13th to 15th of this month, the protest against China’s next President Xi Jinping visit to Washington DC were jointly organized by two Regional Tibetan Youth Congresses (New York New Jersey and Capital Area) and Students for Free Tibet. Apart from minor coordination glitches, the organizers might mark this protest as a huge success. They (along with hundreds of Tibetans) were largely successful in welcoming each and every events of Xi Jinping in the capital area with protest.

Also, Tibetans in general may be pleased that the protests succeed in securing a reasonable coverage in the international press and media. The pleasure of seeing Tibetan protests on the front page might have exuberated many Tibetans. However, many tend to ignore the fact that the end of this protest may help provide insights into the planning of next protest. The piece therefore is an attempt towards sharing an outsider’s perspective on rethinking the next (or future) protest.

The protest is over. Protesters are back to their work, school, and home. Now may be the perfect time to sit and evaluate the protest with simple questions, such as, are there better ways and means to protest? Did Tibetans (or organizers) miss something? Was the protest effective? Will Xi Jinping listen to Tibetan shouts? Will China start rethinking its policies on Tibet? Will the world leaders start voicing their concerns on the deteriorating human rights in Tibet? You and me can add many more questions to this list.

To begin with, lets take a look at the protest outside the Camber of Commerce, a building standing opposite to the street facing the back of the White House. According to the organizers, Xi Jinping was supposed to arrive 3.00PM at this venue. Tibetan protesters (with Uighurs, Falun Gong, Mongolians, and few Chinese dissidents) waited across the streets with their representative flags, banners, and slogans. Though Xi Jinping arrival was delayed by about two hours, Tibetans did not wait to protest. Right after 3.00PM, Tibetans started (and continued) to boo any Asian lookalike (assuming them as Chinese) entering or leaving the building with scathing accusations of injustices in Tibet. Some even confront them directly on the street with Tibetan National Flag and shouts.

Most disturbingly, for general protesters, it was not even clear whether these Asian-lookalikes were Chinese. Even if they were Chinese, do Tibetans really need to provoke these Chinese gentlemen and ladies who may be intellectuals, businessman, and entrepreneurs (considering the meeting at Chamber of Commerce)? When Tibetans shout and protest them, do they still hold the rights to say, “Chinese intellectuals are mum on Tibetan protests in Tibet?” Aren’t Tibetans losing more by shouting against these Chinese? What did Tibetans achieve by infuriating or shaming them? Most importantly, aren’t Tibetans disproving His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s message, “Tibetans are not against the Chinese people. Tibetans are against Chinese Government and Communist Party”. Again, the questions keep getting long.

From my perspective, there might be a better way to protest Xi Jinping. He will be the next President of China, which means he is not in direct command of the Chinese government. As expert says, it may take at least two years for him to firmly have his authority over the Chinese government i.e., when he gets the command of People Liberation Army and the likely majority support in the Politburo. Putting this into context, isn’t the protest premature?

This protest could have been different than following the same-old tactics. This protest could have been grounded on hope rather than the same-old slogans. To make it short, the protest could have been a “plea protest”. In other words, Xi Jinping could have been welcomed with a different version of slogans – a slogan of request, plea, and hope.

How would it sound if Tibetans used slogans such as,
“Please Please Please, Listen to Tibetans in Tibet”
“Please Please Please, Freedom for Tibetans in Tibet”
“Please Please Please, Respect Tibetans in Tibet”
Instead of,
“Shame Shame Shame, Chinese Government”
“China Lies, Tibetan Dies”

And,
“Xi Jinping, a hope for free China”
“Xi Jinping, a hope for better Tibet”
Instead of,
“5th Generation, Last Generation (of Chinese President)”
“China China China, Out Out Out”.

How about News headline reading like this: “Tibetans Pled China’s Next President for More Freedom in Tibet”; and “Tibetans Hope A Better Future With Xi Jinping” rather than the same-old headlines.

How about this: Giving President Obama an opportunity to say Xi Jinping at the White House, “See the people outside this White House. They have a high hope of you in improving the human rights conditions in China and Tibet”. Xi might not respond but he will definitely smile.

Some added advantages of this “wishful” protest could be: more media and press coverage; more appreciation from world leaders; more attention from intellectuals; more supports from general public; more interest from the Chinese people; and more reasons to smile and hope for.

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Kalon Tripa Launches Tibet Policy Institute

2012-02-16T03:06:43.242Z

Source: Tibet.net, the official website of the Central Tibetan Administration

DHARAMSHALA: Inaugurating the Tibet Policy Institute at the Kashag Secretariat today, Kalon Tripa said the institute aims to carry out comprehensive research works on all aspect of Tibet-related issues, which he underlined would help the administration in framing policies for the next fifty years and making the Tibet issue a competent case on the international platform.

The Kashag attaches great importance to the Tibet Policy Institute, Kalon Tripa said, adding that a clear and in-depth research materials on every aspect of Tibet issue would play a pivotal role in framing policies and plans for the next fifty years.

He underscored the need for the researchers at the policy institute to carry out research on both past and present political, environmental, and economical situation in Tibet, geopolitics of China, US and Asia vis-a-vis the issue of Tibet.

Kalon Tripa also expressed hope and emphasised the need to have competent researchers and pledged to make every effort to realise this goal. He called on the researchers including the staff of the Tibet Policy Institute and other CTA officials, to make best develop the know how and their interests in research works on issues relating to Tibet.

Aiming to make Gangchen Kyishong, the seat of the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala, as an “Intellectual Hub”, Kalon Tripa said top researchers from India and abroad will be invited to hold monthly and annual debates and symposiums to hone the skills and knowledge of the Tibetan researchers.

Kalon Tripa praised the efforts made by former researchers of the Central Tibetan Administration for their valuable research work and the materials published.

In his remarks, Mr Thubten Samphel, the newly appointed director of the Tibet Policy Institute, said the policy institute would strive to focus on research towards evolving policies to tackle challenges in the coming fifty years in all spheres of Tibet issue.

“We highly appreciate and thank the director and staff members of the Research and Analysis Unit for their valuable research works considering the resources available to them, said Mr Samphel, who will take charge of the Tibet policy Institute on 2 March.

“To fufil the Kashag’s aspirations, researchers at the policy institute would make their best possible efforts to pool their energy and interests in all aspects of the Tibetan issue,” he said.

Mr Lobsang, Additional Secretary at the Tibet Policy Institute, presented an overview of some of the key research works carried out by the Central Tibetan Administration on the issue of Tibet till today.

Originally published at http://tibet.net/2012/02/15/kalon-tripa-launches-tibet-policy-institute/

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Man on fire

2012-02-18T06:08:01.570Z

By Bhuchung K. Tsering (International Campaign for Tibet, February 10, 2012)

The recent spate of self-immolation could point to a new radicalisation of Tibet’s struggle.

On 27 February 2009, Tapey, a Tibetan monk in his 20s, walked from the Kirti Monastery, in Amdo (in today’s Sichuan province), to the nearby crossroads in the town market. His garment was drenched in oil. Upon reaching the crossroads, he set himself on fire, unfurled a homemade Tibetan flag bearing a photo of the Dalai Lama and shouted slogans. Before people could hear what he was saying, members of the People’s Armed Police intervened and shot at Tapey. When he fell, they took him away.

Tapey, February 2009

That incident turned out to be the first of many such self-immolations in Tibetan areas. It also seems to have set a precedent for a new direction in Tibetan activism. In March 2011, another Tibetan, Phuntsok, committed self-immolation; by the end of January 2012, at least 15 others have done so. Twelve of these are known to have died. Even as this article is being written, during the first week of February, there are reports of three more Tibetans having self-immolated. A common demand of these individuals has been the Dalai Lama’s return to Tibet and freedom for the Tibetan people.

Most of the self-immolators were from Kirti Monastery. Its head lama, Kirti Rinpoche, who resides in Dharamsala, has said that the self-immolations are the result of wounds suffered by three generations of Tibetans. During the 1930s, the first generation suffered when Chinese communists raided the Kirti area while on their Long March; during the 1960s, the second generation suffered prior to and during the Cultural Revolution; and since the late 1990s, the third generation of Tibetans has suffered on account of so-called Patriotic Education and related campaigns put in place by the Chinese government.

For its part, the Chinese government’s initial reaction to the recent spate of self-immolations was one of denial. As the number of these incidents continued to increase, Chinese officials sought to deflect blame by humiliating the Tibetans, declaring the self-immolators to be criminals and saying their actions were instigated by ‘the Dalai clique’. They also attempted to minimise the political significance of these actions by portraying them in the light of economic protest, suggesting that they are effects of globalisation – though how exactly they make that connection has never been explained. To counter any allegation that they have neglected Tibet, Chinese authorities have highlighted the monetary assistance that is being rendered to the Tibetans.

The critical factor in this string of self-immolations is that the Chinese government is victim of its own decision to link the Tibetan issue with the survival of the Communist Party of China (CPC). In its failure to understand the nature of Tibetan identity, which is inseparable from Tibetan religion and culture, the Chinese leadership looks at Tibetans’ adherence to their traditional mores and to the reign of the Communist Party as being mutually exclusive.

A flourishing nationalism

Today, the Chinese government sees the very existence of a distinct Tibetan identity as a political statement. As a result of this thinking, Chinese officials are attempting to sever the relationship between the Dalai Lama (a symbol of Tibetan identity) and the Tibetan people. These efforts include a continued ban on portraits of the Dalai Lama. News is currently coming in from Tibet that Tibetans who went to India to receive the Kalachakra teachings from the Dalai Lama in January are now being detained and interrogated upon their return, and that sacred protections cords are being confiscated. Since most of the self-immolations have taken place in Tibetan regions that were not under the control of the Tibetan government at the time of the Chinese communist takeover, the tie between Tibetans in these areas and Lhasa or the Dalai Lama should be seen by China primarily as spiritual and cultural, not political.

Chinese policies have therefore led to the growth – if not outright origin – of Tibetan Buddhist nationalism. Ironically, China’s short-sighted clampdown on Tibetan Buddhism has caused a feeling of unity among Tibetans to solidify, both within the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and in all traditional Tibetan areas, something the Chinese government was trying to discourage in the first place. Mandating that all Tibetan monasteries hang portraits of the four Chinese leaders – Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao – as the TAR administration did in December 2011 as part of its ‘Nine Possession’ decree, will only add to the provocation.

In fact, the religious basis of Tibetan identity should have been apparent to the Chinese Communist authorities from the time they first invaded Tibet, in 1950. Tibetan nationalism was primarily centred on religion. Tibetans called the Chinese invaders tendra (Enemy of the Faith), and the most renowned Tibetan resistance force was called tensung thanglang maggar (Voluntary Force for the Defence of the Faith).

Instead, this year, Chinese leaders sent to Tibetan monasteries over the Chinese New Year to offer ‘Spring Festival greetings’ had no qualms about preaching their real message of ten-lhing sung-kyong (maintaining stability) and providing monetary incentives for the monks to keep the peace. It certainly says much about the credibility of Chinese rule in Tibet that, even after 50 years, the Chinese leadership’s main message remains ‘stability’.

Offering of light

In any case, the recent Tibetan self-immolations have taken place in remote areas. Further, most of these individuals have left behind no statement indicating that publicity – for themselves or their cause – was among their main objectives. Instead, these were actions undertaken by people who simply felt the need to fight, in some way, the injustice they were experiencing. An audio testament left behind by Sonam Wangyal Sopa Rinpoche (known popularly as Sobha Tulku), who died on 8 January 2012 after self-immolating, may be the only concrete document left behind thus far. In his statement, Sobha Tulku said:

"this is the year in which so many Tibetan heroes have died. I am sacrificing my body both to stand in solidarity with them in flesh and blood, and to seek repentance through this highest tantric honour of offering one’s body. This is not to seek personal fame or glory."

A look at how the Vietnamese Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh described the self-immolators in Vietnam during the 1960s may help us to better understand Sobha Tulku’s words. In a letter to civil-rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr in 1965, Thich Nhat Hanh explained:

"I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of the oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not men. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and discrimination which lie within the heart of man."

That sentiment was echoed by Sobha Tulku: ‘I am giving away my body as an offering of light to chase away the darkness, to free all beings from suffering.’

The Tibetan self-immolators were challenging political, cultural, religious and social injustices, the roots of which are deeper than any mere material developments could assuage. What US columnist Thomas L Friedman wrote about Egypt and Russia in the New York Times on 31 January 2012, in a column titled ‘The Politics of Dignity’, is also applicable to Tibet. Friedman wrote:

"the political eruptions in both countries were not initially driven by any particular ideology but rather by the most human of emotions – the quest for dignity and justice. Humiliation is the single most underestimated force in politics. People will absorb hardship, hunger and pain. They will be grateful for jobs, cars and benefits. But if you force people to live indefinitely inside a rigged game that is flaunted in their face or make them feel like cattle that can be passed by one leader to his son or one politician to another, eventually they’ll explode."

In a way, the self-immolations could be a new form of Tibetan Buddhist liberation theology in the making. In the words of Father Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian priest credited with coining the term, liberation theology is about emancipation of the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed from ‘those things that limit their capacity to develop themselves freely and in dignity.’ Similarly, Deane William Ferm, a religion scholar, in his Third World Liberation Theologies, says that liberation theology ‘stresses liberation from all forms of human oppression: social, economic, political, racial, sexual, environmental, religious.’ These forms of oppression are essential features of the environment in which the Tibetan Buddhists have committed their self-immolations.

Father Gutiérrez has also talked about ‘witnessing several new expressions of this theology in different contexts and continents – North America, Central and South America, Africa and Asia.’ We now have a Tibetan version of liberation theology, similar to the ‘engaged Buddhism’ of Buddhist political activists in places like Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

Tsampa Revolution

Phuntsog, Ngaba, March 2011

Foreign governments have also been taking note of these developments in Tibet. Even thoughTime magazine listed the Tibetan self-immolations as one of the ‘Top 10 Underreported Stories’ of 2011, whatever information we have indicates that these incidents have in fact led to intense discussions within government circles in numerous capitals as well as among their respective embassies in Beijing. In particular, governments seem concerned with how the movement could develop hereafter. When the latest self-immolations were taking place, the CPC’s point-person on Tibet was on a visit to Germany, trying to put the party's point of view across to the German government.

Indeed, if these self-immolations are forerunners of a radicalised Tibetan movement, then the Chinese government is greatly mistaken to think that this trend can be stopped by increasing restrictions, including those on movement, the Internet and other communication channels. Tibetans will look for, and find, different ways to express themselves. In the wake of the pan-Tibetan uprising in 2008, the Chinese authorities thought they had resolved the situation by quelling it with force. But the self-immolations have clearly indicated that the Chinese approach at that time was no permanent solution. Therefore, the latest stringent restrictions will only increase the sense of injustice and discrimination felt by Tibetans. Leaving aside political aspirations, as long as Tibetans continue to be denied the opportunity to live a life of equality, respect and dignity, it is clear that they will undertake actions to convey their feelings.

Chinese writer Wang Lixiong had an interesting solution in a recent online posting titled ‘Except self-immolation, what else can be done?’ Wang says people need to show the Tibetans some way of finding answers. His feeling is that ‘getting Tibet out of this crisis should start from village autonomy.’ He was referring to recent developments in the village of Wukan in Guangdong province, where a people’s movement won villagers the right to elect their local leadership. Wang wrote:

Tibetan villages too possess all the conditions Wukan does. If one Tibetan village succeeds, Tibet will already have a banner; when ten villages succeed, darkness of the night will be ignited with light of the dawn; with a hundred villages, genuine autonomy will rise from the horizon and embrace Tibet.

Of course, Tibet is not comparable to other Chinese provinces, and Tibetan Buddhism is not Christianity. As Christian Caryl, a contributing editor at Foreign Policy, wrote in November 2011, ‘The history of self-immolation as a political tool suggests that it is a highly volatile one. Setting oneself on fire can sometimes ignite a huge political protest, but there’s no guarantee that it will.’

Tibetans should heed such words of caution. In 1998, when Thupten Ngodup became the first Tibetan to self-immolate, it led to much soul-searching among Tibetans. Writing in the Tibetan Review at the time, this writer warned against reactions that unintentionally glorified death:

Thupten Ngodup’s action was the result of the courage of his conviction. Interpreting it in any other way so as to bolster a short-term political objective would not be doing justice to Thupten’s action. We should not take his action as a model ... for other Tibetan freedom fighters to follow.

This certainly holds true in the present situation, too.

However, just as the Vietnamese self-immolations became symbolic of the Vietnamese resistance, the Tibetan self-immolation has become a symbol of the radicalisation of the Tibetan struggle and its movement in a new direction. As it is, in the Tibetan social-media world the self-immolations have been dubbed the ‘Tsampa Revolution’, referring to the roasted barley flour that is a staple of the Tibetan diet. In December 2011 a report emerged that Tapey, the monk introduced at the beginning of this article and whose whereabouts had not been known, was undergoing treatment in a Chinese military hospital. Tapey may be recovering, but the recent self-immolations could just be the tip of the iceberg. What lies underneath, and how it should be dealt with, is a challenge for both the Tibetan people and the Chinese government.

********************

Reprinted in TPR with the permission of the author. Originally published on Himal Southasian online magazine at:

http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/5006-man-on-fire.htmlhttp%3a//www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/5006-man-on-fire.html

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Obama's "Sun Tzu" China Strategy

2012-02-16T03:03:15.674Z

Veteran political journalist James Fallows writes a lengthy and thoughtful review of the Obama presidency so far in the March 2102 issue of The Atlantic. The article touches upon several interesting topics, including this analysis of what it calls Obama's Sun Tzu-like China strategy:

As Obama began his term, official China was growing smug and prideful. The triumphant Beijing Olympics were just behind it; the American financial collapse symbolized the decline of a superpower and the world’s reliance on its new paymasters, the Chinese. Because of China’s heavy reliance on exports, its labor force was hit harder by the worldwide collapse of demand than that of any other major economy, but the Chinese pulled themselves out far more rapidly. Americans and Europeans dithered about applying stimulus; the Chinese went ahead and applied it, creating jobs for many millions of people and expanding the country’s physical infrastructure in the process.

By the time Obama made his state visit to Shanghai and Beijing, in November 2009, the press in both countries and the rest of the world was primed to present his usual low-key demeanor as servility. The Washington Post and The New York Times contrasted Obama’s supposed hat-in-hand manner with the bravado of Bill Clinton, who had mentioned the Tiananmen Square protests while standing next to President Jiang Zemin.
Yet even as Obama was politely listening to lectures about China’s new superiority, members of his administration were executing an elaborate pincer movement to reestablish American influence, real and perceived, among the growing economies of Asia. In practically every formal statement by U.S. officials, from President Obama to Secretaries Clinton, Geithner, and Gates, U.S. representatives hammered home a single message. The message was that Americawelcomed rather than feared China’s continued rise. This was directed at a widespread Chinese suspicion: that America would try to thwart China’s continued development because it viewed any increase in Chinese influence as a flat-out loss for the United States.
Many Chinese officials remained skeptical, but the reassurances set the stage for the next phase of the administration’s message: we welcome your rise, but we disagree on the following things—censorship, currency, and pollution, all matters that could be presented as containable items for discussion rather than as inherently threatening aspects of China’s ascent.
In the few months after Obama’s visit to China, some Chinese military and diplomatic officials began believing their own adulatory press clips. China entered its period of what was broadly described as overreach: challenging the Japanese, South Korean, Vietnamese, and Philippine navies with expanded claims of coming supremacy in the South China Sea and the broader Pacific; antagonizing trading partners from Russia to Burma to Australia with more-aggressive practices and claims. Through this period, the U.S. government was stitching up relations with every one of these countries. Part of the message was that with its inevitable extraction from the mire of Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States could reassert its presence in the fastest-growing economic region of the world; the other part was that, for all its excesses, the United States was an easier regional power to live with than the Chinese would be.
Two years after Obama’s “humiliating” visit to Shanghai and Beijing, U.S. relations with China were a mix of cooperation and tension, as they had been through the post-Nixon years. But American relations with most other nations in the region were better than since before the Iraq War. In a visit to Australia late in 2011, Obama startled the Chinese leadership but won compliments elsewhere with the announcement of a new permanent U.S. Marine presence in Darwin, on Australia’s northern coast.
The strategy was Sun Tzu–like in its patient pursuit of an objective: reestablishing American hard and soft power while presenting a smiling “We welcome your rise!” face to the Chinese. “It was as decisive a diplomatic victory as anyone is likely to see,” Walter Russell Mead, of Bard College, often a critic of the administration, wrote about the announcement of the Australian base. “In the field of foreign policy, this was a coming of age of the Obama administration and it was conceived and executed about as flawlessly as these things ever can be.”

(Full article here)

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Sympathetic Vibes

2012-01-16T02:11:08.567Z

By Prof. Elliot Sperling (Indiana University)

A few days ago Radio Free Asia posted an article on the question of whether there is a growing understanding of Tibet and sympathy for Tibetans among the general Chinese population, a sentiment voiced most recently in Bodh Gaya at the Kalacakra Empowerment. The RFA article quoted from a long comment I had written on the subject in answer to questions that had been submitted to me; the article was balanced and quoted me quite accurately. But, as anyone who has written columns or op-ed pieces knows, there are necessary limits to the length of such stories or essays and it was only reasonable that my answer was not used beyond the quotes that were extracted. Indeed, had my answer been used in its entirety, it would have constituted the bulk of the RFA article. However, it is just for such situations that blog sites were invented, no? And so [...] I post here my comment to RFA for the record:

The idea that there is a growing understanding of the Tibetan situation among Chinese people living in the PRC has been a cliché for the last decade among certain Tibetan exiles, rooted in part in the reality of the appeal that Tibetan Buddhism has had for a noticeable segment of the Chinese population. But it is difficult to view the state of affairs as optimistically as people in Dharamsala do. For one thing, the number of Chinese who are interested in Tibetan Buddhism is still very, very small within the context of the overall Chinese population. In effect their views don’t make a dent in the more general attitudes about Tibet on the part of most other Chinese. The majority of the population thinks and cares very little, if anything, about Tibet. In normal circumstances the issue does not engage most Chinese. One can certainly not compare the place of the Tibet issue in China to, say, the issue of the Iraq war in U.S. society. People who do think about Tibet in China tend to view it in two general ways: they exoticize it, much in the way Westerners have done, making Tibet a land of (depoliticized) esoteric mystery and peace; or else they view Tibet as a backward land that was liberated from a barbaric feudal regime. This latter view has become visible in times of unrest in Tibet, as in 2008, when more than a few Chinese evinced a resentment of Tibetans, whom they saw at that time as ungrateful for China’s gift of liberation from feudal serfdom. The overwhelming majority of Chinese, however, do not spend time reflecting on the Tibet issue.

Of course there are some Chinese who go beyond the firewall and are aware of repression in Tibet and even of the large loss of life in Tibet in the first several decades of rule by the PRC. But they are an extremely small minority.

The pinning of hopes on an awareness of the Tibet situation on the part of Chinese who are interested in Tibetan Buddhism is somewhat similar to a related phenomenon from earlier years: the view that Tibetan Buddhism was growing in the West and becoming a major cultural factor there, winning supporters and sympathizers for the Tibet issue as it grew. That idea, of course, gave way to the reality that Western tastes for Tibetan Buddhism were ultimately a minority phenomenon and that mass conversion in the West was not going to happen. And actually, many of the Westerners practicing Tibetan Buddhism eschewed political engagement as somehow wrong.

This was my comment for the RFA piece but I should also add that Woeser, whose commentaries on Tibetan matters are required reading, recently put up a new post about the massive brawl that erupted between Chinese and Tibetan students at the Railway Engineering School in Chengdu on December 14 and necessitated the dispatch of riot police to quell the fighting. That post is actually quite germane to the subject at hand. Woeser recalls clashes between students of different nationalities at the Southwest Nationalities College during her student days, but nothing approaching the scale of this clash at the Railway Engineering School. Ironically, she notes that its roots can be found in some of the steps adopted after 2008 to speed the assimilation of Tibetan students. Preferential policies put in place at the time included flexibility in adjusting academic credit for Tibetan students and a three year tuition waiver for them. The result was a simmering sense of resentment that boiled over on December 14 amidst cries from Chinese students to “Beat a Tibetan, Get Extra Credit!”

Growing sympathy for Tibetans among the general Chinese population? Ahem…

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

China sacks four officials in Tibet over 'stability'

2012-02-09T16:15:39.992Z

From the Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2012:

BEIJING — China on Monday warned government officials in Tibet that failing to maintain stability could result in job loss or criminal prosecution, the latest sign of heightened ethnic tensions in the remote Himalayan region. ...

The announcement said “those responsible for problems in stability maintenance because they neglect their posts, act irresponsibly, abuse power or fail to carry out their duties ... will all be removed from their positions on the spot no matter who they are or what level they are at.”

It said such cases could also be handed over to judicial authorities for criminal prosecution. It gave no details about the two alleged cases of dereliction of duty.

(Full article here)

And from BBC News, Feb. 9, 2012:

The Chinese Communist Party chief in Tibet has sacked four officials for "endangering stability" in the region, state media reports.

According to the Tibet Daily newspaper, they were sacked for leaving their posts in the Chamdo region during the Lunar New Year.

The regional government on Monday had warned officials to maintain stability or face dismissal or criminal charges. ...Two of the four officials face disciplinary charges.

(Full article here)

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Wall St. Journal: Xi Lands in U.S. to 'Free Tibet' Protests

2012-02-16T02:54:14.989Z

As Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping landed in the U.S. Monday for a trip that includes meeting with President Obama, Tibetans descended on the White House to protest China's human rights record in the region. WSJ's Neil Hickey reports.

;width:512;wrap:false;" width="512" height="363" style="display:block;margin:5px auto;text-align:center;" class="igm" />

“Windhorse, Windhorse, Please Carry André Home…” By Woeser

2012-02-15T03:13:20.768Z

Originally published by High Peaks Pure Earth. Reprinted in TPR with permission.

High Peaks Pure Earth has translated a blogpost by Woeser that was posted on her blog on February 1, 2012. The original post, although written in December 2007, was only posted a few days ago along with a new introduction by Woeser that has also been translated below.

The sudden passing of André Alexander has saddened many and he will be greatly missed. For reader who would like to read more about his incredible work with Tibet Heritage Fund, please follow the link: http://www.tibetheritagefund.org/

By Woser

I want to start by saying that I only met André twice but I always wanted to write about him. I once wrote an article, about him and his organisation Tibet Heritage Fund and about how he was made to leave Lhasa by the authorities. He told me not to publish it then because he one day wanted to return to Lhasa.

I often flick through the pages of the heavy photo book he gave me “The Temples of Lhasa”, he is the author and in the book is the Lhasa of his mind’s eye that today has already changed. Many Lhasa people remember him, they all call him André, remember his slight frame, curly blonde hair and how he liked to wear Tibetan jackets.

I really like the small publication produced by Tibet Heritage Fund ‘A Brief Introduction of Historic Architecture in Lhasa Barkhor’. Black and white hand-drawn maps, folded pages, in the style of traditional Tibetan paper. Like a tiny, invisible museum, on display are drawings on paper of the Barkhor. In the fine and simple pictures, I see the life of Lhasa people, giving me endless things to imagine and sets off nostalgia, no matter how much I look at them, I can’t look at them enough. However, much has already been badly damaged, mottled traces and crumbling shadows mark the current situation of Lhasa people.

André started to restore old buildings in Lhasa but one day upset the officials. One time, he told experts from the United Nations who evaluate cultural heritage that a department store was built on the original site of an aristocratic house that was three centuries old… In 2002, after being expelled from Lhasa, André and Tibet Heritage Fund did a lot of work for the preservation of Beijing hutongs. It seems that later this could also not be continued. I heard that he went to the Himalayan region of Ladakh and other places where historic buildings and monasteries could be restored. On Facebook I would see photos of him and he’d be amongst ruins or in buildings that were being repaired.

Two months ago I wrote André a letter. Officials and businessmen were collaborating on a large shopping complex in Lhasa near the old city and there was work around the clock to extract groundwater for this “Divine Times Square” project, sending Lhasa people into panic, I asked André if this would all cause damage.

André, grieved, said, “Water is a big problem in Tibet because big hydropower stations are being constructed everywhere. Already, Lhasa’s environment has been seriously damaged and polluted, greedy developers, supported by greedy government officials are turning Lhasa valley into a big factory. If the Lhalu wetlands become dry, then it will all be too late.”

I still had questions that I wanted to ask him, I also wanted to tell him that that I wrote about him in my book “Tibet: 2008″ that was published last year. But the just turned 47 year old André suffered a sudden heart attack and died on January 21 in Berlin… On his Facebook page I looked at all his photos and saw how happy he looked in the photos from when he lived in Lhasa, looking youthful, these were the most beautiful.

André’s former girlfriend Lharigtso was our translator when we met, full of sorrow, she shared these touching stories about André:

“André was fascinated by the architecture of Tibet, the nature and the culture, and had a warm connection to it. He could wander around the Jokhang Temple, Ramoche and many small temples every day. He said that the Lhasa fried potatoes street food was his favourite but later said that the potatoes were tasting worse and worse: “When it’s made by Gyami (Chinese), it doesn’t taste good.”

His familiarity with the geography of Lhasa was always something I admired. Every time we would be in the old part of the city, I’d follow him and his brisk pace and discover many small lanes and alleys, it surprised me a lot!

From 2003 to the present, the changed environment of Lhasa upset him to tears. Walking in the Barkhor, sometimes he would suddenly stop, cover his chin with his right arm, his head shaking. I’d see tears welling up in his blue eyes…

He later went to Lhasa several times. In 2008 he went to Amdo with his parents and then took a train to Lhasa. In 2010, 2011 and even a month ago he’d been in Lhasa.

André liked to eat sweet things, he liked to watch films and would sometimes cry when watching cartoons… From 14 or 15 years of age he became vegetarian but he would bite at his fingers and I used to say, you are eating your own meat haha …. he most liked to take his small Swiss army knife and trim his own hair, this was when he was most relaxed…these are the kinds of things he would do …”

A friend wrote the following on André’s Facebook and it’s also something I’d like to say to André: “Preservation of architectural heritage in the Himalayas will never be the same now that André has left us. May the windhorse of the Himalayas and Tibet take you higher and higher to the field of absolute serenity and peace. And may your journey be filled with new discoveries and may you encounter the Devas, Dakinis, the Protectors, the Vidyadharas of India and Tibet and all those deities of the cosmic lineage and share with them the story of your life.. Bon Voyage my friend, bon voyage gentle soul……….. ”

Windhorse, windhorse, please carry André home…

Finally, here is the article I wrote about André four years ago and is my tribute to him. The photos above are from his time in Lhasa.

“The Westerners Restoring the Old Lhasa City”

By Woeser

No one knows how Tibet Heritage Fund (THF) offended the Chinese authorities in Tibet. It has been five years since they were expelled from Lhasa in 2002. THF is a nongovernmental and non-profit international organisation. It was founded in 1996 in Lhasa by André Alexander from Germany, Pimpim de Azevedo from Portugal and a few other people. It mainly focuses on ‘researching and protecting the historic city Lhasa’. Even today, many Tibetans in Lhasa including lamas and ordinary people are always thinking of them. They say that they have never seen people who cherished the old buildings in Lhasa so much. THF worked with a more serious attitude than even the local people, and it worked with heart, which sometimes made local people feel guilty. Why did the government have to urge them to leave?

Some say that its work was so excellent that it made the authorities who were meant to ‘serve the people’ feel ashamed. It is listed on the website of THF that since 1996 when the restoration plan for the old city of Lhasa was started, “THF had completely repaired 12 historic residences and 1 temple, basically restored 3 residences, done emergency repairs for 18 residential buildings, upgraded water supply and sanitation facilities for more than 1,000 residents in the old city, built 2 public toilets, paved laneways, rebuilt 1 and restored 1 stupa, reinforced the fifteenth century frescoes in an ancient temple in the south of Lhasa. The total investment above was over 800,000 US dollars. It had provided job and training opportunities for more than 300 Tibetans.” In fact, they have saved 76 historic and traditional buildings in and around Lhasa.

Some say that they had uncovered the reality of the old buildings in Lhasa in both publications and on internet, which enraged the authorities which alleged to well protected Tibetan culture. For example, in the album of paintings named ‘A Brief Introduction of Historic Architecture in Lhasa Barkhor’, it is said that ‘the ancient architecture and blocks in the old city in Barkhor were continually destroyed during the process of urban construction since 1980′. On every Barkhor map that was drawn by local painters, the fragmentary shape and mottled trace of the architecture seems to show that what disappears with the demolition is not only the old buildings, but also a nation’s way of life. In their website, THF pointed out that “since 1993, an average of 35 historic buildings have been demolished. If this speed was to be maintained, the remaining historic buildings would all disappear in less than four years’ time.”

Some others say that what they did was only to work hard with the Tibetan workers, but ignored the prevalent ‘hidden rules’ that were popular in Lhasa and even the whole of China. Restoring urban buildings is a profitable project, and many corrupt officials, from top to bottom, are hoping to get profit from it. But THF had never bribed the officials, in which case the officials would rather give the project to Chinese construction companies that know the ‘hidden rules’ well and would make the officials benefit from the project. However, there has to be a good reason to expel THF, and in Tibet, the most severe punishment must have something to do with politics. This is why one day in 2002 the state dictatorship authorities sent a car to take them to a plane to leave Lhasa.

Over the years, I’m filled with adoration and respect to THF’s work. I have downloaded all the text and images on its website, and I have also been asking about its situation after leaving Lhasa. Not long ago I looked at the English version of the photo book ‘The Temples of Lhasa’, and my admiration for THF has increased. If it was not true respect and love for Tibetan culture, there would never be such benevolent spirit and abundant energy for THF to work until today. THF is the eyewitness of how Tibetan traditional culture faces the impact of Sinicisation and globalisation, and how Tibet struggles to maintain its own culture. Just like what André Alexander said sadly, ‘each time I go to Tibet, the old houses are significantly reduced – a stone, a brick, a lane, a street, even the dogs are “disappearing”…’

December, 2007

Originally posted at http://highpeakspureearth.com/2012/windhorse-windhorse-please-carry-andre-home-by-woeser/

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Tibetans Burn Selves for Freedom

2012-02-13T19:43:05.079Z

By Ming Xia
Originally published in The Diplomat, Feb. 7, 2012.
Republished in TPR with permission of the author.

News today that three Tibetan herders may have set themselves alight highlights the increasing frequency with which Tibetans (usually monks or nuns) have been turning to self-immolation, bringing to 19 the total that have done so in the past year.

Why are Tibetans setting themselves on fire with such frequency? The Chinese government has denied any responsibility, instead blaming the Dalai Lama for encouraging such radical actions. However, this claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The Chinese government has told the West that the Dalai Lama is irrelevant to Tibetans, while telling Chinese and Tibetans within China that he has been marginalized to the point of becoming a “political orphan.” It’s therefore illogical to accuse him of being the mastermind behind radical actions taken by Tibetans.

The reality is that the Dalai Lama single-handedly introduced democracy to the Tibetan government in exile immediately after he fled to India in 1959. He established an elected parliament, while the process of democratization was accelerated by his receipt of the Nobel Prize in Peace in 1989, which also bolstered secularization in the government. Last year, the Dalai Lama announced plans for his full political retirement, and with Harvard-educated lawyer Lobsang Sangay directly elected to lead a Cabinet comprising laypersons from young, well-educated, diverse and cosmopolitan backgrounds.

Such success, has, unfortunately, only deepened Beijing’s anxiety over – and hostility toward – the Dalai Lama and Tibetans. For the past five years, the military, paramilitary police, and law enforcement forces have conducted searches, arrests, blockades and attacks against monasteries and their residents. The Communist Party has, meanwhile, escalated its efforts to “modernize” Tibet, including trying to brainwash Tibetans with themes of atheism, materialism and patriotism. One example of this has been the intensification of the enforcement of its 15-year-old ban on hanging portraits of the Dalai Lama in monasteries. During this year’s two New Year’s periods (Chinese and Tibetan), the Chinese government reportedly sent a million Chinese flags and portraits of four Communist Chinese leaders (Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao) to monasteries. The government has also vowed to make every monastery subscribe to The People’s Daily and The Tibetan Daily, two important Communist Party newspapers.

In addition, the Chinese government has further broadened its infiltration into religious affairs and tightened control over monasteries in an effort to impose its propaganda agenda, while uncooperative monks and nuns have been expelled. It has been reported that in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, there are more Han Chinese than Tibetans, more soldiers than monks, and more surveillance cameras than windows.

President Hu Jintao (a former Party secretary in Tibet) and Zhou Yongkang (a former Party secretary in Sichuan, where most of the self-immolations have occurred, and the current czar for internal security), should be seen as directly responsible for the current repressive policy toward Tibet.

For believers, Buddhism is seen as a way of ending suffering and death. But as Tibetan Buddhism has lost its autonomy, the unique culture and identity of Tibetans has also risked becoming extinct. Now, instead of choosing between good or bad, monks and nuns feel they have no choice but to resort to self-immolation to communicate their grievances and protests.

According to various Buddhist teachings in the school of the Greater Vehicle (Mahayana), suicide can be commended under special conditions, for example if it is conducted “out of profound inner conviction” that no good can any longer be served by the retention of the physical body, or if it is in higher service to society. Indeed, it is explicitly in The Lotus Sutra (Fahua Jing) that “setting fire to the body” or “burning the fingers or toes” might be deemed a great offering to Buddha if the Three Jewels that guide Tibetan Buddhists (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) have to be defended and honored.

It has been reported that the self-immolating monks and nuns shouted out their wishes for the return of Dalai Lama and the freedom of Tibet. If such self-immolations are to end, the global community must mobilize, and citizens must pressure their governments to work to encourage the halting of the persecution of Tibetan Buddhism and the genocide of Tibetan culture that is being perpetrated by the Chinese state. The Chinese government has shown no sign of changing course in part because global society hasn’t demonstrated its moral outrage.

Tibetan refugee and activist Lobsang Sangay once said that: “Tibetans have no oil; even our oxygen is thinner than in other places. Lamas are what we have. So the West does not care much about us.”

With more Tibetan deaths seemingly inevitable, the international community should show that the lives of Tibetans are at least as important as fluctuating oil prices. Now is time for it to show that it is willing to act to save an endangered people.

Ming Xia is a professor of Political Science at the Graduate Center and the College of Staten Island, the City University of New York.

Originally published at: http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2012/02/07/tibetans-burn-selves-for-freedom/

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Tibetan Lama Urges Unity, Nationhood Before Self-Immolating

2012-02-02T19:01:28.010Z

Final Words of Lama Soepa Recorded in Audio Message to Tibetans

Source: Students for a Free Tibet

An audio recording with the final words of a Tibetan lama who set himself on fire in Tibet on January 8, 2012, in protest of Chinese rule has surfaced from sources in Tibet. Lama Soepa, a spiritual teacher and community leader from Golok in the Kham region of eastern Tibet (Ch: Guoluo Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai Province), urges Tibetans to "unite and work together to build a strong and prosperous Tibetan nation…" in an audio message recorded before his final act of protest. His message addresses Tibetans living inside Tibet and in exile, calling for unity and strength amongst all Tibetans and the preservation of language and culture.

TRANSLATION OF LAMA SOEPA’S AUDIO STATEMENT
RECORDED BEFORE HIS SELF-IMMOLATION

To all the six million Tibetans, including those living exile -- I am grateful to Pawo Thupten Ngodup and all other Tibetan heroes, who have sacrificed their lives for Tibet and for the reunification of the Tibetan people; though I am in my forties, until now I have not had the courage like them. But I have tried my best to teach all traditional fields of knowledge to others, including Buddhism.

This is the twenty-first century, and this is the year in which so many Tibetan heroes have died. I am sacrificing my body both to stand in solidarity with them in flesh and blood, and to seek repentance through this highest tantric honor of offering one’s body. This is not to seek personal fame or glory.

I am giving away my body as an offering of light to chase away the darkness, to free all beings from suffering, and to lead them – each of whom has been our mother in the past and yet has been led by ignorance to commit immoral acts – to the Amitabha, the Buddha of infinite light. My offering of light is for all living beings, even as insignificant as lice and nits, to dispel their pain and to guide them to the state of enlightenment. I offer this sacrifice as a token of long-life offering to our root guru His Holiness the Dalai Lama and all other spiritual teachers and lamas.

[Lama Soepa recites the prayer of the Mandala Offering]

/The universal ground purified with blessed water spread, / This magnificent continent adorned with the sun and moon. / I offer them with pure realm of the enlightened in mind, / May all sentient beings enjoy this pure land! / My mind, body, speech, all my possessions and merits, / And this precious Mandala and all other offerings, / I offer all these to the Three Jewels with my fervent prayers, / Compassionately accept these and bless me and all other sentient beings. / I send forth this bejeweled Mandala to you, precious teacher!/

I am taking this action neither for myself nor to fulfill a personal desire nor to earn an honor. I am sacrificing my body with the firm conviction and a pure heart just as the Buddha bravely gave his body to a hungry tigress (to stop her from eating her cubs). All the Tibetan heroes too have sacrificed their lives with similar principles. But in practical terms, their lives may have ended with some sort of anger. Therefore, to guide their souls on the path to enlightenment, I offer prayers that may lead all of them to Buddhahood.

May all spiritual teachers and lamas inside Tibet and in exile live long. Especially, I pray that His Holiness the Dalai Lama will return to Tibet and remain as Tibet’s temporal and spiritual leader.

[Lama Soepa recites the Long-life Prayer for the Dalai Lama.]

/Circled by ramparts of snow-mountains, this sacred realm, / This wellspring of all sustenance and happiness. / Tenzin Gyatso, bodhisattva of compassion. / May his reign endure till the end of existence. / May his great deeds spread across the space. All those who have forms and are formless, / Those who bear hostility towards the Buddha dharma, / May all of them be found and defeated, / By the Three Jewels and the power of truth./

Translation by Bhuchung D. Sonam in Dharamsala, India.

The original recording can be heard here: http://www.rfa.org/tibetan/chediklaytsen/amdolaytsen/amdo-stringer/%20%20statement-recorded-by-sopa-rinpoche-before-his-self-immolation-01202012115218.html/t012012sp.mp3/inline.html

Photos of Lama Sobha's body following his self-immolation are available at http://savetibet.org/media-center/ict-news-reports/photos-lama-sobha (warning: graphic content)

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Coalition building and adapting to circumstances: How to pass a resolution for Tibet

2012-02-03T15:11:32.233Z

By Tenzin Mingyur Paldron

On January 31st, a resolution I wrote with a good friend was unanimously approved by the City Council of Berkeley, California -- the first of its kind in the United States. Its passage was not coordinated by any organization, and its significance cannot be dismissed to the status of a merely symbolic gesture to China. I’d like to share the story behind this resolution, as I believe similar measures can be taken up by communities all over, and I hope the unique aspects of this story help convince people that all kinds of obstacles can be overcome.

Political organizing, depending on the project and level at which it takes place, can be difficult, unpredictable, and wearying. However, my personal experience with this resolution makes me believe that what is crucial, above everything else, is the relationships you cultivate and the people you hold close to your heart. Who you let into your life and give your energy to affects the devotion you can in turn receive -- and this resolution is just one of many highlights in a friendship I cherish, a connection that I know will yield many more victories.

I was friends with Noah Sochet (the co-writer and official sponsor of this resolution) for nearly three years before we did anything explicitly related to the Tibetan movement. We went to college together in Washington State, where we shared common interests in anti-war efforts and LGBTQ organizing (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer). Our friendship continued in Berkeley, where we both coincidentally ended up moving to. I began a PhD program at UC Berkeley, and he manages his own business, while serving the City of Berkeley as a member of its Peace & Justice Commission.

Having been raised in Colorado and Washington State, I was unfamiliar with the Tibetan community in the San Francisco-Bay Area. Furthermore, as a Tibetan who is also out of the closet as a queer and transgender man, I chose to only occasionally attend Tibet-related events, and channeled my interests in Tibet through my research.

After Lobsang Phuntsok Jarutsang’s immolation in March, I was struck with sorrow and pain, as I’m sure many Tibetans were. Those closest to me immediately wanted to express their support, and that is when Noah joined me to protest outside the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco. The three people closest to me in the Bay Area -- Noah, my partner, and my partner’s twin sister -- drove to San Francisco and protested in front of the Consulate, prompting them to call in anonymous security to observe us from a government vehicle. We attended the candlelight vigil held in downtown Berkeley that same night.

When other Tibetans began immolating in fall 2011, Noah approached me and asked whether I might want to introduce a resolution to the Peace & Justice Commission, so that the City Council could pass it and raise public awareness around the situation. I agreed, initially because I was simply sad and wanted to do something I felt I had some direct influence over. Later, as we were writing the resolution, I began realizing the dynamic potential a local action like this held. Doing things locally may feel smaller and not appear in the national news, but because it is more contained, the actions you take will have greater impact. What I can affect in Berkeley and the Bay Area, as a graduate student and a resident, is very different from what I could affect in New York or New Delhi.

We spent an evening writing the resolution. I will briefly explain our choices in its language, but of course writers of other measures will make their own choices. We avoided the term “human rights,” as we felt it was an over-used term that is often only utilized in one direction -- from the West to the non-West. We believed we could convey our message and support for Tibetans inside Tibet without this language, as we also did not want to promote an image of Berkeley or the United States “saving” Tibet.

We chose to go through the Peace and Justice Commission rather than try to bring it directly to City Council, because passing it through the commission would give the resolution more strength and likelihood of passing when reaching City Council. Many major cities have similar commissions -- I strongly suggest finding a sponsor on such commissions first, as not only will it help the chances of the resolution passing but you will get practice presenting the resolution to a smaller commission before having to go to City Council. It is at this stage in the process where the resolution may be amended -- the city official sponsoring the measure will either have to accept the amendments on the spot, or bring the measure back to a later meeting if they want time to reword it themselves. I strongly suggest having one or two organizers in charge of this process, and have them prep the sponsoring city official before the resolution is debated. They can inform the sponsor what pieces they are okay having cut or changed, so that less time is wasted and hopefully the resolution can pass that same night, rather than being postponed.

In order to do this, you want to be sure to have the resolution well-organized and properly sourced. Make sure to include a reference to local actions undertaken in response to the immolations. Present a clear timeline of the immolations and the response by the Chinese government. Since protests and shootings have now begun, you will have to consider how to incorporate these into the resolution. The Berkeley resolution was specific to the immolations, and a particularly significant feature of it was its recognition of self-immolation as a critical means of political expression in atmospheres of severe repression. Others may want to broaden the scope of what their resolution is saying or taking a stand on, but make sure to retain clarity and specificity -- it will make the text more powerful, and help it resonate in the local community.

I did not alert Tibetans to the existence of the resolution until after it passed the Peace and Justice Commission. I did this because I first wanted to see if it could succeed, before getting any hopes up. I also did this because I wanted to limit the number of people who knew about it coming before City Council -- as it would be the first city to adopt such a measure, I wanted the process to be as smooth as possible. I am sure there will be opposition in certain communities against future resolutions, and I wanted to avoid the potential for opposition as much as possible for the first resolution. However, we were prepared for resistance, and paid careful attention to the rules at City Council regarding the number of speakers allowed, and how certain numbers of speakers would automatically change the form in which the resolution was debated (or not debated).

At the beginning of this article, I claimed that the significance of this resolution was not merely symbolic. I say this because a key goal I had in mind when beginning to work on this process was to begin dialogue within the Asian-American community, of which the Bay Area is a major hub. China’s relationship to Tibet is complex and will not be changed through a single path. Waking consciousness in the Bay Area is a significant first step to increasing the diversity of voices supporting Tibet, and helping persuade China to rethink its policies.

This dialogue has already begun, not only in the Bay Area but across the country. I can’t show you any surveys or public statements to confirm this belief. This is because the people who I believe will join the Tibetan movement for freedom are not visible on petition sites or magazine covers, but are from communities I have personal ties to -- they are LGBTQ activists, they are Asian, Pacific Islander and South Asian activists -- and they include people who belong to both these groups. I know that in these circles, people have the capacity in both their hearts and minds to approach the Tibetan struggle, to learn about it through careful research, and to add their voices if they feel so inclined. Furthermore, I sincerely believe that such support will not merely be effective in name or numbers, but will in fact transform the conversation around the Tibetan cause in thoughtful and productive ways, and vice-versa.

I wish all of you a great deal of luck and patience in your organizing for Tibet, as well as in your personal lives. My friend Noah cares about many issues and struggles, but it was our friendship, which crossed various movements and categories we each belonged to, that helped bring this resolution into being. The people you care about and let care about you will open new spaces of working together for many important issues, of which Tibet is one.

Link to Press Release: http://bit.ly/whwtPf
The City of Berkeley resolution can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/zBLK9U

Tenzin Mingyur Paldron is a filmmaker and PhD student in the Department of Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley.

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Kalon Tripa Calls for More Concrete Actions from Int’l Community on Tibet

2012-02-09T15:59:05.617Z

Source: Tibet.net

DHARAMSHALA: Expressing grave concern over the well-being of Tibetans in Tibet in view of the Chinese military build-up in Tibet, Kalon Tripa has called for more substantive support from the world community to end the Chinese government’s repression in Tibet.

“Hundreds of convoys carrying Chinese military personnel with automatic machine guns are moving towards Tibet. We fear many Tibetans might face unfortunate experiences,” Kalon Tripa Dr Lobsang Sangay told hundreds of Tibetans and supporters gathered at a solidarity vigil in Dharamsala today.

“We really feel the Chinese government is preparing for something really tragic. Hence it is critical that the international community must intervene now to show support for Tibet and Tibetan people,” Dr Sangay said.

“The Tibetans in Tibet are giving up their lives because the occupation of Tibet and repressive policies of the Chinese government is unacceptable,” Kalon Tripa said.

“We really appreciate statements issued by different countries like the US and European countries. But we would like seek some more concrete actions to send delegates to Tibet to investigate the reality and the military build-up in Tibet, deaths and torture of Tibetans, and the reasons why there is repression, why Tibetans are self-immolating,” Kalon Tripa added.

He urged the US to pass the Senate resolution to show support to the Tibetan people.

Kalon Tripa urged the international media, including those working in China, to make more efforts to go to Tibet and objectively report why the Tibetans are self-immolating. “If the world media cannot go to Tibet, we never know what else is happening inside Tibetan areas, and how many more Tibetans are being killed and dying,” he added.

Kalon Tripa said the Chinese government’s response towards the Chinese people’s protest in Wukang in Guangdong province show the discrimination against the Tibetan people. He said Guangdong governor fired local communist party officials, gave powers to the protesting groups and addressed their grievances. “Whereas in Tibet, several hundred Tibetans gathered in Dragko area, but the Chinese police indiscriminately shot Tibetans and killed them. So, the world is watching that there is a blatant discrimination towards Tibetans because Chinese can protest, their grievances addressed, whereas Tibetans cannot protest,” Kalon Tripa said.

“If the Chinese government thinks the Tibet issue cannot solved through violence, force and intimidation, then it’s not going to happen because the Tibetan spirit is strong. The Tibetan spirit would remain strong until freedom is restored in Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai Lama return to Tibet,” Kalon Tripa said.

“As we gathered in Dharamsala today, we can say with pride that we are joined by many others around the world from the US, Canada, France, England, eastern European countries, South Africa, South America and Asia with hundreds and thousands of Tibetans to show solidarity with Tibetans inside Tibet and to pray for those who have sacrificed their lives,” Kalon Tripa said.

“We will not let your voices go unheard, we will not let sacrifices go unattended,” Kalon Tripa told Tibetans living in Tibet.

Thousands of Tibetan and supporters took part in a prayer service at the Tsuglagkhang, the main temple, to show solidarity with the Tibetans in Tibet.

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Solidarity and Losar Celebration

2012-02-03T15:03:08.087Z

By Denzi Yishey

Prior to the Kalon Tripa’s January 26, 2012 statement requesting Tibetans not to celebrate Losar (Tibetan New Year) which falls on February 22 this year, there were some debates on how, what, and why of Losar celebration. The request to not celebrate Losar first came from the Tibetan Youth Congress, Dharamsala, India on November 14, 2011.

Following Kalon Tripa’s above statement, Speaker Penpa Tsering la supported the official position of Kashag (Tibetan cabinet) by convening a press conference on Jan 29, 2012 to announce fasting on the first day of Losar by members of the Tibetan parliament in exile. Though Kalon Tripa urged to observe basic customary rituals on Losar, it now seems the 2012 Losar celebration is officially discouraged.

The decision to not celebrate Losar by the Tibetan government and non-government organization was primarily to show solidarity towards the sufferings endured by Tibetans in Tibet. The idea of solidarity is nothing new for Tibetans. It is an age-old practice where every Tibetan family mourns the loss of its member (or high lamas) in solidarity of the deceased for at least seven weeks. During these seven weeks, these family members shun any form of overt celebration such as singing, rhyming, dancing, wearing new clothes and jewelries, and refraining from other celebrations such as Losar, friend’s wedding, community gatherings, etc. This solidarity can be seen not merely as a practice but also in spirit. As time changes, the very heart and spirit of solidarity seems changing too.

Before discussing the changing heart and spirit of Tibetan solidarity, lets take a quick look at how the word “solidarity” is defined in the present globalized world. According to the Dictionary.com, it is defined as a unity of interests, sympathies, etc., as among members of the same class. However, according to Collins Dictionary of Sociology, it seems the basis of solidarity varies between societies. In simple societies, it may be mainly based around kinship and shared values. In more complex societies, there are various theories as to what contributes to a sense of social solidarity. The later definition makes you wonder whether the Tibetan definition of solidarity is changing or changed with a gradual shift in the Tibetan society from simple to complex?

The answer to the above question may be “Yes” as well as “No”. It is indeed true that Tibetans now do not live in a small neighborhood or town as they did few decades ago. Tibetans, especially in diaspora, are now frequently migrating to mega cities where the life and work is more complex. For instance, the thought of even attending a Tibetan social gathering may have to align with job, family, and school schedules. Many Tibetans now live in a globalized complex society. In this scenario, the Tibetan solidarity may have changed with the changing complexity of its society. However, it may not be as simple and conclusive as it seems to be. Lets take a look from an opposite angle at this new and complex Tibetan society by taking Tibetan immigrant in the US as a case in point.

With the official statement of Kalon Tripa, there seems to be unanimous consent among the general Tibetans to not celebrate upcoming Losar and to show solidarity towards the sufferings of Tibetans in Tibet. However, the solidarity in this case is defined in a narrow and limited sense. To make it clear, the solidarity is confined only to Losar celebration. It is deemed okay to celebrate X-mas, New Year, and other social gatherings including dance parties and concerts. In the coming few weeks, there will be more such celebrations across Tibetan immigrant communities in the United States. However, there will be nothing as such during Losar. How in the world is this solidarity in unison? What really is solidarity for Tibetans? Is solidarity in Tibetan definition only confined to Losar? Where are Tibetans shared values and interests? Or are Tibetans truly more of a globalized citizen and less of a Tibetan now?

At the end, it may not be wrong to conclude, “Tibetan solidarity is very much alive in practice but lost in spirit”.

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Statement by Kalon Tripa on the recent killings of Tibetans by the PRC government

2012-01-28T23:15:37.055Z

Source: Tibet.net
January 25, 2012

As Chinese everywhere were celebrating the first couple of days of the Year of Dragon on January 23rd and 24th, 2012. Chinese police fired indiscriminately on hundreds of Tibetans who had gathered peacefully to claim their basic rights in Drakgo, Serthar, Ngaba, Gyarong, and other neighboring Tibetan areas. Six Tibetans were reportedly killed and around sixty injured, some critically.

Because of gruesome acts such as these and the systematic repression of Tibetans, the resentment and anger amongst Tibetans against Chinese government has only grown since the massive uprising of 2008.

Ever since the invasion of Tibet, the Chinese government has claimed that it seeks to create a socialist paradise. However, basic human rights are being denied to Tibetans, the fragile environment is being destroyed, Tibetan language and culture is being assimilated, portraits of His Holiness the Dalai Lama are banned, and Tibetans are being economically marginalized. Tibet is in virtual lockdown. Foreigners have been barred from travelling to Tibet now and the entire region is essentially under undeclared martial law.

I urge the Chinese leadership to heed the cries of the Tibetan protestors and those who have committed self-immolation. You will never address the genuine grievances of Tibetans and restore stability in Tibet through violence and killing. The only way to resolve the Tibet issue and bring about lasting peace is by respecting the rights of the Tibetan people and through dialogue. As someone deeply committed to peaceful dialogue, the use of violence against Tibetans is unacceptable and must be strongly condemned by all people in China and around the world.

I call on the international community to show solidarity and to raise your voices in support of the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people at this critical time. I request that the international community and the United Nations send a fact-finding delegation to Tibet and that the world media be given access to the region as well. The leaders in Beijing must know that killing its own “family members” is in clear violation of international and Chinese laws, and such actions will cast further doubts on China’s moral legitimacy and their standing in world affairs.

I want to tell my dear brothers and sisters inside Tibet that we hear your cries loud and clear. We urge you not to despair and refrain from extreme measures. We feel your pain and will not allow the sacrifices you have made go in vain. You all are in our heart and prayers each and every day.

To my fellow Tibetans, I request you not to celebrate Losar (Tibetan New Year), which falls on February 22 this year. However, please observe the basic customary religious rituals such as burning incense, going to temple and making traditional offerings.

To demonstrate our solidarity with Tibetans in Tibet, I urge Tibetans and our friends around the world, to participate in a worldwide vigil on Wednesday, February 8, 2012.

Let’s send a loud and clear message to the Chinese government that violence and killing of innocent Tibetans is unacceptable! I request everyone to conduct these vigils peacefully, in accordance with the laws of your country, and with dignity.

YouTube Video

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Evidence of overt Chinese discrimination against Tibetans in the job market

2012-02-02T18:51:01.932Z

31 January, 2012
International Campaign for Tibet

• Online listings show rampant use of “limited to Han” in want ads.
• At least one state entity – the People’s Liberation Army – appears engaged in hiring bias against Tibetans.
• Photos show Tibetans not desired or given lower pay in hiring.

New translations of job advertisements in Tibet, both online and as notices posted in public spaces, confirm overt discrimination against Tibetans. The ads also reveal that Tibetans are not even being offered menial, unskilled work in some sectors, or if they are, they are in some instances being offered a wage significantly lower than their Han counterparts.

The practice of advertising positions “limited to Han” is also observed in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region – referred to by its historical name of East Turkistan by many Uyghurs in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and in exile – although based on a basic survey of online employment agencies by ICT, the practice appears to be more common in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), and in Lhasa in particular.

In almost all of the ads the stipulation “limited to Han” (Ch: xian Hanzu) – or simply “Han” (Ch: Hanzu) – is placed among other requirements and qualifications for the job in question, such as age, experience or holding a driver’s license.

Photo taken in Lhasa advertising a job paying 30 yuan for a Tibetan worker or 50 yuan for a Chinese worker.

Employers making such stipulations include the Chinese People’s Liberation Army: The Snow Lotus Hotel, a guest house in Lhasa apparently owned and operated by the Tibet Military District Logistics Bureau, is currently advertising for several restaurant servers and kitchen porters “limited to Han” (see here and here). This particular ad appears to be evidence of discrimination directly practiced by a governmental entity.

In at least one instance, Tibetan laborers were offered a significantly lower rate than their Han counterparts. A blackboard seen in an undated photograph outside the Hongqiao Employment Agency in central Lhasa clearly states Han laborers will be paid 50 yuan (US $8) per day while Tibetans will only be paid 30 yuan (US $4.75) per day (see here).

Dozens of help wanted ads can be returned on just one of the largest job-search sites in the TAR, www.0891zp.com, by searching the site with the characters for “limited to Han” (Ch: xian Hanzu). The search term not only retrieves numerous examples of job ads that include that particular phrase, but also many more that state “Not limited to male or female, Han” (Ch: nannu buxian, Hanzu). (See here, here, here and here.)

The ads contravene key principles enshrined in the Constitution of the PRC, including Article 4 which states: “All nationalities in the People's Republic of China are equal.” China’s own National Human Rights Action Plan, an official document submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Commission that outlines the state’s adherence to human rights norms, states that “In China, all ethnic groups are equal, and the state protects the lawful rights and interest of ethnic minorities.” (See “National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2009-2010)”, undated.)

The ads also present a significant challenge to China’s efforts to meet its obligations under the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which stipulates in Article 5.e.i that states party to the convention must guarantee that all races and ethnic groups enjoy, without distinction or discrimination, “the rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favorable remuneration.”(See: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination)

“These job ads in today’s China bring back disturbing memories of the United States prior to the civil rights movement or South Africa prior to the anti-apartheid movement. The international community – and the citizens of the People’s Republic of China – should hold the government accountable to its legal commitments to combat discrimination, and engage Chinese authorities on steps to combat circumstances that allow racial bias to play out in Tibet,” said Mary Beth Markey, ICT President.

Beijing’s development plans for Tibet have been criticized as primarily benefiting extractive industries and interests in China, with negligible returns for local Tibetan communities. Moreover, economic development in the TAR, for example, is subsidized at a rate of 90% – which has driven double-digit GDP growth for well over a decade but is attracting increasing numbers of settlers and migrant workers from the Chinese mainland. The local Tibetan population is already at a disadvantage in the job market due to factors including language ability, connections in the Chinese-run economy, and a lack of familiarity with Chinese work practices. (For an in-depth presentation and analysis of China’s development plans in Tibet, see ICT’s report “Tracking the Steel Dragon,” February 2008, (also available as a free PDF download).

The practice of limiting recruitment to Chinese job applicants can be seen in other areas of the PRC which, like the TAR, are designated “nationality autonomous” in recognition of the fact that the populations of these areas are or were prevalently non-Han. In East Turkistan for example, an advertisement appeared on the Jimusa’er County government website seeking several Han health workers (see here) – according to the 2002 census, around 30% of the county’s population was non-Han, while Hotan City Tobacco Monopoly Bureau, also in East Turkistan, was hiring 10 people, and stipulated that eight should be Han and only two should be Uyghurs (see here) – Han make up less than 4% of Hotan Prefecture’s population according to official statistics, while Uyghurs make up almost 93% (See “Introduction to Hotan” (in Chinese) on the Hotan City Government website. A hotel in Ordos in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region advertised for almost 160 people in various positions, and stipulated for each of the positions that the applicants should be Han (see here). In a job advertisement for truck drivers seen on an job-search site in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, the text reads “To make life easier (Ch: weile shenghuo fangbian), limited to Han” (see here).

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Messages from the Tibetan self-immolations

2012-01-25T22:42:52.413Z

By Bhuchung K. Tsering (International Campaign for Tibet, January 24, 2012)

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.

First, this is yet another harsh, but nonetheless clear, indication that the new generation of Tibetans are leading the campaign in Tibet. All of the individuals who committed self-immolation have been born after 1964, and so have been nurtured under the Chinese Communist society. These are individuals who have not seen old Tibet their only experience is life under the current regime. Therefore, it is a clear signal to the authorities of the failure of their policies.

Secondly, the developments are indications of the emergence of a new reality in Tibetan society. They could be taken as indicators of the radicalization of the Tibetan movement. With access to information about happenings in the Chinese society, even though they may not be aware of many international developments, Tibetans are increasingly becoming aware of the discriminatory policies of the Chinese authorities.

Thirdly, the developments indicate that the Chinese authorities are victims of their own propaganda on Tibet that has led them to formulate misguided policies relating to Tibetans. On this, some of the Tibetan officials, both at the central level in Beijing as well as in the Tibetan areas, may have a hand as they may have been in providing misleading reports to the powers that be.

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.”

Republished with permission. Originally published at: http://weblog.savetibet.org/2012/01/24/messages-from-the-tibetan-self-immolations/

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

US Congressional Commission Hears Testimony on Tibet’s Water and Environment

2012-01-28T21:44:08.082Z

DHARAMSHALA: The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressional commission of the United States government, will hear Thursday (26 January) a written testimony on Water Security and Environmental Management on the Tibetan Plateau submitted by the Central Tibetan Administration. The testimony, prepared by the CTA’s Environment and Development Desk, raises pressing issues such as climate change in Tibet and impacts in Asia, damming of Tibetan rivers, Tibetan plateau and the Asian monsoon pattern, grassland management and nomad resettlement among others.

“The Tibetan Plateau is the land bridge connecting South Asia with East Asia. The very survival of almost 1.3 billion people depends on the water resources originating from the Tibetan Plateau. The impact on Tibet’s landscape and its natural resources due to climate warming and human intervention will threaten not only the future food security of many nations but also their development,” the testimony noted.

Seeking support from the US government to address the problems of warming on the Tibetan Plateau, the CTA submitted a set of recommendations to the commission.

“The US government, in collaboration with private and academic institutions, should partner with Chinese and international scientific institutions to monitor glacial retreat, temperature rise and carbon levels on the Tibetan Plateau, with a goal of creating better models to understand warming trends and the resultant impacts on permafrost, river flows, grasslands and desertification, and the monsoon cycle,” the testimony noted.

“The US should engage with the Chinese government and NGOs to encourage a systematic re-thinking of policies related to grassland management and nomad resettlement. Changes in the ecosystem of the Tibetan Plateau will require sound mitigation policies and on-the-ground stewardship, which must include the integral participation of Tibetan stakeholders, primarily the nomads and their indigenous experience in managing this land for centuries.

“The US should promote creation of a regional framework on water security. Such a structure would facilitate cooperative agreements among all riparian neighbors that would promote transparency, sharing of information, pollution regulation, and arrangements on impounding and diversion of river water. The US, which is already involved in a similar role with the Lower Mekong Initiative, could cite this initiative as a model or a starting point for further regional cooperation,” it noted.

Created through a congressional mandate in October 2000, the United States-China Economic and Secutiry Review Commission is responsible for monitoring and investigating national security and trade issues between the United States and People’s Republic of China. The Commission holds regular hearings and roundtables, produces an annual report on its findings, and provides recommendations to Congress on legislative actions related to China.

******************

Originally published at: http://tibet.net/2012/01/27/us-congressional-commission-hears-testimony-on-tibes-water-and-environment/

Transcript of full testimony available at: http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2012hearings/written_testimonies/hr12_01_26.php

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Beacons of resistance, not desperate acts

2012-01-28T21:10:22.961Z

By Christophe Besuchet

The Rangzen Alliance

I do not know if you are like me, but I find it extremely distressing to see how commonly the adjective “desperate” has been used by the media and Tibetans in exile to describe the self-immolation protests that have taken place in Tibet since 2009 — seventeen cases so far as I write this. Phrases such as “truly desperate acts” or “desperate self-immolation” have become part of the usual vocabulary and are repeated automatically, as if writers, government officials and politicians do not find it necessary to analyze for themselves the wider ambitions behind these actions. Etymologically, the word desperation comes from the Latin desperatus, or “deprived of hopes”, and carries a sense of misery and dejection when it is applied to protest actions. Self-immolation by women and girls in Afghanistan (103 cases reported between March 2009 and March 2010) can probably be referred to as “desperate acts” as those who carry them out prefer to die rather than to live under constant domestic violence and abuse. When questioned about their motives, Afghan women who survived their suicide attempts usually replied that they felt as if they had “no way out”. One of them, when asked whether she had a message for other women, even replied: “Don’t burn yourself. If you want a way out, use a gun: it’s less painful.”

Tibetan self-immolations are entirely different. First, all available evidence indicates that they are motivated by a greater cause, not by depression, social pressure or financial burdens. As Sopa Tulku, a revered high-ranking lama who immolated himself in Golok Darlak on 8 January this year, is reported to have written: “I am not self-immolating for my personal interests or problems, but for the six million Tibetans who have no freedom and for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet.” Secondly, if Tibetans are deprived of their freedom, they are not deprived of hope. Starting with Thupten Ngodup, the first Tibetan known to have set himself on fire in April 1998 in New Delhi, those instances of self-immolation about which we have any background information can be said to have been carried out by happy and healthy people, who have no reason to die apart from offering their lives to the struggle against China’s occupation of Tibet. Sopa Tulku, again, was very clear in his political testament about not being desperate: “Tibetans should not loose hope in the future, a day of happiness will surely dawn”. This sense of optimism extends even to relatives; the mother of the 22-year-old Lobsang Jamyang, who immolated himself on 14 January, declared that her family “has no regret for his death” as he had “sacrificed his life for the Tibetan cause.”

The hopes derived from such fearless protests have also had a strong impact on those who are resisting China’s oppression in occupied Tibet. Ngawang Choephel, an ethnomusicologist and filmmaker who spent six years in a Chinese jail on fabricated spying charges, noted recently: “In 1997 [sic], when I was in prison, I heard news of Thupten Ngodup’s self-immolation in India. (…) I was encouraged and energized, like all other political prisoners in Tibet because we felt that something would happen for Tibet.” He further added: “I am sure that most of the Tibetans in Tibet who heard about Thupten Ngodup’s historic sacrifice must have been inspired and moved.”

There is definitely no sense of despair that we know of in any of these acts of protest. Nor any hopelessness. As far as we can tell, these self-immolations are, like every single act of resistance in Tibet, a striking example of confident resiliency, of high hopes and of unflinching determination. These sacrifices carry the dream and the moral strength of an entire nation and cannot be, carelessly or sarcastically, reduced to some tragic but useless individual acts.

This abuse of the word “desperate”, unintentional as it may be for many, is damaging to these valiant actions and this must be pointed out. It is firstly injurious to the person’s memory: it shows a troubling lack of respect for his or her motives, determination and aspirations. By emphasizing some unsubstantiated anguish and despair, a heroic act will be remembered merely as a means of escape or, worse, as a sign of weakness and cowardice. In the collective psyche, this could have detrimental consequences. The Chinese regime understands very well the need to demean the memory of those who have committed self-immolation and was, for example, quick to accuse, albeit without success, Sopa Tulku of suicide because of a secret love affair. But it is also harmful to the promise these self-immolations can represent for a renewed struggle against China’s occupation: by branding them desperate and viewing them as hopeless protests, we risk nipping in the bud any hope of a potential revolution. And here we are touching a much more sensitive issue, at least as far as the Tibetan leadership in Dharamshala is concerned.

When committing self-immolation, these people certainly had several objectives in mind. They probably did not think of just carrying out a one-shot dramatic action, but considered their sacrifices as sparks that would set off a larger resistance movement. It is usually explained that their aim was just to draw the world’s attention to Chinese repression in Tibet, but this is not entirely true. Many Tibetans, in Tibet and in exile, have indeed become disheartened about meaningful political engagement on their behalf by foreign countries. Besides, not a single reference was made by the self-immolators to the United Nations or to any foreign government in their messages. The wider goal of these self-immolations, probably not consciously planned but definitely anticipated, was to serve as a wake-up call for Tibetans to unite and stand up against the Chinese occupation. There is little doubt about this. These acts of defiance have indeed inspired courage in those with the will to resist, and their authors must have carefully considered the obvious eventuality of such a chain reaction. The pro-independence protests that broke out in the Golok region following Sopa Tulku’s self-immolation, or in Ngaba county following that of Lobsang Jamyang, clearly demonstrate how theses actions acted as catalysts — even if the second protest seems to have been triggered by the inhumane beating of Lobsang Jamyang, still in flames, by the police forces.

It would be very surprising if Tibetans who set themselves on fire, especially nuns and monks trained in the field of causality, were not conscious of the fact that their actions can have tremendous consequences and can capture the discontent and frustration of their compatriots. They may (or may not) have heard of Mohamed Bouazizi, the man whose self-immolation sparked last year’s Tunisian revolution and inspired the wider Arab Spring, but they definitely realize the immense potential of unrest triggered by their actions. Looking at the disproportionate number of Chinese paramilitary troops, police forces and SWAT teams deployed in the restive areas in Tibet, it leaves no room for doubt that Beijing realizes the explosive nature of these protests and is taking the threats posed by them very seriously. Why, then, does Dharamshala not take advantage of the situation?

The Tibetan Government-in-Exile, obstinate and a prisoner of its own Middle Way Approach, has actually every reason to minimize the scope of these self-immolations. First, these confrontational actions go against the official policy of appeasement which, high-ranking officials are convinced, is the only key to resolving the conflict. But more importantly, demands for independence by some of the self-immolators, and references to Tibet as a “nation” (rgyal-khab) by others, clearly show the meager support for “genuine autonomy”.

It should come therefore as no surprise that the Prime Minister Lobsang Sangay refers to these acts of self-immolation in The Washington Post as “desperate acts” or declares in a recent interview that “monks are self-immolating out of helplessness”. Nor should it comes as a surprise when, reading the names of all those who set themselves on fire in Tibet, the same prime minister, in front of nearly 200,000 Tibetans who had gathered in Bodh Gaya for the Kalachakra teachings, somehow omitted the name of 20-year-old Tapey, the first person who committed self-immolation in Tibet in February 2009.

But despite Dharamshala’s reluctance to acknowledge the true ambitions of self-immolators and the foreign media’s refusal to portray the Tibetan struggle for what it is, something urgently needs to be undertaken to ensure that these actions do not happen indefinitely. Putting an end to self-immolations — and making certain they serve a real purpose — will, however, not be achieved simply by lifting the sieges of monasteries and withdrawing paramilitary forces from restive areas. Tanks and machine guns are merely a visible symptom of China’s ruthless domination. No matter how much relief Chinese “restraint” (the word used by the US Government’s Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues) would provide to local residents, it would represent no more than a short-term fix. One day or another, protests will break out again, most probably on a more radical scale and involving greater casualties.

Renewed resistance, on the other hand, organized and more confrontational, would most probably drive dedicated people inside Tibet to undertake actions that do not forcibly involve setting oneself on fire. Since 2008, Tibetans in Tibet have clearly demonstrated their determination and courage. The resistance movement against China’s occupation has been continuously growing in that four-year span and has reached a stage unknown since the 1950s. Intellectuals and artists who had previously avoided taking a stand are now firmly on board, calls for independence and the use of the Tibetan national flag have become more frequent than ever, and acts of non-cooperation, embodied in the very inspiringLhakar movement, are increasingly carried out throughout Tibet. All over the country a new sense of national identity is growing, new forms of resistance are being invented; all over the country discontent is boiling. Such a conjuncture occurs only rarely.

In such circumstances, it is not hard to imagine that an official appeal by Dharamshala to unite and engage in major non-violent actions would have a tremendous effect in Tibet. Calling for a country-wide non-cooperation movement, for example, would undoubtedly be hailed and, as much as conditions allow, embraced by the majority of Tibetans living under Chinese domination. Such a step would also, it is worth noting, confer solid legitimacy on the new leadership in exile whose election was enthusiastically followed in Tibet and in whom Tibetans in Tibet have still high hopes. However, once again I have to express my doubts about the Tibetan Government-in-Exile’s willingness to lead the struggle. The Middle Way Approach is not only a claim for autonomy, it has also proven to be a call for non-action and surrender, and it has never served to provide direction to Tibetans in Tibet (apart, maybe, from advocating collaboration with the Chinese occupiers). Based on the prime minister’s statements and on his fear of ruthless sanctions from China, Dharamshala will definitely not encourage political protests in Tibet anytime soon.

But I am convinced of one thing: without taking Tibetan resistance to a new level, there is little chance that self-immolations and similar extreme actions will stop. Going back to the prior status quo is not an option and Tibetans are now approaching a point where there is no turning back. The “Tsampa Revolution”, as coined by Jigme Ugen, is on the move. To quote lyrics by the British singer Peter Gabriel, written after the death of Steven Biko in a South African jail: “You can blow out a candle, but you cannot blow out a fire; once the flames begin to catch, the wind will blow it higher.”

These self-immolators are true freedom fighters, who use the ultimate form of non-violent action — the most painful one — to free their country from oppression. The minimum we ought to do is to view their sacrifices for what they are, not for what our myopic approach wishes them to be. These men and women are not desperate victims of China’s totalitarianism. They are not people who gave in to Chinese might because they were “deprived of hope”. They are sacrificing themselves for the benefit of their countrymen and women, and for the restoration of a nation’s pride, because they know their actions can make a difference. Because they are carrying the hope that Tibet will be free some day. They are the beacons of a renewed struggle against China’s tyranny and an inspiration for millions of Tibetans to unite and fight for their independence. May the sacrifices of these Tibetan self-immolators mark the beginning of Communist China’s downfall.

*****************

The author is an art director and a long-time activist in Tibet's independence movement. He is the former publisher of Lungta magazine, cofounder of the Swiss TSG, and the author of several maps of Tibet and Lhasa. From 1994 to 1999, he served as graphic designer for the Amnye Machen Institute in Dharamshala, India. He is currently the Vice President of the Rangzen Alliance in Switzerland.

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Kalon Tripa: Only Democracy Can Resolve Issue of Tibet

2012-01-20T20:34:34.386Z

From Tibet.net, the official website of the Central Tibetan Administration:

SONEPAT, Haryana: “Only democracy can resolve the issue of Tibet” said Kalon Tripa Dr Lobsang Sangay at ‘Democracy in Exile: The case of Tibet’, a public lecture organised by the Jindal School of International Affairs on Thursday in Sonepat.

The Jindal School of International Affairs

Speaking to a packed hall of staff and students, Kalon Tripa maintained that the Central Tibetan Administration’s middle way approach which seeks for a genuine autonomy for Tibet is a mutually beneficial solution to the China-Tibet issue.

He also said that if China allowed more religious and cultural freedom as well as democratic governance in Tibet, it could resolve the issue of Tibet.

Kalon Tripa praised India’s own democratic traditions and said the Central Tibetan Administration, based in Dharamsala, had been inspired to follow the same traditions.

He said, we Tibetans, have learnt many essential traits from India’s great democracy and are implementing them in exile especially the commitment to resolve social issues through dialogue and the flourish of a ethical and vibrant media.

Kalon Tripa Dr Lobsang Sangay’s hunble exposition of democratic polity in exile and the non-violent struggle for a homeland has inspired many and left an indelible impact at the institution, the University said.

Originally published at: http://tibet.net/2012/01/13/kalon-tripa-dr-lobsang-sangay-says-only-democracy-can-resolve-the-issue-of-tibet/

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Why Didn’t Kalon Tripa Read Out Tapey’s Name?

2012-01-20T20:42:10.323Z

By Woser
January 15, 2012
Translated by High Peaks Pure Earth, republished in TPR with permission

On January 4, at the end of the fourth day of the Kalachakra teachings, the newly elected Tibetan Prime Minister, Kalon Tripa, gave a speech. I would like to thank him for talking about the tragic cases of self-immolation that have occurred inside Tibet, I would like to thank him for reading out all the names and ages of those who have died from or been injured by self-immolation. The sorrowful expression on the face of His Holiness the Dalai Lama made everyone feel very moved and emotional. But on this relatively important occasion, Kalon Tripa failed to mention the first case of self-immolation that happened inside Tibet in 2009; his list of names was missing the first person - Tapey.

With regards to this, I want to ask Kalon Tripa, why did he fail to do so?

Is it because Kalon Tripa did not know of this person? Last year at the end of November he was visiting Europe, giving accounts of the situation in Tibet and when he presented the number of self-immolations in Tibet, he missed out that one. At the time, I reminded people on my blog and on Facebook that the first case of self-immolation happened on February 27, 2009 and that the affected person was the 20-year-old Tapey from Kirti Monastery in Ngaba Prefecture, Amdo. Please do not ignore his sacrifice. When he was in flames, he was shot and crippled by the Party’s military police forces, to the present day no one knows of his whereabouts, no one knows whether he is still alive; please do not forget Tapey!

At the time, a fellow Tibetan from outside Tibet told me via the internet that he had already passed on my point to Kalon Tripa who then indicated that he did already know, which comforted me, making me believe that our Kalon Tripa would amend his wording; after all, he had said himself that the Tibetans self-immolating “are not just numbers” but that each and every one represents human life. However, what disappointed people was that Kalon Tripa, despite being aware of his previous mistake, on this recent important Buddhist gathering, when reading out the names of the people involved in self-immolation, only read out those that had happened in 2011. This was a clever move because in this way, he could still ignore Tapey’s name without having to be worried about being accused of shortcomings; indeed, with regards to the number of self-immolations in 2011, he did not present any wrong numbers. However, by doing so, isn’t he making an issue out of numbers? Isn’t he precisely turning our fellow Tibetans who died from or were injured by self-immolation into mere numbers?

What I want to ask is, why does Kalon Tripa insist on eliminating the first person who self-immolated from the list? Didn’t Tapey sacrifice his life for Tibet? Wasn’t Tapey the very first out of no fewer than 15 cases of self-immolations that had occurred inside Tibet by the beginning of 2012? Didn’t Tapey’s parents, fellow villagers and monks eagerly wait and wish for Kalon Tripa to read out Tapey’s name at the Kalachakra teachings hosted by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, to give him his deserved recognition, respect and prayers? For Kalon Tripa to read out Tapey’s name and age, it would only have been a matter of moving his lips up and down a few more times and his relatives in Tibet would in this way have seen the value of Tapey’s sacrifice and felt the deepest gratification. But why, why would our Kalon Tripa begrudge those few extra words and make the relatives and fellow villagers and monks feel that Tapey has been forgotten?

I am thinking that the only plausible reason for this is that Tapey’s case already lies three years behind and may no longer need to be mentioned. Yet, must time be a reason for removing memories and cancelling commemorations? If a hero who sacrificed himself at immense cost three years ago need not be mentioned, what about the many martyrs that over half a century ago sacrificed themselves for our people, can they all be regarded as having already vanished like smoke in thin air and thus need not be remembered?

Perhaps Kalon Tripa wants to use time as the marker to draw up statistics about the cases of self-immolation; does that mean that from now on, we only give out information like this: since the beginning of 2012 there have already been three cases of self-immolation in Tibet and there is no need to mention the 12 cases of 2011? Of course, wouldn’t there be even less need to mention those of 2009?

In view of this, if our Kalon Tripa still does not to talk about Tapey, well, I am sorry, I will continue to raise my voice until the facts have been restored.

At the same time, we also have to remember that among the Tibetans living outside Tibet, in 1998, the 60-year-old Thupten Ngodup sacrificed himself through self-immolation in Delhi, India; moreover, in November last year, in Kathmandu, Nepal and New Delhi, India, the monk Butuk and the layman Sherab Tsedor were injured through self-immolation.

January 7-9, 2012

Originally published at http://www.highpeakspureearth.com/2012/01/why-didnt-kalon-tripa-read-out-tapeys.html?spref=fb

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Except self-immolation, what else can be done?

2012-01-20T15:11:08.663Z

By Wang Lixiong*

Translated by Ogyen

(1)

I absolutely respect the Tibetan self-immolators. Whether they had clear visions, their intentions being achievable and realistic or not, their collective actions have inspired the courage of a nation.

Courage is a precious resource, especially for the one which is materially weaker, as it is courage that is usually the key to victory by the weak over the strong. Self-immolations need the maximum courage. The shocking heroic spirits of those sixteen Tibetans inside Tibet, along with Sopa Rinpoche from Amdo Golok setting himself on fire, bravery could be said to have already reached its apex. I think these have already proven their worth as far as encouraging a nation as a whole is concerned.

Now the question turns to, how such precious courage resources should be utilized? To burn courage with continuous self-immolations are, from now on, becoming wasted. Such inspirational courage of the martyrs should actually be utilized more productively and this only is what the pioneers hope for and the real value their sacrifices deserve.

(2)

The self-immolators being so daring to give up lives merely by setting themselves on fire are non-violent acts at their zenith. However, still not only self-immolation being a form of violence, but also a severe form, except the object of violence is self.

Inflicting violence to self, apart from being a protest out of desperation and defense of dignity and honor, also an act that expects for its effectiveness, as Gandhi said, “We can influence the government with the sufferings we endure”; or Martin Luther King said, “We shall challenge your capacity to create sufferings with our capacity to endure them…to deplete your hatred…awaken your conscience.”

However, the precondition for such expectations is the existence of conscience. An authoritarian regime is composed of rigid structures, ruthless logics and bureaucratic interests. Who saw the regime’s conscience when thousands of students once fasted unto death at Tiananmen Square?

This is the limit of non-violent struggle – decision is not taken by those who struggle, but by the government. The struggles are useful only in terms of pressurizing the government where there would not be progress if the government does not compromise, and thus, the current crisis in Tibet is inevitable.

(3)

To take which direction in order to get Tibet out of this crisis should, I think, be the foremost question to be answered. It is blind without direction. Even the heroic sacrifices make us feel that they have mostly occurred out of hopelessness. These sheer self-immolations, apart from being emotional turmoil, are direct acts of ignorance.

Calling the self-immolators brave but not wise is not fair. Wisdom is not a technique to be imprudently and barely alive but the far-sightedness that leads Tibet out of this crisis, which common people should not and cannot be responsible for. On the other hand, considering politically retired Dalai Lama as the only source of wisdom is irresponsible. The Dalai Lama has already defined non-violence and middle-way approach and now it is the politicians who should be responsible for finding the wisdom to materialize it.

Such wisdom is yet to be seen. China holds cash with one hand and dagger with another; and Tibet – suppose represented by the exile government, except being seen issuing statements, does not know what to do.

Please inform the brave Tibetans what they can do. Knowing what they should and can do will help them live, not exchange their tragic self-immolations for merely a short media report.

(4)

The Dalai Lama has set genuine autonomy for Tibet as the goal, which if being demanded outright from the start, will materialize only in case the Chinese government shows mercy. This, as clearly proven by all the efforts done in the past, is merely an illusion.

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?

Genuine autonomy should be built upward from the base, layer by layer, and gradually expands into national regional autonomy. A starting point of autonomy at the base will definitely lead to national regional autonomy in the future.

Village autonomy succeeds with participation by the common people who being active themselves, do not need to passively wait for the gradual and fruitless negotiations by the leaders; do not need to protest under the gunpoint and even resort to self-immolations to put pressure on the leaders.

(5)

According to me, getting Tibet out of this crisis should start from village autonomy.

Although village autonomy is not so relevant with ethnic issues but with issues of human rights, mining, environment, religion etc that will help avoid ethnic conflicts and intertwine with the popular rights movements in China and become their components, thus, gain support from the general Chinese public.

Wukan village in Guangdong is the most recent example. Once the villagers rose up, party secretary and chairman of the village had to flee. Each household sent a representative who then select amongst them to form a village council. This autonomous council besides managing the village in perfect order, also guaranteed rationale of the villagers and kept law and order of the village even with government suppression and police siege, thereby becoming what the Hongkong media praises as “the first organization elected by the villagers that has been approved by the government”.

Can Tibetan villagers succeed this? Tibetan villages too possess all the conditions Wukan does. If one Tibetan village succeeds, Tibet will already have a banner; with ten villages succeed, darkness of the night will be ignited with light of the dawn; with a hundred villages, genuine autonomy will rise from the horizon and embrace Tibet……

Thus said, I believe a very familiar question will definitely arise here – what Chinese people can do cannot be done by Tibetans, Tibetans will be labeled as separatists and thus face suppression……etc. We have been hearing such doubts too long, too much. This can be answered with one simple sentence: Being not even scared of self-immolating, what else are to be scared of?

The courage of a nation, here becomes a magical weapon to bring victory.

[To read this article in Chinese, please go to http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/01/blog-post_14.html]

* Editors' Note: Wang Lixiong is a writer in China who is married to the Tibetan blogger Woser.

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Remembering Tapey

2012-01-16T02:01:13.283Z

By Prof. Elliot Sperling (Indiana University)

In the last item I posted on the Rangzen Alliance site I referred to a recent piece by Woeser. Having drawn on her comments for that post I think I would be doing her something of an injustice if I did not also bring up a subject that she’s been intensely writing and blogging about for some time now: the exclusion of any mention of Tapey, time and again, when the names (or numbers) of Tibetans who have committed self-immolations inside Tibet are brought up by Lobsang Sangay or discussed in several stories on the subject appearing in the exile media.

Woeser has been writing with great urgency about the issue on Facebook, on Twitter, and on her blog. In many ways she has been single-handedly fighting to have people understand the larger significance of the self-immolations.

When one Chinese friend opined to her that “Tibetans who commit self-immolation are fairly lacking in sense… the authorities couldn’t care less about their cries [so] every life lost is to be deplored,” she immediately wrote “No one regrets the loss of life in self-immolation more than Tibetans,” but expressed strong resentment of the judgmental sense of superiority inherent in what she was being told. Her interlocutor was quick to add that “Woeser’s heart is gentle and merciful,” but Woeser insisted on sticking to the subject:

Whatever my heart is like, that’s not at issue… Your comments here are seemingly reasonable. What I resent is [the] feeling of some sort of superiority and infallibility… How can you know that Tibetans who commit self-immolation have no wisdom, no sense? [This is] something similar to what one gets from the authorities… I’ll thank you not to stand on some high stage and evaluate things without understanding the situation in Tibetan areas.

It is obvious to anyone following her writings that the studied refusal to name or count Tapey, whether by Lobsang Sangay or exile media organs has struck Woeser as wrong on the most basic level. This omission has surfaced in interviews with Lobsang Sangay on the Voice of Tibet and Radio Free Asia, and elsewhere, as in the most recent report on self-immolations carried on Phayul.

Most stunningly, reading the names of those inside Tibet who committed self-immolation Lobsang Sangay left Tapey unmentioned as he stood before the Dalai Lama at the Kalacakra Empowerment in Bodh Gaya, listing only those who had sacrificed themselves in 2011. This was difficult to take:

At this relatively important gathering, the Kalon Tripa again did not mention the first instance of self-immolation in 2009; the list he read did not include the first Tibetan inside Tibet to commit self-immolation: Tapey. I need to ask our Kalon Tripa: at bottom, what is this all about?

Is it that the Kalon Tripa doesn’t know? Last November, reporting on the situation inside Tibet during an official tour of Europe, he was short by one person in his figures for the number of Tibetans inside Tibet who committed self-immolation. At the time I called attention to this on my blog and on Facebook: The first incident of self-immolation inside Tibet took place on February 27, 2009; and the first Tibetan inside Tibet to commit self-immolation was the 20-year-old monk Tapey, from Kirti Monastery in Amdo Ngaba. Please! Don’t treat the sacrifice he made so neglectfully! When he committed self-immolation he was viciously shot by Communist soldiers and police. Up to now his whereabouts are unknown; whether he’s alive or dead is unknown. Please! Don’t forget Tapey!

Is the cleavage between Tibetans in exile and those inside Tibet partly to blame for the different perceptions of Tapey’s place in lists of those who have committed self-immolation ? Many exiles will certainly say there is no cleavage; their leadership may perhaps say so more adamantly. But the differences between exile society and that of communities inside Tibet have long been a subject of discussion and conversation on the part of Tibetans and non-Tibetans. New arrivals from Tibet have even voiced complaints about the way they tend to be regarded by more established exiles.

In this instance, just reading Woeser’s writings on the subject, one can’t help but sense how viscerally the cavalier exclusion of Tapey from the lists of those who have sacrificed themselves is felt by her and, no doubt, by many other Tibetans (a number of whom have made this clear on her Twitter page). For them there is no earthly reason for excluding Tapey—certainly not an insistence on a “start date” of March 2011, in order to be eligible for acknowledgement by the exile authorities. When Lobsang Sangay excluded Tapey from the list of those whose names were read before the Dalai Lama it seemed like more than negligence. Indeed, whatever the actual reason for the omission, it was felt as an insult. There are very urgent reasons for Woeser’s insistence on remembering Tapey whenever those who committed self-immolation are mentioned. It’s not simply that he was the first Tibetan inside Tibet to commit self-immolation, it’s what Woeser said about him, quoted above: “Up to now his whereabouts are unknown; whether he’s alive or dead is unknown. Please! Don’t forget Tapey!”

Woeser is not insisting on simple numerical accuracy. She is, in a sense, pleading for a life. Shot, wounded, carried away, whereabouts unknown… Woeser’s pleas for Tapey’s memory seem like nothing so much as a way of crying out “No, we do not—and will not—leave wounded comrades behind.” Is it because the sense of solidarity among Tibetans inside the PRC differs so drastically from that in exile society, where so many Tibetans now have no direct experience of Tibet, that Woeser’s sentiments seem to make no dent among exile authorities?

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Chinese propaganda and the Tibetan self-immolations

2012-01-14T23:07:43.979Z

By Bhuchung K. Tsering (International Campaign for Tibet, January 12, 2012)

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).

Republished with author's permission. Originally published at: http://weblog.savetibet.org/2012/01/12/chinese-propaganda-and-the-tibetan-self-immolations/

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Hu Jintao, Culture Warrior, and the Cultural Genocide in Tibet

2012-01-14T23:44:49.545Z

By Todd Stein (International Campaign for Tibet, January 11, 2012)

“China’s President Pushes Back Against Western Culture” is the title of a January 3 New York Times article by its excellent correspondent Ed Wong that has been making the rounds. The article’s focus, as the title suggests, is that Chinese President Hu Jintao claims the West is waging a culture war against China. He is quoted as saying, “We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration.”

The quote comes from an essay by President Hu printed in the party magazine Qiushi, derived from a speech he gave in October to coincide with the release of the Central Committee Decision on culture. My first reaction was to observe, with irony and anger, that the apparently intentional evisceration of Chinese culture, as claimed by Hu, is the very thing that Beijing has been doing to Tibetan culture for the last 60 years. So I found a translation of the article and read it, substituting “Tibetan culture” for “Chinese culture” and “Chinese Communist Party” for “Western forces” where applicable.

I had planned to write a blog with excerpted phrases with substitutions that captured the tragic hypocrisy. But by the time I got to the end, my direction had changed.

Hu’s essay demonstrates that leaders in Beijing define and interpret culture in a way that is disconnected from the way the rest of the world see it. Culture, in the sense we are talking about, can be understood as “a set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices that characterize an institution, organization, or group.” It is derived organically, the product of hundreds, thousands or millions of individual people interacting, sharing and creating, giving meaning, shape and a collective identity to their lives. By nature culture is an abstract concept.

According to Hu’s essay and the Decision, culture is a tool, a tangible instrument to be used by the Party in the pursuit of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Culture is something that can be manufactured, like an engine or a dam, operated by a controlling authority – an unsurprising notion given that Hu and many top leaders are engineers. As Hu writes, “we must scientifically determine the people’s basic cultural rights and interest, and diverse spiritual culture requirements, completely grasp the responsibilities and functions of government and market in cultural construction…”

Professor Stephen Walt critiques this view in Foreign Policy:

“What Hu doesn’t understand is that you can’t just order creativity up by fiat or by making a cheerleading speech. Nobody in Washington told Louis Armstrong to redefine the art of jazz solos, a government official didn’t order Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker to invent be-bop in order to increase America’s global influence, and the Beatles didn’t spend all those hours in the Cavern Club or in Hamburg because somebody at the BBC had been told to create a “British invasion.” Instead, these things happened because these various individuals were free to assimilate influences from all over, and to work on their art for essentially selfish reasons.”

Thus, China’s leaders portray Western culture (however one defines that) as a tool by “hostile foreign powers” to undermine China. As a response, the essay and the Decision compel the Party to“raising the international influence and competitiveness of Chinese culture, vigorously expand into international cultural markets, innovate methods for culture to march out, incessantly raise national cultural soft power.” To this end, the government announced on January 5 that it would launch a 24-hour television channel in New York to “propagate information about China overseas.”

The Asia Society’s Orville Schell offers a spot-on critique:

“China confuses propaganda and public relations with cultural power. I think it has the idea that if it only tries harder, and engages its PR and propaganda machine more forcefully, then everyone will see China’s glories and will appreciate China more. But of course that’s a very strange notion of what soft power and true cultural self confidence is. It’s not something you can create, it arises naturally out of society. I think that speaks of a lingering insecurity and uncertainty about just how substantial China really is.”

Hu’s essay also reveals a contradiction in the Party’s approach to culture. Throughout the essay, the word “culture” is always used in the singular, whether in reference to socialist culture or Chinese culture. Yet Beijing recognizes a diversity of cultures in the PRC. An official White Paper says that “the Tibetan people have created and developed their brilliant and distinctive culture.” While a good Marxist may be able to resolve this contradiction by noting that the Paper locates Tibetan culture within the “treasure-house of Chinese culture,” the problem of the singular culture cannot be easily or empirically dismissed. The bubbling unrest among the Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongolian, and now Huipopulations, demonstrate that the Party’s approach to culture is not contributing to the multi-national harmony it seeks.

In the coming weeks, the International Campaign for Tibet will release a report provisionally titled “The Case for Cultural Genocide in Tibet.” The lengthy report documents the claim that a cultural genocide is happening in Tibet. It argues that the Chinese state has abjectly failed in its responsibility to protect and preserve the distinct Tibetan culture, a role it selected for itself following the invasion and occupation in the 1950s. The report further argues that saving Tibet’s culture should be a matter of concern for the international community as a matter of policy and as part of the overall trend toward the development of a more comprehensive regime for combating genocide.

This brings me back to my original point. Is it possible for government leaders to assert upon themselves the role of protectors of a culture, when they have a fundamental misunderstanding of (if not hostility toward) the very nature of culture? How can a governmental entity, whose official statement on its self-asserted responsibility to manage culture omits the notion of a diversity of cultures within the realm, be accepted as a responsible steward for the various cultures under its control?

Is there any possibility that the methods used to study and explain the (alleged) threats to Chinese culture could be employed objectively to develop understandings of the threats to Tibetan culture within the PRC? Can Chinese scholars and citizens even find space to explore these questions free from ideological shackles? Moreover, would there be space for scholars and citizens from other cultures to contribute?

China analyst Damian Ma concludes that:

“[Hu’s ] ‘culture war’ is not truly meant to be waged against nefarious U.S. cultural encroachments. It is instead part of a battle to sustain the confidence of its own people — via nationalism, Confucian tenets, wealth, cultural renaissance, or whatever substitute that can be dreamed up — or risk the consequences. The war is, and has always been, about defining the soul of the modern Chinese nation.”

Ma’s analysis begs the question of whether Beijing has the capacity or willingness to truly understand who “its own people” and their cultures are, much less genuinely respond to their grievances. If Hu Jintao the culture warrior truly wants a “harmonious society” as his legacy, it would seem that he has some fundamental contradictions to resolve first.

Republished with author's permission. Originally published at: http://weblog.savetibet.org/2012/01/11/hu-jintao-culture-warrior-and-the-cultural-genocide-in-tibet/

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Kalon Tripa Discusses Hong Kong-style Autonomy for Tibet

2012-01-11T21:34:36.745Z

The following is an excerpt from Tibet Post International:

Quoting the Chinese constitution, the [Kalon Tripa] said, "according to Article 31 of the Chinese constitution, one can start an administration region. Hong Kong's basic law was drafted in accordance with that provision."

Constitutionally, there is provision to grant autonomy," he stated and said, "Despite that, when one raises a question about Tibet being granted genuine autonomy, the government is quick to respond stating the fact that Hong Kong already had a British commercial system and a rule of law so it was possible to grant them autonomy."

He also stated the fact that when Macau was granted autonomy it wasn't on the basis of pre-existing laws following which he questioned the race discrimination in the Chinese bureaucracy.

Making his point about there being no constitutional or institutional problem for China in granting autonomy to Tibet, he asked why Tibet wasn't granted autonomy when Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan were granted the same.

"They are essentially telling the Tibetans that they cannot get autonomy because they aren't Chinese. There is no other reason for the Chinese to grant autonomy to Tibetans," he stated.

Full article available at Tibet Post International (January 6, 2012).

See also "Dim Sum Surprise: Why the Hong Kong Model Won't Save Tibet", by the editorial board of The Tibetan Political Review (December 31, 2011).

Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: