Freedom or disrespect? Norman’s protest debated
By Michael Dickison
NZ Hearald (New Zealand)
June 23, 2010
Representatives of New Zealand’s Chinese community and a pro-Tibetan group are at odds over whether Russel Norman’s protest at Parliament last week showed a lack of respect or demonstrated enviable freedom.
The Green Party co-leader was caught in a scuffle with Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping’s security
when he approached the delegation while waving a Tibetan flag last Friday at Parliament.
Prime Minister John Key later apologised to the delegation, an act Dr Norman said was “degrading”.
nzherald.co.nz readers have reacted strongly to the incident, contributing more than 200 comments
since yesterday. Views have been split between those who say New Zealand should not have to
apologise for a peaceful protest and others who criticised Dr Norman as rudely trying to intimidate a guest dignitary.
New Zealand Chinese Association national president Steven Young said many in the Chinese
community considered Dr Norman to have “taken advantage of his privileged position” and he had
not given enough weight to his responsibilities as an MP.
“The Chinese community, especially the part of the community that has been here a long time and
grown up here, they fully understand the importance of freedom of speech. That’s accepted,” Mr Young said.
“At the same time, Chinese people generally think it’s quite important to treat guests and visitors with respect,” he said.
Dr Norman had greater privileges and responsibilities as an MP but had not behaved “how a Member of Parliament ought to”, Mr Young said.
Dr Norman had overstepped the mark in the way he carried out his protest, he said.
But most in the Chinese community would not be surprised at the Green Party co-leader’s protest and it had been a storm in a teacup, he said.
Friends of Tibet national chairman Thuten Kesang said the Chinese delegation should have known Dr
Norman would protest, their security had overreacted by not simply walking past.
“Here is a man going to be one of the most powerful people in the world, yet he can’t walk with his face held up in front of a flag,” Mr Kesang said.
“It’s not a threat to the Chinese vice president by shouting at him … seeing a flag was enough for pain, in their eyes.”
Respect went both ways, and the delegation should have respected the sovereignty of New Zealand, he said.
“The sovereignty of this nation was violated by letting their men attack one of our MPs. Respect goes two ways.”
Mr Kesang said there were many in the wider New Zealand Chinese community who recognised that Dr Norman would be in prison had he conducted his protest in China.
“They know how lucky they are to be in this beautiful country with our freedoms.”
China and New Zealand Business Council chairwoman Linda Zhang said Dr Norman’s protest “could
potentially undermine an increasingly close friendship between the two countries”.
“Russel Norman’s behaviour during the Chinese Vice President’s visit at parliament was a bit over the top,” Ms Zhang said.
She said his protest had overshadowed an otherwise constructive visit, and commended Mr Key’s apology.
“I think our PM’s response to this incident was totally appropriate and graceful, it showed his respect to our country’s guests and his sincerity to the Chinese people. It should not be misinterpreted as ‘degrading’. I felt touched by his response.”
The “unpleasant incident” would not be a hurdle for the continuing development of friendship
between New Zealand and China, she said.
New Zealand China Trade Association executive director David Catty said the association was confident that the incident would not have a detrimental effect on China New Zealand trade or overall relations.

Why I Was Attacked By Chinese Security Guards
Russel Norman
Voxy News (New Zealand)
June 22, 2010
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman gave a personal explanation of the incident with Chinese
government staff on the steps of Parliament last week to Parliament today.
What follows is a transcript of his speech to the house:
Mr Speaker I seek leave to make a personal explanation regarding the incident in front of
Parliament involving the Chinese Vice President on Friday.
Mr Speaker, Last Friday, in the lead up to the arrival of the Chinese Vice President, I held up
a Tibetan flag at the bottom of the steps in front of parliament.
My purpose was to draw attention to the shocking human rights abuses suffered by the Tibetan
people under Chinese Communist Party Government occupation of their country, in line with this
parliament’s long and honourable tradition of speaking out to protect human rights.
I was well away from the security entrance to the Beehive where the Vice President was expected to
arrive. I had no intention of getting close to the Vice President but nor would I be hidden away. I had not decided whether I would or would not voice my concerns as well as holding the flag.
While I was standing still holding up the flag and not speaking, someone who I can only assume
was part of the Chinese Communist Party Government’s security delegation, began to push and obstruct me. I sought to avoid his pushing and shoving by moving away from him but he continued to push and harass my, up to then, silent protest.
I was incensed by the actions of the foreign government’s security person on the forecourt of parliament pushing around a member of this house and as the Chinese Vice President arrived I
called out “Freedom for the people of Tibet”.
Shortly after I was then set upon by a number of, what I can only assume were, Chinese Communist
Party Government security operatives who grabbed me from a number of sides.
Another member of the Chinese Communist Party Government delegation, presumably a security
person, then placed an umbrella over me to try to smother me and at that point I stepped forward
from under the umbrella to try to avoid it.
Another member of the Chinese Communist Party Government delegation then tore the Tibetan flag
from my hands and stood on it. I reached forward to recover the Tibetan flag from under the foot
of one of the security personnel. And then I held it aloft again.
In avoiding these assaults from the Chinese Communist Government officials I was dragged closer to the security entrance.
Mr Speaker the Prime Minister John Key has accused me of charging at the Chinese Communist Party Government Vice President. I deny this. I was intent on standing my ground but this proved
impossible in the face of the assaults from the Chinese Communist Government security officials.
I certainly ended up closer to the Vice President than I wished to, but at each step I was trying
to avoid the assaults of the Chinese Communist Party Government security operatives who appeared
in control of the Parliamentary forecourt.
Mr Speaker the Deputy Prime Minister Bill English has accused me of harassing the Vice President. I
deny this. I was standing still, well away from the Vice President until the Chinese Government
security operatives started to push and harass me.
I would like to thank the New Zealand DPS officer at the scene who was, in spite of being outnumbered, doing his best to keep the Chinese Communist Party Government security operatives
off me. I apologise to him for suggesting otherwise at the time.
I accept it looked a bit undignified, and that isn’t ideal. But it was pretty hard to look dignified when you have a bunch of Chinese Government security people grabbing hold of you and pushing you around and putting an umbrella over you and taking away the Tibetan flag you’re holding!
But I would rather a little messy free speech than seamless totalitarian silence. Thanks to everyone who sent messages of support, especially the many Chinese and Tibetan people here and overseas who fear to speak out but see our country as a beacon of hope for democracy and free speech.
And to those who disagreed with my actions, I defend your right to free speech too.

VISIT TO NEW ZEALAND OF CHINESE VICE-PRESIDENT XI JINPING
The three-day visit to New Zealand by Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping was kept under wraps. We heard about it only a few days before he came. He met the Governor General and Speaker of Parliament at a lunch with Prime Minister John Key.
While he was here a few agreements between the two countries were signed on Friday 18th June at Government House in Auckland.
Friends of Tibet (NZ) had a small, visible and silent vigil outside the gates of Government House, and Green MP Keith Locke attended. When Xi was driven past, he could not have failed to miss seeing the huge Tibetan flags, resulting in him being driven out from Government House through the back entrance in order to miss us.
As you most likely have heard the Chinese Vice President’s visit to Parliament on
Friday (at 1.30 not 3pm) resulted in a scuffle with Greens co-leader Russel Norman
and Chinese security staff – who took Russel’s Tibetan flag and trampled on it.
Russel Norman has subsequently referred the matter to the police.
This resulted in a change of venue for further meetings with the Chinese Vice
President Xi to the Intercontinental Hotel in Wellington, and cancellation of a
meeting scheduled at Victoria University. A small group of Friends of Tibet
supporters were able to protest outside the hotel on Friday – joined by Keith Locke
and Sue Kedgeley (and later by Falun Gong) – to the chagrin of Chinese security
staff.
We were shocked to hear about the treatment of one of our senior MPs on our
Parliament steps by Chinese security.
There was a very good editorial in the Sunday Star Times about it, which says it all.
We as New Zealanders are perfectly entitled to express our views in this way and it’s horrifying to think that foreign nationals can take such action in our Parliament grounds and got away with it. We understand that police are not taking any action due to lack of evidence . There was enough evidence of this shown on news channels that night.
To make matters worse, our Prime Minister has apologized to the Chinese Government on this incident..
Report by Thuten Kesang

Tibet’s human rights issues raised at the 14th session of UN Human Rights Council
Central Tibetn Administration
June 10, 2010
Geneva, 9 June — The UN Human Rights Council began its 14th regular session in Geneva from 31
May and will continue until 18 June.
Several UN Special Procedure mandate holders presented their annual report to this Council for discussion. Among these reports, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers [1], the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion [2]; and the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions [3] reported cases of Tibetans who were arrested for exercising their freedom of speech, detained, given death sentences by the Chinese courts as well as the death of Mr. Phuntsok Rabgay, a 27-year-old monk, in Drango County, Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province.
The Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers with the Special Rapporteur on Summary Execution in their joint communication to China raised the cases of five Tibetans sentenced to death by the Municipal Intermediate People’s Court in Lhasa on 8 April 2009.
While thanking the Chinese government for its response to the allegations, the Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers sought further clarification on when, and how often, the lawyers who defended them had the opportunity to meet with their clients ahead of the trials on 8 April 2009. The Special Rapporteur also sought further information from the government on the results of the investigations that were undertaken to determine if lawyers were prevented from defending the accused persons and information on the alleged intimidation of lawyers who volunteered to defend Tibetans criminally charged in relation to the incidents and reiterated that in all cases, and notably in capital punishment cases, there is an obligation to provide criminal defendants with a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
Mr. Tenzin Samphel KAYTA, on behalf of Society for Threatened Peoples drew attention of the Council on the two Tibetans who had been sentenced recently to death with two years reprieve. He also informed the Council that Tibetan source has documented 394 Tibetans who were sentenced to varying prison terms since April 2008 by the Chinese court. He further questioned the independence of China’s judiciary and judges saying the whole judiciary system’s only objective is to protect the State’s interests or the Communist Party.
He also referred to the case of Phurbu Tsering Rinpoche who was sentenced by the Chinese court without sufficient evidence, factual clarity or a fair trial. According to a public statement issued by the two Chinese lawyers of Phurbu Tsering Rinpoche: To charge that Living Buddha Buronglang has committed the crime of illegally possessing weapons and explosives and of occupying state property lacks factual clarity and sufficient evidence. Also, serious violations of the law occurred during the procedures of this case.
International NGOs including Human Rights Watch and Helsinki foundation for Human Rights raised
Tibet issues in their statements.
Countries who expressed concern over human rights situation in China are USA and European Union. US Delegate said, ethnic and religious minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang are subject to particularly onerous restrictions, including restraint on religious practice.[4]
Spanish delegate on behalf of European Union expressed concern about human rights situation in China and strongly condemned the increasing violence directed against persons belonging to religious and other minorities in various part of the world.
In its own capacity, German delegate said in China torture was still a used practice especially in detention.
Czech delegate also expressed concern about the ongoing restrictions on the freedom of expression in China, and it was alarming that 21 years after violent suppression of a movement of citizens peacefully demonstrating for a pluralistic system, Chinese citizens continued to be persecuted.
Before and during the course of the session, Mr. Tenzin KAYTA met some of the UN Special Rapporteurs, EU and US diplomats as well as many representatives of international NGOs seeking their support for Tibet.
–Report filed by Tenzin Samphel, Office of Tibet, Geneva

Tibet’s watershed challenge
By Uttam Kumar Sinha
The Washington Post
June 14, 2010
While Tibet raises a number of controversial questions, one dimension will assume increasing political significance: its water resources. The Tibetan Plateau, known to many as the “Third Pole,” is an enormous storehouse of freshwater, believed by some to be the world’s largest. It is the headwaters of many of Asia’s mighty rivers, including the Yellow, Yangtze, Mekong, Salween, Brahmaputra, Indus and Sutlej. These vast water resources are of course vulnerable to environmental challenges, including climate change, but they are subject to an array of political issues as well.
Should China be the lone stakeholder to the fate of the waters in Tibet? What happens in the downstream nations that depend heavily on these rivers? China has exploited all but two rivers from the Tibetan Plateau; an exception is the Nujiang River, which flows through Yunnan province and enters Burma, where it is known as the Salween. China’s north-south diversion plans on the Yarlung Zangbo (known in India as Brahamaputra), the other untouched river, are bound to worry India, a downstream state.
China’s rise in recent years has been displayed in military capability, economic pace and, now, water diversions. By 2030, China is expected to fall short of its water demands by 25 percent. Its increasingly aggressive hydrobehavior is intended to secure its massive water requirements in its northern and western regions. But control over such a valuable natural resource gives Beijing enormous strategic latitude with its neighbors; when one of those countries is a rival, such as India, it becomes an effective
bargaining tool and potential weapon.
Chinese nationalism is based on its aspiration of great-power status and its historic territorial claims. Such claims, for example, over Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh, a state in northeast India, are being driven by China’s water needs. Mao Zedong observed in 1952, “The south has a lot of water, the north little. . . . If possible, it is ok to lend a little water.” China is looking to exploit the water resources of Tibet and its hardening position on Arunachal — Beijing considers the northeast Indian state part of its
territory and made frequent military forays there this year — is not merely rhetoric. In laying claims to Arunachal, it is claiming almost 200 million cubic feet per second of water resources in the state.
China, well-accustomed to brinkmanship, is likely to maintain a strategic silence on its river diversion plans, to keep downstream states guessing. (China denies any activity on the Yarlung Zangbo, but publicly reported satellite imagery shows otherwise.) And with no legally binding international treaty on such water-sharing, there is nothing to stop China from manipulating river flows and increasing downstream dependency.
More than 2 billion people in South and Southeast Asia depend on the waters flowing out of Tibet. Building a lower riparian coalition of, say, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam would help cement recognition of Tibet’s water as a common resource. India has a diplomatic opportunity here and, given its downriver position, needs to take the initiative. One plus is that India has experience dealing with river treaties. But Tibet’s unresolved political status will affect any proposals on how to sustainably manage its water resources and ensure its rivers’ natural flow are not disturbed by Chinese diversion plans.
China’s moves to encroach on Tibet’s water need to be countered by downriver solidarity that includes agreement on multipurpose beneficial use of these resources. Downriver states need to work through legal norms of equitable utilization, “no-harm” policies and restricted Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. This pressure and international attention to defining such vital resources as common would go a long way toward preserving and sharing the waters of Tibet. While such redefinition is politically sensitive, as it clashes with national jurisdiction, it merits attention now given the current and future water requirements of South and Southeast Asia. Collective political and diplomatic pressure over a sustained period will be needed to draw in China to regional arrangements on “reasonable share of water” and frame treaties accordingly.
The concerned downstream states need to raise the issue internationally while also supporting local Tibetans and Chinese environmental lobbies’ efforts to highlight the rampant ecological destruction of Tibet brought by dams and artificial diversion plans. A larger debate on basin resource management is needed; it is increasingly clear that rivers are not merely for water provisions but also have ecological functions. One need only look at China’s Yangtze and Yellow rivers, both unfit for human use, to understand how important it is to follow the laws of nature regarding Tibet’s waters rather than force economic development.
The writer is a research fellow at the nonpartisan Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.

CHAIRMAN’S NOTE                    June  –  July  2010

Since our last newsletter went to press we heard the news of the devastating earthquake that occurred Yushu in the region of Chinese-occupied Tibet with the loss of over 2400 lives and many thousands injured.  This area is traditionally known as the Tibetan provinces of Kham and Amdo. 90% of the population is Tibetan.  Tibetans in exile and the Tibet support groups worldwide were saddened by the news, and a fundraising effort was started around the world.
After the earthquake, world leaders sent condolence letters to the Chinese government, but failed to acknowledge that the devastation is in the Tibetan areas. It would therefore have been a moral gesture to send at least a letter to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who is after all, the leader of the Tibetan people. His Holiness was shocked by the news of the earthquake, and immediately asked the Chinese government to allow him to visit the area to comfort those survivors and lead the prayers for those who died. The Tibetans in Yushu wanted His Holiness to go there to be with them. There was no reply from China. If China has concern for the Tibetans who are living under its control, then it would have allowed His Holiness to go. It would have been an ideal opportunity to show their support for Tibetans. This would go some way towards lessening the feelings of restlessness and resentment that the Tibetans have under forced Chinese rule.
We have written to Prime Minister John Key asking him to request China to allow His Holiness to visit Tibet, and to write a letter of sympathy to His Holiness. This has been referred to Foreign Minister Murray McCully, but as yet there has been no reply. Perhaps New Zealand is too comfortable with China.
Those of you who are on email received my messages about the earthquake and our appeal for donations through Friends of Tibet and the Tibetan community. I am delighted to inform you all that so far over $5000 has been received.
After writing to three organizations, only one responded, the Tibet Foundation based in London, and we were delighted to receive detailed account of its work and how it delivers funds to the needy Tibetans. This organization was established over 25 years ago to assist Tibetan refugees in India, Nepal and Bhutan. Eighteen years ago it started sending funds to Tibet to assist in humanitarian aid and education for the Tibetans, and they are already working in the area of the earthquake. They have a five year project to rebuild Yushu and they will need ongoing support for this.
We will be sending our first donation to the Foundation at the end of June. We are still accepting donations. If you would like to help in this way, please send your cheque to us and mark Tibet earthquake donation on the back of the cheque. Many thanks.
I would like to thank our branch in Wellington, who along with Tibet Solidarity Network, had a fundraising evening, the Tibetan community in Whangarei, Friends of Tibet members in Christchurch and the Buddhist centre in Blenheim for their fundraising. Auckland branch is contemplating organising a cottage concert through Trade Me, the proceeds going to the earthquake relief. I shall send you information once this has been finalised.
His Holiness the Panchen Lama turned 21 on 25th April, and many enquiries have been made around the world as to his whereabouts and wellbeing. Again all queries have been met with a wall of silence. We had planned protests outside the Chinese embassy and consulate in Wellington and Auckland on 26th April as not to clash with Anzac Day, but these were cancelled due to the earthquake and the subsequent pressure China was under. We felt that protests were inappropriate at this time. However, we did have the postcard campaign to Murray McCully, asking him to find the whereabouts of the Panchen Lama, but as yet no one has had a reply.
75th Birthday of His Holiness the Dalai Lama: His Holiness will turn 75 on 6th July this year. We have been asked by the Tibet Government in exile to celebrate his birthday in a special way. I know that the Tibetan Buddhist centres will be holding prayers and celebrations.
As part of His Holiness’ birthday celebrations, the Auckland Tibetan community is  offering a dinner for Friends of Tibet members to say thank you for all the support that you have given. This will be held at St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, 172 Hinemoa Street, Birkenhead  on Saturday 10th July at 7 pm. Please reply by 25th June letting us know how many are coming for catering purposes. See the invitation in this newsletter.
With best wishes and Tashi Delek,
Thuten Kesang,
National Chairman.

May Tibet Never Be Forgotten
May 30th, 2010 | Category: Meditations
Featured Columnist – Meditations
Martin LeFerve
Costa R
The Dalai Lama has said that he may not reincarnate again, and if he does, it will not be in Tibet. He isn’t referring to illumination however. After all, bodhisattvas reincarnate; illumined beings incarnate.
The Dalai Lama is saying he’ll reincarnate in another country because the Chinese have corrupted the selection process of Lamas in Tibet. As a prominent American Buddhist put it, the Chinese government is perpetrating a slow and deliberate asphyxiation of the Buddhist faith in its own home.
I’m not a Buddhist, but I respect the Dalai Lama, and feel he’s a great human being. I don’t think he’s illumined however, and he’s said as much.
A great sage once said, ‘Reincarnation is a fact, but not the truth.’ Withholding reincarnation for the sake of all sentient beings is, to my mind, the essence of a bodhisattva. But that has its limits in lifetimes. That’s another issue however.
Beginning in the 17th century until he fled the Chinese government in 1959, the Dalai Lamas were the spiritual and political heads of Tibet.
Tibet represents one of the few places where the fusion of Church and State worked quite well in the past. But I don’t think even the Dalai Lama would recommend a return to the status quo ante if he was allowed to return to an autonomous Tibet. Of course, the Chinese government is so insecure that it won’t allow even a semblance of autonomy in Tibet.
The second highest figure in the Tibetan hierarchy is the Panchen Lama. When the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was forced to leave China as a young man in 1959, the Panchen Lama, Choekyi Gyaltsen, stayed behind and tried to work within the framework of Chinese domination.
For his efforts at peaceful coexistence with the Chinese Communists, the Panchen Lama was tortured and confined to solitary confinement for ten years. After his supposed rehabilitation, he mildly criticized the Chinese government at a meeting in 1989.
Within days of his speech, he suddenly and mysteriously died. His supporters were certain the Chinese government poisoned him. To the inwardly weak Chinese government, sovereignty requires the extinguishment of Tibetan spiritual and political authority.
After the Panchen Lama’s death, the Dalai Lama, according to tradition, directed the search for his reincarnated successor. Through the inscrutable means of Tibetan rebirth, the Dalai Lama pinpointed the place where the new Panchen Lama, a young boy named Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, would be found.
The boy promptly disappeared, with Chinese authorities later saying he had been taken into ‘protective custody.’ The Chinese government then installed its own Panchen Lama, one who would follow their party line. Gedhun Choekyi Nyima remains the world’s youngest political prisoner.
Why does the most populous nation on Earth, an economic superpower, a nation with a long and venerated history, fear tiny Tibet so’
As the actions of the Chinese authoritarian government attests, its power is precarious, and its stature is small. Despite the West’s awe of China’s scale, political stability in the country is ephemeral, maintained by a shaky social compact with the people (‘you stay out of politics, and we’ll provide prosperity’).
The social compact in China is under increasing strain. Not only externally, from the economic downturn in the West, but also internally, due to enormous social and psychological pressures and conflicts, as the spate of horrendous attacks on children in schools across China attests.
Unsurprisingly, the Chinese people feel an immense spiritual emptiness in their lives. Many, ironically, are flocking to Tibet to find substance and meaning.
The Dalai Lama is no fool, but as a political strategy, his ‘Middle-Way approach’ has been a failure.
As his official website states, in the late 1950’s, ‘the Chinese army unleashed a harsh military crackdown in Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, and this convinced His Holiness the Dalai Lama that his hope for co-existence with the Chinese government was no longer possible, [and that] under the circumstances, he had no other option but to seek refuge in India and work in exile for the freedom and happiness of all the Tibetan people.’
That loss of control, and the establishment of the Tibetan Government in Exile, has infuriated the Chinese Communist government from 1959 until today.
Despite all the atrocities the Chinese government has committed, the Dalai Lama has not abandoned his ‘Middle Way Approach.’ On one hand this reflects tremendous tenacity of spirit, as well as unswerving faith in human nature and the eventual prevailing of what is right and just and good. On the other hand, it reflects a failure to understand the nature of evil, and to develop a more workable political strategy in accordance with the realities of unbridled power, ruthless oppression, and repeated betrayal.
The Chinese government, as long as it retains power, will not accept the premise that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile seek autonomy within and not independence from China
Since the Chinese government holds all the cards, and is completely ruthless, the Dalai Lama’s ‘approach that offers mutual benefits to China as well as to Tibet’ has always been a non-starter.
There is no ‘mutual benefit’ as far as tyrants are concerned. There is only acquiescence. That does not mean they should be opposed with violence.
But it does mean that where intractable evil has been demonstrated, people around the world must stand against it. The Chinese government is a lot shakier than people think, and things can change.
There is an old Tibetan prophecy: ‘When the iron bird flies, the dharma will go to the West.’ Perhaps it will. But as Tibetans also say, ‘May Tibet never be forgotten or forsaken.’

Dharamsala  ondemns Tibet Sentences, Urges China for Magnanimity
The Central Tibetan Administration is deeply concerned that the Chinese government has once again handed down a death sentence to one Tibetan and lengthy prison terms to five other Tibetans.
According to China’s state media, the Lhasa Intermediate People’s Court has sentenced Sonam Tsering, aged 23, a native of Rachap Township, Payul County in Kardze, to a two-year suspended death sentence for his alleged role in ?rioting? during the Tibetan people’s peaceful demonstration in 2008 against five decades of Chinese repression in Tibet.  Five more Tibetans –  Tashi Choedon, Kelyon, Yeshi Tsomo, Tayang, Tsewang Gyurmey – have been given
lenthy jail terms ranging from 3 to 7 years for harbouring Sonam Tsering. We strongly condemn the harsh sentences arbitrarily meted out to Sonam Tsering without truely conducting an open and fair trial.
The recent verdict is against the spirit of China’s first national human rights action plan (2009-2010) which stipulates that ?every precaution shall be taken in meting out a death sentence and judicial procedures for death sentences will be stringently implemented?. The rights action plan also affirms that ?the state takes effective steps to guarantee the lawful, timely and impartial  rial of all cases, and ensures clear facts, sufficient evidence and legitimate trial procedures.”
Moreover, it is totally against the claims of ?China’s tremendous achievements in the promotion and protection of human rights? during the UN Human Rights Council’s periodic review of China’s  human rights record last year. The head of the Chinese delegation o the UN, Mr. Li Baodong, had also said since the founding of New China in 1949, ? a fundamental social and political system for the promotion and protection of human rights has been established.”
We are deeply concerned that despite these pledges, since March 2008 seven Tibetans were given death sentences out of which four Tibetans were executed on 20 October 2009.
The Central Tibetan Administration once again appeals to the Chinese goverment and the international community, especially the UN Human Rights Council to give due consideration on the deteriorating human rights situation in Tibet.
The Central Tibetan Administration reiterates its longstanding appeal that China should release forthwith all prisoners of conscience and accept an international body to investigate the conditions in Tibet.
Kalon Kesang Y Takla
Department of Information & International Relations
Dharamsala
28 May 2010

Talking About Tibet: An Open Dialogue Between Chinese Citizens and the Dalai Lama

Perry Link

The Dalai Lama at the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine in New York, May 23, 2010
Following is an English translation of an Internet dialogue between the Dalai Lama and Chinese citizens that took place on May 21. The exchange was organized by Wang Lixiong, a Chinese intellectual known for his writing on Tibet and for theorizing about how China might generate its own kind of democracy in the Internet age.
The idea of promoting “free dialogue” on the Web between the Dalai Lama and Chinese citizens is an extremely bold notion. To China’s rulers, nearly every word in the phrase “free dialogue with the Dalai Lama” is anathema. The Dalai Lama, in their language, is a traitor, a “splittist,” an “enemy of the people,” a “monster,” a “wolf in monk’s robes.” The word “dialogue” has not fared well in Chinese Communist history, either. It is what student protesters were asking for in spring 1989 just before tanks and machine guns settled the question by massacre.
So how did Wang Lixiong do it? First he asked representatives of the Dalai Lama, who is on a tour of the U.S., for an hour of time in which the Tibetan religious leader might answer questions from Chinese citizens. The Dalai Lama agreed to use the hour of 8 to 9 a.m. (EST) on May 21 for this purpose. Wang then arranged to open a Twitter page beginning on May 17 at 10:30 a.m. (Beijing time), onto which Chinese Web users could pose questions. In order to promote democracy in the questioning process, Wang decided to prioritize the questions using the program Google Moderator, which posts all questions on a Google Moderator page inside China. According to the program, any Web visitor can vote on which questions he or she prefers and only one vote from any one remote Web user is accepted (to prevent a cyber version of ballot-box stuffing); during the voting period, a running tally is published on which questions have received the most votes.
This process went well until 4:07 p.m. (Beijing time) on May 18. At that moment access to the Google Moderator page inside China was blocked. Apparently the authorities had discovered the project. Many questions and votes had already been collected, however, and questions continued to pour in even after the blocking because many Web users in China know how to use proxy servers to “jump the great firewall” electronically. By 10 p.m. on May 20 (EST), which was the deadline Wang set for submitting questions and voting on preferences, 282 questions had been submitted and 12,045 votes for questions had been cast. Wang said that he was “very pleased” with this response and that the questions that rose to the top of the pile were indeed, in his view, a good representation of the actual concerns on the minds of Chinese citizens.
The questions that had the most votes at the end were presented to the Dalai Lama Friday at 8:00 a.m. (EST). My English translations of the questions and answers, which follow below, are based on a Chinese-language transcript that has been approved by the Dalai Lama’s staff. More detail is available at Wang Lixiong’s Twitter account (twitter.com/wlixiong). The numbers attached to the questions refer to their rank order in number of votes received.
Question 1: Your Holiness Dalai Lama, how are you? I want to ask you about the religious leadership of Tibet in the future. Please forgive my audacity, but what is your view on the possibility of “two successors” for you, as happened in the case of the 11th Panchen Lama [when Tibetan Buddhists chose one successor and the Chinese government arrested him and named another]? And what, by the way, is your view of the Panchen Lama that the Chinese government has appointed?
Dalai Lama: In 1969 I issued a formal declaration that the question of whether the Dalai Lama system should continue is a question for the Tibetan people to decide. In 1992 I issued another declaration, making clear that as soon as Tibet might gain formal autonomy, I would hold no official position in a Tibetan government and that all Tibetan affairs would be continue to be handled by officials serving in their posts inside Tibet. Then, in 2001 the Tibetan government in exile adopted a system to elect leaders to five-year terms of office by popular vote of the Tibetan community in exile. In view of these developments, I have come to feel that the Dalai Lama system is no longer very important. I am going to continue to do my best in my role as long as my health holds up, but as for the Dalai Lama system, I have to say that the Chinese government cares more about this than I do (laughs). A problem like that of “the two Panchen Lamas” might indeed appear. But if such a thing happens, it will only cause confusion and not do any good.
[On the government-appointed Panchen Lama], I understand that he is very bright and works hard at Buddhist cultivation. Believers remain skeptical about him, waiting to see whether he can cultivate himself to a high level. In my view this will be very important, and will depend upon his own efforts.
Question 2: I would like to ask Your Holiness about the meetings between the Tibetan government in exile and the Chinese Communists. Why are these meetings always fruitless? What exactly are the questions that have been so intractable over the decades?
Dalai Lama: The main problem is that the Chinese government continually insists that there is no Tibet problem, only a Dalai Lama problem. I have made no demands of my own, but am primarily concerned with six million Tibetans and their culture, especially their religion and their natural environment. If a day comes when Chinese leaders acknowledge a “Tibet question” in the same sense in which they recognize a “Xinjiang question,” and if they are ready to face the Tibet question and work for its solution, I will lend my full support, because our goals—to build, develop and unify Tibet—will then be the same. At present the Communists are relying on forcible methods. They repeatedly stress “stability” in Tibet. My belief is that true stability comes from inner confidence and trust.
Question 3: Hello, Your Holiness. Regardless of what political path China takes in the future, the gap between ordinary Tibetans and ordinary Han Chinese is getting bigger all the time. Many Tibetan people are too simplistic when they say the problem is just that Hans rule Tibet. In fact we Han people are also victims of the same dictatorial rule. How do you view this problem? Do you have any way of maintaining good relations between Hans and Tibetans?
Dalai Lama: Relations between the Han and Tibetan people did not begin in 1949 or 1950; they arose more than a thousand years ago. There have been times of harmony and times of conflict. We are now in a time of conflict, but the cause of the conflict has been the government, not the people. This why our people-to-people relations are so important. It is why we have set up “Tibetan-Han Friendship Associations” in many of the free countries of the world. These associations have seen some success.
In my view the main difficulty [on the Chinese government’s side] has been the failure to carry out Deng Xiaoping’s “seek truth from facts.” Hu Yaobang also had the right idea when he stressed “understanding actual conditions.” Recently Wen Jiabao has praised the spirit of Hu Yaobang’s approach of relying not just on official documents but doing on-the-scene investigation.
In China generally [not just Tibet], the pattern of ignoring actual conditions and living in non-transparent social structures causes many major problems. If there could be transparency and attention to actual conditions, much progress could be made, for example, in handling and reducing corruption and graft.
As for how to maintain good relations between Hans and Tibetans, my experience, wherever I go, has been that I get a lot of respect and sympathy from people if I just approach them as one human being to another. If Hans and Tibetans approach one another in this way, on a basis of equality, many problems might be solved. When I meet people from mainland China, I always find them extremely sincere and find no barriers to communicating with them.
The problems of doubt and suspicion between people are hardly limited to Tibetans and Hans. These problems exist everywhere in the world. This is why we need contact. We need it in order to get rid of suspicion and doubt. Whenever I meet someone, no matter where in the world it is, I emphasize harmony in person-to-person relations. There are two levels in any such meeting. The first is that we are all human beings. Only when that point is clear do I address differences of religion, culture, or language.
When I was in Beijing in 1954 and 1955, I learned that Marxist theory emphasizes “internationalism,” which is a doctrine that people everywhere are the same. I entirely agree with this.
Question 4: I would like to ask your Holiness about your “Memorandum on Achieving True Autonomy for All Tibetans,” in which you do not mention how to protect the rights of Han people living in Tibet. Would you, after autonomy, recognize the right of Han people who currently reside in Tibetan areas to continue living there? Can you publish a Memorandum describing how you would guarantee equal rights of life and livelihood to Han people in Tibetan areas? Many Han people believe that your “autonomy” is another word for independence and that an autonomous government would discriminate against Hans and drive them out.
Dalai Lama: Han people were living in Tibet before [the CCP takeover in] 1950. There were Hans and Muslims living near the place where I was born. In the future, too, Hans will no doubt live in Tibet. The crucial question is whether Tibet will become like Inner Mongolia, where Mongols have now become a minority. When this happens the significance of self-rule is lost. In some Tibetan districts, where the Han population has grown large, the language and culture of Tibet are in great peril.
Question 5: I would like to ask the Great Teacher why your description of earlier Tibet—as a harmonious Buddhist society—differs so radically from the Chinese government’s description of an evil slave society. There are many drawings and other visual materials that document a cruel and dark slave society. Can you explain why this discrepancy is so big?
Dalai Lama: Tibet before 1950 was a “backward society” and its institutions were imperfect. We acknowledge this. No one ever said Tibet before 1950 was a paradise. I don’t think any Tibetan, inside Tibet or outside, even in their dreams, would want to restore the old system intact.
On the other hand, the Chinese government’s widespread claims that old Tibet was a kind of hell are also very wide of the mark. For example the film called “People Denied the Right of Birth,” which was sponsored by the Chinese government, is pure propaganda and utterly unacceptable to most Tibetans because it departs so far from the truth. This is like the propaganda of the Cultural Revolution, with all its claims about “great victories”—which, once the true situation could no longer be covered up, melted into nothing. It is also reminds us of the Tiananmen events of June Fourth [1989], which the whole world knows about, but the Communists’ propaganda pretends not to have happened.
The most important point is that every one of you [Han Chinese friends] should make fair, objective, and scientific investigation of questions. I often say the same to Tibetans. I tell them not to take what I say as automatically true and accept it uncritically; I say make your own observations and reach your own conclusions. As a Buddhist, I approach even the words of the Buddha in this spirit of analyzing thoroughly and reaching one’s own understanding.
Question 6: If the regime were to allow you to return to Tibet, and were to grant self-rule to Tibet, what kind of political system would you like to see in Tibet?
Dalai Lama: This question will be for Tibetans inside Tibet, especially intellectuals, in a spirit of “seeking truth from facts,” to decide for themselves. Our Tibetan society in exile, for the past 50 years, has already achieved democratization in its social system.
Question 7: I would like to ask the Dalai Lama a sharp question. The fiercest criticism that Chinese government officials level against you is that you demand there be no troops in Tibet. This, they say, is evidence that you are asking for independence in disguise. Do you stick with your demand of “no troops in Tibet”? The right to station troops is a fundamental part of national sovereignty, and I am afraid that most Han people will not be able to agree to a “no troops” condition. Is there any possibility you will drop this condition?
Dalai Lama: We do ask for “autonomy,” but we have repeatedly been very clear that foreign relations and military affairs would remain the responsibility of the central government. Many years ago I expressed an idea that when relations of friendship and mutual trust had grown among India, Nepal, and Tibet, we might form a sort of “peaceful region,” but this was little more than a distant ideal. The whole world, actually, holds this kind of ideal. So there truly is nothing to worry about.
Question 8: In view of how things stand at present, the chances of a peaceful resolution of the problem of Tibet seem almost zero. May I ask how Your Holiness views the current prospects for Tibet?
Dalai Lama: During 60 years of Chinese Communist rule, the eras of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao have all been different. In fact there have been some very major changes. I feel confident that changes in [China’s] nationalities policy will come, and in particular that the Tibet problem can be solved on the basis of mutual interest. Some retired officials and Party members who used to work on Tibetan affairs—as well as some Chinese intellectuals—have begun to point out irrationalities in minority policy and the need for a re-thinking of nationalities policy. This is why I feel there will be changes in the not-so-distant future, and that problems can be solved.
May 24, 2010 9:30 a.m.

China arrest six monks in early morning raids in Jomda

Four monks of Wara Monastery in Thangpu Township, Jomda County (Ch: Jiangda xian) in Chamdo Prefecture, “Tibet Autonomous Region” (‘TAR’) were arrested last Saturday (15 May) under suspicion of leading and instigating protest at the county headquarters in Spring 2008 and two other official monks of the same monastery were arrested on Sunday for their failure to ‘educate’ the monks under ‘Patriotic education’ campaign, according to confirmed information received by the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD).
A total of six monks of Wara Monastery were arrested during early morning raids carried out by scores of Chinese Public Security Bureau (PSB) officials at the monks’ residence on Saturday and Sunday.
On 15 May (Saturday),Thinley, 25, and Nangsey, 27, were arrested from their room whereas Soegon, 26, was arrested for sounding alarm on the arrival of PSB into the monastery. Kelsang Gyurmey, 29, whom the PSB officials were looking for could not be traced in the monastery and was later arrested from his home. All the four monks were students of Buddhist philosophy at Wara Buddhist College that comes under Wara Monastery. The four monks are currently detained at Jomda County PSB Detention Centre.
On 16 May (Sunday) morning, the PSB officials came again to Wara Monastery and detained two senior monks: Sonam Gonpo a.k.a Soegon, 40, and Tagyal, 29. The duos were known to have been arrested for their failure to “educate” the monks of the monastery under “Patriotic education” campaign launched at the beginning of April 2008. There is no information on where the two monks are currently held.
On 3 April 2008, monks of Wara Monastery in Jomda County confronted and challenged the “work team” from carrying ‘patriotic education’ campaign by saying ‘even at the cost of our lives we will never defame and denounce our religious leader, the Dalai Lama”. According to sources, many of the Wara Monastery’s monks were in the forefront during the 2008 protests in Jomda County when they were blocked by the People’s Armed Police (PAP) from advancing towards the main county market to proceed with their protest.
At the beginning of this year, a novice monk, Jamyang Palden, 14, was detained twice and released after undergoing torture to extract confession for his role in 2008 protest at Jomda. He was detained for more than a week on both occasions at the Jomda County PSB Detention Centre. Similarly, Gyaltsen, 16, was also detained under suspicion of distributing and pasting speech by the late Panchen Lama to Tibetans during the 2008 protest. He was released after a week of interrogation at the PSB detention centre.
TCHRD condemns in strongest terms over the arbitrary detention of Wara monks. The Centre calls upon the Chinese authorities to immediately and unconditionally release the detained monks and guarantee in all circumstances the physical and psychological integrity of detained monks. The Chinese authorities should put an end to all acts of harassment against the monks so that they are able to carry out their religious studies without hindrances.
TCHRD – Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy