Torture Rampant at Chushur

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/torture-12212012151636.html

Tibetans jailed for political offenses suffer abuse at a Chinese prison near Lhasa.
Tibetan political prisoners held at a facility outside the regional capital Lhasa are routinely subjected to torture and other forms of abuse, often leading to physical harm from which they do not recover, a recently released prisoner said.

Harsh treatment is common at the Chushur Prison, located about 48 kilometers (30 miles) southwest of Lhasa, the man told RFA’s Tibetan Service, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“We were tortured every day in the jail,” the man said. “We were sometimes hung from the ceilings, with our hands and legs tied together.”

“They never fed us regularly. But when they did, they mixed sand in our tsampa [roasted barley flour], which induced thirst, and many of us were forced to drink our own urine.”

“Many of us were chained and tortured in the bathrooms,” he added.
Ruined health

Almost all Tibetan prisoners confined at Chushur suffer from impaired vision and other injuries due to torture and beatings, said the man, who was recently released after being taken into custody in late 2009 for taking part in political protests.

“The condition of my own health is not good,” he said.

“My hands are damaged, and both my eyes were badly affected by my long imprisonment in Chushur and the prolonged torture that I endured.”

Chinese interrogators at Chushur repeatedly ask prisoners about what authorities believe to be sources of outside influence on protests in Tibet, the man said.

“They wanted to know who had ‘instigated’ us to protest against the Chinese government.”

“They told us that [Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader] the Dalai Lama would not help us when we needed him, and that it was the [ruling] Chinese Communist Party that could really help us.”

Asked why they had protested, prisoners at Chushur uniformly replied that they had no freedom to practice their religion or to express their views and thoughts, he said.

Torture ‘endemic’

Though China is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, “torture remains endemic in Chinese prisons,” said Sophie Richardson, China Director at the Washington office of Human Rights Watch.

“It’s a very commonly used tactic either to force people to comply, or simply to torment them, or to elicit further information.”

“There are very few avenues for redress,” Richardson said.

As of Sept. 1, 2012, the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China’s (CECC) Political Prisoner Database contained records of 626 Tibetan political prisoners believed or presumed to be held in Chinese custody.

Of these, 597 were detained on or after March 10, 2008, when Tibetan protests against Chinese rule swept the region, according to the CECC Annual Report for 2012.

Reported by Kunsang Tenzin for RFA’s Tibetan Service. Translated by Karma Dorjee. Written in English with additional reporting by Richard Finney.

Rethink the Status of Tibet

By Ellen Bork | December 18, 2012 | Wall Street Journal Asia

Nearly 100 Tibetans have committed suicide over the past three years in protest of conditions under Chinese rule. At first, the self-immolators were mostly monks and nuns. Now more lay people, women and parents of young children are joining them.

In response, Beijing has intensified the policies that have already caused so much despair. It continues to denigrate the Dalai Lama and Tibetan religion and language. It has increased already harsh security measures, and imposed criminal penalties on relatives of the suicide protestors.

What is to be done in the face of such repression? For starters, the world must re-examine how it acquiesced to China’s Tibet policies.

When the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet in 1950, Washington, along with London and Delhi, stood aside. This despite the fact that all three countries then believed Tibet to be de facto independent. The U.S. even considered making this case at the United Nations.

As Tsering Shakya recounts in his 2000 book “The Dragon in the Land of Snows,” the U.S. went so far as draft a diplomatic memorandum for Great Britain. It argued that “the Tibetan people has the [same] inherent right as any other to have the determining voice in its political destiny.. [S]hould developments warrant, consideration could be given to recognition of Tibet as an independent State.”

That never came to pass. Britain was sounding its colonial retreat, leaving its prerogatives in Tibet to newly independent India. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dreamed of cooperation on world affairs with China’s communists, and believed he could deal effectively with Beijing on Tibet.

As for Washington, it soon became preoccupied with the war in Korea and once again subordinated Tibet to perceived larger interests. In the 19th century, Tibet was ignored in favor of commercial prospects in China and the Open Door Policy. Over the last century, the priority was setting up China as a counterweight to Japan and then the Soviet Union.

What if Tibet’s claim to independence had been preserved rather than conceded? The U.S. and other countries would be in a much better position today to resist China’s increasingly assertive claims of Tibet as a “core interest” and rebut Beijing’s insistence on sovereignty as a complete bar to pressure on human rights. This claim has an impact on international affairs well beyond Tibet, permeating diplomacy and gutting the effectiveness of the United Nations on other crises like Syria.

The first step toward a new approach to Tibet is simple, although not easy. The U.S., its European allies, Japan and India should coordinate to reverse the dynamic of pressure and concession that China itself uses so effectively. This means backing those leaders who, like Estonian President Toomas Ilves, dared to meet the Dalai Lama. The religious leader’s access in other capitals must be expanded.

Democracies must also respond to the Dalai Lama’s plans for the future. After his death, Beijing will appoint a bogus successor through “guidelines on reincarnation” issued by the communist government’s religious affairs department. It is not too soon for world governments to respond to Beijing’s plan to destroy the most important institution in Tibetan Buddhism, a figure of inestimable importance to Tibetans both inside Tibet and in exile.

This should include endorsing the Dalai Lama’s plan for his succession, a matter which might normally be outside the purview of governments. But under the circumstances is vital to the mission of preserving Tibetan religion and identity.

The U.S., Europe, India and Japan should also work together to establish regular contacts with the elected leader of the Tibetan exile government, Lobsang Sangay. This would help Tibetans to press for an easing of conditions inside Tibet and to engage with Beijing on solutions for the future.

All of these steps could reverse what now seems to be a never ending cycle of repression. Historically, the U.S. has subordinated its policy on Tibet to what it considered a larger strategic interest. It is time for a review of these policies and their effectiveness as well as new thinking to address the escalating suffering in Tibet.

Such a review need not endorse Tibetan independence, a goal which the Dalai Lama himself renounced in the 1970s and which many Tibetans also do not see as a priority. But understanding how the world acquiesced in communist China’s subjugation of Tibet and the ineffective policies that flowed from that decision should enable the U.S. and other democracies to recover the principle American diplomats expressed in the 1950s, the right of Tibetans to determine the future of their homeland.

Tibetans are no longer pleading, they are declaring

posted Dec 5, 2012 7:07 PM by The Tibetan Political Review

By Chukie Wangdu, New York

On June 16, 1963, a lone Buddhist monk, Thich Quang Duc, set himself ablaze in an open marketplace in Siagon to protest religious persecution under the Diem regime.  His action shocked the world, and precipitated the anti-war movement in the US which led to the end of the Vietnam War in 1973.

As recently as December 17, 2010, Mohammed Bouzizi, a Tunisian vegetable seller, self-immolated to protest police beatings and the confiscation of his vegetable cart.  His action galvanized the Arab Spring Revolution against corruption and human rights violations that led to the fall of the region’s despots.

The common thread that runs through these two episodes is public empathy.  The only difference is the time it took for a resolution.  The advent of digital technology played a major role in the latter.

Tibet has been illegally occupied by China for over 60 years, and the denial of fundamental human rights as well the plunder and pillage of its antiquities and natural resources have been well-documented and voiced around the world.  Yet in the face of the growing number of self-immolations in Tibet, over 90 to date, the support for this cause appears alarmingly more muffled.

Is it China’s economic might that has silenced politicians and the news media?  Or is it due to the over-whelming guilt that people in high places are feeling for allowing their greed to override truth and not standing up to China?  It is both.  When one is overwhelmed with guilt, denial is often the means to alleviate the guilt.  The time is more than ripe now for Tibet supporters to let the world know why Tibet should be free.

We hold the truths of Tibet’s independent history and China’s atrocities in occupied-Tibet.  In a different world, when the People’s Republic of China was not a member of the United Nations Security Council, with veto power, these truths generated UN Resolutions #1353 in 1959, #1723 in 1961 and #2079 in 1965 for the restoration of fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and their right to self-determination.  But due to greed and short-sightedness of those in political power and business during the ensuing decades, planet earth is now at risk.  Let’s use social media to share the ultimate truth ..  that a free Tibet will help in the sustainability of planet earth.  Wake up those in high places, as well as the man on the street, in China and around the world, and tell them that their very survival is dependent on a free Tibet.

Millions of unregulated Chinese factories are churning out “Made-in-China” goods while emitting toxins and pollutants into the atmosphere causing holes in the ozone layer above Tibet which are contributing to global warming, record melting of Himalayan glaciers and world climate change.  The Chinese name for Tibet is “Xizang” or “Western Treasure House,” and accordingly they have plundered the Tibetan plateau of its antiquities and natural resources, while keeping Tibetans under unbearable oppression.

To meet the insatiable demand for raw materials by its manufacturing base, which includes its medicinal and gourmet palette markets, China continues to conduct, in Tibet, massive deforestation, drilling for oil, fracking for natural gas, mining for precious metals, including uranium for its own nuclear plants and for probable sale to rogue states, as well as the decimation of Tibet’s flora and fauna, and diverting the run-off from the melting glaciers to China thus leaving behind dry river beds and parched farmlands in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other parts of Asia.  The global warming, caused primarily by China’s unregulated factories, has accelerated the rate of mountain glacial melting thus assuring that the nuclear wastes, dumped on the Tibetan plateau since the 1980s, will be washed down river at a much faster rate.  With its trade surplus, China has built massive dams to divert the glacial runoff to their own farmlands, which ironically, now poses a major health risk to her own people.

While Tibetans deeply believe in the interdependent nature of all living things, they cannot begin environmental healing to promote the sustainability of planet earth until China’s leaders come to their senses and free Tibet.  Tibetans are not sacrificing their lives because they want to live under Chinese rule.  They are dying because they want traditional Tibet returned into the hands of her rightful owners.  They are no longer pleading.  They now are declaring.   In the wake of devastating earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons and hurricanes, the time is ripe to wake up the world public.

Tibetan leader holds hope China can learn from Canada

By STEPHANIE NOLEN

The Globe and Mail, December 3, 2012

In an exclusive interview with The Globe and Mail, Lobsang Sangay, a Tibetan refugee and legal scholar, expressed cautious hope that the change of leadership in China next spring will start to reverse increasingly hardline policies toward Tibet.

China should look at Canada’s example to allay its fears of Tibetan aspirations for freedom, the head of the Tibetan government-in-exile says.

In an exclusive interview with The Globe and Mail, Lobsang Sangay, a Tibetan refugee and legal scholar, expressed cautious hope that the change of leadership in China next spring will start to reverse increasingly hardline policies toward Tibet. There is a “basis” for optimism, he says, even though China is going through a period of rising nationalism.

Mr. Sangay also lamented the “desperate” protests against Chinese rule that have taken shape in a wave of self-immolations by Tibetan monks, but said those acts reflect the environment of repression in which Tibetans live.

Mr. Sangay was elected last year as Sikyong, or prime minister, of the exiled Tibetan government based in Dharamsala in northern India. In that post, he has taken over management of the diaspora’s political affairs from the Dalai Lama and in effect now heads the Tibetan campaign for autonomy. He spoke to The Globe after the first group of Tibetans were chosen to immigrate to Canada next year, under a government that may bring to Canada up to 1,000 Tibetan refugees now living in India.

Q. How are you feeling about the new leadership in Beijing, installed at the 18th Congress of the Communist Part a few weeks ago, and what do you think it may mean for Tibet?

A. I think it’s too early to say. Of the seven leaders, most of them are in their mid-60s. … So in the 19th Congress there will be more wholesale changes — the 18th Congress is a continuation of the same people from the 16th and 17th. So if you are really looking for real changes you have to wait for the 19th. The likelihood of continuing the same policy is high. Particularly the fact that some of the more “liberal” people, who are of younger age and more open-minded, were not included … We might get some hint when Xi Jinping takes over the presidency in March of next year … He will give a speech and that’s where he will indicate his line of thinking. Otherwise it’s so opaque.

Q. The Dalai Lama has suggested he is optimistic about Mr. Xi Jinping, perhaps because he had a warm relationship with Mr. Xi’s father.

A. Optimism is too strong. As a human being you should always remain hopeful. Optimism you have some basis for. Xi Jinping is the son of [former Chinese deputy premier] Xi Zhongxun, who received His Holiness in Beijing in 1954 and was with His Holiness many times, and His Holiness gave him a watch that he kept even during the Cultural Revolution and after. They took a picture and Xi Zhongxun saved it … so it seems the [warm feeling towards the Dalai Lama] was genuine … Xi Zhongxun also had a close relationship with the late Panchen Lama … and he would tell him, ‘Have patience, don’t get angry, things will take time to change.’

Q. So there is a history of these personal ties — does that make you a little bit hopeful?

A. For any leader to make any decision you have to have the familiarity with the issue because it’s a judgment call, and if you know the issue well and if you are familiar with it, it becomes easier to sort through the issue and make a decision. Xi Jinping’s father was a supporter of Hu Yaobang, the most liberal Chinese leader … and he supported him until the end, he was the last man standing with Hu Yaobang. So now the big question is, Will the son be like the father?

There are a lot of dynamics happening inside China. There is this nationalism on the rise and military adventurism in the South-China Sea, and then market forces driving China towards one goal and yet socially people are becoming more assertive, more open and more free, social networking is taking place. And yet politically, instead of advancing,

they have retrenched in many ways, especially on Tibet. They have maintained hardline policies, and imposed more hardline policies — there is some movement on many trends but on Tibet there is backwards movement.

Q. What can you offer them as a plan with which to engage you that might be acceptable to Beijing?

A. I think Quebec is a good example, and also the north, Nunavut. The Chinese government argument is based on an underlying suspicion that if you grant anything to Tibet, they will ask for more and more and ultimately they will secede or separate. But then ultimately if you reach that equilibrium where people get what they want, the majority will decide to stay within the country. Even in Quebec, there is always this strong passionate number of people who are advocating independence, but two referenda were held and both times people decided to stay within Canada — meaning that the majority thinks that you have reached the equilibrium.

Having said that, this is a complex issue and the demand for nationhood will always be there. So how do you lessen it and increase cooperation? I think if the Chinese government grants us autonomy for Tibetans and the majority of Tibetans feel that this is a good deal they will choose to stay within. It’s not that voices of independence will disappear, they will not. In that respect I think Canada is an example that the Chinese government could look at. Because the Chinese government example seems to be, ‘repression, more repression, much harsher repression, and the solution will be found.’ And it has not worked since the 1950s.

And now the self-immolations are a clear reflection of the entrenched resentments of the Tibetan people towards hardline policies. The self-immolators are a younger generation — they have never met the Dalai Lama, they have never heard him speak, they have never met me, they didn’t vote for me, they could not. But still the sense of Tibetan identity, and Tibetan dignity — the assertion of their basic freedom — is so strong that they say, ‘This precious life that I have, I’ll give up to send a message to the Beijing government that what is happening is unacceptable.’ So the Chinese model is clearly not working.

Q. About the self-immolations, of which there have now been 85: Do you view them as a legitimate form of protest? Do they clash with either your religious teachings or the policies of the Tibetan government?

A. We have made repeated appeals to Tibetans inside Tibet not to resort to drastic actions including self-immolations. Because life is precious. Now the self-immolation is not only continuing, it is escalating. So what do we do? As a person of faith — or even no faith — you pray for all those who died. And as a  Tibetan you show solidarity, because they are doing it for Tibet. And then you support their aspirations, which are very clear: the return of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tibet; and freedom for Tibetan people. We say, ‘It’s better to preserve life and carry forward the movement’ — that is the preferred option for us. But we are not saying it’s not a valid form of protest, because self-immolation as a form of protest is a global phenomenon, it was done by monks the Viet Nam war, in Czechoslovakia in 1969, and then the undergraduate in Tunisia in the Arab Spring. Tibet is seeing one more chapter. But this is a sad form of protesting — and it is a desperate form of protest, because Tibetans are not given any option, or any space for any form of protest because the Chinese government does not allow them to go into the streets. If you shout a slogan, you get arrested. If you have a picture of the Dalai Lama, you go to prison. If they have a picture of me, it’s more likely they’ll get tortured. In that kind of environment, they are saying, the chances of me getting arrested, tortured, even disappeared, is high, so I might as well self-immolate.

Q. If Beijing gave you a chance to send a message to Tibetans inside Tibet, what would you say?

A. I would say we are committed to non-violence and democracy, these are our uncompromising principles. And that the grievances that they have are genuine, because they are the ones who are suffering. And the Chinese government should take note and solve the issue as soon as possible. I’d say, ‘Tibet is a very old civilization, one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and Buddhism as a religion is very rich, and Tibet has very rich history of great kings …. So we ought to be proud of ourselves. And in this really challenging period when there might be questions, one should be in oneself. And our day will surely come.

Q. Have you had much interaction with the government of Canada?

I met with [Citizenship and Immigration Minister] Jason Kenney. … Also I was at a reception and the groups in that room was amazing, there were Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Indians and Tibetans — and he spoke about all of them, in one room — I thought, only in Canada is this possible! Everywhere where you talk to Tibetans, you don’t mention Chinese; you talk to Chinese, you don’t mention Taiwan … and there he was, ‘this is our policy on China, it’s good for you’, round of applause, ‘we’ve done

this on Taiwan, it’s good for you,’ and ‘I’d like to recognize my good friends from Tibet’ … The fact that he could bring all these groups in one room and make them all applaud for each other when right outside the room they’d be on different sides of the protest groups … He says all the right things, and he says them to everyone.

Q. His government has refocused its foreign policy away from human rights to trade and economic interests — if you see Mr. Kenney again, or you do meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, would you have anything to say about that?

A. I don’t know the details, but we believe that economic rights are important but human rights are equally important — Amartya Sen’s argument: What’s the use of having economic growth without human growth? Human rights are good for economies, and in that sense protecting them should all the more be at par with economic rights.

Q. What will you do, if the Dalai Lama is to pass away and Beijing announces that they have found his successor and installed him?

A. First of all that’s premature because His Holiness is very healthy, he travels constantly and he has more stamina than people in their 30s and 40s. On this question, he issued a statement in September 2011 when all the top religious leaders came; there are three ways [in which a new Dalai Lama can be named]: reincarnation, he passes away, is reborn. Selection, where the top Buddhist leaders will come and select, like with the Pope. And emanation, where he could designate his own successor before he passes away. So these three options are on the table. But whatever it is, it doesn’t matter what Beijing does, in the sense that faith is a matter of heart and mind, you simply can’t buy it and impose it on people, you can’t say ‘this is the boy you should believe in from tomorrow on, follow him and you will get spiritual blessing’ … Also His Holiness himself said Beijing will have no credibility because if they are serious about reincarnation first they should find the reincarnation of Mao Tsetung, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping — because they have contributed a lot more to China …

Q. But does it potentially pose a risk to the influence of your government — Tibetans inside Tibet are denied access to information about you, and they would be being told this was the new Dalai Lama.

A. The question is always, Who will believe? Even today after 50 years of occupation, the Chinese government has thrown in so much money, so much propaganda to the Tibetan people inside Tibet. These people who are protesting grew up completely under the Chinese system — they are protesting now, meaning there is something fundamentally wrong … Our spirit is as old as the Chinese, and just because they tell something us does not mean we will subscribe to it. In fact we will not. And the basis of our agreement has to be voluntary and mutual in nature.