HRWF Int'l (18.09.2007) – Website: http://www.hrwf.net – Email: info@hrwf.net - On 8-9 September 2007, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, Taiwan Friends of Tibet and the Taiwan Foundation organized an International Symposium on Human Rights in Tibet in Taiwan.

The ceremony opened with welcoming remarks of the Minister of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, Mr. Hsu Chih-Hsiung, and with a speech of the President of the Republic of Taiwan, Mr. Chen Shui-Bian. The keynote speech was delivered by the vice-president of the European Parliament, Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott. A number of foreign experts contributed to the debate with the audience. ( See hereafter a summary of some papers as well as the attachments) 

President Chen Shui-Bian

The President of Taiwan recalled that in the inauguration conference of the Taiwan-Tibet Exchange Foundation in 2003, he made a policy proclamation that Taiwan government no longer considered the people associated with the Government of Tibet in exile as Chinese, that Taiwan would treat Tibet and China separately, and that Taiwan would build a new relationship with Tibet. "The new policy has resolved the problems that used to hinder the exchange between Taiwanese and Tibetans," he said. And he continued saying:

"Today, Tibet and Taiwan are sharing the same fate—we both need to confront the threat of China. The 23 million people in Taiwan can fully comprehend the suffering of Tibetans. And because of this empathy, Taiwan has given steadfast support and blessing to Tibet's pursuit in national self-determination. At the same time, we have also paid ever higher respect to Dalai Lama's strategic decision regarding Tibet's future. It is my sincere hope that a closer cooperative relationship can be established between Taiwan and the Government of Tibet in exile so that we can help and encourage each other in our endeavors of pursuing freedom, peace and human rights for Taiwanese and Tibetans.

Taiwan and Tibet have been the world's benchmarks in resisting China's power and pursuing freedom under China's military coercion. They are also the touchstones for examining whether the international society really respect human rights. If peace-loving, democracy-pursuing nations such as Taiwan and Tibet cannot be spared from China's military intimidation, the international society should not bear illusion about China in their mind."

Vice-President of the European Parliament Edward McMillan-Scott

In his presentation entitled "The European Model for the Future of China and its neighbours", McMillan-Scott stressed that religion could play the same role in China and it did for the Soviet bloc. "You cannot kill religious faith and if you try, recent history tells us it will kill you," he said. He recalled the severe persecution endured by Falun Gong practitioners since their movement was banned in 1999 and quoted attorney Gao Zhisheng, recently arrested and convicted of 'subversion', as saying that "the last systemic religious oppression was that of the Jews by the Gestapo." McMillan-Scott detailed the resolutions and reports of the European Parliament denouncing the massive violations of human rights and religious freedom by the Chinese Communist regime. He evaluated the dialogues between the EU and China and between China and the Dalai Lama. He concluded by saying that they have unfortunately proved to be fruitless and that "the EU should begin a debate about a boycott of the 2008 Olympics, unless by Christmas there is significant and profound change."

Prof. Ross Terrill, Harvard University

Prof. Ross Terrill presented a paper called "Human Rights in Tibet and the Burden of Chinese Hegemony." He stressed that Communist Beijing aims to flatten Tibetan civilization into a plateau of Han dominated "harmonious social" modernization. Whether this succeeds depends on the speed of the intended flattening, the methods employed to achieve it, and other factors beyond Beijing's policies. Beijing's demographic policies in Tibet, its hostility to Buddhism in Tibet, and a communication network designed   to reduce the separateness of Tibet, all suggest that present "autonomy" is but a stepping stone to an undifferentiated  Han led society. Only a new approach to unity and stability can produce a good relation between Lhasa and Beijing.

Arguing before the world to get the Olympic Games, Beijing's bid committee said "By allowing Beijing to host the 2008 Games, you will help the development of human rights." Yet, the opposite danger has loomed: Games preparation spurs repression.

Ultimately, human rights in Tibet will hinge on the fate of the Beijing party state, how economic development in the PRC as a whole relates to economic development in Tibet, various Asian responses to China's rise, and the will and unity of the Tibet people in retaining a distinct self governing minzu.

James Seymour, Senior Research Scholar, Columbia University

James Seymour approached the issue of human rights in Tibet from a different perspective with a paper entitled "A Hong Kong Model' for Tibet?"

His starting point was the supposition that there is some hope for Tibetans to enjoy democracy and self-rule, even as a constituent jurisdiction in the People's Republic of China. What would such a Tibet then look like? And he analyzed four possible scenarios: A democratic China - A reformed China - One China, Two Systems - One Tibet, One System.

In the short run, James Seymour recognized that there would appear to be no hope of even a Hongkong-like degree of autonomy for Tibet. In the intermediate period, the most that can be hoped for is some kind of federation or confederation system that would give the present Tibet Autonomous Region a degree of autonomy, which indeed is advocated by a few Chinese exiles. But even this cannot happen until there is a political sea change in Beijing.

For democracy to work in Tibet, two things would have to happen: The role of the Communist Party would have to be curbed, though not necessarily made as invisible as in the case in Hong Kong. Secondly, a new political culture would also have to emerge in Tibet. After all, the Tibetans in the homelands have no experience with rule of law and electoral politics, whereas Hongkongers do have such experience. But the examples of other East Asian countries indicate that previously oppressed peoples can quickly learn self-government, as exemplified by the cases of South Korea, Mongolia, Indonesia, and, of course, Taiwan.

Human Rights Without Frontiers Int'l

The director of HRWF Int'l presented a paper entitled "Religious Freedom in Tibet in 2007" . He started by recalling that China had signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) but persistently refuses to ratify the latter. He also condemned t he brutal and total interference of the Chinese state in the internal matters of the Tibetan Buddhist religion which is also especially obvious in the selection and appointment of the 11 th Panchen Lama.

The paper analyzed the provisions of the Chinese constitution dealing with freedom of religion, the 2007 TAR Measures for Implementation of 'Regulations for Religious Affairs', the situation of Tibetan Buddhist Monks and Nuns in China and the role of the Democratic Management Committees (DMCs). With concrete examples, the director of HRWF Int'l illustrated China's attempts to limit the freedom of movement of the Dalai Lama and the sharing of his teachings in EU and other countries. He assessed the dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama's Envoys. He analyzed some of the 25 resolutions adopted by the European Parliament in the last eighteen years.

He concluded that the international community will only be able to start to believe China has become a democratic country sincerely willing to respect human rights and freedom of religion:

when the Chinese Government has ratified the ICCPR, respects freedom of religion or belief and the right to profess and practice it individually and collectively,

when the Chinese authorities have allowed the Tibetan Buddhists to express their religious devotion to the Dalai Lama and to have unrestricted access to him,

when they have released the Panchen Lama, Gedun Choekyi Nyima, from state custody,

when they have put an end to their intervention in the identification and training of Tibetan reincarnate lamas,

when they have repealed the laws and regulations that are inconsistent with international standards that protect freedom of religion and belief,

when they have put an end to the interference of the state in the internal matters of the Tibetan Buddhist institutions,

when they have disbanded the democratic management committees,

when they have extended their invitation to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Ms Asma Jahangir, so that she can carry out a fact-finding mission about the alleged violations of religious freedom in China.

John Ackerly, President of International Campaign for Tibet

John Ackerly, President of International Campaign for Tibet, dealt with an unusual issue: the impact of a railway on human rights. The arrival of a railway line in Lhasa in 2006 had an enormous impact on the human rights situation in Tibet, he said.   The railway impacts both economic, social and cultural rights, an integral part of the body of international human rights, as well as civil and political rights – such as rights to free speech and political participation.

The railway accelerates the settling of large numbers of Chinese in Tibet, their take-over of many sectors of the economy in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and the erosion of Tibetan language and culture.  

If political will existed, John Ackerly said, regulations could sharply reduce the number of Chinese settling in Tibet, provide beneficial rail tariff structures for Tibetan industries, and address other aspects of the new railway.   However, it is clear that the purpose of this railway was to more fully integrate Tibet culturally, economically and politically into the Chinese nation. 

Tibet's small population and limited demand for inter-regional transit are not sufficient to justify the official estimate of US $4.1 billion for the railway's construction as well as its substantial operational costs.

The decision to build and maintain the Gormo-Lhasa railway was based primarily on political considerations rather than economic ones.  Former Chinese President Jiang Zemin famously said that, "Some people advised me not to go ahead with the project because it is not commercially viable.   I said this is a political decision." [1]  In 1997, Politburo member Li Ruihuan said:

"Expanding Tibet's economy is not a mere economic issue, but a major political issue that has a vital bearing on Tibet's social stability and progress. This work not only helps Tibet, but is also related directly to the struggle against the Dalai Lama's splittist attempts."

These political objectives are still deeply woven into China's nationalist discourse with the emphasis on territorial inviolability and control.

Experts discuss human rights in Tibet, Mongolia

By Loa Iok-sin

Taipei Times (09.09.2007)/ HRWF Int'l (18.09.2007) – Email: info@hrwf.net - Website: http://www.hrwf.net –President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday that Taiwan will support the Tibetan people's struggle for basic human rights and self-determination.

Chen made the remarks at the opening of the International Symposium on Human Rights in Tibet in Taipei yesterday. The two-day symposium is hosted by the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission.

Chen also issued an invitation to Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama to visit Taiwan.

A number of speakers at the symposium condemned Beijing over human rights violations and the repression of religious freedom in Tibet.

European Parliament Vice President Edward McMillan-Scott voiced his concern over the "rights of religious and ethnic minorities, including Tibetan Buddhists, the forced labor camps and allegations of organ harvesting" in China.

Phunchok Stobdan, a professor at India's University of Jammu and Kashmir, said that for quite some time Beijing had controlled the selection process of reincarnated major Tibetan Lamas.

"Chinese have shown not only willingness to perpetuate such institutions, but also asserted their rights in the selection process ... As such, irrespective of the Dalai Lama's decision, China [will decide on the] next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama," Stobdan said.

Tibetan Buddhists believe that Lamas reincarnate after death. The reincarnation of a Lama is accompanied by signs that religious leaders confirm through a complicated process.

"The system of reincarnation is one of the core beliefs of Tibetan religious tradition. China's ... imposition of its own candidate is nothing less than a violation of this core belief system," said Willy Fautre, president of Human Rights without Frontiers, quoting Lodi Gyaltsen, a special envoy of the Dalai Lama.

"[China's imposition of lama incarnation candidates] is a source of deep resentment among Tibetans, [in] that an atheist state has claimed the legitimacy to preside over a centuries-old religious practice," Fautre told the symposium.

Ross Terrill, an East Asian studies professor at Harvard University, called China's rule over non-Chinese regions of its territory "semi-colonial rule."

Participants also attempted to find a solution to the Tibet issue.

Adjunct senior East Asian research scholar James Seymour suggested that the "Hong Kong model" -- "one country, two systems" -- was an option.

Seymour reminded the audience that "even for partial democracy a la Hong Kong to work in Tibet, there would also have to emerge a new political culture there. Unlike Hong Kongers, the Tibetan people have no experience with rule of law and electoral politics."

Ming Chu-cheng, a professor of political science at National Taiwan University, said that "a federal system would likely become the mainstream option for future Sino-Tibetan relations."

Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission Chairman Hsu Chih-hsiung protested China's repression of the symposium.

"Many internationally renowned academics who originally planned to come to the symposium were not able to, because Chinese officials made contact with them, [passing themselves off as Taiwanese] officials and provided false information," Hsu said.