[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TIBET ``FROM ALL ANGLES'': PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS, DEFENDING STRATEGIC
ACCESS, AND CHALLENGING CHINA'S EXPORT OF CENSORSHIP GLOBALLY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 14, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at www.cecc.gov or www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-232 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected]
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
Senate House
MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey,
TOM COTTON, Arkansas Cochairman
STEVE DAINES, Montana ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
TODD YOUNG, Indiana MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California TIM WALZ, Minnesota
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TED LIEU, California
GARY PETERS, Michigan
ANGUS KING, Maine
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
Not yet appointed
Elyse B. Anderson, Staff Director
Paul B. Protic, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Statements
Page
Opening Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, a U.S. Senator from
Florida, Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China. 1
Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey,
Cochairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China........ 3
Wangchen, Dhondup, Tibetan Filmmaker and Recently Escaped
Political Prisoner............................................. 5
Dorjee, Tenzin, Ph.D., Commissioner, U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and Associate
Professor, California State University, Fullerton.............. 10
Green, Michael J., Ph.D., Senior Vice President for Asia and
Japan Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS)......................................................... 13
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements
Wangchen, Dhondup................................................ 34
Dorjee, Tenzin................................................... 37
Green, Michael J................................................. 63
Rubio, Hon. Marco................................................ 64
Submissions for the Record
Statement of Hon. James P. McGovern, a U.S. Representative from
Massachusetts.................................................. 65
Witness Biographies.............................................. 68
(iii)
TIBET ``FROM ALL ANGLES'': PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS, DEFENDING STRATEGIC
ACCESS, AND CHALLENGING CHINA'S EXPORT OF CENSORSHIP GLOBALLY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2018
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:42
a.m., in Room 301, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator
Marco Rubio, Chairman, presiding.
Also present: Representative Christopher Smith, Senator
Steve Daines, and Representative Ted Lieu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Chairman Rubio. This hearing of the Congressional-Executive
Commission on China will come to order. The title is ``Tibet
`From All Angles': Protecting Human Rights, Defending Strategic
Access, and Challenging China's Export of Censorship
Globally.''
We will have one panel today. It features Dhondup Wangchen,
a Tibetan filmmaker and recently escaped political prisoner;
Dr. Tenzin Dorjee, who is a Commissioner, U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, also an associate professor at
California State University at Fullerton; and Dr. Michael
Green, senior vice president for Asia and Japan Chair, Center
for Strategic and International Studies. We thank you all for
being here.
Without question, Tibet remains one of the most sensitive
issues in U.S.-China relations. Conflict between Tibetan
aspirations and Chinese policy is found within cultural,
religious, and educational spheres.
As the Chinese government seeks to diminish or altogether
eliminate aspects of Tibetan culture that it regards as
threatening, the peaceful exercise of internationally
recognized human rights is systematically suppressed. Inside
the Tibet Autonomous Region and Tibetan Autonomous areas,
Chinese officials have increased restrictions on the religious
and cultural life of Tibetans over the past decade by
implementing pervasive controls and restrictions on religious
practice. This trend was highlighted in the Commission's most
recent annual report.
Beginning in 2016, Chinese authorities targeted renowned
centers of Buddhist learning for demolition and reportedly
expelled more than 4,800 Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns and
subjected them to periods of ``patriotic education'' lasting
from several weeks to six months. There are more than 500 cases
of Tibetan political or religious prisoners currently in
detention who are in this Commission's political prisoner
database, a staggering figure that is far from exhaustive.
Access to Tibet for foreign journalists, nongovernmental
organizations, and diplomats remains severely restricted. At
the same time, the Chinese Communist Party's government exports
its authoritarianism abroad, pressuring foreign academic
institutions who invite the Dalai Lama to speak on campus, as
well as businesses who mention his name or the Tibet Autonomous
Region as a distinct region.
It is this dimension of global Chinese censorship which has
thus thrust Tibet into the news in recent days. Every week, it
seems another major international company is publicly, and in
some cases shamelessly, apologizing to the PRC for some sort of
misstep related to Tibet, the Dalai Lama, or otherwise
sensitive issues.
Driven by their bottom line in China's vast market, many
companies are increasingly prepared to toe Beijing's line.
There is a certain grim irony to the Chinese government
demanding that businesses apologize for social media posts on
social media platforms that are actually blocked inside of
China.
It is clear that the cost of doing business for foreign
companies in China keeps getting steeper, and at the same time,
there is little price to be paid in the west when companies
engage in self-censorship to further their bottom line despite
the fact that it is antithetical to the values that underpin
our own society--the values, by the way, that allow these
companies to even exist in the first place.
We will explore all of these topics during today's hearing,
in addition to the future of the Dalai Lama's succession,
China's efforts to control water resources and expand its
military presence on the Tibetan plateau, and the impact on the
broader U.S. strategic interests in human rights.
Before turning to our witnesses, I would be remiss if I did
not underscore how pleased we are to welcome the Tibetan
filmmaker Dhondup Wangchen to today's hearing. It is not often
that we are able to welcome to the witness stand political
prisoners whose cases the Commission has highlighted in our
prisoner database, in letters to the administration, and on our
social media.
Set against a backdrop of a different Olympic Games in
Asia, it is fitting to recall that Mr. Wangchen's ``crime'' was
the making of a short documentary film, ``Leaving Fear
Behind,'' in 2008, which was based on 108 interviews he
conducted with Tibetans who expressed views on a range of
issues from the Dalai Lama to the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Golog Jigme, Mr. Wangchen's assistant in producing the
film, was among the witnesses at an April 2016 Commission
hearing titled ``China's Pervasive Use of Torture.'' He too was
subsequently detained in 2008 for his work on the documentary,
and during his detention, he was severely tortured.
Mr. Wangchen, we welcome you to America. We welcome you to
safety and to freedom, and we stand with you in working toward
the day when the Tibetan people are afforded these same
protections.
I now recognize Congressman Smith for his opening comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW JERSEY, COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON
CHINA
Cochairman Smith. Thank you very much, Chairman Rubio. And,
again, thank you for your extraordinary leadership on this
Commission.
This hearing, again, reminds us of the dire and worsening
situation of the Tibetan people inside China. Along with you
and my colleagues, I would very, very robustly like to welcome
Dhondup Wangchen to the United States.
We're glad you're here and finally reunited with your
family. What an unbelievable irony that at a time when China is
buying Hollywood, and buying access, and buying companies to
influence product, that a man who speaks so eloquently to
another product--and that's repression--would find himself so
horribly mistreated.
So we are so glad you are here, and as the Chairman said,
you were one of the key focuses of this Commission for a very
long time. So thank you for being here.
You are one in a long line of heroic dissidents and former
prisoners of conscience who have testified before this
Commission. The Chinese government may not like our efforts,
and that is an understatement. They don't like a light being
shone on their human rights abuses, but nothing good happens in
the dark. We need to accelerate what we are doing to bring
focus and scrutiny to their abuses.
We are looking today at Tibet from all angles, as a human
rights issue, as a critical matter of diplomacy, and as a
geostrategic concern. Too often human rights and human rights
diplomacy are discounted or ignored as a secondary concern in
bilateral relations. That has been a bipartisan failure by a
number of White Houses and State Departments.
They are too often viewed as problems, and not of real
interest to the United States. I believe that sells out the
dissidents, and sells out the best and the bravest women and
men in China and anywhere else where we practice that kind of
subordination of human rights to other concerns.
It is abundantly clear that we are in direct link between
China's domestic human rights problems and the security and the
prosperity of the United States. There is a link.
The health of the U.S. economy and the environment, the
safety of our food and drug supplies, the security of our
investments and personal information in cyberspace, the
academic freedom of our universities and the stability of the
Pacific region will all depend on China complying with
international law, allowing the free flow of news and
information, complying with its WTO obligations, and protecting
the basic rights of Chinese citizens, including the fundamental
freedoms of religious expression, assembly, and association.
Losing sight of these facts leads to bad policy, bad
diplomacy, and the needless juxtaposition of values and
interests. It also sends the wrong message to those in China
standing courageously for greater freedom, human rights, and
the rule of law.
There is the issue of corporate capitulation referenced by
our distinguished Chairman. As Mercedes Benz pulled an
advertisement on Instagram with the Dalai Lama and a quote,
``Look at a situation from all angles and you will become more
open.'' Like Delta and Marriott before it, Mercedes shamelessly
apologized even though Instagram is blocked in China.
I remind my colleagues that back in 2006, I began a series
of hearings where we had Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Yahoo. I
had them take the stand and swear in. It was an eight-hour
hearing. And they were not only censoring all things on their
platforms, Google especially, but they were also aiding and
abetting the propaganda of the Beijing dictatorship, all for
profit--all for profit.
Now we see others following that terrible and dangerous
precedent of years ago. It has been unabated, and now it's
continuing even in a more shameless way toward Tibet.
The administration's national security strategy rightly
identifies China's foreign influence operations as a strategic
threat. It is imperative to counter China's global influence
operations and efforts to export its authoritarian model, and
globally.
I chair the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights
Committee. We are planning very shortly, within about a month,
a hearing on the influence in Africa. We've had them before,
but it is getting worse. The bad governance model of Beijing is
being accepted by some, particularly dictatorships like
Zimbabwe. So we need to bring a light there and compete with
that influence that is being subjected, or imposed, I should
say, on Africa.
As China increasingly flexes its economic muscle, the
result will be more apologies, sadly, accommodation, and self-
censorship.
Corporate America needs to get more of a backbone. It needs
to stand for fundamental freedoms. Yes, make a profit, but do
so in a way that does not violate human rights. And it is not
just companies that have capitulated, but universities and
Hollywood, and nongovernmental organizations, and even whole
countries.
As China's Belt and Road Initiative expands, so will
demands that countries be silent about human rights abuses,
silent about religious persecution, and silent about the
Chinese government's repeated failure to abide by its
international obligations.
Where is the UN? I have raised it over and over again. The
Human Rights Council, even at the Periodic Review it's a very
short look and scrutinizing--Israel gets unbelievable focus at
the United Nations on all things related to human rights;
China, not even a slap on the wrist.
We should not be silent about the abuses faced by the
Tibetan people and religious leaders. The China Commission's
political prisoner database contains records on 600 known
Tibetan political and religious prisoners. Forty-three percent
of those detained are monks, nuns, and religious teachers.
Almost all were imprisoned since 2008.
The Tibetan people have a right to practice their religion,
preserve their wonderful culture, and speak their language.
They have a right to do so without restriction or interference.
The Chinese government, of course, does not agree. To them,
their faith and culture are problems to be solved, not a
heritage to be preserved and protected. To them, the Dalai Lama
is an agitator and a revolutionary, not a world-renowned and
respected voice for peace and harmony that we know him to be.
The Chinese government wants the Tibetan Buddhism that is
attractive to tourists for photo ops, and not the one that is
strongly embraced and revered by the Tibetan people. Allowing
greater religious freedom is an essential part of dealing with
the grievances of the Tibetan people, but China's answer is
always the same: control, manage and repress, and incarcerate,
and torture. It is counterproductive and it violates China's
international obligations.
Finally, in our dealings with the Chinese government and
officials, Members of Congress and the administration should
affirm the peaceful desires of the Tibetan people for greater
autonomy and freedom within China. We should stress that
China's policies create needless grievances and their
repression of Tibet only hurts China's international prestige.
It brings dishonor--dishonor to Beijing.
We should demand open access to Tibet by journalists and
diplomats, and we should raise the cases of prisoners of
conscience with Chinese officials. U.S. leadership on these
issues is critical because our allies in Europe and Asia can
often be bullied by Chinese threats of economic boycotts. We
must demonstrate that Tibet matters, human rights matter, that
religious freedom matters to U.S.-China relations.
And, again, I want to thank Chairman Rubio who has been a
stalwart in speaking out on behalf of human rights all over the
world, including and especially in Tibet.
Chairman Rubio. Thank you. Thank you for those kind
comments. And thank you as well for your activism, and for your
work on this Commission, and for being accommodating at the
late start. We have all of these other issues going on.
So let's begin with our witness testimony.
Mr. Wangchen, we thank you for being here with us today,
and we recognize you for any statement you have for the
committee.
STATEMENT OF DHONDUP WANGCHEN, TIBETAN FILMMAKER AND RECENTLY
ESCAPED POLITICAL PRISONER
Mr. Wangchen. [Formal Tibetan Greeting.] I am very pleased
to be here--to be in the United States Congress--to be
addressing you, the Members of Congress. I would like to take
this opportunity to thank you all for your support for the
Tibetan people.
I would like to begin by talking about the reason why I
made the movie ``Leaving Fear Behind.'' The Chinese authorities
were launching a campaign of disinformation about what the
Tibetan situation is, what Tibet is. They claim that there is
religious freedom in Tibet, there is freedom of expression,
etc. So I wanted to address all of these issues.
The reality is that today life in Tibet is being
destroyed, the nomadic tradition of the majority of Tibetans is
being destroyed. Tibetans are being forced to denounce His
Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and there is virtually no space for
the Tibetan grievances to be addressed. Therefore, without
being afraid of all of the risks that entails, we wanted to
make this documentary to spread the true information about
Tibet to the world.
As a result of making that documentary, the Chinese
authorities detained and imprisoned me. During the
imprisonment, I suffered physical torture as well as mental
torture. Physically for days and nights, they would abuse me.
Mentally, they would not allow me to sleep. They would not
allow me to do anything that I wanted. They would even insert
fear into me by putting a mask or a hood over me whenever they
were taking me, handcuffing me, so that I didn't really know
where they were taking me.
So then I was without any due process. I was sentenced to
six years of imprisonment. They did not allow me to have my own
lawyers. They did not follow the judicial process, in violation
of their own constitution. And then they gave me the six years
of imprisonment.
In prison, there was discrimination. Although as a
political prisoner, they should have given me certain rights,
they did not do that. They also did not allow me to have any
connections with my family, etc. So, virtually, they did not
give me any rights that they were giving even to other
prisoners.
So, therefore, I confronted the prison authorities about
the rights that a prisoner should be getting, that I should be
getting. And that they did not allow me. As a result, I wrote a
long petition to the international community about the
situation inside the prison, about my situation, about what was
happening there. And I sent this petition out in the hope that
it would be spread in the international community.
However, the Chinese authorities confiscated that petition.
As a result, I was sentenced to 84 days of solitary
confinement.
Even when I was released, my release wasn't like any other
prisoners. Normally, prisoners--when they are released at--when
prisoners are released, they are released at 7:00 a.m., and
then they are handed over to the family members. However, in my
case, I was taken at 4:00 a.m. and was able to be at my
family's home only at 4:00 p.m. after taking me different ways
to the place.
Even after release, I was virtually in prison. My political
rights were taken away for three years. Wherever I would like
to go, it would be monitored and I had to seek permission from
the authorities.
They would interrogate me, and one of the issues they would
always raise with me is, you have made this movie, ``Leaving
Fear Behind,'' which has been internationally known. So if you
confess your wrongdoing about that documentary, then we will
help you with your family reunification.
And it wasn't just me alone that the Chinese authorities
were tormenting. The people I--me, my friends, the place where
I stayed, or wherever I went, those people would also be
confronted, or would also be interrogated by the Chinese
authorities.
I also know that the United States Government had appealed
to the Chinese authorities about my case, but nothing came out
of that thing. So eventually, ultimately, through the help of
many people, despite the risk involved, despite having to pay a
lot of expenses, I was able to escape.
I am in freedom now. However, there are many people like me
who are political prisoners, who are under detention in China.
So I would like my testimony to be read--the full testimony
to be on the record, but will read excerpts from it.
Cochairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
And please proceed. Take as long as you would like.
[The prepared statement of Dhondup Wangchen appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Wangchen. I was born on October 17, 1974, to a family
of Tibetan farmers in Bayen which is in the province we call
Amdo. In today's administrative divisions, Bayen is in Tsoshar
prefecture, Qinghai province, People's Republic of China.
I arrived in the USA on December 25, 2017, and it was the
first time in many years that I felt safety and freedom. The
reunion with my family in San Francisco was a wonderful moment
that I had looked forward to in the past years with a mixture
of anxious joy and the hesitation a man feels who was hindered
from being the husband he ought to be for his loving wife, a
man who was not given the chance to stand by with fatherly
advice to his children in a world full of challenges, and a man
denied being the son needed for his aging parents, tormented by
the thought that they would not see each other again in their
lifetime.
Growing up in the remote village of Khotse in Amdo, 2000 km
east of Tibet's capital, Lhasa, I started the discovery of my
people's history with little knowledge, but with an insatiable
and juvenile curiosity about what life had to offer me.
Our family lived a simple life, right at the edge of the
Tibetan plateau, bordering the Chinese mainland. I was aware of
repression in the past. I had lost members on both my mother's
and my father's sides of the family as a result of China's
atrocities toward Tibetans.
However, it wasn't until I made my journey to Lhasa in the
early 1990s as a young adult that I first saw, firsthand,
resistance to China's occupation and political symbols such as
the Tibetan national flag. In 1992, I witnessed monks from
Ganden Monastery carry out a street protest in Lhasa. Some nuns
also protested. I saw armed police and military forces quell
the protest in a heavy-handed manner and detain the monks and
nuns.
It was also in 1992 that I decided to go to India to see
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and receive some education. At that
time, there were many Tibetans escaping to India. However, I
only stayed a year and returned to Tibet in 1993 where I was
involved in activism such as helping former political
prisoners.
I would like to acknowledge my cousin Jamyang Tsultrim who
mentored me in my formative years and who is here at today's
hearing.
In 1996, my good friend, Ganden monk Jigme Gyatso--a true
Tibetan hero--was arrested on charges related to the 1992
protest. Jamyang Tsultrim was also arrested and they both
served prison sentences. I was working in Jamyang's restaurant
in Lhasa, which the authorities threatened to close down as it
was the center of many of our activities.
I spent many years involved in various forms of activism
and was detained several times. The longest that I was held in
detention was for about 30 days in Lhasa in 2001, but I was
never formally charged and was always released.
As the 2008 Olympic Games were fast approaching, and it was
always being reported in state media, I told Jamyang Tsultrim--
who had by then gone to Switzerland--that I wanted to do
something that would have a big and long-term impact and that
would reflect the true feelings and wishes of the Tibetan
people. This was when we first started thinking about making a
documentary film from inside Tibet that would later be known as
``Leaving Fear Behind.''
I set to work finding collaborators and traveling all over
Tibet to interview ordinary Tibetans. We would record
interviews in isolated places so as not to arouse suspicion,
and we were always careful to ask whether the interviewees
wanted to have their face shown on camera or not. We carried
with us the DVDs of the ceremony which showed U.S. President
George Bush awarding His Holiness the Dalai Lama the
Congressional Gold Medal in October 2007. We showed this to
many people who became very emotional upon seeing it.
Our final footage was taken in Xi'an on March 10, 2008, and
handed over to a UK-born Tibetan who helped to ensure that it
reached Zurich in Switzerland. We spent that day together
unaware that protests had broken out in Lhasa the same day and
would continue over the next days and months all over Tibet.
Even though I was aware that I was being followed and was
under surveillance, it wasn't until March 26, 2008 that I was
arrested and interrogated by secret police. I was not kept in a
police station or prison but in a hotel, and my family was not
informed of my whereabouts.
The torture started as soon as I was detained. I was forced
to sit in the ``tiger chair'' for seven days and eight nights.
I was given no food and was not allowed to fall asleep.
It wasn't long before I was back in detention after I was
briefly released.
``Leaving Fear Behind'' was by then released and
distributed online just before the Olympics started in China.
Even though I did not know for sure, I was hopeful that
everything had gone according to plan. I suspected that the
authorities were building their case against me. I was often
interrogated and told I had to denounce His Holiness the Dalai
Lama, and that if I admitted my wrongdoings, I would be
released. I always refused to do these things.
I was shown ``Leaving Fear Behind'' while in detention in
December 2008, a few months before I was released. I will
remember this moment forever. The interrogator wanted to know
how I knew the people I had interviewed. And then they showed
me the edited film and wanted me to confess.
For the first time I watched the film in a Chinese prison.
While the interrogator continued to force me to confess my
wrongdoings, I just enjoyed in my inside the train scene, the
music and auspicious lyrics and felt immensely proud. I thought
that even if I received a 10-year sentence, it would have been
worth making the film. I felt happy for the interviewees who
had taken great risks to appear in the film and we had promised
them that the film would be seen by the outside world, and His
Holiness the Dalai Lama would know about the film as well. So I
was happy that I had been able to keep that promise to the
interviewees.
I remained in informal detention until I was tried and
sentenced on December 28, 2009, to six years in prison for
``subversion of state power.'' The case against me mentioned
the projects I had been involved with, printing and
distributing books, as well as making ``Leaving Fear Behind.''
During my time in various forms of labor detention, I had
to do manual labor which differed depending on where I was. I
had been made to do many different tasks such as peeling garlic
or stitching military uniforms and was given only two meals a
day, which was barely adequate. The day would start at around
6:30 a.m., and we had to work until 11:00 p.m. We never went
outside and I was in constant pain with headaches and hurting
arms. I always witnessed a difference in how prisoners and
political prisoners were treated. When it came to Tibetan
prisoners, we were never allowed to speak Tibetan to each
other.
While in prison, I wrote many letters to my sister and my
family members, and the prison authorities took them, saying
they would be sent on. After release, I discovered that none of
the letters had arrived. In March 2012, it was discovered that
I tried to smuggle a letter to the outside world. This letter
was a long appeal to the then Chinese President, Hu Jintao, and
Premier Wen Jiabao outlining the corrupt prison system and the
discrimination that Tibetan prisoners suffer. I was punished by
being placed in solitary confinement for 84 days.
Following my release, I was always monitored closely and
the police would contact me constantly. I did not feel free at
all. I wanted to study and improve my Tibetan, and I wanted to
work, but in those three and a half years I couldn't do
anything. Feeling frustrated and increasingly isolated, I
decided that it would be better to escape from the PRC, rather
than stay under those circumstances without any freedom.
While in Tibet, I had information that the outside world,
including the United States Government, was concerned about my
situation. The Swiss, Dutch and the German governments were
also concerned about me. The attention from outside from civil
societies around the world, as well as from governments,
definitely helped me. This was reflected, for example, in the
way my prison inmates and the prison administration treated me.
Though I suffered from being restricted in my communications
with my relatives, to the extent that I was isolated from the
outside world, I was less subject to arbitrary punishments and
beatings.
I feel your support for cases like me and Tibet, in
general, could be of greater effect if you regularly recall the
ground reality in Tibet. There are thousands of Tibetans like
me, actively involved in the struggle. Tibetans in Tibet are
not victims but agents of change trying to explore and use
every opportunity to fight for a better future. We need support
and partnership from the outside world.
Every attempt for more freedom or democracy is oppressed by
China. It is against the nature of this regime to tolerate
freedom and democracy, be it in China, in Tibet and ultimately
in the rest of the world.
I am not a politician, and my knowledge about the specifics
of your legislative process is limited. My friends from the
International Campaign for Tibet in Washington, D.C. explained
the goal and important details of their recommendations to the
Congress to me. I am happy to support these recommendations.
Actions taken by the U.S. Congress on Tibet send a strong
message to the people in Tibet. However, the systematic
suppression of free press and reporting from Tibet can only be
fought with a systematic counterapproach. Therefore, the
Congress should pass the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of
2017.
I know that there is a U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan
Issues in the State Department who I would have liked to meet,
but I am told no one has been appointed to this position as
yet. And so I would like this position to be filled as soon as
possible. I would also like you all to pass the resolution
expressing the sense of the Congress that the treatment of the
Tibetan people should be an important factor in the conduct of
United States relations with China.
I would like to ask the U.S. administration to raise Tibet
in appropriate international fora, including the U.N. bodies.
Finally, I would like to urge China to release all Tibetan
political prisoners, including the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun
Choekyi Nyima.
My wish is that whatever measures you take, do it with the
strongest possible conviction and in the most forceful and wise
manner. As a Tibetan who has tried his best to give a voice to
his fellow countrymen, I can assure you that Tibetans in Tibet
have not given up.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Chairman Rubio. Thank you.
Dr. Dorjee.
STATEMENT OF TENZIN DORJEE, Ph.D., COMMISSIONER, U.S.
COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (USCIRF) AND
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON
Mr. Dorjee. My thanks to the Congressional-Executive
Commission on China, and you, Senator Rubio and Representative
Smith, cochairs of the Commission; and Representative Lieu and
Senator Daines for today's hearing.
I ask that my written testimony be submitted for the
record.
I am Tenzin Dorjee, a USCIRF Commissioner. I testify as a
proud Tibetan American and Tibetan refugee.
I am joyful to be here with Dhondup Wangchen but saddened
that he and his family had to flee Tibet to live in freedom.
This is so because the Chinese government seeks total
domination by forcing Tibetans to assimilate into the dominant
Han culture, seeking to control Buddhism and restricting the
teaching of the Tibetan language. The government seeks to
advance its sinicization of religion, infusing all aspects of
faith into a socialist mold with Chinese characteristics.
Tibet now is a police state because:
(1) The Chinese government implements oppressive
restrictions in Tibet and Tibetan areas, including reeducation
campaigns and extensive surveillance and intrusive presence of
military and security forces. The government quickly suppresses
any perceived religious dissent and imprisons and tortures
those viewed as threats. While these policies are set in
Beijing, Chen Quanguo perfected the surveillance state when he
was Tibet's party Secretary. He now is Xinjiang's leader and
doing the same thing there.
(2) The Chinese government believes the Dalai Lama
threatens its control. Officials recognize his central
importance to Tibetans. While the Dalai Lama seeks to achieve
stability and coexistence between Tibetans and Chinese through
the Middle Way, the government accuses him of blasphemy and
splittism, targeting anyone suspected of separatist activities
and participating in the Dalai clique.
Beijing seeks to diminish the Dalai Lama's international
influence. For instance, after delivering a commencement
address in 2017 at the University of California, San Diego, the
Chinese Communist Party-controlled Global Times condemned the
university for inviting him to speak, and threatened to
withhold visas. Officially atheist, the Chinese government
absurdly claims it can select the next Dalai Lama. Such a
decision is reserved to the current Dalai Lama, Tibetan
Buddhist leaders, and the Tibetan people. If Sino-Tibetan
issues do not get resolved, His Holiness has said that the next
Dalai Lama will be born in freedom.
While the Dalai Lama hopes to return to Tibet, the Chinese
government waits for his death outside China, viewing it as a
key to resolving Sino-Tibetan issues. However, the consequences
of his death in exile will be unimaginable to Tibetans. Some
may resort to violence and others to self-immolation.
(3) The Chinese government enforces intrusive restrictions
on public and private religious practice. This includes
monitoring the training, assembly, selection, and education of
Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders. The government seeks to
strike at Tibetan Buddhism's heart by targeting Larung Gar, one
of the largest Tibetan Buddhist institutes. The destruction and
micromanagement there and in Yachen Gar exemplifies Beijing's
goal of eviscerating the teachings and study of Tibetan
Buddhism so that it serves the Chinese Communist Party and
government goals.
(4) The government imprisons subjects through sham trials
and tortures prisoners of conscience to control Tibetan
Buddhists. This includes the Panchen Lama. The Chinese
government disappeared him more than two decades ago, then
announced its own pick who most Tibetans will just reject. The
government must provide videographic evidence of his
whereabouts and well-being. I advocate for him in USCIRF's
Religious Prisoners of Conscience Project.
The government detained Tashi Wangchuk in 2016, after he
spoke to the New York Times on Tibetan language, education and
culture. He was tried in January 2018. No verdict was issued
then. He could face up to 15 years in prison. The Chinese
government targeted him because it believes that Tibetan
language acquisition impedes the sinicization of the education
system and Tibetan assimilation into the majority culture.
Choekyi is a Tibetan monk imprisoned for his expressed
loyalty to the Dalai Lama. He was sentenced to four years in
prison for conducting separatist activities. His health has
deteriorated in prison.
(5) At least 152 Tibetans have self-immolated since
February 2009. Chinese authorities allege that self-immolators
threaten stability and security by committing terrorist acts in
disguise, and act to prevent information being disseminated
about them by threatening family members with punishment and
detaining and torturing those suspected of involvement.
(6) The long arm of China--the Chinese government has a
long arm and a heavy hand in its quest to censor information
and criticism about its actions in Tibet.
The Chinese government in 2017 warned countries like
Botswana and India about the Dalai Lama's planned appearances
and praises the government of Nepal--where about 20,000
Tibetans live, many in formal detention camps.
The Chinese government's actions pose serious concerns for
democratic norms and institutions in the United States. Along
with pressuring UC San Diego, it works closely with the Chinese
Students and Scholars Association to pressure other
universities. Some characterize the group as a tool of the
government's foreign ministry. Chinese students with the CSSA
harassed me in 2008 when I was a doctoral student at the
University of California, Santa Barbara. About 100 tried to
disrupt a Tibet event. I was standing along with a Tibetan flag
when about 30 surrounded and screamed at me, calling me a
terrorist and a bastard. I stood my ground nonviolently.
I also want to touch on Confucius Institutes in U.S.
colleges and universities, and primary and secondary school
classrooms. Its mandate is to promote cultural exchange through
Chinese language and cultural instruction. A Chinese state
organ selects the teachers and materials, thereby allowing it
to promote Beijing's ideology and policy goals and soften its
authoritarian image by helping shape public opinion.
Finally, as an academic, I am very concerned about the
Chinese government's attempt to censor and pressure foreign
publishers like Springer Nature and Cambridge University Press
to block content. Thankfully, Cambridge reversed course after a
backlash, but Springer Nature did not.
I end with these recommendations. Along with designating
China a CPC for its violations of religious freedom, with
specific sanctions associated with the designation, Congress
should pass the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2017. USCIRF
thanks Senator Rubio for sponsoring this bill.
Send delegations to China, request to visit Tibet and
advocate for prisoners of conscience and their families.
The United States Government should appoint a qualified
individual to serve as Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues
at the State Department as mandated by the 2002 Tibetan Policy
Act.
There should be sanctions against officials and agencies
for participating in or being responsible for human rights
abuses, including the Global Magnitsky Human Rights
Accountability Act and the Global Magnitsky Act.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dorjee appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Rubio. Thank you so very much.
[Applause.]
Chairman Rubio. Dr. Green.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. GREEN, Ph.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
ASIA AND JAPAN CHAIR, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES (CSIS)
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank
you very much for inviting me and for your focus on this
important issue.
It is an honor to appear on this podium with Tenzin Dorjee,
and particularly with Dhondup Wangchen whose voice is, I think,
the most important we'll hear. I hope to add to their comments
by framing Tibet issues in the context of U.S. policy towards
China, geopolitics, and our national interests. I would ask
that my written comments be submitted for the record.
Those who argue that U.S. policy should somehow be
distinguished from our values as a nation, I think,
misunderstand both our interests and our history. I recently
published a history of American strategy in Asia and made the
argument with plenty of evidence that American statecraft has
successfully prevented the rise of hostile hegemons in the Asia
Pacific region, not just by force of arms or realpolitik, but
by investing over the long term in democratic norms and open
societies.
In Tibet, as in many other parts of Asia today, our
consistent support for those same universal values will have an
important impact on whether China uses its growing power for
coercion and hegemonic control or finds ways to contribute to
regional prosperity consistent with the needs and expectations
of her people and her neighbors.
We have to recognize that the powerful aspirations of the
Tibetan people for dignity, religious freedom, and cultural
autonomy intersect with rising geopolitical tensions along the
Himalayan Plateau. China's insecurity about this region is
deeply rooted.
In 2008, China's central military commission ranked Tibet
as the most critical sovereignty challenge to the country,
ahead of Xinjiang and Taiwan. The flipside of this insecurity
is expansionism. Beijing has made dramatic moves to assert
strategic dominance over the Himalayan Plateau at the expense
of rival India.
India and China together have 37 percent of the world's
population, and only about 10 percent of the world's water
supply. And they are both growing. China has begun damming
rivers in the Himalayan Plateau and is poised to divert huge
amounts of water away from India by damming rivers like the
Brahmaputra into China. China has suspended agreements on
sharing hydrological information and has defied international
demands for transparency on their plans.
Beijing has also made moves to establish military dominance
in areas contested with India, paralleling similar moves to
militarize artificial islands in the South China Sea, but in
this case, at an altitude of over 10,000 feet. Satellite photos
have shown that the PLA is militarizing the area of Doklam with
helipads, roads, and hardened fortifications only dozens of
meters from India's forward outpost.
When India tested a ballistic missile capable of hitting
China recently, the official Chinese media--by the way, China
already has the ability to hit India--called for a
counterstrategy of expanding into the Indian Ocean.
So the Tibetans' struggle is occurring at the epicenter of
China's aggressive attempt to consolidate and expand control of
its periphery within the Indian and Eurasian continent.
Finally, the Tibetan people's aspirations are colliding
with the greatest vulnerability of the Chinese Communist
Party--that party's inability to accommodate the growing and
legitimate spiritual and social demands of all of its 1.4
billion citizens. This includes the most senior figures in the
Communist Party. We know, for example, that Li Peng--the
premier who ordered the crackdown in Tiananmen--converted to
Tibetan Buddhism in his old age. We hosted His Holiness the
Dalai Lama at CSIS in 2007, and His Holiness put it this way;
he said, when you are in your 80s, socialism with Chinese
characteristics is not so useful.
The spiritual threat of religious freedom in China is
something we have to recognize is a regime threat for the
Chinese leadership. Driven by all of these insecurities,
Beijing has chosen to turn away from dialogue with His
Holiness's representatives on legitimate questions of religious
and cultural autonomy; and instead, as you have heard, to try
to break the will of the Tibetan people through a combination
of repression, Hanization of the Tibetan Autonomous Region,
massive economic infrastructure building, and political control
of the succession to the 15th Dalai Lama.
Steady U.S. support for the Tibetan people is, therefore,
morally and strategically imperative. If we turn a blind eye to
coercion by China in any one part of Asia in order to win
support by China in another, we will find we are on a slippery
slope. It could be Tibet today. It could be Taiwan tomorrow. It
could be Japan the next day.
U.S. support is also necessary to demonstrate to the
Tibetan people that His Holiness was right to champion the so-
called Middle Way of dialogue with Beijing within the context
of China's own constitution, and that those long-suffering and
brave people in Tibet and the surrounding regions do not have
to choose either surrender or violence.
In addition, U.S. support is necessary--consistent U.S.
support--to solidify solidarity around the world for Tibet.
That solidarity faltered in 2009 when President Obama chose to
hold off meeting with His Holiness in Washington. And in Europe
and Australia and around the world, there was a palpable effect
on what governments were willing to do in terms of taking risks
vis-a-vis Beijing to support His Holiness.
The Trump administration has not yet fully stepped up to
this reality, in my view. The administration's announcement of
a free and open Indo-Pacific strategy strikes me as the right
framing of how we bring our values to policy towards Asia. But
as far as we know, this President is the first in two decades
who has not raised Tibet in meetings with his counterparts. We
don't know if the Secretary of State has.
The United States still does not have a Tibet Coordinator
as required under legislation. I understand that the Secretary
of State wants to have the Undersecretary for Civilian
Security, Democracy, and Human Rights fulfill this role, which
I think would be okay. But there is no nominee for that
position. I looked on the website for that Undersecretary's
office, and I searched the word ``Tibet'' and found eight
references to Tibet being part of China. The ninth reference
was to the human rights report two years ago. And that was
about it.
The administration should support, in my view, the
Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2017. As a scholar, as a
former senior policymaker, I favor dialogue with China on all
issues, including this one. In 2007 and 2008, I was involved in
a dialogue at CSIS sanctioned by the Chinese government with
Tibetan authorities about the situation in Tibet. That dialogue
dried up. The Chinese side cut it off. I think we need leverage
to pry open access and dialogue on Tibet and the legitimate
rights of the Tibetan people.
There is, as I understand it, a Presidential waiver in the
legislation. I think the administration can use this when Party
officials from the Tibet Autonomous Region are ready for
serious dialogue. But without some kind of pressure, I don't
think we are going to get the Chinese side taking us seriously
on this issue, in particular, as China closes off the region to
journalists, scholars, officials, and tourists. Reciprocity is
a critical part of American or any country's foreign policy
strategy.
I would conclude by emphasizing that what I am describing
and what I think U.S. policy is aiming at is achieving what
Beijing itself has claimed to support in its own constitution
and in prior dialogues with representatives of His Holiness,
which is respect for the cultural, religious, and social rights
of the Tibetan people. And to retreat from that support now
would be to signal acceptance of the logic that Chinese power
must be accommodated even when that power is used to reverse
rules, norms, and understandings that are vital to peace,
prosperity, and U.S. interests in this vital region of the
world.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green appears in the
appendix.]
[Applause.]
Chairman Rubio. Thank you all. I am going to yield my
opening questions to Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Rubio and
Representative Smith. Thanks for your leadership too, on this
important commission. I want to thank you for holding this
hearing and thanks to the witnesses for coming before us and
providing your perspective and expertise on this very important
topic.
I spent about half a decade, a little more than half a
decade living in China as an ex-pat, back in the 1990s working
for Proctor & Gamble. I have led congressional delegation trips
to China while I have been serving here in Washington, D.C.
I've had the opportunity to travel across the country. In fact,
in 2016 when I led the congressional delegation, Senators and
Members of the House, we went to Urumqi. We got to see the
prominent Uyghur Muslim population as well.
Last year we were in Tibet. And we got to see firsthand the
Buddhist monks and, importantly, how they have been preserving
the culture and their religious heritage there. It has allowed
me to see firsthand the human rights abuses and challenges that
Chinese people face and the positive impact that an American
presence can have in that country. In fact, our two youngest
children--we have four children--our two youngest were born in
Hong Kong back in the 1990s.
So I really see Asia as really part of my experiences. When
I think about China and talk about it, it is not in some
theoretical construct. It is something that we have lived and
breathed, whether living there or with subsequent visits.
These travels have provided me the opportunity to raise
critical issues impacting Tibet related to human rights,
religious freedom, having access in Tibet, face-to-face
dialogue with Chinese officials and leadership. In fact, just
yesterday, yesterday afternoon, I had the opportunity to raise
many of these issues directly with Ambassador Cui. He came to
my office and we had a good conversation. While much work needs
to be done, it is essential that individual Members of Congress
and the U.S. Government as a whole continue to press China on
addressing and reversing course on their ongoing human rights
and religious freedom abuses.
A question for Dr. Dorjee--in your testimony, you focus
significantly on the detention of prisoners of conscience. How
can Members of Congress and the public at large best assist
efforts to secure the release of prisoners or advocate on their
behalf where they are detained in Tibet or elsewhere in China?
Mr. Dorjee. Thank you, Senator Daines, for the opportunity
to respond to your question.
As commissioner on the USCIRF, we have our Prisoners of
Conscience Project. So that tells you how much importance we
give to freeing the prisoners of conscience.
And what Members of Congress could do, given the
opportunity, if you could raise not only the individual cases
of the prisoners of conscience, but also the policies and laws
that have led to that. So that would be very helpful.
And to my understanding, when you use your bully pulpit to
advocate for the prisoners of conscience, that makes a
difference. Of course, China is not going to let every prisoner
of conscience be free. But that being said, when we keep
putting pressure on them, at least that makes a difference in
their lives, maybe they might get a little breather through
such influence.
And also, Members of Congress could adopt prisoners of
conscience and especially in your case when you visit China and
you're meeting with high officials, if you could raise the
issues, that would also make a big difference.
Senator Daines. Dr. Green, Dr. Dorjee just mentioned about
making a difference. I have fond memories of our time when we
were expats living in Guangzhou. We were able to see how the
treatment of children in orphanages was improved because of the
presence and interaction of Americans.
We would go there and visit on Saturdays. We would hold
these babies that oftentimes were not receiving the human
touch. And we noticed there was a built-in, almost,
accountability, that an orphanage started getting cleaner and
the care of these children improved because we were showing up
on Saturdays to directly take care of these children and
literally just to hold them.
I believe this principle can be applied more broadly as
well. I have called on Secretary Tillerson and this
administration to appoint the Special Coordinator for Tibet. I
think that is an important step.
If there was a more substantial U.S. presence in Tibet,
such as a U.S. embassy, a consulate, a special coordinator,
what potential impacts would there be regarding the issues of
religious freedom and human rights causes in Tibet?
Mr. Green. The question is excellent, Senator. Thank you.
I lived in Asia about six years, the same timeframe. In my
case I was in Japan. I have similar fond memories, traveled
extensively throughout China.
The crackdown you have heard about is happening as
transparency is being closed. It is not just journalists or
diplomats, it is scholars, American scholars of Tibet who are
being denied access.
If we had a consulate in Lhasa, if we had a presence there,
it would do a number of things. It would allow academic
exchanges because that is a part of what our consulates do. It
would allow officers from the U.S. State Department to monitor
the cases of individual political detainees, to monitor trials.
It would allow them to provide accurate reporting of what is
happening to the Tibetan people.
And as I was mentioning in my testimony, with respect to a
massive infrastructure program and military program in the
Himalayan Plateau, that is destabilizing. That is fundamentally
raising tensions. It is an area where we need presence and
access not just because of the Tibetan people's aspirations,
but because of the negatively spiraling geopolitics between
China and India.
Senator Daines. So in light of that, Dr. Green, what role
do you think human rights would play within U.S. policy towards
China as it relates to the broader issues of national security
as well as these economic tensions?
Mr. Green. I come at this as a historian and a scholar, but
also for five years I was the Special Assistant and Senior
Director for Asia on President George W. Bush's NSC staff. And
in 2007, President Bush told Hu Jintao--with whom he had a good
relationship--he said, I have good news and bad news, which do
you want first? And Hu Jintao had never been asked a question
that way. He said I will take the good news. President Bush
said, I am going to go to the Olympics. And then President Hu
tried to end the meeting without the bad news. And the
President said, wait a minute! You have to hear the other part.
I am going to meet with His Holiness in the Congress and
present him with the Congressional Gold Medal.
It is possible to be clear and consistent on human rights
and democracy and have a productive relationship with Chinese
counterparts. The key is to be consistent.
It was in that same timeframe that I was able to meet with
Dai Bingguo, the state councilor. It was before the Olympics.
The Chinese were very worried about their image. They worried
about our election and they supported--the government supported
this dialogue I mentioned on Tibet, mostly scholars, but with
some participation from government. It was quite productive.
When the Olympics ended, when our election happened, they
dropped it.
So I think it is possible to have a clear voice on human
rights. I think it is possible to have a dialogue with China on
these issues. But we are going to have to find ways to leverage
our relationship with China--to push them, frankly, to come to
the table.
Senator Daines. So in that regard, you highlight that it is
readily apparent that China has moved away from dialogue with
the Dalai Lama. What are the prospects for reengagement, in
your opinion, between the PRC and the Dalai Lama? And are there
ways the U.S. could be productive towards that end?
Mr. Green. It is harder now than it was in 2007 and 2008. I
think part of that is because of the financial crisis which I
think gave leaders in Beijing an overinflated sense of their
own power and leverage.
Xi Jinping has a different approach to all of these issues.
Civil society space is closing in China, including for U.S.
companies, as you know. So it's a much harder operating
environment, and the Chinese side has passed legislation, as
you know, declaring they'll decide who the successor to the
Dalai Lama will be.
So in diplomacy, when you put that many obstacles it's hard
to restart. But I think it is possible.
Number one, President Trump, Members of Congress as well,
but President Trump should clearly call on Xi Jinping in his
meetings, even if it's done privately, to resume this dialogue.
Number two, we should be funding and supporting the
Coordinator for Tibet. We should be reaching out as part of our
diplomacy not just with China, but with Europe, with Japan,
with Australia, Korea, and India to support this as well.
Senator Daines. Alright. I am in extra innings right now.
Just to wrap up, I had one last question for Dr. Dorjee. In
your testimony you mentioned that--thank you, by the way, Dr.
Green. You mentioned in your testimony that the European
Parliament passed a resolution earlier last month in support of
human rights activists in China and called for the immediate
and unconditional release of targeted prisoners of conscience.
What has been the reaction from the Chinese government on this
resolution?
Mr. Dorjee. I don't know of any expressed reactions by the
Chinese to this yet, but we can all guess that they are not
really happy at all when we try to put pressure on them.
If you would allow me to just go back to the previous
question you asked. One of the things many Members of Congress
have tried to do--we should have an embassy in Tibet. That
would really make a big difference, our physical presence in
Tibet. That would also--because according to the Tibetan Policy
Act of 2002, an ambassador has to engage with human rights
activists. And in my case, the Panchen Lama, prisoner of
conscience, is very important. I do not know anything about
him, but if you do have a presence there, an ambassador would
at least find out reliable information about his well-being.
Senator Daines. I think that gets back to--closing
comment--engagement generally produces better outcomes.
Mr. Dorjee. Definitely.
Senator Daines. An on-ground presence. We have seen that
over and over again. That is why I support moving in that
direction, certainly an embassy consulate there in Tibet.
So thank you.
Mr. Dorjee. Thank you much.
Chairman Rubio. And the time is fine because you took
Senator Gardner's time and yours, so----
[Laughter.]
Chairman Rubio. To the Cochairman.
Cochairman Smith. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. Let
me just ask a few questions and I will put them out there, and
please, whoever would like to take them on.
Mr. Wangchen, thank you for, again, your being here, your
unbelievable courage. China's pervasive use of physical and
psychological torture, including the tiger chair which, sadly,
you have experienced, is well documented. It is barbaric and
even the Special Rapporteur for Torture at the United Nations
has chronicled as best they can in the past just how terrible
China is when it comes to torture.
Yet when you google torture in China--and I have done it in
Beijing at a cafe--you find everything that the Japanese did,
and they did horrible things to the Chinese people, the Rape of
Nanking and the use of rape and other terrible degrading
actions, but also the use of torture. And you also get Gitmo
and allegations of mistreatment there. Nothing about the U.N.
Special Rapporteur--Manfred Nowak--his statements or any of
that because it is all censored.
I mentioned earlier that in 2006 I had a series of hearings
about the enabling of the propaganda organs of China. That goes
equally, if not more so, for what they do to Tibet in painting
a Potemkin village. And yet they continue to this day to be a
part of that. As a matter of fact, much of their intellectual
property has been ripped off since, and now we have other
indigenous companies taking that over.
I would like you to, if you could, in more detail talk
about what the Chinese dictatorship did to you physically and
to your fellow prisoners, because very often we will hear about
the tiger chair, we will hear about the beatings, the electric
prods under the arms and at the genital areas. Until we really
say, what does that mean? How does somebody like yourself cope
with that while you are undergoing it and then after the fact?
I have written four laws called the Torture Victims Relief
Act, the original and then three reauthorizations. From that I
have learned about how the post-traumatic stress disorder
suffered by many political and religious prisoners is off the
charts--inability to sleep, flashbacks of memory. I am
wondering how you cope with it now as well as during your
horrible ordeal.
Second, the fawning of the world media over Kim Yo-jong,
the sister of Kim Jong-un--she, as we know, heads up the
propaganda and agitation department. As a matter of fact, the
Wall Street Journal, I think, did a very good piece called
``The Twisted Sister,'' called her the ``twisted sister of
Kim.'' In this room, Josh Rogin has written incisively about
China. Fred Hiatt has done one superlative editorial after
another that does not join the world press in fawning over the
Chinese dictatorship.
I remember when Hu Jintao was here and infamously President
Obama had a press conference with him. And when asked a good
question about human rights, Obama defended Hu and said, Well,
they have a different culture and over time things will change.
No, they don't.
As Chairman Rubio--because he leads on human rights in so
many places, including Cuba--dictatorships do not matriculate
from barbaric behavior to peace and democracy and rule of law
without a great deal of push and exposing. Yet our media so
often just covers up what Xi Jinping and all of his
predecessors have done. Xi Jinping right now--Mr. Green, you
spoke to this--Professor Green, about things have changed.
They've gotten worse, the NGO law as well as the law on
religion. Xi wants to either control religion completely or
eviscerate it. Of course when you talk about the Tibetan
Buddhists and the passing, potentially, of the Dalai Lama and
then they pick the next successor--which is outrageous. They
are doing that with the Catholic Church as well--it is with
bishops. If you could speak to that as well.
The media, its complicity by not exposing, except for some
notable honorable mentions, like I mentioned. On the Olympics--
I was there in the early 1990s. I met with Wei Jingsheng. He
was briefly let out of prison to get Olympics 2000. They didn't
get it. They called him back in and beat him almost to death
because his high value political prisoner status did not buy
them the Olympics in 2000. They got it in 2008.
Scott Flipse, Frank Wolf, and I--Scott works, of course, as
part of our key staff. We went and we met with Ambassador
Randt. We met with others. We brought this commission's
database and said, Don't just raise it, become Johnny One Notes
about, Release the prisoners!, because right now they are
keeping dissidents away from Beijing, away from journalists,
and of course that goes doubly so for the Tibetans who are
incarcerated usually in place, there.
The question there is--you're right. We need that special
envoy. There are other special envoys, including for combating
antisemitism. This administration has a reluctance to name
special envoys. That's got to change.
But we do have some hope too. Maybe you want to speak to
this as well. Senator Rubio, Senator Daines, and others worked
so very hard to get Sam Brownback agreed to by the Senate as
Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom--Ambassador
Brownback, when he was a Senator did H. Res. 483 on Tibet. He
gets it. You read that resolution, you know without a shadow of
a doubt--he gets it. Naming prisoners of conscience, Tibetan
Buddhists who are being incarcerated and, of course, some of
whom were killed--executed, and the importance of a robust
response from the United States. So he's someone we all need to
be--he was just confirmed, as you know--he needs to make this a
priority, obviously, of the International Religious Freedom
Office and do it right now. But we have a great friend there,
and that's the reason for some hope.
So just a couple of thoughts, if you could respond to any
of it. Again, starting with you, Mr. Wangchen. How do you cope
with what you have been through?
Mr. Wangchen. Actually, I did not really have a choice not
to be subject to such tortures. The Chinese authorities left me
with no other choices.
In fact, one time they brought a recording to watch to me
and wanted me to record something. They use a psychological
tape saying that if you record a message--at that time my
parents, my wife, my children were in India. And so they said
if you say that because the Tibetan Youth Congress in India was
posing a threat to my parents, my children, and my wife's life,
I have to make this documentary. If I say that, they said I
would be treated leniently. Otherwise, they said I had
committed a very major crime and would be prosecuted.
Under such a situation we all are human beings, the same
wherever we are. We all have pain. We have the same blood and
the same flesh. So if under such a situation, if I were given a
choice, I would have chosen to die rather than to suffer this.
But I did not even have that choice.
So I could see that they were trying to use me to serve a
broader political agenda that they had. They would even say at
one time that I should say that my cousin, Jamyang Tsultrim,
who is in Switzerland, that he was the one who instigated me to
make that documentary.
Or they would say, whatever happens, they would always
blame the Tibetans outside or His Holiness the Dalai Lama, etc.
So that is what they were trying to do.
So in 2012, there were several self-immolations in Tibet.
Then the Chinese authorities went to schools forcing the
students to denounce His Holiness the Dalai Lama. But
obviously, the Tibetan students, they could not do anything
that was untruthful like that at all.
So these are some of the things that they were trying to
do. So because of that, in the schools, the students protested
saying that it was injustice. Therefore, many of the students
were detained.
The Translator. But he is saying that overall because of
all of these factors, he was able to consider these as the
Chinese tortured him, then to say that I need to overcome all
of these.
Cochairman Smith. One other thing very briefly to put on
the table and that is the transfer of population, the Han
transfer. I know the Dalai Lama has written about that.
Any insight you can give as to how they are displacing
Tibetan Buddhists, indigenous people, by bringing others in.
Back in 1987, I remember reading an op-ed by John Avedon in the
Washington Post called The Rape of Tibet. And he talked about
an issue that I had been working on since 1983, and that is
forced abortion and coercive population control pursuant to the
one child per couple policy which, obviously, applies to all
people, but it is used with special telling effect as an act of
genocide against the Uyghurs as well as against the Tibetan
Buddhists. So any insight any of you might have on that.
If you kill the child because they happen to be Tibetan
indigenous persons, that is a part of this transfer of
population. They just don't exist. It is an insidious crime
against humanity, obviously, but it very seldom gets any focus.
Mr. Dorjee. I would like to respond to something you raised
in the second part of the question. As Commissioner of the
USCIRF, I want to tell China that when the international
community and the U.S. demand human rights in Tibet, we are
doing that following international standards, universal human
rights.
I am an intercultural communications scholar and we don't
define human rights in terms of specific cultures. We are
looking across cultures and we are using international
standards to talk about that.
So China, if it wants to be a part of the global community,
must learn to respect international standards. You cannot have
a double standard here.
Another issue that you have raised is the reincarnation of
His Holiness the Dalai Lama, which really concerns most of us.
It has unimaginable consequences if His Holiness the Dalai Lama
would pass away in exile. China thinks they have a perfect
solution to this, because they only see the Dalai Lama as part
of the problem although we have told them a thousand times--the
Dalai Lama is the solution to the problem. Hello. Listen.
So, of course, they think they can do exactly like they did
to the Panchen Lama. They will have another pick, fake out the
traditional system and have another Dalai Lama. But China must
know that if Sino-Tibetan issues do not get resolved, His
Holiness the Dalai Lama will not be reborn in Tibet under their
control. He will be reborn in freedom.
Why I say that is because in the 1980s I had the privilege
to translate for the Dalai Lama. And when we were in Delhi (he
was speaking at Delhi University), an Indian journalist asked
whether he would be the last Dalai Lama and about the Tibet
issue. His Holiness said then if Tibet issues do not get
resolved, he would be reborn in a free country because it does
not make any sense for the next Dalai Lama not to be able to
continue the work and unfinished tasks of the previous Dalai
Lama.
So China should know that they may be able to pick the next
Dalai Lama, but not the real one. The real one will be born in
a free country. So I want to send that message strongly.
Then the next one--there is already--Tibetans have become
the minority in our own country. There are more Chinese there
and the population transfer can really make the demographics
shift.
I am a scholar in this matter where we talk about ethno-
linguistic vitality. When the demographic shift changes, it is
very hard at a certain point in time to be able to bring the
balance back. So it is a very serious matter, as you already
know that they not only bring more Chinese civilians to Tibet,
but they also started to move the Tibetans en masse from the
pasturelands into some concrete buildings somewhere, they build
them up, and are changing the whole Tibetan culture in many
different ways. So those are very serious matters, and I am
sure my colleague Michael Green will have more things to say.
Mr. Green. If I may, Congressman, on that last point.
Beijing appears confident that their law decreeing the next
Dalai Lama will be determined by the Chinese Communist Party,
will allow them to continue suppressing dissent in Tibet and
ultimately win.
All indications from scholars who know this region, who've
traveled there, are that the opposite will happen, that China
will find itself with greater instability, greater violence,
greater repression and human suffering. That's one of the many
reasons why it's in our national interest to push for the PRC
to deal with His Holiness because this is not going to get
better--for China either.
Second point, on your question or your comment about the
``twisted sister'' in North Korea--I also found the U.S. press
pretty--present company excluded--pretty fawning, and it was
rather shocking when you know about what's happening in North
Korea.
I, in that context, mention when I first started studying
Asia in the 1980s, my professors and diplomats taught us that
Asian values are different and that these kinds of
authoritarian repressive regimes are culturally accepted. Then
around the time I graduated, four major Asian countries
democratized.
I think today within the academy, among scholars, and also
within the State Department, for a new generation of diplomats,
this is no longer a debate where the China hands are arguing
with the human rights hands, really. I think the most qualified
people we have on the China desk and in our embassy in Beijing
want to move out on this issue.
They want to have a consulate in Lhasa. The problem is they
do not have guidance from the top right now. And that's why the
Tibet coordinator and pushing for the President to raise this
issue are so important because the troops, our diplomats, are
ready to take this on. They're not fighting it the way,
perhaps, State Department officials might have 20 years ago.
Chairman Rubio. Thank you.
Mr. Wangchen, let me begin by asking you, when you were in
prison, were you aware of the international advocacy on your
behalf? And if so, could you give us a sense of the impact that
it may have had on you and on those who supported you?
Mr. Wangchen. I did not know that there was this widespread
campaign on my behalf, internationally, when I was in prison.
But I did know that there were people who were working--trying
to work on my behalf.
Oftentimes, it was the Chinese authorities themselves who
would come and tell me--why is there so much interest in your
cause outside? So I want to say that from my own experience,
any voice that is raised on behalf of political prisoners has a
very positive impact even on their lives. I can say from my own
experience that it is always good to raise voices on behalf of
the political prisoners.
In terms of restrictions, I can say that when there was
more interest, they would restrict my movement. They would
monitor me more thoroughly. They would search my things more
thoroughly, etc. But at the same time, I can say, from the
attitude of the prison officials or from other prisoners, that
their attitudes change when there is international interest in
issues like mine.
Chairman Rubio. Has your family back at home and those
close to you, have they experienced any kind of official
pressure since you departed?
Mr. Wangchen. I have heard that since I left there the
Chinese authorities had visited my sisters and my friends
interrogating them as to how I was able to go about escaping,
who arranged all of these things. I have 10 family members.
None of us read and write, so therefore, the Chinese
authorities made my sister sign some things, some documents,
etc. And they have been wanting to know, sending Uyghurs to
interrogate my family members many times.
Even my wife's family members have also been interrogated
on this issue. So it is just not my side of the family, even my
wife's family members have also been interrogated.
Chairman Rubio. Dr. Dorjee, in your written testimony, you
talked about your own experience of China's ``long arm in
academia.'' Could you tell us a little bit more about what you
observed, specifically as it relates to the Chinese
government's use of the Chinese Students and Scholars
Association and the Confucius Institutes?
Mr. Dorjee. Thank you very much. First I would like to
express my gratitude for your leadership and initiative in
these matters.
I think we all know that in China and Tibet everything is
controlled, micromanaged, and strategized. And we know that.
That's why we are making these voices to make a difference
there. But what is less known in the outside world is the
Chinese long arm that is extending everywhere in the world and
also in this country. As I reported in my testimony, in 2008,
when I was one of the two Tibetan students at UC Santa Barbara,
there was a Tibet event. Somehow I think it got reported to the
Chinese consulate in Los Angeles--they must have organized this
and brought about 100 Chinese international students.
Each of us were surrounded by about 30 of them. And they
were screaming and yelling, and they brought this huge Chinese
national flag. They wrapped me up because I had a Tibetan flag.
And I said to them, Look, learn to respect my flag too. I
respect your flag, but let's have a dialogue. But they wouldn't
listen to that.
What was behind that was the Chinese Scholars and Students
Association which exists at many universities. Also as I
reported, Confucius Institutes in the classrooms, this is
making a huge difference in our academic freedom as you know
very well.
Another thing I want to add, if I may, is I just finished
reading one of the most prominent Chinese dissidents--student
leaders--Tiananmen Square, Chai Ling's ``A Heart for Freedom.''
She was able to escape here and enjoy the freedom, but then
what she realized was, after getting a good education at
Harvard, at Princeton, when it came time for her to find a job,
many companies would say, oops, you are very qualified. We are
very sorry--because we have connections with China we cannot do
it. So that is the invisible hand in many things happening
here, and we really have to voice our concerns and make a
change there.
Chairman Rubio. And, again, what you are describing is the
use of a student organization to basically oppress and hassle
those who have views or point to facts that run contrary to the
narrative that they seek to pursue. And it is one of the things
that we are most interested in and we started last week by
writing to all of the higher academic institutions, including
one high school, by the way, in the state of Florida.
One of them has already canceled the contract, the
University of West Florida. And we hope that the others will
re-examine that arrangement and ensure that at a minimum none
of these activities are occurring in those institutions. I
suspect that a number more will follow the lead of the
University of West Florida, particularly after yesterday's
testimony by the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, about how they have been very interested and
have been keeping a close eye on how the Confucius Institutes
and the student organizations have been used in this country.
Dr. Green, I wanted to ask you because you've talked about
the State Department. And you said that the people in the
trenches on the ground level are all ready to go on this and
other issues. But you also said they needed direction from the
top. From that, we are going to have a hearing tomorrow on a
nominee, that will oversee this portfolio to the State
Department, currently acting in that capacity.
I think it is relevant to ask, What is the perception of
the State Department, not the China desk in particular, but
just the general leadership over the broader portfolio in the
Asia Pacific region; what is the perception and/or the reality
of what they prioritize? Is this a pro-engagement direction at
the expense of human rights and all of the sorts of issues we
have talked about here today?
In essence, is it one of those ``we can't raise these
issues up because we want to be able to work with them on these
other issues, and this irritates them'' things, or is it
neglect? Basically, they just haven't paid attention to it. How
would you describe in the most honest terms possible what the
direction of that area of the State Department is today as a
general matter?
Mr. Green. As I said earlier, Senator, I think that the
generation of Foreign Service Officers who now lead the East
Asian Bureau and play some of the most prominent roles in our
embassies embrace the values component of our diplomacy. And
there are Foreign Service Officers who stand in the rain for
eight hours outside of courtrooms in Guangzhou to let the
Chinese authorities know that we are watching the trial of a
dissident, for example. And they are dedicated and they take
personal risk.
The problem they have is governments in the region don't
view them as empowered right now. We don't have a confirmed
Assistant Secretary. We don't have a Tibet Coordinator. Until
we have those confirmed people in office, then the diplomats in
the trenches are not going to be seen as empowered by the
administration and the Congress.
So getting someone in the State Department confirmed in the
Assistant Secretary slot, in the Tibet Coordinator slot, the
Undersecretary slot will be critical, key embassies like Korea.
The view right now in the region is that the State Department
is not a major player, and I think they are ready to be, and we
need to empower them.
Chairman Rubio. Just to be clear, not just putting someone
in those positions, but the right person because the wrong
person would also de-emphasize. For example, let's say that
someone at the State Department was helping a major American
corporation write an apology for having mentioned the issue of
Tibet; that would not be the kind of people we want to see
involved in this.
Mr. Green. I am a friend and enthusiastic supporter of the
candidate, the nominee to be Assistant Secretary. But I am
certainly hoping, Senator, that you are going to ask some hard
questions.
For example, the administration has put forward the Free
and Open Indo-Pacific concept. The words ``free and open'' to
me suggest that our values are going to be a critical part of
our diplomacy. I hope that in the hearings those dimensions of
our foreign policy are emphasized.
I hear rumors--I don't know if they're true--that within
the State Department there is some guidance to not use the
words ``free and open,'' but simply to call it our Indo-Pacific
Strategy. Words matter.
So I think that you and the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee have an important--if I may say so--an important role
in using these hearings to answer those questions and get
nominees to put on the record not only their priorities but the
actions they are going to take.
The candidate for--the nominee for Assistant Secretary is
not responsible for nominating or appointing the Undersecretary
who would, I assume, be the Tibet Coordinator. But that's an
appropriate forum to push the administration, I think.
Chairman Rubio. My final question, and then the Cochairman
is going to wrap up. He has a couple more questions.
The term ``community of common destiny''--are you familiar
with its use repeatedly in recent times by the Chinese
Communist Party in international fora? Have you heard that
terminology?
Mr. Green. I have heard that and other similar phrases.
Chairman Rubio. And basically, that phraseology, by the
way, has been rejected by a number of countries. Vietnam stands
out as one, India another, on different occasions, as being
part of a communique, as an effort not just to change the
dynamic of international politics, but the rhetoric of it.
And it is an effort--I use this forum to point that out--it
is an effort to change the rhetoric and language and the
terminology to basically argue towards a world in which the
values that we are talking about here--democracy, freedom,
human rights--are de-emphasized. Even alliances are de-
emphasized.
And we enter some new order that involves ``partnerships,''
and judging human rights by a different standard and non-
interference. It's the same concept that you see when they have
an Internet Freedom Conference by one of the leading oppressive
governments in the world against Internet freedom. So I only
raise that because terminology matters. And you see it used
repeatedly as a weapon in the case of Tibet, but others also.
Just rhetorically, is it your experience that on this
particular issue regarding Tibet, but on the broader issue of
China's government trying to reorder global affairs, that we
need to keep a close eye on the use of language, of the words
being used because they are certainly trying to replace what
human rights and self-determination means?
By the way, it is not just limited to Tibet. Many of us
were deeply disappointed to see the recent decisions by the
Vatican, allowing for the first time in human history,
certainly in the history of the Church, for its leadership to
be appointed by--certainly the modern church. I imagine you can
go back to the 1500s and we had some pretty bad appointments--
but certainly the modern world.
So language matters. And the words that are being used, we
need to--because they do not mean the same thing.
Mr. Green. I could not agree with you more, Senator. I have
written about this as an academic and in policy terms.
Xi Jinping tried to convince the Obama administration to
endorse a concept called the New Model of Great Power
Relations, that to avoid conflict, U.S. and China had to have a
condominium as major powers. And in this formulation, Japan,
India, Korea, Australia, democracies were second-tier powers.
Senior people in the Obama administration embraced this.
The Chinese then tried to get the Trump White House to support
what they called a Global Strategic Partnership, same
rhetorical device to suggest that China and the U.S. would
arbitrate issues, no values--Japan, India, these other powers
were secondary.
One of the things I find compelling about the
administration's Free and Open Indo-Pacific concept is a
complete rebuttal of that, by design, well received in India,
Japan and Australia. So the words matter a lot. We are not
always attentive to them, but within Asia when this idea of a
new model of U.S.-China relations as great powers started to
get currency with some senior officials in Washington, it had a
major effect on how Japan, Korea, Australia, Vietnam viewed our
staying power and our commitment to our values.
So I couldn't agree with you more, and I think it is an
important area for the Congress to pay attention to.
Chairman Rubio. My favorite line in any hearing, ``I
couldn't agree with you more.'' I love that.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Rubio. Thank you.
Cochairman Smith. Thank you, Chairman Rubio.
And thank you for your answers to all of our questions
earlier. I do have just a couple of final questions.
One, when is the world, in your opinion, going to get more
aggressive with regard to--I mean, two Nobel Peace Prizes,
obviously, the Dalai Lama and Liu Xiaobo, he dies, does not get
the medical attention that he needed. And, of course, the Dalai
Lama got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.
Liu Xiaobo's wife is doing terribly and we have made
requests, demands, every other kind of admonishment to the
dictatorship to let her come here, or at least treat her with
respect. And it's a microcosm of what they do every single day
in Lhasa and elsewhere in Tibet as well as in other places in
China throughout the mainland.
So my question is, I am worried about this administration
not being as focused. I mean the last administration dropped
the ball in a major way. Previous administrations have dropped
the ball.
Bill Clinton, who criticized President Bush, the first one,
and talked about coddling dictatorship, then coddled like
nobody else before had coddled dictatorship, including bringing
in the operational commander of Tiananmen Square--and gave him
a 19-gun salute at the White House which I continue to believe
was outrageous. He should have been sent to The Hague for
prosecution for crimes against humanity, rather than been given
those honors.
So we seem to be ``past is prologue,'' on the verge of
repeating many of those same mistakes unless there is a game
changer. I note with some gratitude, real gratitude, that
Secretary Tillerson named China as a Tier-3 Country pursuant to
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I wrote that law, so
I've watched that very carefully. We tried repeatedly to get
previous administrations to do it, not just as an automatic
downgrade which happened once during Obama.
And it is also a CPC country because of its religious
persecution. But both of those laws--and it hasn't happened on
trafficking--have a consequence action, a penalty phase. We
need to see penalties. Our civil rights laws work better
because there are real tangible predictable consequences when
others, colleges, for example, commit to them. So you might
want to speak to that.
Finally, on the Confucius Institutes, I have asked the
Government Accountability Office to do a huge study on what
their influence is, what the parameters are of their
existence--there are 118 of them at least, three in my state of
New Jersey--and what kind of baggage they carry in terms of
their soft power. They are here to influence. It's a way of
getting some additional money for colleges and universities in
the United States. And they may even think it is prestigious.
But if you're part of a propaganda long arm, what good are
you really doing? And this administration, the Trump
administration talks about reciprocity. Where is the
reciprocity for us to have unfettered access to the Chinese
venues or campuses, to be able to speak boldly about human
rights and religious freedom and all the other? They have to
pull their punches, obviously, when they are in-country. So if
you want to speak to that as well.
Mr. Green. Well, I am the--if I may?
Professor Tenzin Dorjee will also have experiences as a
scholar. I am a professor at Georgetown University with the
Confucius Institutes. We do not have one at Georgetown. We are
a pretty well-endowed major university. Some of our sister
Jesuit colleges and universities do. When I visited and asked
about it, the teachers are all very different. Some of the
teachers sort of laugh off instructions from Beijing to teach
certain things about Taiwan or Tibet. Others faithfully follow
Beijing's instructions.
My general view on this one is that there should be much
more scrutiny. But ultimately, as an academic, I think
universities have to police themselves. And there are ways to
have these institutes, but they have to have an agreement with
complete academic freedom, and they have to be monitored by
faculty. And that has not happened in many cases.
Cochairman Smith. Can any of them teach about the Dalai
Lama, for example?
Mr. Green. Well, I think the curriculum should be approved
by the faculty at these universities. And there should probably
be committees on the faculty with China scholars or outside
advisors that take a look at the curriculum. But in principle,
the demand for learning Mandarin is enormous. And there are not
enough dollars in a lot of schools to fulfill that. So I don't
have a problem taking the money and the instructors. I think
universities have to be responsible for ensuring academic
freedom, checking the curriculum, the kinds of things that I
think many faculty would like to do. If you empower the faculty
in the process, they will put pressure on their own
administrations.
Cochairman Smith. But if I am a college university
president--one of their prime missions is to find spigots of
funds.
Mr. Green. Yes.
Cochairman Smith. It is counterproductive from that
perspective to be monitoring closely the exclusion of the Dalai
Lama and Tibetan Buddhism and the terrible atrocities committed
against Tibetan Buddhists as well as every other human rights
abuse. You just bypass it, it never comes up, and you talk
about a great culture, which China is. It has been for
centuries. The people are unbelievable.
But you still get this very Potemkin village perspective
about what's going on in China. And I find that with Members of
Congress. They go on a trip, and they are shown the sights in a
way that--and we say, Raise human rights issues! Get our
database from the China Commission and bring up names!
And you'll appreciate this. When Frank Wolf and I and Scott
Flipse were in Beijing, Condoleezza Rice was on her way in, and
all the talk was, What venues will they go to watch? I said,
heck--I love the Olympics. I love sports. Hopefully we all do,
but not at the exclusion of--Get prisoners out! Here is a
golden opportunity to do so.
Our database, when we compared it to what they had at the
embassy and at the State Department, theirs was paltry. One of
the Foreign Service Officers said, You've got a much better one
than we have. It shouldn't be that way. They're the State
Department. They are there engaging every single day.
So I am very worried about who is in the classroom
monitoring curriculum. It could be a barebones curriculum and
doesn't get into depth. And yet, the Dalai Lama--and when, God
forbid, they pick the next Dalai Lama, will there be at the
Confucius Institutes--what an atrocity that is! They have no
right to do that.
Mr. Green. This is a complicated issue, and it is a
problem. On some campuses, not mine, Chinese Student
Associations are using the vogue language and accusing Tibetans
of micro-aggression and things like that. There are Chinese
Student Associations that are watching students in the
classroom and universities.
We have a problem that, particularly professors who are not
tenured, who have to publish, if they are doing research on
China, especially on Tibet or Xinjiang, they can't publish
anything risky or they won't get a visa. And so there is a lot
of self-censorship--the access to China, generally, not just
the Tibet Autonomous Region, is harder. It's very hard for
scholars, including people like me who have some background in
policy, to get visas because the United Front Department is
scrutinizing which institutions' university professors are
safe.
So we have a major problem in terms of reciprocity and in
terms of influences here. But I do have faith in our higher
education institutions. I do think that with the right focus,
university presidents, faculties, are going to address this.
They're going to have to.
Cochairman Smith. Well, we are hoping our GAO report will
expose what is good and bad and ugly about all of this.
I would just point out after I worked on Chen Guangcheng's
case--we had four hearings about him--he phoned in, you might
recall. And what a great human rights defender he is, was
there, and continues to be. I couldn't get a visa for eight
years. And I only got one several months back because I was
going to NYU Shanghai campus to give a speech. It would have
been harder for them to deny that one in plain light than what
they were doing before that.
So if they can do that to a Member of Congress--we asked
the administration to step in. They did, thankfully. The
Speaker of the House, John Boehner, wrote a letter to the
Ambassador and said, What are you doing? He's Chairman of our
Human Rights Committee on the Foreign Affairs Committee and
he's Cochair and Chair--depending on the year--of the China
Commission. And yet, they denied it. And if they can do that--
with the visibility of a Member of Congress--how much easier is
it to say, to an academic or anyone else, you do not get to
come. So I think we really have to be far more aggressive in
holding the Chinese to account.
I know that the focus has been largely on how we mitigate
the danger of North Korea and get China to finally play a role
that is constructive rather than ambivalent or worse, but that
cannot preclude a human rights focus because the victims are
every day, and they are proliferating. They are getting far
worse, particularly with these new laws on NGOs, as you pointed
out, the tightening space and the new law on sinicization of
religion which is even worse than what it has been.
So thank you all. Unless you have any final comments before
we conclude.
Mr. Dorjee. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I was
meaning to say this before, but somehow I got caught up in
responding to the questions like a student. I really very much
appreciate the Congressional-Executive Commission on China for
all the great work you have done, especially the database you
have on the prisoners of conscience. That is very helpful to
us.
The last thing I want to say is that all of us, the United
States, private companies, especially China--probably the Dalai
Lama would say this--we should look at situations from all
angles and we will all become more open to international
standards and do the right thing.
Thank you very much.
Cochairman Smith. Thank you.
You know, I would just conclude with this too, as well.
Even though I chair this commission, when it came up for a
vote in the House, I voted no. You know why? For years a group
of us wanted to say that most-favored-nation status had to have
human rights linkage. You don't have an unfettered exchange of
goods and services without first--no labor rights, for example,
in China, all the other barbaric human rights abuses they are
committing, including torture, which our distinguished witness
spoke about earlier and endured.
If you want to trade, trade with conditionality. Well, this
commission was created as part of a reversal of what we thought
was going to be an executive order with teeth by Bill Clinton,
and it was patterned after the Helsinki Commission on Security
Cooperation in Europe, of which I also serve as Chair and
Cochair.
So it's a great idea, but it was done with a piece of
legislation to give a talking point to those who wanted to
trade in an unfettered way with China without any kind of human
rights conditionality, which I found to be appalling.
We lost. We had the votes, frankly, to take away or limit
MFN. I joined with Nancy Pelosi and David Bonior and others. I
was the Republican lead. And Bill Clinton jumped in the gap and
said, I'll do an executive order. He put all of these human
rights conditionalties in the executive order, which we
applauded, and then realized it was a ruse.
Within one year, he took his executive order and ripped it
in half. On a Friday afternoon when everyone was leaving and
the Chinese took--that was May 1994--took the measure of our
country and its commitment to human rights and said, they don't
mean it. Profits trump human rights.
We've been trying to reclaim that ground ever since. My
hope is that this President will do it. He has done it on
trafficking, and that was a good first step. But there is far
more that he has to do. The special envoy is a no-brainer. He
should name him immediately so that individual can start doing
their good work.
It's been years of catch-up, and we lost it in May of 1994
when he delinked it. We had the votes in the House and Senate.
It was totally bipartisan to either limit or take away
conditions for real most-favored-nation status. Now it's
permanent. We don't even do an annual review.
So I say all of this because bad policy coming out of the
United States Congress, but especially the executive branch,
has disadvantaged religious and political prisoners and made
life worse.
I was so glad when you said earlier that the picture of the
Dalai Lama and President Bush inspired hope and tears among
people. That's an encouragement. It means that what happens
here might have some impact on the ground in places like Lhasa.
But we need to do far more.
Again, working with Chairman Rubio, who is a tremendous
chairman, we are doing our level best. And we are going to
continue. Your insights today really help us to know how to
proceed. So thank you so very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Dhondup Wangchen
february 14, 2018
I am very grateful for this opportunity to testify before the
Congressional-Executive Commission on China on my experiences in Tibet
under the Chinese authorities.
My name is Dhondup Wangchen. I was born on October 17, 1974 to a
family of Tibetan farmers in Bayen which is in the province we call
Amdo. In today's administrative divisions, Bayen is in Tsoshar
prefecture, Qinghai province, People's Republic of China.
I arrived in the USA on December 25, 2017 and it was the first time
in many years that I felt safety and freedom. The reunion with my
family in San Francisco was a wonderful moment that I had looked
forward to in the past years, with a mixture of anxious joy and the
hesitation a man feels who was hindered from being the husband he ought
to be for his loving wife; a man who was not given the chance to stand
by with fatherly advice to his children in a world full of challenges,
and a man denied being the son needed for his aging parents, tormented
by the thought that they wouldn't see each other again in their
lifetime.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank every individual and
organization who has helped to bring me back to my loved ones and who
supported me since I was arrested in March 2008.
Early Activism
Growing up in the remote village of Khotse in Amdo, 2000 km east of
Tibet's capital, Lhasa, I started the discovery of my people's history
with little knowledge but with an insatiable and juvenile curiosity
about what life had to offer me.
Our family lived a simple life right on the edge of the Tibetan
plateau, bordering the Chinese mainland. I was aware of repression in
the past. I had lost members on both my mother's and my father's sides
of the family as a result of China's atrocities towards Tibetans.
However, it wasn't until I made my journey to Lhasa in the early 1990s
as a young adult, that I saw first hand resistance to China's
occupation and political symbols such as the Tibetan national flag. In
1992 when I was 18, I witnessed monks from Ganden Monastery carry out a
street protest in Lhasa; some nuns also protested. I saw armed police
and military forces quell the protest in a heavy handed manner and
detain the monks and nuns.
It was also in 1992 that I decided to go to India to see His
Holiness the Dalai Lama and receive some education. At that time, there
were many Tibetans escaping to India. However, I only stayed a year and
returned to Tibet in 1993 where I was involved in activism such as
helping former political prisoners. I would like to acknowledge my
cousin Jamyang Tsultrim who mentored me in my formative years and who
is here at today's hearing.
In 1996, my good friend, Ganden monk Jigme Gyatso--a true Tibetan
hero--was arrested on charges related to the 1992 protest. Jamyang
Tsultrim was also arrested and they both served prison sentences. I was
working in Jamyang Tsultrim's restaurant in Lhasa, which the
authorities threatened to close down as it was the centre of many of
our activities.
I spent many years involved in various forms of activism and was
detained several times. The longest that I was held in detention for
was for about 30 days in Lhasa in 2003, but I was never formally
charged and was always released.
Jamyang Tsultrim fled to exile in 2002, but we kept in close touch
and continued to plan and carry out underground activities. We had
started a project in 2001 to print and distribute books to Tibetans all
over Tibet for free, books related to His Holiness the Dalai Lama's
teachings, Tibetan politics, history and the Dalai Lama's Middle Way
Policy. The books we printed were both in Tibetan and Chinese.
By 2004, we were printing books in Xining and Lanzhou, sometimes
printing as many as 10,000 copies at a time. Among those who joined me
printing and distributing the books was a monk from Labrang Monastery,
Jigme Gyatso (known as Golog Jigme), who I first came to know in 2006
and who would become my helper when making the movie ``Leaving Fear
Behind''. This was our first collaboration, but many people were
involved whose names I can't reveal for safety reasons.
Making ``Leaving Fear Behind''
As the 2008 Olympic Games were fast approaching and it was always
being reported in state media, I told Jamyang Tsultrim that I wanted to
do something that would have a big and long-term impact and that would
reflect the true feelings and wishes of the Tibetan people. This was
when we first started thinking about making a documentary film from
inside Tibet that would later be known as ``Leaving Fear Behind.''
I set to work finding collaborators and traveling all over Tibet to
interview ordinary Tibetans. Thanks to our activism in the past, we had
many contacts and trusted friends we could work with. We would record
interviews in isolated places so as not to arouse suspicion and we were
always careful to ask whether the interviewees wanted to have their
face shown on camera or not. We carried with us DVDs of the ceremony
which showed U.S. President George Bush awarding His Holiness the Dalai
Lama the Congressional Gold Medal in October 2007--we showed this to
many people who became very emotional upon seeing it.
My helpers, including Golog Jigme, and I traveled for several
months in the cold winter of 2007 recording interviews and sent our
footage to Zurich in several batches via trusted friends. Interview
after interview, village after village, we recorded a never-ending
stream of untold stories of past atrocities, complaints against the
current discrimination of Tibetans, their frustration and anger about
the hypocrisy of the Olympic Games and finally their fervent wish to
see the Dalai Lama back in Tibet. More people than we could manage
lined up to tell their story and witness their unbroken will to fight
for truth and the right to express their free will. Looking back, I
wonder why we hadn't foreseen that their longing for freedom would
explode a few months later, in the most forceful uprising Tibet had
seen since 1959.
Our final footage was taken in Xi'an on March 10, 2008 and handed
over to a UK-born Tibetan who helped to ensure that it reached Zurich.
We spent that day together unaware that protests had broken out in
Lhasa the same day and would continue over the next days and months all
over Tibet.
Detention
Even though I was aware that I was being followed and was under
surveillance, it wasn't until March 26, 2008 that I was arrested and
interrogated by secret police. I was not kept in a police station or
prison, but in a hotel and my family was not informed of my
whereabouts. The torture started as soon as I was detained. I was
forced to sit in the ``tiger chair.'' For seven days and eight nights I
was given no food and was not allowed to fall asleep.
On July 13, 2008, I was able to escape from this detention for 24
hours only. In a phone call with Jamyang Tsultrim I learned that they
had received all the footage and were in the process of finishing
editing the film. It wasn't long before I was back in detention.
``Leaving Fear Behind'' was released and distributed online just before
the Olympic Games started in August 2008 by the non-profit Filming for
Tibet, registered in Zurich. Even though I didn't know for sure, I was
hopeful that everything had gone according to plan. I suspected that
the authorities were building their case against me. I was often
interrogated and told I had to denounce His Holiness the Dalai Lama and
that if I admitted my wrongdoings I would be released. I always refused
to do these things.
I was shown ``Leaving Fear Behind'' while I was in detention in
December 2008, a few months after it had been released. I will remember
this moment forever. The interrogator wanted to know how I knew the
people I had interviewed. And then he showed me the edited film and
wanted me to confess. For the first time, I watched ``Leaving Fear
Behind,'' in a Chinese prison! While the interrogator continued to
force me to confess my wrongdoings, I just enjoyed in my inside the
train scene, the music with the auspicious lyric and felt immensely
proud.
I thought that even if I received a 10-year sentence it would have
been worth making the film. I felt happy for the interviewees who had
taken great risks to appear in the film, and we had promised them that
the film would be seen by the outside world and His Holiness would know
about the film as well. So I was happy that I had been able to keep
that promise to the interviewees.
In July 2009, I received a visit from Li Dunyong, a Chinese human
rights lawyer from Beijing who had been appointed by my sister to
represent me. Another lawyer, Chang Boyang, also came to visit me later
and I told them about the maltreatment of political prisoners and about
how I had been placed in solitary confinement for 85 days. Even though
according to law, I should have had access to a translator, none was
made available and I had to communicate with the lawyers in Chinese
even though it's not my first language and my Chinese isn't very good.
A few days after I had spoken to the lawyers, outside authorities came
to speak to me in prison and asked me many questions about the lawyers
and why they wanted to represent me. The authorities had told the
lawyers appointed by my family that they weren't allowed to defend me
and they were pressured and threatened to have their licenses revoked.
The authorities told me that I wasn't allowed to have my own lawyers
and had to accept the lawyers that they had appointed. Even though I
told them clearly that I didn't want their lawyers, in reality I had no
choice. The authorities then lied to my sister and told her that I had
refused all legal representation.
Sentencing and Imprisonment
I remained in informal detention until I was tried and sentenced on
December 28, 2009 to 6 years in prison for ``subversion of state
power.'' The case against me mentioned the projects I had been involved
with: printing and distributing books as well making ``Leaving Fear
Behind.''
During my time in various forms of detention, I had to do manual
labor which differed depending on where I was. I had been made to do
many different tasks such as peeling garlic or stitching military
uniforms and was given only two meals a day, which were barely
adequate. The day would start at around 6:30 a.m. and we had to work
until 11 p.m., we never went outside and I was in constant pain with
headaches and hurting arms. I always witnessed a difference in how
prisoners and political prisoners were treated. When it came to Tibetan
prisoners, we were never allowed to speak Tibetan to each other.
On April 6, 2010, I was transferred to Xichuan prison, a labor camp
which operates as an industrial manufacturer under the name of
``Qinghai Xifa Water and Electricity Equipment Manufacture Installment
Limited Liability Company.'' My physical condition declined here and I
contracted hepatitis B. Even though doctors did visit prisoners
regularly, apart from draining blood from me many times, I never
received a diagnosis or any medical treatment. My family members sent
me some medicines, but it was only after my release from prison in 2014
that I received proper treatment and was able to spend 15 days in the
hospital.
While in prison, I wrote many letters to my sister and family
members and the prison authorities took them, saying they would be sent
on. After release, I discovered that none of the letters had arrived.
In March 2012, it was discovered that I tried to smuggle a letter to
the outside world. This letter was a long appeal to then Chinese
President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, outlining the corrupt
prison system and the discrimination that Tibetan prisoners suffer. I
was punished by being placed in solitary confinement for 84 days.
In August 2012, I was transferred from Xichuan labor camp to
Qinghai Provincial Women's Prison, the main prison for women.
Conditions there were an improvement on Xichuan.
Release
I was released from prison on June 5, 2014 very early, at around 4
a.m. Unexpectedly, I was suddenly taken somewhere--to what looked like
another prison. I was worried as I thought I was being transferred to
another prison and not being released. There were lots of police and
authorities there from Labrang; they said they wanted to take me to
Labrang, but I told them I wanted to go to Khotse. It all took a long
time and I didn't get to my sister's home in Khotse until late
afternoon that day.
Following the release I was always monitored closely and the police
would contact me on my phone constantly. I didn't feel free at all as I
was not allowed to contact or meet my friends. Even those friends who
were in touch with me or visited me would be harassed by authorities. I
wanted to study and improve my Tibetan and I wanted to work, but in
those three and a half years I couldn't do anything. Feeling frustrated
and increasingly isolated, I decided that it would be better to escape
from the PRC rather than stay there under those circumstances without
any freedom.
With the help of Jamyang Tsultrim, I made a plan to escape
unnoticed from the authorities. It was a long and risky journey to
safety, but it was worth it when I arrived in San Francisco on December
25, 2017 and was reunited with my family.
While in Tibet, I had some information that the outside world,
including the United States Government, was concerned about my
situation. The Swiss, Dutch and the German governments were also
concerned about me. The attention from outside, from civil societies
around the world, as well as from governments, definitely helped me.
This was reflected for example in the way my prison inmates and the
prison administration treated me. Though I suffered from being
restricted in my communications with my relatives, to the extent that I
was isolated from the outside world, I was less subject to arbitrary
punishments and beatings.
I feel your support for cases like me and Tibet in general could be
of greater effect if we regularly recall the ground reality.
1. There are thousands of Tibetans like me, actively involved in
the struggle. Tibetans in Tibet are not victims but agents of change
trying to explore and use every opportunity to fight for a better
future. We need support and partnership from the outside world.
2. Every attempt for more freedom or democracy is oppressed by
China. It is against the nature of this regime to tolerate freedom and
democracy, be it in China, in Tibet and ultimately in the rest of the
world.
I am very aware about the support the United States Congress and
Administration has given to the Tibetan cause, His Holiness the Dalai
Lama and the Tibetan people in the past. I know that there is the U.S.
Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues in the State Department, who I
would have liked to meet. But I am told no one has been appointed to
this position as yet. I am also informed about some important
legislation on Tibet that was introduced in Congress, including the
Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act.
I am not a politician and my knowledge about the specifics of your
legislative process is limited. My friends from International Campaign
for Tibet in Washington explained the goal and some important details
of their recommendations to Congress to me. I am happy to support these
recommendations:
Actions taken by the U.S. Congress on Tibet send a strong
message to the people in Tibet. However, the systematic suppression of
a free press and reporting from Tibet can only be fought with a
systematic counterapproach. Therefore, Congress should pass the
Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2017;
Pass the resolution expressing the sense of Congress
that the treatment of the Tibetan people should be an important factor
in the conduct of United States relations with the People's Republic of
China.
Ask the U.S. Administration to raise Tibet in
appropriate international fora, including U.N. bodies;
Urge China to release Tibetan political prisoners,
including the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima.
My wish is that whatever measures you take, that you do it with the
strongest possible conviction and in the most forceful and wise manner.
As a Tibetan, who tried his best to give a voice to his fellow
countrymen, I can assure you the Tibetans in Tibet have not given up.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all sincerely.
Thank you.
Dhondup Wangchen
______
Prepared Statement of Tenzin Dorjee
february 14, 2018
Thank you to the Co-Chairs of the Congressional-Executive
Commission on China (CECC), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and
Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ), for holding today's hearing,
Tibet ``From all Angles.'' I am Tenzin Dorjee, a Commissioner on the
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). USCIRF is
an independent, bipartisan U.S. Federal government commission created
by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). The Commission
uses international standards to monitor the universal right of religion
or belief abroad and makes policy recommendations to the Congress,
President and Secretary of State.
Today's hearing comes at a crucial time for the people of Tibet and
Tibetan Buddhism. The plight of the following individuals helps
underscore why:
Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Panchen Lama, is one of the
world's longest-held prisoners of conscience. Chinese government
authorities kidnapped the then six-year-old boy and his family on May
18, 1995. They have not been heard from since.
Tashi Wangchuk, a Tibetan language advocate accused of
separatism, faced a one-day sham trial in January 2018 and could be
sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.
Choekyi, a Tibetan monk, is in failing health as he
serves a four-year sentence, imprisoned for celebrating the Dalai
Lama's birthday.
These three Tibetans are prisoners of conscience whom the Chinese
government ruthlessly has detained. The appendix to my testimony lists
many others.
I am full of joy that Dhondup Wangchen is with us today. He managed
to escape China where he was a prisoner of conscience. He had been
imprisoned, experiencing both hard labor and solitary confinement, and
then placed under police surveillance after his release more than three
years ago. The Chinese government targeted him for making a
documentary, ``Leaving Fear Behind.'' In this documentary, Tibetans
told the truth about living under Chinese rule, their love for the
Dalai Lama, and their view that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would not
help improve their lives.
However, I am deeply saddened that the only way he and his family
can live in safety and freedom was for them to have escaped Tibet. This
is the case because the Chinese government ruthlessly seeks total
domination in Tibet. The government forces Tibetans to assimilate into
the dominant Han culture, seeks to control Buddhism, and restricts the
teaching of the Tibetan language. The government views any efforts to
preserve the Tibetan religion, language, and culture (that would help
ensure the continuation of the Tibetan people) as antithetical to this
effort and the government's goal of advancing its so-called
``sinicization'' of religion. Through this strategy, the government
seeks to turn all aspects of faith into a socialist mold infused with
``Chinese characteristics.'' This strategy reinforces the government's
existing and pervasive policies that, over time, have turned Tibet into
a police state. My fellow Commissioner, Father Thomas J. Reese, S.J.,
spoke about the plight of Tibetan Buddhists under Chinese government
repression during his testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights
Commission on February 6, 2018 on ``Preventing Mass Atrocities I.''
I testify today as a proud Tibetan American and a refugee from
Tibet, whom my parents smuggled out as an infant. Like tens of
thousands of other Tibetans, we were forced to flee Tibet due to the
Chinese Communist People's Liberation Army's brutal invasion of Tibet
beginning in 1950 and the repression that has followed ever since.
In my testimony, I make six points to highlight the violations the
Chinese government has committed to repress religious freedom in Tibet
and take over my homeland. I also make recommendations on what the U.S.
government can do to address the Chinese government's violations of the
Tibetan people's religious freedom and other human rights. I also
highlight in my testimony cases of prisoners of conscience to shine a
light on both their situations and the increasingly dire conditions of
Tibetan Buddhists in China.
1. The Chinese government implements countless oppressive
restrictions in Tibet, which they justify as the means to counter the
``three evil forces of separatism, extremism and terrorism.''
In December 2016, Tibet's Communist Party Chief Wu Yingjie publicly
stated that he expects the Party's control over religion in Tibet to
increase. He has remained true to his word.
The Chinese government implements restrictions in the Tibetan
Autonomous Region, but also has tightened controls in Tibetan areas of
other provinces. These restrictions include: reeducation campaigns;
extensive surveillance, through for example, security forces and
closed-circuit television; Internet and mobile phone monitoring;
limiting travel both domestically and internationally; and the
intrusive presence of the military and security forces. The government
also quickly suppresses any perceived religious dissent, including
through firing at unarmed people.
While these policies are set at the highest levels in Beijing, Chen
Quanguo perfected the surveillance state as a way to maintain stability
when he was Tibet's Party Secretary. He developed a grid management
system throughout Tibet that extended security operations to the
grassroots level to fight the ``Dalai clique.'' (In early 2017, Chen
Quanguo became the new leader in Xinjiang, where he is implementing an
intensive securitization program that mirrors his efforts in Tibet.)
His replacement in Tibet, Wu Yingjie, has been linked to previous
crackdowns in Tibet, and has called for continued struggle against
``the Dalai Lama clique.''
These high-tech and other efforts followed the Chinese government's
brutal crushing of protests between 1987 and 1989 and the
implementation of additional restrictions after demonstrations that
took place in 2008. On March 10, 2008, the anniversary of the failed
1959 uprising, monks from Drepung monastery peacefully protested
against the government's ``patriotic education'' programs and other
restrictions on their freedom of religion or belief. Supportive
demonstrations in Lhasa led to property destruction, arrests, and
numerous deaths, with demonstrations spreading to Tibetan areas outside
the Tibetan Autonomous Region. To this day, the Chinese government has
not provided full details or a credible accounting of those detained,
missing, or ``disappeared'' for their role or participation in the
demonstrations. Those accused have not been given adequate legal
representation and their trials, if held at all, were closed.
2. The Chinese government views His Holiness the Dalai Lama as a
threat to its control because officials recognize his central
importance to the Tibetan people. Devotion to the Dalai Lama is a core
tenet for many Tibetan Buddhists.
The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet in 1959, seeks to peacefully resolve
the issue of Tibet and bring about stability and co-existence between
the Tibetan and Chinese people through the ``Middle Way'' policy. This
policy seeks to peacefully and nonviolently resolve Sino-Tibetan issues
via mutual respect and dialogue for mutual benefit. Yet Chinese
officials regularly and continually vilify him, viewing him as a threat
to their power, even though political authority has belonged since 2011
to the President of the Central Tibetan Administration in exile. They
accuse the Dalai Lama of blasphemy and splittism and refer to him as a
``wolf in monk's robes.''
The Chinese government also cracks down on anyone suspected of so-
called separatist activities and for participating in the ``Dalai
clique.'' Monks and nuns who refuse to denounce the Dalai Lama or do
not pledge loyalty to Beijing have been expelled from their
monasteries, imprisoned, and tortured. Despite these harsh measures,
Tibetan Buddhists continue to revere the Dalai Lama as their spiritual
leader and take great risks to find ways to express their devotion.
Beijing continually seeks to diminish the Dalai Lama's
international influence, issuing threats to other countries, including
the United States. For instance, after the Dalai Lama delivered a
commencement speech in June 2017 at the University of California, San
Diego, the Chinese Communist Party-controlled ``Global Times''
condemned the university and its chancellor for inviting him to speak,
saying he must ``bear the consequences,'' and threatened that visas
would be withheld from the chancellor as would future exchanges with
the university. I focus more on the long arm of China later in my
testimony.
Officially atheist, the Chinese government absurdly claims the
power to select the next Dalai Lama, citing a law that grants the
government authority over reincarnations. It is alarming to imagine a
scenario in which there could be two Dalai Lamas, one named by China
and the other recognized by Tibetans.
However, the Chinese government does not have the authority to name
the next Dalai Lama or other reincarnated religious leaders of Tibet.
China cannot control the real reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. Such a
decision is reserved to the current Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist
leaders, and the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lama has reiterated that it
is for the Tibetan people to determine whether the institution of the
Dalai Lama is still relevant or if he should be the last Dalai Lama. If
there is another Dalai Lama, he has said that the next one will be born
in freedom, not under Chinese control, and that each Dalai Lama has
reincarnated to fulfill the unfinished works of his predecessor.
While the Dalai Lama hopes to return to Tibet in his lifetime, the
Chinese government is waiting for him to die outside of China, and
views his death as key to resolving Sino-Tibetan issues. However, the
consequences of the Dalai Lama passing away in exile will be
unimaginable to Tibetans both inside and outside of Tibet. Given such
uncertainty, it is conceivable that some Tibetans may resort to
violence that could further undermine stability and security in the
region, and others would be driven to self-immolate.
3. The Chinese government imposes intrusive restrictions on public
and private religious practice.
Since the 2008 demonstrations:
Provincial authorities monitor the training, assembly,
publications, selection, education, and speeches of Tibetan Buddhist
religious leaders. Monks are directed to attend ``patriotic education''
sessions consisting of pro-government propaganda.
Authorities prohibit children from participating in
religious holidays, threatening them with expulsion from school if they
fail to comply.
The state controls the movement and education of monks
and nuns, the building or repairing of religious venues, and the
conducting of large-scale religious gatherings.
Authorities have installed a heavy security presence at
monasteries and nunneries, monitoring and surveilling in and around the
properties.
Rigorous study and practice are very important to Tibetan Buddhism.
The Chinese government seeks to strike at the heart of Tibetan Buddhism
by attacking the Tibetan religious and educational institute of Larung
Gar, which is one of the largest Tibetan Buddhist institutes in the
world and is located in Sichuan Province. The destruction and
micromanagement at Larung Gar, as well as at Yachen Gar, exemplifies
Beijing's two goals: eviscerating the teachings and study of Tibetan
Buddhism that are integral to the practice and traditions of the faith;
and reshaping them to adapt Tibetan Buddhism to socialist society and
serve the goals of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese government.
Larung Gar was home to more than 10,000 monks, nuns, laypeople, and
students of Buddhism from all over the world. While cadres since
October 2011 have been stationed in all monasteries in the Tibet
Autonomous Region, west of Larung Gar, and have taken over the
management committee of each monastery, the government's actions in
Larung Gar are unprecedented in scope.
In July 2016, the government launched a sweeping operation,
demolishing significant parts of this institute, with local officials
referring to the project as ``construction'' or ``renovation.''
Thousands of monastics, laypeople, and students were evicted. Some
reportedly were locked out of their homes before they could collect
their belongings, or were forced to sign pledges promising never to
return. Many others were forced to undergo so-called ``patriotic
reeducation programs'' and have been prohibited from returning.
The demolition order also included language governing ideology and
future religious activities at Larung Gar and gave government
officials--who are largely Han Chinese, not Tibetan--greater control
and oversight of the institute, including direct control over
laypeople. The order also mandated the separation of the monastery from
the institute, running counter to the Tibetan tradition of one blended
encampment with both religious and lay education.
According to reports from Human Rights Watch, in January 2018, 200
Communist Party cadres and lay officials reportedly took over the
management, finances, security, admissions, and choice of textbooks at
Larung Gar. The individuals in charge of this pervasive new management
system will limit the number allowed to stay there; establish a ``grid
management'' system; subject residents and visitors to ``real-name
registration''; and require monks to have red tags, nuns yellow tags,
and lay devotees green tags for identification. According to an
official document Human Rights Watch reviewed, 40 percent of teaching
at Larung Gar reportedly now must consist of classes in politics and
other non-religious subjects; a criterion for accepting students will
be their support for ``Chinese culture, the Chinese Communist Party,
and socialism with ``Chinese characteristics;'' the goal of study will
include to ``honor and support the Chinese Communist Party and the
socialist system'' and train monks who ``defend the unification of the
Motherland, uphold national unity and patriotic religion and abide by
their vows.'' In addition, monks and nuns who are from areas other than
Sichuan Province will be prohibited from applying to Larung Gar.
Also located in Sichuan Province, Yachen Gar had a population of
about 10,000 people, mostly nuns, before expulsions began in April
2016. By September 2016, about 1,000 nuns had been expelled, and 200
dwellings had been demolished. In August 2017, authorities issued
instructions to remove 3,500 homes belonging to monks and nuns to allow
for the construction of a series of roads within Yachen Gar. Monks and
nuns were ordered to register their identity cards and sign and give
thumb prints to a document to certify how long they had lived at Yachen
Gar. The document committed residents to returning to their native
regions of Tibet, never returning to Yachen Gar after leaving, and
advised not to express any disagreement with these actions.
Family members of nuns reportedly were threatened with punishment
if the nuns did not return to their place of household registration.
2,000 more nuns and monks reportedly were ordered expelled, along with
the demolition of 2,000 more dwellings, by the end of 2017.
4. Detaining religious prisoners of conscience is a tool the
Chinese government uses to control Tibetan Buddhists.
The Chinese government detains, subjects to sham trials, imprisons
and tortures religious prisoners of conscience. Please see the appendix
for a selected list of Tibetan religious prisoners of conscience
extracted from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China's list
of prisoners of conscience.
I here focus on several prisoners, beginning with the Panchen Lama,
who holds the second highest position in Tibetan Buddhism; and Tashi
Wangchuk, an advocate for the Tibetan language, which is integral to
the practice of Tibetan Buddhism. While one is a religious leader and
the other is a lay activist, the Chinese government has disappeared one
and unjustly detained the other. I also will highlight the case of
Choekyi, a Tibetan monk imprisoned for his devotion to the Dalai Lama.
The Chinese government fears Tashi Wangchuk as much as it does the
Panchen Lama, who holds the second highest position in Tibetan
Buddhism. The Chinese government seeks to silence Tashi Wangchuk
because it believes that Tibetan language acquisition would impede the
sinicization of the education system and Tibetan assimilation into the
majority Han culture.
The Chinese government seeks to systematically destroy the Tibetan
language to help facilitate the assimilation into the dominant ethnic
Han culture of Tibetans, who already face pressure from economic
changes and a Chinese government fearful of ethnic and religious
separatism.
The Panchen Lama: Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is now one of the world's
longest-held prisoners of conscience. After the death of the 10th
Panchen Lama, His Holiness the Dalai Lama chose Gedhun on May 15, 1995
to be the 11th Panchen Lama, the second highest position in Tibetan
Buddhism. Three days after his selection, Chinese government
authorities kidnapped then six-year-old Gedhun and his family. On
November 11, 1995, Chinese authorities announced their own pick to
serve as the Panchen Lama: Gyancain Norbu. Most Tibetan Buddhists
reject the government's selection.
In the more than 20 years since his abduction, Chinese authorities
have provided little information about his whereabouts, alleging that
they need to protect him from being ``kidnapped by separatists.'' In
May 2007, Asma Jahangir, then-Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion
or belief of the UN Human Rights Council, asked Chinese authorities
what measures they had taken to implement the recommendation of the
Committee on the Rights of the Child and suggested that the government
allow an independent expert to visit and confirm Gedhun's well-being.
On July 17, 2007, the Chinese authorities said that he is a ``perfectly
ordinary Tibetan boy'' attending school and leading a normal life, and
that he ``does not wish to be disturbed.'' Authorities say that the
state employs both parents and that his brothers and sisters are either
working or at university. They must provide videographic evidence for
these claims.
The Chinese government, while officially atheist, believes it has
the authority to replace the Panchen Lama with its own selection, as it
does the Dalai Lama. In 2016, the government published online a list of
870 ``authentic living Buddhas.'' However, the Chinese government does
not have the authority to name any of the reincarnated religious
leaders of Tibet.
As part of USCIRF's Religious Prisoner of Conscience Project, I
have chosen to work on behalf of the Panchen Lama, highlighting his
case and the laws and policies of the Chinese government that led to
his disappearance.
Tashi Wangchuk: Tashi Wangchuk is a Tibetan entrepreneur and
education advocate known for promoting a deeper understanding of the
Tibetan language as integral to the practice of Tibetan Buddhism. He
was detained on January 27, 2016 after speaking to the ``New York
Times'' for a documentary video and two articles on Tibetan education
and culture. His relatives did not know he was detained until March 24,
despite a Chinese law requiring notification within 24 hours. He was
indicted in January 2017 for ``inciting separatism,'' and went on trial
on January 4, 2018. The trial closed without a verdict being announced.
He could face up to 15 years in prison if found guilty.
Tashi Wangchuk called on Tibetans to protect their culture and
focused on the need for bilingual education and Tibetan language
instruction across the Tibetan regions of China. According to the Dalai
Lama, Tibetan language preservation is crucially important because the
complete teachings of Buddha, especially philosophy, science of mind
and emotions, and metaphysics, are best preserved in the Tibetan
language.
Monasteries, the heart of Tibetan society, had served as vital
educational institutions, with monks and nuns among the elite few who
could read and write before Tibet came under Chinese Communist rule.
Until recently, many monasteries held classes on the written language
for ordinary people, and monks often gave lessons while traveling.
However, Chinese officials in many areas ordered monasteries to end
these classes, although Tibetan can still be taught to young monks.
The estimated literacy rate in Tibet among Tibetans in China
currently has fallen well below 20 percent, and continues to decline,
as the Chinese government actively discourages its teaching, and does
not use the Tibetan language in government offices, thereby violating,
according to Tashi Wangchuk, the Chinese constitution. In 2012,
officials largely eliminated Tibetan as a language of instruction in
primary and secondary schools and ordered the use of Chinese instead.
Many Tibetan teachers were laid off, and new Chinese textbooks were
introduced that did not include detailed information on Tibetan history
or culture.
Choekyi, a Tibetan monk, is another prisoner of conscience,
punished because of his expressed fidelity to the Dalai Lama; Chinese
authorities since 2008 have punished displays of loyalty to the Dalai
Lama. Choekyi was arrested in 2015 and sentenced to four years in
prison in Sichuan for conducting ``separatist activities'' and wearing
a shirt with Tibetan text that called for celebrating the Dalai Lama's
80th birthday. His health has deteriorated in prison where he
reportedly is in critical condition after he was tortured and forced to
perform hard labor, although he was in poor health prior to entering
prison, suffering from kidney problems, jaundice and other conditions.
Family members have very limited visitation privileges and are not
allowed to bring him food or medicine.
The European Parliament on January 18, 2018 passed a resolution in
support of human rights activists in China, including Tashi Wangchuk
and Choekyi. The resolution calls for their immediate and unconditional
release; expresses its deep concern ``at the arrest and continued
detention of Tashi Wangchuk, as well as his limited right to counsel,
the lack of evidence against him and the irregularities in the criminal
investigation''; and urges the Chinese government to allow Choekyi's
``relatives and the lawyers of his choice to visit him and, in
particular, to provide him with adequate medical care.''
I here highlight two other Tibetan religious prisoners of
conscience who did not survive their brutal imprisonment:
Goshul Lobsang: In 2008, authorities arrested Goshul
Lobsang for his role in organizing a protest against the government.
While in prison, he was subjected to extreme malnourishment and brutal
torture, including regular injections and repeated stabbings. In March
2014, following his release, Lobsang died due to his horrendous
mistreatment.
Tenzin Delek Rinpoche: Chinese authorities arrested
Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a prominent Tibetan religious leader, in April
2002, accusing him of being involved in a 2002 bomb attack, and
charging him with separatism and terrorism. He initially was given a
death sentence, contingent on good behavior, with a two-year reprieve.
His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and then subsequently
to 20 years in prison. However, before his death in prison in 2015, he
described to family members the torture he had endured, including
repeated beatings. The government had denied his family's request that
he be granted medical parole, instead arresting those who advocated
justice for him.
After his death in prison, Tenzin Delek's family requested to
see his body and that it be returned to them for proper
Buddhist burial rites. But Chinese authorities cruelly cremated
the body and refused to hand over his ashes, leading many to be
suspicious about the cause of his death. Even in death, the
Chinese government continued to defame Tenzin Delek, calling
him a criminal and a fake religious leader, and authorities
banned public memorials in honor of his passing. Authorities
subsequently detained his sister and niece for nearly two weeks
after they requested that his body be turned over to them. In
2016, Tenzin Delek's niece, Nyima Lhamo, fled China to seek
justice.
5. At least 152 Tibetans have self-immolated since February 2009:
According to the International Campaign for Tibet, 124 are men and
28 are women; 121 are known to have died following their protest; 26
are 18 or under; 13 were monks at Kirti Monastery in Ngaba; 11 were
former monks there; and two were nuns from Mame Dechen Chokorling
nunnery in Ngaba. Many of these protestors supported the Dalai Lama and
freedom for Tibet.
Chinese authorities in Tibet seek to prevent the dissemination,
especially outside of Tibet, of information about self-immolations.
Instead of acknowledging its role in prompting self-immolation, the
government threatens family members with collective punishment, detains
those suspected of sharing information, and harshly sentences and
tortures those suspected of being involved. Because of these brutal
measures, self-immolations recently have become less frequent.
The Chinese government would have the world believe that self-
immolators commit ``terrorist acts in disguise,'' and/or were
manipulated by external cults for their political ends. In fact, the
government views self-immolations as threats to stability and security.
The government's response, more repression and more controls, has led
to more antipathy from the people and more self-immolations. Why have
these people chosen to self-immolate? The Dalai Lama describes them as
``desperate acts by people seeking justice and freedom.'' Others view
self-immolation as one of the few available forms of protest given the
almost complete securitization in Tibetan areas and the resulting
difficulty of collective acts of resistance. Even small peaceful acts
of defiance, such as having a picture of the Dalai Lama, can bring
detention and disappearance.
According to the International Campaign for Tibet, protestors who
self-immolated in 2017 include:
Konpe, a young Tibetan man of about 30, set fire to
himself on December 23, 2017. He died in Ngaba close to the site of the
first self-immolation in Tibet eight years ago. The police immediately
took him away, and he reportedly died the next day.
Tenga, a popular Tibetan monk in his sixties, self-
immolated on November 26, 2017 in Kardze, in the eastern Tibetan area
of Kham. He had worked as a volunteer teacher. He reportedly called for
freedom for Tibet as he was burning. Armed police reportedly arrived
quickly and took away his body. Some sources reported that there was an
immediate area lockdown, with internet communications blocked.
A young Tibetan monk, Jamyang Losel, set himself on fire
on May 19, 2017, in Malho Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Qinghai. He
was immediately taken to a hospital in Xining, the provincial capital,
but died there the same day. According to social media reports, his
body was not returned to his family.
A Tibetan teenager, Chagdor Kyab, reportedly self-
immolated on May 2, 2017 in Bora in Gansu, the Tibetan area of Amdo.
His whereabouts are unknown, as is whether he still is alive. After
setting himself on fire near Bora monastery, this 16-year-old protester
reportedly shouted, ``Tibet wants freedom'' and ``Let His Holiness the
Dalai Lama come back to Tibet'' while he burned.
6. The Long Arm of China:
The Chinese government attempts to control the discussion of
sensitive topics and censor information and criticism about its actions
in Tibet. The government also seeks to intimidate critics of its
repressive policies. These pervasive efforts are not confined to the
geographic limits of Tibet or China. Rather, the Chinese government
aggressively seeks to shape public opinion, controlling the narrative
worldwide, including in the United States, through intimidation,
pressure, harassment, and fear, in its quest to create a positive view
of China. For example, the Chinese government in 2017 issued stern
warnings to countries like Botswana and India about the Dalai Lama's
planned appearances; in the former case, the Dalai Lama ultimately
canceled the trip due to exhaustion, and in the latter, his visit to
disputed border areas of Arunachal Pradesh state underscored regional
tensions.
China's long arm and heavy hand are especially evident in Nepal
where about 20,000 Tibetans reside. Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and a
Congressional delegation visited Tibetans in Nepal last summer. Under
pressure from the Chinese government, the Nepalese government has
canceled or limited many Tibetan gatherings, including those
commemorating the Dalai Lama's birthday, and forcibly returned some
Tibetans to China. The Nepalese government has installed heightened
security measures on the border to limit the historical migration of
Tibetans into Nepal. Tibetans living in Nepal also face limitations on
getting refugee certificates, drivers licenses, employment, and exit
visas to leave Nepal. Many of them live in former detention camps and
without documentation, cannot go to school, and have difficulty finding
work. Monks reportedly are prohibited from publicly criticizing China,
participating in Tibetan independence activities, displaying the Dalai
Lama's picture, or celebrating his birthday. Chinese secret police
reportedly organize patrols in Nepal. The country's foreign Minister,
Mahendra Bahadur Pandey, assured Chinese officials on an official visit
that Nepal would ``never allow any forces to use Nepali territory to
engage in anti-China activity.''
China's long arm and heavy hand pose serious concerns for
democratic norms and institutions in the United States. I earlier cited
the Chinese government's pressure on the University of California, San
Diego, for inviting the Dalai Lama to deliver the commencement address.
Other examples of the Chinese government's aggressive efforts at
U.S. educational institutions include:
International Students: A minority of Chinese students in
the United States have worked closely with the Chinese government,
through the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA), to
further its agenda of control by promoting a pro-China agenda and
seeking to limit anti-Chinese speech on Western campuses. Some have
characterized the group as a ``tool of the government's foreign
ministry.'' This group helped lead the opposition to the Dalai Lama's
speech at the University of California. A May 2017 New York Times
article noted how the group at Duke University was accused of inciting
a harassment campaign in 2008 against a Chinese student who tried to
mediate between sides in a Tibet protest; and that in rare instances
members of the group have been accused of spying.
I personally have experienced and witnessed the Chinese
government's use of CSSA to promote a pro-China agenda. In
2008, when I was a doctoral student at the University of
California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), over a hundred international
Chinese students tried to disrupt a peaceful event about Tibet
that the Santa Barbara Friends of Tibet had organized. They
carried huge Chinese flags and posters picturing the feudal
system of old Tibet, probably given to them by the Chinese
Consulate in Los Angeles, and shouted denunciations of His
Holiness the Dalai Lama. I was standing alone with a Tibetan
flag at one corner when about thirty Chinese students encircled
me. They screamed at me and hurled epithets at me, calling me a
``terrorist'' and ``bastard.'' I stood my ground nonviolently
and tried to engage them in dialogue and challenged their
verbal attacks and biased views on Tibet and His Holiness.
Another Tibetan student, Tenzin Sherab, had a similar
experience. About thirty Chinese students also encircled and
screamed at Dr. Jose Cabezon, the Dalai Lama Chair in the
Department of Religion at UCSB.
Confucius Institutes: There are 110 Confucius Institutes
(largely in colleges and universities) and 501 Confucius Classrooms (in
primary and secondary schools) in the United States. Their mandate is
to promote cultural exchange through instruction in the Chinese
language and culture. A Chinese state organ (Hanban) selects the
teachers and materials, thereby allowing them to promote the ideology
and policy goals of the Chinese government. Critics have raised
concerns that this arrangement helps Beijing soften its authoritarian
image and that cooperating universities and classrooms unwittingly help
the Chinese government promote censorship abroad, while undermining
human rights and academic freedom by helping to shape public opinion on
key political and human rights issues such as Tibet. The National
Association of Scholars issued a report in April 2017 noting reasons
for concern, with universities making ``improper concessions that
jeopardize academic freedom and institutional autonomy.''
recommendations
As I end my testimony with some recommendations, I would like to
acknowledge the coming Losar Festival in honor of the Tibetan New Year,
which begins this Friday, February 16. The start of every new year
offers us the opportunity to reflect and, with respect to Tibet,
consider how U.S. policy can help advance freedom of religion and
belief and related human rights for the Tibetan people and others
throughout China. USCIRF repeatedly has recommended that China be
designated a ``country of particular concern'' (CPC) for its
``systematic, ongoing, egregious'' violations of the freedom of
religion or belief, with specific sanctions associated with the
designation. Chief among these violations is the Chinese government's
treatment of Tibetan Buddhists. USCIRF also recommends the following:
Congress should:
Cosponsor and approve the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act
of 2017 (H.R. 1872/S. 821). sponsored in the House by Representatives
James McGovern (D-MA) and Randy Hultgren (R 09IL) and in the Senate by
Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
This bill would deny entry into the United States to Chinese
government officials responsible for creating or administering
restrictions on U.S. government officials, journalists,
independent observers, and tourists seeking to travel to
Tibetan areas. It is unacceptable that the Chinese enjoy broad
access to the United States while U.S. citizens' access to
Tibet is highly restricted. Mutual access and reciprocity is
key to maintaining a viable relationship between the United
States and China.
Send regular Congressional delegations focused on
religious freedom and related human rights to China and request to
visit Tibet, and advocate on behalf of individual prisoners of
conscience and persons whom the Chinese government has detained or
disappeared, as well as their family members.
Appropriate funds for programs supporting the Tibetan
people, including Tibetan language broadcasts, to preserve their
distinctive language, religion and culture in accordance with the
Tibetan Policy Act of 2002.
Adopt and advocate on behalf of Tibetan prisoners of
conscience to draw attention to their cases, their ill treatment, and
their families and loved ones.
The U.S. government should:
Appoint a qualified and experienced individual to serve
as the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues at the U.S. Department of
State, as mandated by the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002.
Use targeted tools against specific officials and
agencies identified as having participated in or being responsible for
human rights abuses, including particularly severe violations of
religious freedom; these tools include the ``specially designated
nationals'' list maintained by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's
Office of Foreign Assets Control, visa denials under section 604(a) of
IRFA and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and
asset freezes under the Global Magnitsky Act.
Urge the Chinese government to provide videographic
evidence of the well-being of the Panchen Lama.
Press the Chinese government to restart the dialogue
leading to a negotiated agreement on Tibet and allow the Dalai Lama to
return to Tibet for a visit if he so desires.
Press for at the highest levels and work to secure the
unconditional release of prisoners of conscience and religious freedom
advocates, and press the Chinese government to treat prisoners humanely
and allow them access to family, human rights monitors, lawyers, and
adequate medical care from independent health care professionals, and
the ability to practice their faith.
Press the Chinese government to abide by its commitments
under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and also independently investigate
reports of torture among individuals detained or imprisoned.
APPENDIX--Tibetan Buddhist Prisoners of Conscience
* This selected list of 475 prisoners of conscience, compiled on
February 8, 2018, is from the Congressional-Executive Commission on
China's database.
The list of prisoners detained since March 2008 includes prisoners
who currently are (1) detained or imprisoned, (2) detained and serving
a life sentence, (3) detained and presumed to be serving a life
sentence, (4) presumed to be imprisoned or detained, (5) presumed
detained and serving a life sentence, and (6) presumed detained and
presumed serving a life sentence.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Green
february 14, 2018
tibet, geopolitics, and u.s. national interests
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the Commission to
address the geopolitical context of U.S. policy on Tibet. Those who
argue that U.S. ``policy'' should somehow be distinguished from our
``values'' as a nation display a fundamental misunderstanding of our
national interests and our own history. As I argued in a recent book on
U.S. strategy since the birth of our Republic, American statecraft has
successfully prevented the rise of hostile hegemonic powers in Asia not
by force of arms or realpolitik alone, but also by investing in
democratic norms and open societies. In Tibet, as in many other parts
of Asia today, our consistent support for those same universal norms
will have an important impact on whether China uses its growing power
for coercion and hegemonic control, or finds ways to contribute to
regional prosperity consistent with the needs and expectations of her
people and her neighbors.
The powerful aspirations of the Tibetan people for dignity,
religious freedom, and cultural autonomy intersect with rising
geopolitical tensions along the Himalayan plateau. China's insecurity
about this region is deeply rooted. Britain intrigued against Russia in
Tibet as part of the ``Great Game'' at the turn of the 20th century.
Some historians argue that the iconic Tibetan flag was inspired by
Japanese spies fomenting anti-Chinese nationalism and offering Japan's
own ``rising sun'' flag as a model. The first CIA agent killed in the
line of duty died smuggling guns and money to Tibet. In 2008 China's
Central Military Commission ranked Tibet as the most critical
sovereignty challenge, ahead of Xinjiang and Taiwan.
The flipside of insecurity is expansionism and Beijing has made
dramatic moves to assert strategic dominance over the Himalayan plateau
at the expense of rival India. India and China have 37% of the world's
population but only 10% of the world's water supply, with India and
much of the rest of South and Southeast Asia relying on the Brahmaputra
and other rivers flowing from the Himalayas. Beijing has already
completed two of three water transfer programs diverting billions of
cubic meters of river waters yearly into China. The highly
controversial third leg of that plan is designed to divert waters from
the Tibetan plateau into China. Beijing suspended agreements on
hydrological information sharing with India in 2017 and has refused
international demands for transparency on plans for damming rivers in
and around the Tibet Autonomous Region.
Beijing has also made moves to establish military dominance in
areas contested with India--paralleling similar moves to militarize
artificial islands in the South China Sea, but in this case at an
altitude of over 10,000 feet. Satellite photos have revealed PLA
militarization of Doklam, with new helipads, roads, and hardened
fortifications only dozens of meters from the Indian Army's forward
outpost. When India tested a ballistic missile capable of hitting
China's coastal cities in January (a capability China already has
against India), the official Chinese media called for the PLA navy to
expand into the Indian Ocean to outflank Indian forces. The Tibetans'
struggle is thus occurring at the epicenter of China's aggressive
attempt to consolidate and expand control of its periphery within the
Eurasian continent.
Finally, the Tibetan people's aspirations are colliding with the
greatest vulnerability of the Chinese Communist Party--that party's
inability to accommodate the growing and legitimate spiritual and
social demands of all its 1.4 billion citizens. This includes the most
senior figures in the Communist Party. We know, for example, that Li
Peng, the premier who ordered the crackdown in Tiananmen Square,
converted to Tibetan Buddhism in his old age. As His Holiness the Dalai
Lama put it in an address at CSIS in 2007, ``when you're 80 years old,
socialism with Chinese characteristics is not so useful!''
Driven by these insecurities, Beijing has chosen to turn away from
dialogue with His Holiness on legitimate questions of religious and
cultural autonomy and instead to try to break the will of the Tibetan
people through a combination of repression, Hanization of the Tibet
Autonomous Region, massive economic infrastructure investment, and
political control of the succession to the 15th Dalai Lama.
Steady U.S. support for the Tibetan people is therefore both
morally and strategically imperative. U.S. support is necessary to
demonstrate that we will not turn a blind eye to coercion by China in
any one part of Asia in order to win China's support in another.
Because if it is Tibet today, it could be Taiwan tomorrow, or even
Japan. U.S. support is also necessary to demonstrate to the Tibetan
people that His Holiness was right to champion the ``Middle Way'' of
dialogue with Beijing within the context of China's own constitution
and that those brave and long-suffering people do not have to choose
either surrender or violent revolution. In addition, U.S. support is
necessary to reinforce solidarity behind Tibet in the broader
democratic world, which faltered in 2009--particularly in Europe--when
President Obama chose not to meet His Holiness in Washington. And,
finally, U.S. support is necessary because China's closing of Tibet to
the outside world is exacerbating geopolitical tensions with India that
will have ramifications for Asian stability writ large.
The Trump administration has not fully stepped up to this reality.
The administration's announcement of a ``Free and Open Indo-Pacific''
strategy certainly points to the right framing of how to incorporate
our values in regional policies. However, this is the first President
in two decades who has chosen not to raise Tibet in meetings with his
Chinese counterparts, at least as far as we know. Finally, the United
States still does not have a Tibet Coordinator as required under
legislation. I understand that Secretary Tillerson responded to Senator
Corker's letter on this subject by explaining that the Under Secretary
for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights would be double-
hatted to fulfill the role as coordinator, but no one has been
nominated for that post and a search on the Under Secretary's home page
for ``Tibet'' produces multiple hits noting that Tibet is part of China
and a few references to the last human rights report, but little else.
The administration should also support the Reciprocal Access to
Tibet Act of 2017. CSIS hosted some of the party officials from the TAR
to discuss the situation in Tibet in 2008 and I found it useful. If
necessary, a Presidential waiver can be used to accommodate officials
interested in genuine dialogue on Tibet in the future, but the
legislation is necessary to help blunt Beijing's effort to close off
Lhasa and the surrounding region to outside journalists, scholars,
officials and tourists. Reciprocity of access is a fundamental
principle of stable international relations.
I would conclude by emphasizing that U.S. policy has been aimed at
achieving what Beijing itself has claimed to support in its own
constitution and in prior dialogues with representatives of His
Holiness--respect for the cultural, religious, and social rights of the
Tibetan people. To retreat from that now would be to signal acceptance
of the logic that Chinese power must be accommodated, even when that
power is used to reverse rules, norms, and understandings that have
contributed to peace, prosperity and U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific
for many decades.
Thank you.
Michael J. Green
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida;
Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
february 14, 2018
Good morning.
This is a hearing of the Congressional-Executive Commission on
China. The title of this hearing is ``Tibet `From All Angles':
Protecting Human Rights, Defending Strategic Access, and Challenging
China's Export of Censorship Globally.''
We will have one panel testifying today. The panel will feature:
Dhondup Wangchen: Tibetan filmmaker and recently escaped political
prisoner;
Dr. Tenzin Dorjee: Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and Associate Professor, California State
University, Fullerton;
Dr. Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan
Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Thank you all for being here.
Without question, Tibet remains one of the most sensitive issues in
U.S.-China relations. Conflict between Tibetan aspirations and Chinese
policy is found within cultural, religious, and educational spheres. As
the Chinese government seeks to diminish or altogether eliminate
aspects of Tibetan culture that it regards as threatening, the peaceful
exercise of internationally recognized human rights is systematically
suppressed.
Inside the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan autonomous
areas, Chinese officials have increased restrictions on the religious
and cultural life of Tibetans over the past decade by implementing
pervasive controls and restriction on religious practice, a trend which
was highlighted in the Commission's most recent Annual Report.
Beginning in 2016, Chinese authorities targeted renowned centers of
Buddhist learning for demolition and reportedly expelled more than
4,800 Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns and subjected them to periods of
``patriotic education'' lasting from several weeks to six months.
There are more than 500 cases of Tibetan political or religious
prisoners currently in detention who are in the CECC's Political
Prisoner Database--a staggering figure that is far from exhaustive.
Access to Tibet for foreign journalists, NGOs and diplomats remains
severely restricted.
At the same time, the Chinese government exports its
authoritarianism abroad, pressuring foreign academic institutions who
invite the Dalai Lama to speak on campus as well as businesses who
mention his name or the Tibet Autonomous Region as a distinct region.
It is this dimension of global Chinese censorship which has thrust
Tibet into the news in recent days. Every week it seems another major
international company is publicly, and in some cases shamelessly,
apologizing to the PRC for some sort of misstep related to Tibet, the
Dalai Lama or some otherwise ``sensitive'' issue. Driven by their
bottom line and China's vast market, many companies are increasingly
prepared to toe Beijing's line.
There is a certain grim irony to the Chinese government demanding
that businesses apologize for social media posts on social media
platforms that are blocked inside China.
It is clear that the cost of doing business in China keeps getting
steeper. At the same time, there is little price to be paid in the West
when companies engage in self-censorship to further their bottom line
despite the fact that it is antithetical to the values that underpin
our own society.
We will explore all of these topics during today's hearing in
addition to the future of the Dalai Lama's succession, China's efforts
to control water resources and expand its military presence on the
Tibetan plateau, and the impact on broader U.S. strategic interests and
human rights.
Before turning to our witness testimony, I would be remiss if I did
not underscore how pleased we are to welcome Tibetan filmmaker Dhondup
Wangchen to today's hearing. It's not often that we're able to welcome
to the witness stand political prisoners whose cases the Commission has
highlighted in our prisoner database, in letters to the administration,
and on social media.
Set against the backdrop of a different Olympic Games in Asia, it
is fitting to recall that Mr. Wangchen's ``crime'' was making the short
documentary film ``Leaving Fear Behind'' in 2008 which was based on 108
interviews he conducted with Tibetans who expressed views on a range of
issues, from the Dalai Lama to the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Golog Jigme, Mr. Wangchen's assistant in producing the film was
among the witnesses at an April 2016 Commission hearing titled,
``China's Pervasive Use of Torture.'' He, too, was subsequently
detained in 2008 for his work on the documentary and during his
detention, severely tortured.
Mr. Wangchen: We welcome you to America, to safety and freedom, and
we stand with you in working toward the day when the Tibetan people are
afforded these same protections.
Please join me in welcoming our witnesses Mr. Dhondup Wangchen,
Tibetan filmmaker and recently escaped political prisoner, Dr. Tenzin
Dorjee, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom (USCIRF) and Associate Professor, California State University,
Fullerton, and Dr. Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and
Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS).
__________
Submissions for the Record
Statement of Hon. James P. McGovern, a U.S. Representative from
Massachusetts
february 14, 2018
I thank the Congressional-Executive Committee on China for
convening this critically important hearing on the eve of the
anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising, in which 87,000 Tibetans were
killed, arrested or deported to labor camps, and which led His Holiness
the Dalai Lama to flee to India along with tens of thousands of other
Tibetans. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a statement for the
record.
I admire the courage and perseverance of the Tibetan people. I have
stood in solidarity with them for years in their struggle to exercise
their basic human rights--to speak and teach their language, protect
their culture, control their land and water, travel within and outside
their country, and worship as they choose.
Dhondup Wangchen embodies that struggle. I join my colleagues in
welcoming him to Washington and to the halls of Congress.
But as the Dalai Lama ages, and as China doubles down on its deeply
authoritarian practices, I worry that time is running out to make sure
that Tibetans will be able to live their lives as they wish.
China has a terrible human rights record. Whatever hope once
existed that China would become more open, more ruled by law and more
democratic as it became wealthier, has faded over the years--especially
under the rule of President Xi Jinping.
As Xi Jinping consolidated his power during last October's
Communist Party Congress, he laid out a vision of China in which every
aspect of life--economic, political, cultural and religious--will be
under the control of the Communist Party, an authoritarian vision that
does not bode well for minority populations like the Tibetans, who see
the world through a different lens.
One of my great frustrations as a Member of Congress has been the
unwillingness of the United States Government, under both Democratic
and Republican administrations, to impose any real consequences for
China's bad human rights behavior.
I understand there are trade-offs in foreign policy. But I see
nothing to suggest that going easy on China's human rights record has
worked. Instead, the overall human rights situation is getting worse:
human rights lawyers detained, held in secret and incommunicado; the
enforced disappearance of critics from Hong Kong; a cyber security law
that strangles online freedom; the highest number of executions in the
world. The barbaric denial of adequate health care and the death in
custody of Liu Xiaobo.
At the same time, the repression of the Tibetan people has
deepened. Tibetans are confronted with an intrusive official presence
in monasteries, pervasive surveillance, limits on travel and
communications and ideological re-education campaigns.
Last year demolitions were carried out at Larung Gar, the famous
Tibetan Buddhist center of learning, and thousands of monks and nuns
were expelled. We now know that draconian new controls have been
imposed there--party cadres are taking over management, finances,
security, admissions, and even the choice of textbooks.
As of last August, 69 monks, nuns or Tibetan reincarnate teachers
were known to be serving sentences in Chinese prisons. I fear the real
number is much higher.
And the Chinese government continues to claim the prerogative to
decide who will succeed the Dalai Lama--a mind-boggling conceit for a
government that is officially atheist.
This is not the first time the Chinese government has interfered in
the identification and installation of reincarnated leaders of Tibetan
Buddhism. In 1995, the government arbitrarily detained the 11th Panchen
Lama, then a six-year-old boy, and installed its own candidate for the
job.
I see no evidence that things are getting better for the Tibetan
people, and so it is critically important that Congress speak out in
support of Tibetan rights. Hearings like this one, and those held last
year by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I co-chair, and
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, say to China that we are paying
attention.
But it is not enough. The many meetings we have all had with
courageous Tibetans, our solidarity with their plight, our appreciation
for His Holiness, are not enough.
China needs to face real consequences for its actions in Tibet. And
that means we in Congress need to step up the pressure.
To start, Congress must pass the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act,
the bill I introduced in the House last session, along with a
bipartisan group of Members, and that Senators Rubio and Baldwin are
leading in the Senate. This bill imposes consequences for restrictions
on travel to areas in China where ethnic Tibetans live.
The rationale is simple. The basis of diplomatic law is mutual
access and reciprocity. But while the Chinese enjoy broad access to the
United States, the same is not true for U.S. diplomats, journalists or
tourists going to Tibet--including Tibetan-Americans trying to visit
their country of origin.
This is simply unacceptable. If China wants its citizens and
officials to travel freely in the U.S., Americans must be able to
travel freely in China, including Tibet.
Under the Reciprocal Access Act, no senior leader responsible for
designing or implementing travel restrictions to Tibetan areas would be
eligible to enter the United States. Allowing travel to Tibet is only
one step China needs to take; there are others.
China should permit His Holiness the Dalai Lama to return to Tibet
for a visit if he so desires. He has that right, and he must have that
opportunity before it is too late.
As Members of Congress we must insist that the administration name
a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, a statutory position.
We must support the robust use of the Global Magnitsky Act to hold
accountable Chinese officials responsible for human rights abuses. The
December decision to sanction Gao Yan for his involvement in the
arbitrary detention, torture, and death of human rights activist Cao
Shunli was a good first step. It should be the first of many.
We must redouble our efforts to secure the release of Tibetan
prisoners of conscience. It is time to insist that American businesses
do their part to protect the human rights of Tibetans and all the
people of China. To not speak out in the face of abuse is to be
complicit.
Changing Chinese behavior will not be easy. But it is time to walk
the walk. The alternative risks the lives and well-being of millions of
Tibetans.
Thank you.
__________
Witness Biographies
february 14, 2018
Dhondup Wangchen, Tibetan filmmaker and recently escaped political
prisoner
Dhondup Wangchen is a Tibetan filmmaker and former political
prisoner, who arrived to freedom and safety in the United States on
December 25, 2017 to be reunited with his wife and four children. Mr.
Wangchen was detained by Chinese authorities in March 2008 on charges
related to a 25-minute documentary titled ``Leaving Fear Behind.'' The
film was based on 108 interviews that Wangchen conducted over five
months, and included candid conversations with Tibetans who expressed
views on a range of issues, from the Dalai Lama and the 2008 Beijing
Olympics to the human rights situation in Tibetan areas. In July 2009,
Dhondup Wangchen was charged with ``inciting separatism'' and
subsequently sentenced to six years imprisonment where he endured harsh
treatment including solitary confinement and manual labor. Wangchen was
released in July 2014 after completing his sentence but remained under
strict surveillance. Dhondup Wangchen has been honored by Amnesty
International and the Committee to Protect Journalists awarded him the
International Press Freedom Award in 2012. Mr. Wangchen's case was a
priority for the United States government. The U.S. State Department
raised his case at the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue in 2016.
Tenzin Dorjee, Ph.D., Commissioner, U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and Associate Professor,
California State University, Fullerton
Tenzin Dorjee is a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, appointed by House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi. Dr. Dorjee also is an Associate Professor at California
State University, Fullerton (CSUF). Dr. Dorjee was selected as the 2017
Distinguished Faculty Marshal for the College of Communications, CSUF.
He has authored and co-authored articles on Tibetan culture, identity,
nonviolence, and middle-way approaches to conflict resolution,
including the Sino-Tibetan conflict, intercultural and intergroup
communication competence, and intergenerational communication context.
He has presented at many international and national communications
conventions. He also has translated works of Tibetan Buddhism and
culture into English. He has had the honor of translating for the Dalai
Lama in India and North America, as well as for many preeminent Tibetan
Buddhist professors.
Michael J. Green, Ph.D., Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan
Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Michael J. Green is senior vice president for Asia and Japan Chair
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and director of
Asian Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at
Georgetown University. He served on the staff of the National Security
Council (NSC) from 2001 through 2005, first as director for Asian
Affairs with responsibility for Japan, Korea, Australia, and New
Zealand, and then as special assistant to the president for national
security affairs and senior director for Asia, with responsibility for
East Asia and South Asia. Before joining the NSC staff, he was a senior
fellow for East Asian Security at the Council on Foreign Relations,
director of the Edwin O. Reischauer Center and the Foreign Policy
Institute and assistant professor at the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, research staff
member at the Institute for Defense Analyses, and senior adviser on
Asia in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
He also worked in Japan on the staff of a member of the National Diet.
Dr. Green has authored numerous books and articles on East Asian
security,
including most recently, ``By More Than Providence: Grand Strategy and
American Power in the Asia Pacific Since 1783'' (Columbia University
Press, 2017)
https://www.bymorethanprovidence.com/.
[all]