Copyright 1997 Federal Information Systems Corporation
Federal News Service
Federal News Service
MAY 13, 1997, TUESDAY
HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: SITUATION IN TIBET
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JESSE HELMS (R-NC)
WITNESSES:
CLAIBORNE PELL, FORMER SENATOR
JEFFREY BADER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF EAST
ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
JEANE KIRKPATRICK, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
MAURA MOYNIHAN, REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL
LODI GYARI, SPECIAL ENVOY OF THE DALAI LAMA TO THE UNITED STATES
419 DIRKSEN OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC
10:00 AM
BODY:
SEN. JESSE HELMS (R-NC): The meeting will come to order. This place is
almost infested with committee meetings this morning and senators may be
late, but we will welcome them any time they can get here -- there he is.
SEN. : Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: This is the author of a new book, which I started last night.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm honored to be here this morning and even more
deeply honored to be able to preside over this hearing as the committee
begins a long overdue assessment of the travail of the people of Tibet and
their government.
It's a special pleasure to welcome our distinguished former colleague,
Senator Pell, the distinguished former chairman of this committee and a
faithful friend of Tibet. Mr. Chairman -- and I shall always call you that
-- it's an honor to have you here with us today.
It's always a special honor to me and everybody else I know to have that
distinguished American, Jeane Kirkpatrick, with us again. Mrs.
Kirkpatrick's dedication to restoring freedom in Tibet is legendary and, of
course, we're going to welcome Senator Moynihan, who had a couple of things
he had to do before he could come here this morning.
And I want him to sit right beside us and help conduct this meeting. Pat
Moynihan's dedication to the welfare of Tibet is a matter of record and not
only that his daughter, Maura, who has done such a magnificent work on
behalf of Tibet and Tibetan refugees who also will be testifying later.
Now then, there are other distinguished witnesses, Mr. Jeff Bader, deputy
assistant secretary of state for Eastern Asian and Pacific affairs; and
Professor Robert Thurman (sp) of Columbia University; and Lodi Gyari, the
personal representative of the -- in the United States of his Holiness, the
Dalai Lama.
And this committee is grateful for all of you folks being with us. I'm also
pleased to welcome Mrs. Condro (sp), the minister of education of the
government of Tibet in exile and her husband, the Dalai Lama's youngest
brother -- and I hope I pronounce this right, Tenzin Chayoung (ph).
Mr. Chairman, if I mispronounced that, correct me. A brief overview may be
useful as we proceed. For almost 50 years, China has cruelly and brutally
occupied Tibet, carved up its territory, destroyed its monasteries,
murdered its people, and diluted the Tibetan population to the point that
Tibetans are in the minority in their own country.
China limits the number of young people who may enter religious life. Monks
are forced to undergo political indoctrination nation and to renounce the
Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama himself is the focus of -- is the focus of
virulent verbal attacks. Even his photograph is banned in Tibet.
Merely having a picture of the Dalai Lama in one's home or in a monastery
can result in a prison sentence. The number of political prisoners has
increased dramatically, at least in part because of a campaign by Beijing
"to limit criminal activity in the guise of religious practice."
China has interfered with the Dalai Lama's choice of the Panchen Lama,
Tibet's second most important religious figure. The Chinese government
detained the Dalai Lama's choice, who is a 6 -- year -- old boy, by the way
and put his own can date -- its own candidate in place.
Last week, it was revealed that China had secretly tried and convicted and
sentenced to jail for six years a senior Tibetan monk named Chadreu
Rimpoche (sp), who participated in the Dalai Lama's selection of the
Panchen Lama.
I, again, urge the United States government to seek the release of Mr. Ren
Pouchet and other Tibetan religious and political prisoners so almost half
a century the Tibetans have resisted Chinese occupation both inside and in
exile. In India and Nepal, Tibet's people are preserving their culture
until the day they can return to their homeland, and the United States is
grateful to those countries for their hospitality and compassion for the
Tibetans.
The United States itself provides critical support to refugees and I hope
and expect that the material aid including vaccinations and support for
resettlement and educational activities will be continued where necessary
and if necessary. The American people must continue to lift their hearts in
prayer for the Tibetan people.
I should emphasize while I'm at it that Radio Free Asia and -- (inaudible)
-- from America also provides invaluable support to the Tibetan people. As
Radio Free Asia began its Tibetan language service last December, sales of
short waive radios inside Tibet have risen.
We learned from veterans of the struggle against communism in Europe how
vital our radio broadcasts were to disseminating the truth and building
morale. And Radio Free Asia is carrying on that tradition for the oppressed
people of Tibet as it is for the people for China and Vietnam and North
Korea and Burma, and in other countries.
I was pleased that President Clinton met the Dalai Lama during his
Holiness' April visit to the United States. The president said at that time
that he would urge China to enter into a dialog with the Dalai Lama, a very
welcome statement.
But the president's wish to play a constructive role in Tibet can best be
fulfilled by the immediate appointment of a special envoy or coordinator
for Tibet followed by a serious undertaking to persuade the government of
China to allow that special envoy into Tibet and allow him access to
prisons -- (inaudible) -- a point that would emphasize the administration's
sincerity about human rights in China and Tibet.
Now, I am tempted to -- I was going to do that. We have -- I know every
senator would like to make a statement, but I want to especially recognize
the distinguished senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, for comments that
he may have and then I want you to come here, Senator Moynihan, and sit
because that's where I said you would sit. Will you do that?
Mr. Kerry, you are recognized.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much. First of
all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for your on going
and significant commitment to this issue and to other issues with respect
to the freedom of people to be able to be who they are without
interference.
And I join with you in welcoming Senator Moynihan back and will be
delighted to welcome Maura Moynihan as one of our witnesses here this
morning. I will be very, very brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you
not only for holding the hearing, but for welcoming back and inviting
Senator Pell, our former chairman and also ranking member to be our lead --
off witness.
As we all know from our years on the committee, Senator Pell has had a long
and very deep interest in Tibet. He's one of a handful of members of the
Senate who has visited Tibet. He's the author of "The Voice of America's
Tibetan Language Program" and the Fulbright Program for Tibetans; both
programs, which you support completely, Mr. Chairman, as well as many of
the rest of us on the committee
.
And the Tibetan people clearly recognize Senator Pell as a friend evidenced
by the Dalai Lama's presentation to him of the Light of Truth Award, and
we're very proud that Senator Pell's leadership he's showed on the
committee. Now in retirement, he was recently the chairman ex officio of
the US Delegation Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, and there
really is no one better positioned to lead off the testimony today.
I would just say very quickly, Mr. Chairman, when the Dalai Lama visited
the United States recently, he, once again, as he has consistently made it
clear that the Tibetan people are not seeking independence from China; they
are seeking genuine autonomy in their ability to be able to maintain their
culture, their language and religious practices.
China regrettably continues to pursue economic development policies that
dilute the Tibetan population, threaten to eradicate Tibetan culture, have
already eradicated too much of it and at the same time are forcibly
suppressing religious activities, which they regard as political in nature.
According to the State Department's 1996 Country Reports on Human Rights
Abuses, the Chinese authorities "continued to commit widespread human
rights abuses in Tibet, including instances of death and detention,
torture, arbitrary arrests, detention without public trial, long detention
of Tibetan nationalists for peacefully expressing their religious and
political views and intensified controls on religion and on freedom of
speech in the press, particularly for ethnic Tibetans.
Perhaps the most egregious example is the one that you cited, Mr. Chairman,
where they have abducted is 6 -- year -- old child and his family, the 11th
Panchen Lama, designated so by the Dalai Lama and the abuse of the rights
of this child and his family, who were taken and the Tibetan people is
compounded by the fact that China has named its own pretender Panchen Lama.
So clearly, the situation is what might be termed charitably a difficult
one. Mr. Chairman, I believe one of the most useful things we can do is to
continue to shed light, to put the spotlight on Tibet as we are doing
through this hearing. And I thank you for doing that as I know my
colleagues do that.
The Dalai Lama continues to express his willingness to meet with Chinese
authorities to find a peaceful solution to the Tibetan issue. And I, for
one, hope that Beijing will take him up finally on this offer. And we
should certainly do everything in our power that is sensible in order to
help bring that about. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: Senator, thank you very much. And I don't think we should start
until we hear from Senator Moynihan.
SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN (D-NY): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the -- for
holding this hearing, for the honor of being asked to join the committee
once again to hear our former chairman and to note, sir, that I think your
proposal for a special envoy needs to be very carefully considered.
SEN. HELMS: Now, Mr. Chairman, we're delighted to hear from you.
SEN. CLAIBORNE PELL: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It really
means a lot to me to be asked to testify here with friends and long
acquaintances on both sides of the aisle. And I appreciate the invitation
very much indeed.
For much of my time in the senate, I knew very little about Tibet. In 1980,
however, China opened Tibet to tourism and inadvertently revealed the
Chinese role in Tibet of being oppressive, destructive of Tibet culture,
civilization.
It was about that time that I remember first meeting the Dalai Lama and
began to follow the situation more closely. And I remember when we convened
hearings on Tibet most recently which was held in July of '92, at that
time, the Soviet Union had started to break apart and there was renewed
hope by oppressed people everywhere that their own aspirations for freedom
might be fulfilled.
Unfortunately for the Tibetan people, there's yet to be a substantial --
(inaudible) -- in opening up and lifting of the restrictions on culture and
religion, and social institutions. To the contrary, over the last year the
Chinese authorities in Tibet have intensified their campaign to wipe out
the Tibet Buddhist culture and to create an atheistic socialist state in
Tibet.
Monks and nuns are required to attend the kind of self -- criticism
indoctrination that -- (inaudible) -- back to the cultural revolution. This
-- (inaudible) -- rhetoric coming out of the Chinese propaganda machine and
directed at the Dalai Lama offends even the friends of China. China's --
(inaudible) -- campaign is raised in Tibet as a means to round up any
Tibetan who's shown himself as otherwise not demonstrated he's a loyal
communist.
I'm informed that -- (inaudible) -- prisons in Tibet are filled with these
unfortunate people. And speaking out on more important than acting on
Tibet, I do not deny the conditions in China are better than they were a
few years ago. I wish you'd realize that and give credit to the Chinese,
but since the forces of freedom in the world are irresistible, these forces
will continue to improve.
But our job today is to speed up the process, to eliminate the instances of
individual cruelty that have and are occurring. Tibetan people have
suffered at the hands of the Chinese communist since their peaceful
liberation from aristocratic Tibet in 1950. China's occupation policies
continue to be heavy -- handed.
Let me state a couple of the charges against -- at the hands of the
hundreds of Tibetans currently serving long sentences weeded out by the
Chinese authorities. We know the senior monk, Gei Shi(sp) as being one who
holds a doctorate of theology from Dai Ping (ph) serving a 19 -- year lease
for producing some political leaflets. We have the example of the 45 year
old doctor, Hu Lasa (ph), serving a 13 year prison term for copying the
list of those who were arrested and injured. A 31 year old teacher at his
prime in school was sentenced to 28 years for corrupting the minds of
children. A 19 year old nun spent 17 years in prison for leading a
celebratory demonstration a few days after the Dalai Lama and others,
instances of the same thing. I'm here to ask your permission, to be
inserted into the record as an appendix, the greater detail, the names of
these individuals and this -- SEN. HELMS: Without objection, it will be so
ordered.
SEN. : Mr. Chairman could you ask the chairman to pull the mike closer to
--
SEN. HELMS: If you would pull your microphone a little closer to you Mr.
Chairman --
SEN. PELL: I've always this habit of mumbling at Mr. Helms -- (laughter) --
thank you. I would dispute any claims that China, that is, sure is
jeopardized by a young man waving his fist in the air with a comrade taking
a picture of it. Much of the world regards the situation in Tibet as a
troublesome component in China's (dependency ?) on the world stage. As Hong
Kong reverts to Chinese rule at the end of June, many Hong Kong, Chinese,
members of Tibet too was once promised a quote, "One country, two systems
form of government." The 17 Point Agreement signed in 1951 guaranteed the
Tibetan people the right of the national autonomy, regional autonomy,
preserving a escalating, an existing political system, including the
functions of freedom and powers of the Dalai Lama, sir. Is this coming out
better now?
SEN. HELMS: Young lady, let's do the 1, 2, 3, 4 routine here to be sure the
Chairman is heard.
SEN. PELL: The 1, 2, 3, 4. (Laughter).
SEN. HELMS: 1, 2, 3, 4.
SEN. PELL: Mr. -- (inaudible) -- , I must have left this behind. One, two,
three, four.
SEN. HELMS: Can you hear it now?
SEN. : Yeah.
SEN. PELL: I hear you fellows, my pronunciation about the, you know your
ears gentlemen. (The time is coming ?) when China cautions Taiwan to look
at Hong Kong as a model for further reunification, Taiwan -- (inaudible) --
as more cautious to look at Tibet. We have the example the way Tibet was
treated and I don't think that gives much hard comfort to the people in
Hong Kong and I think that their fear is whether it has now come out
sufficiently in the public press and media. The Chinese government has
failed to realize the true value of the Dalai Lama is perhaps the greatest
tragedy. In a recent news article Vincent Lloyd, former secretary for East
Asia and Pacific Affairs, China to Chinese, for fearing the years the Dalai
Lama constructively.
Mr. Chairman, I believe Ambassador Lloyd's call for constructive use of the
Dalai Lama should be the message of his hearing. The Dalai Lama, above all,
has the emerged as the single moral authority from within China revealed
that millions of Tibets', Taiwanese, Mongols and even by some Chinese, his
mediation could bring stability in China's restless border regions. Above
all, he's poised to enter serious discussions without preconditions with
the Chinese government and this has been his message for many years, most
recently reiterated to this committee and the Speaker of the House,
majority leaders in the House and the Senate, vice president, President of
the United States. In my view, the course of action of the US government
should be to bring negotiations about these four elements.
First, to keep pressure. The United States must continue to shine the light
on the various human rights abuses of the Chinese societies in Tibet of the
UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. A fellow resolution is better than no
resolution and among vigorous leadership must remain to match China's
perpetual delaying approach. A recent return from Geneva as part of the
year's delegation where we proudly cast the American vote in opposition to
China's no -- motion action because it's a resolution.
Second, to vote in language pro -- broadcast. Both VOA and Radio Free Asia
should be increased. It is reaching Tibetans and this approach has been
magnificently successful in bringing the democratic change about in a
crazed society. If there is ever a reason to believe that a -- that would
work in Tibet. That is why I said -- (inaudible) -- when I introduced the
authorizing legislation for the VOA program in March of 1989.
Third, with humanitarian assistance to Tibet and refugees in India and
Nepal to continue until retirement China deceased it's oppressive public
policies and Tibetans can be at last go home. These sentiments provide the
life -- line for Tibet's unique cultural religion. It's no exaggeration to
say that there are more Tibetan monks in settlement in Southern India today
than remain in the once great monasteries of Gaden (ph), Dai Pang (ph) and
Cera (ph).
Finally, as first proposed in 1994, there should be a party in consultation
with the role of the congressional committees, some sort of coordinator for
US initiatives in Tibet. As a priority, such a coordinator would explore
the Chinese representatives with the Dalai Lama prospects for negotiations.
Mr. Chairman, this committee and the US Congress have put themselves on
record time and again supporting a negotiated peace in Tibet. Moreover, the
United States is now isolated in it's support. The European Parliament, the
German Ministry, Italian Parliament, the Danes, the Irish, the Australians,
(these and ?) the parliaments and the world over have commended the efforts
of the Dalai Lama because as you said, it speaks here to my friends and
colleagues, as you said, the cause is just and I would hope that out of
this hearing, -- (inaudible) -- the benefits of this day light would be
shed on the dismal conditions brought upon the Tibet. I thank you for this
opportunity. Thank you Mr. --
SEN. HELMS: Mr. Chairman we thank you and at this point I'm going, instead
of doing it at the conclusion of the meeting, I'm going to ask united
consent that the full proceedings of this hearing be printed so that I hope
massive distribution of all the testimony can be sent to all corners of our
country. Without objection --
SEN. PELL: Mr. Chairman --
SEN. HELMS: -- yes sir --
SEN. PELL: It be be (an honor ?) to suggest that the Agreement of 1951
would be inserted into the record.
SEN. HELMS: Absolutely, yes sir.
SEN. PELL: Thank you.
SEN. HELMS: It will be. All right, thank you Mr. Chairman. According to the
way they set this up, we have a number of distinguished guests this
morning. The panel number 2 will likewise be a panel of 1. Senator Pell is
a panel of 1 and a very effective one I might add, and Senator it's so
glad, it's so good to have you here and I'm glad you came.
Mr. Jeff Bader, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East
Asia and Pacific Affairs, if you would come forward, please sir. Bearing in
mind that the full statement, and I'm saying this to all of the witnesses
this morning, is going to be printed and distributed, you may want to
abbreviate somewhat so that we can have time for questions but I'll leave
that to each witness. Mr. Bader you may proceed.
MR. JEFF BADER: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I would propose to
read these excerpts from my statement with the expectation that the full
statement will be in the record.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on US policy
toward Tibet. A moment to speak after the former Chairman of the Committee,
Senator Pell, and before a great former Ambassador to the United Nations,
Jean Kirkpatrick, for whom I had the singular pleasure of working in New
York from 1983 to 1985.
Today's hearing is particularly timely coming in the immediate wake of the
April 21 -- 24 visit to Washington with the Dalai Lama. Let me begin with a
few brief comments to provide a historical context in which to understand
current developments. The entry of the People's Liberation Army into Tibet
in 1951 brought an end, brought to an end the period that began with the
1911 Revolution in China and the accompanying collapse of any effective
Chinese presence in Tibet. Subsequently, Chinese inroads into the
traditional Tibetan way of life touched off violent opposition leading the
Dalai Lama to flee to India in 1959.
During the cultural revolution, thousands of monasteries were closed and
destroyed. Tibet suffered irrefutable cultural damage and Buddhism came
under attack as a futile relic. With the end of the cultural revolution, a
policy review in Beijing lead to liberalization.
Beginning with the visit of the late General Secretary of the Communist
Party Hu Yaobang (ph) to Tibet in 1980. The inflow of Han Chinese into
Tibet slowed, greater sensitivity was shown to Tibet's religious and
cultural traditions. Monasteries were rebuilt and opened. The Dalai Lama
sent a series of delegations to Tibet and discussions with the Chinese
began. Beijing indicated it's willingness to accept the return of the Dalai
Lama and his followers to Tibet under certain conditions.
Nineteen eighty -- seven saw a major alteration in Chinese policy toward
Tibet, toward a harder line. Serious riots broke out and -- (inaudible) --
quoted independence followed by other outbreaks over the next few years.
The Chinese responded with increased security measures including crack --
downs on monasteries. Efforts by the Dalai Lama and Beijing to reach
accommodation have been on -- again off -- again for the last two decades.
The Dalai Lama tried to revive a basis for discussion by putting forward a
new proposal in a speech in Strasbourg in 1988, in which he declared Tibet
would accept autonomous status within the People's Republic of China. China
rejected the proposal as disguised independence for Tibet. Talks with the
Dalai Lama have been effectively been sidetracked since then, though
contacts continue sporadically.
Although reverence for the Dalai Lama appears to be more universal, this is
not to say that Tibetan politics are without fault lines. Factions,
regional and sectarian loyalties, differences between religious and civil
authorities, arguments between modernizers and conservators and other
splits have plagued the Tibetan policy among Tibetans inside and outside
Tibet throughout the century. Two generalizations, however, appeared beyond
dispute. Number one, there is considerable animosity between Han Chinese
living in Tibet and ethnic Tibetans and two, most Tibetans are dissatisfied
with current political arrangements and institutions in Tibet. The Chinese
government has devoted substantial resources to Tibet over the years.
Nonetheless, Tibet remains China's poorest region. Not all Tibetans view
Chinese investment and economic development in Tibet in totally positive
terms. Some maintain that employment and investment project,
disproportionately benefits, ethic Han Chinese and other Lan Tibetans.
Hundred of thousands of non -- Tibetans have come to Tibet in recent years
to work either on development projects or to serve those who do. Inflows of
non-Tibetans have increased tensions and raised concerns over the loss of
Tibet's special character. Chinese authorities commit widespread human
rights' abuses in Tibet with instances of death and detention, torture,
arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, long sentences for
Tibetan nationalists for peacefully expressing their religious and
political views, and intensified controls on religion and on freedom of
speech in the press. The authorities permit many traditional religious
practices, but not those seen as a vehicle for political dissent. The
governments' continue to closely supervise monks and monasteries which it
sees as breeding grounds for Tibetan nationalism.
What is US policy toward Tibet? The United States considers the Tibetan or
the Tibet autonomous region as part of the People's Republic of China. This
longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international
community. No country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. US acceptance
of China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of
the People's Republic of China. The United States has urged China to
respect Tibet's unique religious, linguistic, and cultural traditions. The
United States encourages China and the Dalai Lama to hold serious
discussions aimed at resolution of differences at an early date.
Our policy seeks to improve respect for the human rights of ethnic
Tibetans. We have appealed for the release of Tibetan prisoners of
conscience. We spoke out when the conviction and sentencing of Tibetan monk
Chadro Rapgoa(sp) and two others was announced last week, apparently for
his role in selection of the new Panchen Lama designated by the Dalai Lama.
We have raised the case of the Tibetan -- (inaudible) -- Na wan Cherkle
(sp), who was sentenced to 18 years in prison late last year on a charge of
endangering China's national security.
Secretary Albright raised concerns over human rights, including in Tibet,
both during her visit to Beijing in February and during Vice Premier Chang
ji Chan's (sp) visit to Washington in April and Ambassador Sasser during
his recent visit to Tibet, made a strong presentation of our views on human
rights in all of his official meetings there. The Dalai Lama would
obviously be a key player if discussions resume between the PLC and
Tibetans living outside China. As a sign of the great respect the president
and vice president's have for the Dalai Lama, they have met with him on a
number of occasions, mostly on April 23rd. Secretary of State Albright and
Assistant Secretary of State Shaddock also met with the Dalai Lama on April
24. The Tibetan service of the Voice of American broadcast two hour -- long
programs in the Tibetan language each day and have interviewed the Dalai
Lama on at least five occasions. And Radio Free Asia began broadcasting to
China in Tibetan on December 2, 1996.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the treatment of Tibetans by the
Chinese government in the 48 years since the founding of the People's
Republic of China has been harsh, inconsistent with international human
rights norms, and unacceptable. The United States government will continue
to speak -- out publicly and privately about the abuses of human rights
that mark PLC policy in Tibet. At the same time, we do not believe that a
challenge to Chinese sovereignty, or result to violence, offers a way to
improvement of the situation.
The Dalai Lama has showed courage in accepting the impracticality of
insisting on independence. Chinese spokesmen for their part have responded
by stating their willingness to engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama if
he renounces independence and pro -- independence activities. The gap
between the two stated positions of the two sides would appear to outside
observers to be (visible ?). The problem appears to be one of will,
especially on Beijing's side. It is not only Tibetans who will benefit from
more equitable treatment. China as a whole would as well. Tranquillity and
public order may be jeopardized by failure to satisfy fundamental needs of
China's minority peoples, minority peoples.
We hear often from Chinese leaders that after a century of humiliation at
the hands of western powers, China demands above all respect. This is
understandable. China has earned the respect of the world for the dramatic
transformation of the lives and livelihoods so many of it's people have
achieved in the span of just two decades. Chinese leaders would find that a
more enlightened policy toward Tibet would be a long step toward them
enhancing the respect they have earned from the economic transformation of
their country. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: Thank you sir. With further reference to my unanimous consent
request about the printing of the statements, let me suggest to each
witness that if you wish to add to or clear, make a little clearer or in
any other way change responses to questions, we will take care of that.
This staff will be ready to do that. Now, I'm going to ask the obvious
question and you're going to give me the obvious answer, I'm sure. It
relates to the Dalai Lama's visit on April 23rd with the president. The
president said he would urge China to open a direct dialogue with the Dalai
Lama. All right. Do you know when and how the president will promote such a
thing and I would say we will go 5 minute per Senator.
MR. BADER: Senator, Mr. Chairman, I have doing so through diplomat dialogue
with the Chinese. Secretary Albright, in her meeting with Vice Premiere
Chang ji Chan (sp) several days later urge Vice Premiere Chan to resume
such a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, so we are using all opportunities at
senior levels with the Chinese to make that point.
SEN. HELMS: And what were the Chinese reaction?
MR. BADER: The Chinese reaction remains that they are prepared to undertake
a dialogue with the Dalai Lama if the Dalai Lama ceases his support for
independence and pro -- independence activities.
SEN. HELMS: Senator Moynihan.
SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN (D-NY): Sir I'm not member of this committee.
SEN. HELMS: That's all right, you were, you were a member of the committee.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: Well, I would simply ask Mr. Ambassador Bader, would the
Chinese insist that they will open a relationship with Mr. Dalai Lama if he
ceases to do what he's not doing? It's elemental.
He has stated in Strasbourg, as you noted, that he is not asking for
independence, he's seeking autonomy and how do we respond to that, I mean
--
MR. BADER: Well, we pointed out, Senator, to the Chinese what the Dalai
Lama has said to us on the subject of independence, namely that he is
seeking, seeking autonomy -- (cross talk.)
SEN. MOYNIHAN: Not what he said to us but to the world and at Strasbourg
and repeatedly around the world. Surely that must not be a satisfactory
response from the Chinese, surely we can let them know that --
MR. BADER: That's correct.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: I mean it's self -- evidently duplicitous.
MR. BADER: Yes, we answered exactly as you pointed out Senator by pointing
to the Dalai Lama's own words on the subject.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: Thank you sir, thank you Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: Senator Kerry.
SEN. KERRY: Mr. Chairman thank you. So Mr. Bader let me sort of follow on
here. Having established, as Senator Helms and Senator Moynihan have that
there's this gap of reality and that we are seeing a repetition of rhetoric
of patently false, transparent, ala whatever, it begs the question, so what
do we do? Are we left to these hearings or is there something more that
ought to be forthcoming not just from the United States but from the
international community and if so, what is it and what is the
administration prepared to do to elicit it?
MR. BADER: Senator, it's difficult to know what will affect Chinese
behavior, we have a long history of Chinese behavior with regard to Tibet
that has not shown great sensitivity to the views of the international
community. But what we have been trying to do and I think what we have to
try to continue to do is (1) to speak out against the abuses of human
rights in Tibet, speak out publicly and to speak privately to the Chinese,
which we have been doing; to raise the issue of Tibet at the highest level
in our diplomat dialogue with the Chinese; we have our broadcasts on VOA
two hours a day in Tibetan and two hours a day on Radio Free Asia;
Ambassador Sasser's visit to Tibet highlighted our human rights concerns,
our consulate's visits and -- --
SEN. KERRY: What would he believe came out of that, out of the visit?
MR. BADER: Well, he saw three senior Tibetan, three senior officials of the
Tibet autonomous region and talked about the importance of protection of
human rights, our concerns on the subject, and urged them to be more open
to visits by journalists, in particular, saying that if the Chinese feel
that their, the coverage of Tibet is unfair from their prospective, the
only way to alter that is to open Tibet wider to coverage by foreign
journalists. The Chinese approach on Tibet has been on -- again, off --
again in terms of opening up to Tibet to outsiders. It depends, I think,
the degree to which they're concerned about the immediate security
situation, so I wouldn't hesitate to predict whether we'll see an immediate
upshot from that.
SEN. KERRY: Well I'd just like to close out my time by saying that I am
growing increasingly concerned and increasingly frustrated by our so --
called allies friends who are part what is known as a "western civilized
view" of human rights and the way we ought to achieve decency in our
international relationships and the fight in Geneva which Senator Pell was
at where he cast a vote was really a moment of significant dismay for all
of us who adhere to that point of view. We know that China was rushing
around in the most (blatant ?) way offering economic advantage to those
countries that would toe the line, and too many people who say that they
adhere to these higher standards were awfully quick to toe that line.
We got trounced in Geneva and we got trounced because of this sort of lack
of any sense of morality, if you will, in this new world that we're living
in and I think we've got to find something better amongst ourselves to sort
of stick together on, if you will. And I think it's high time for the
United States to begin, assuming we still have some economic clout left
with which to do that within the context of (WTO ?) or otherwise to really
raise these issues, because I think they go well beyond what is acceptable
behavior and we're seemingly silent about it, frankly, we're acquiescent
ourselves to this and maybe you want to comment on that, but I think that
it is really long overdue that we start to stand -- up and offer some
leadership on those plains where we have the opportunity to affect
behavior. Multi- lateral is the only way we're going to make this happen,
but if our own allies are going south on us against all the standards which
we've stood up for through this century, then something very, very tragic
is happening.
MR. BADER: Senator, I'd agree with your statement and we were very dismayed
by the behavior of certain European countries in Geneva. We lobbied hard
for a resolution on human rights abuses in China at Geneva this year --
there were references to Tibet in that resolution -- and as you know, four
or five of the major European countries declined to co -- sponsor. I think
it's very unfortunate the Chinese are given the opportunity to play divide
be conquer in that fashion, but we did take a vigorous leadership role in
lobbing for that resolution, including by the Secretary, Secretary Albright
herself.
SEN. KERRY: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: Thank you Senator. The point is that the United States didn't
start lobbying until it was too late, isn't that correct?
MR. BADER: Mr. Chairman we did begin contacting other members of the
commission in January, several months before the --
SEN. HELMS: But the (federal pedal ?) a bit later. Senator Feingold.
SEN. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD (D-WI): Thank you Mr. Chairman. This hearing is
important not only on it's own merits, but as it related to broader issues
relating to our relationship with China. Particular issues such as whether
most favorite nation status should be continued, whether or not China
should be permitted enter the WTO and I just want to tip my hat to the
Chairman again, there is a relatively rare occurrence in Congress to have a
Helms-Feingold Bill, but it did occur with regard to the MFN issue and I
know for both us and many other members of this committee and many other
members of Congress it has an awful lot to do with the tragic record with
regard to the People's Republic of China as it relates to Tibet. It's a
very compelling and troubling story, so I want to thank you for not only
having the hearing for it's timeliness.
Briefly I'd like to ask first about the issue of the Panchen Lama. The
Chinese government authorities continue to insist that the boy it selected
and enthroned in 1995 is the Panchen Lama's eleventh reincarnation. This
boy, as you know, has been incommunicado since appearing at a festival in
October and meanwhile the Chinese government has also detained a boy
selected by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama's reincarnation. The boy's
family was also detained. According to the State Department's human rights
report, Tibetan monks claimed that they were forced to sign statements
pledging allegiance to the boy selected as the reincarnation of the Panchen
Lama by the government of the People's Republic of China. Has the
administration taken any steps to release from protective custody the 8
year -- old Panchen Lama?
MR. BADER: Senator, we have raised our concern about the young boy's
situation and called on the Chinese government to make him available to the
public and to foreign community to verify that he's in good health.
SEN. FEINGOLD: In what form were these communications?
MR. BADER: These were in the form of diplomatic contacts in Beijing.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Are there any documents that we would be able to look at
with regard to that?
MR. BADER: I'll have to check with the department about that.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Let me ask you about another issue. Tung Chi Wa (ph), the
future chief executive of Hong Kong, has stated that once Hong Kong reverts
to Chinese rule, demonstrations advocating independence for Hong Kong or
Taiwan or Tibet will not be tolerated. Let me get a sense from you what you
think will be the impact, both short -- term and long -- term of the July
hand over of Hong Kong to China with regard to Chinese policy in Tibet.
MR. BADER: I think that the Chinese government sees Tibet and Hong Kong
differently. In the case of Hong Kong, China has signed an international
agreement, the joint declaration with the United Kingdom, that divides
guarantees for Hong Kong's future operation for a high degree of autonomy
for protection of it's basic freedoms. In the case of Tibet, China regards
that as an internal matter and did not sign an international agreement. I'm
not here to defend the Chinese position, mind you, I'm presenting it the
way I believe they see it, so I think that they would, in their minds,
distinguish between their degree of responsibility and their conduct toward
the two.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Thank you, I just have one more question. In what way did
the subject of Tibet emerge during Vice President's Gore's recent trip to
China?
MR. BADER: The vice president, vice president, that I recall, raised
concerns about Tibet, raised concerns in particular about, about political
prisoners. I think it was in the broader context of discussions of human
rights, human rights in China.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Are there way in which I could get more detail about what
was actually raised?
MR. BADER: I'll get back to you with a more complete answer -- --
SEN. FEINGOLD: I would appreciate it.
MR. BADER: -- in writing.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: (Unanimous consent ?)
SEN. FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to my full statement
be included in the record.
SEN. HELMS: Without objection.
SEN. FEINGOLD: You may proceed.
SEN. (MS.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous
consent that my statement be included in the record as well.
SEN. HELMS: Certainly.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Good morning, Mr. Bader. Mr. Bader, I and my husband, as a
matter of fact, have spent considerable time discussing Tibet with the
Chinese leadership. And as late as November, every time I have done this,
what has come back has been very clear is the Chinese belief that the Dalai
Lama is a "splitist."
I think the Dalai Lama set the record very straight in his remarks to the
European Parliament at Strasbourg last year on October 23 -- that's 1996.
And I want, for the record, to quote from that speech, "While it is the
overwhelming desire of the Tibetan people to regain their national
independence, I have repeatedly and publicly stated that I am willing to
enter into negotiations on the basis of an agenda that does not include
independence. I believe it's more important to look forward to the future
than to dwell on the past."
"Theoretically speaking, it is not impossible that the 6 million Tibetans
could benefit from joining the 1 billion Chinese of their own free will if
a relationship based on equality, mutual benefit, and mutual respect could
be established."
He ends his remarks with this, "I remain committed to negotiations with
China. In order to find a mutually acceptable solution, I have adopted a
middle -- way approach." This is also in response to and within the
framework of Mr. Deng Xiaoping's stated assurance that, "Anything, except
independence can be discussed and resolved."
"I have formulated the basic ideas of the middle -- way approach in my
formal proposal, the Five Point Peace Plan in 1987 and the Strasbourg
Proposal of 1988. I regret very much that Mr. Deng Xiaoping has been unable
to translate his assurance into reality. However, I'm hopeful that his
successors will see the wisdom of resolving our problem peacefully through
negotiations."
"What I am striving for is a genuine self -- government for Tibet, and
today I wish to reiterate our willingness to start negotiations with China
any time any where without any preconditions."
I think this October 23, 1996 statement is a very clear reassurance to
China that his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, is not in fact a splitist and is
willing to sit down to discuss a one -- country, two -- systems approach to
solving the problem with Tibet.
It is my very strong view that Geneva is not going to condition this, but
that we can be very helpful in constantly re -- stressing with the Chinese
government that this middle -- way approach, which his Holiness has
presented, and I would very much like your reaction to this; I'd like to
know what our government is doing to make this middle -- way approach clear
to the Chinese.
To my knowledge, they have not accepted it. They still take earlier
writings, which are not the current case, and use them as current Tibetan
policy.
MR. BADER: Senator, first I'd like to say that I, and others, in the
executive branch are well aware of your -- of the extraordinary advocacy of
you and your husband on behalf of the Tibetan people; extraordinary in the
sense of both, I think, its eloquence and its effectiveness on getting an
audience with the Chinese.
Secondly, the statement that you read by the Dalai Lama and the one I
referred to earlier, his 1988 statements in Strasbourg represents a very
courageous position by the Dalai Lama. They represent -- those statements
represent a break with the historic position of the Dalai Lama and previous
Dalai Lamas and Tibetan leadership about Tibet's status.
The Chinese would do well to take notice and to take seriously the
statements and the courage that lies behind it. In that regard, I would say
that the Chinese should think about the situation in Tibet in the long --
term. The Chinese are famous for thinking long -- term. This Dalai Lama, as
I say, has shown courage and clearly has the universal respect and
admiration of his people.
This Dalai Lama can bring along the people of Tibet toward a peaceful
resolution in Tibet. It is far from clear once this Dalai Lama has passed
from the scene that any successor will have the same kind of stature and
the same kind of ability to achieve the same results. So I think it is
important that the Chinese understand this and I think that this hearing
getting statements of this sort on the record that I hope the Chinese will
take seriously is one way.
The Chinese will draw their own conclusions, of course. I think we have to
use every available diplomatic channel, including at the highest levels, to
make these points.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: If I just may make the point, I spent an hour, as Mr. Gyari
knows, with his Holiness when he was here and he re -- stressed this middle
-- way approach. The problem is that the middle -- way approach, which is
now officially the policy and I gather also ratified by the Coshog (sp) as
well, gets very little publicity and enables the Chinese, I think, to
continue a position which is not a correct position as to what his Holiness
is actually thinking.
So my hope is that the State Department can become much more dominant in
reenforcing this statement of policy. And it can become much better known
publicly and I think then the Chinese have to begin to consider it.
MR. BADER: I take your point, Senator.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Thank you.
SEN. HELMS: Mr. Secretary, you can expect that there will be many written
questions to foe low, which I know you will respond carefully and quickly.
I'm going to reclaim a couple of minutes; I didn't use but a minute.
These questions can be answered yes or no. Does the United States support
the autonomy promised by Beijing?
WITNESS: Let me try to go beyond the yes or no on this one, if I may, Mr.
Chairman. The US, what we stress is the unique cultural and religious
tradition of Tibet. The Chinese government has promised autonomy, the Dalai
Lama has talked about autonomy. We will support any resolution that the two
can reach through dialog.
SEN. HELMS: Well, do you think that the Dalai Lama's been unreasonable in
what he said he would do?
MR. BADER: I don't believe that's an unreasonable position, no.
SEN. HELMS: Pardon me?
MR. BADER: I do not believe that's an unreasonable position that he has put
forward.
SEN. HELMS: All right. Now does the United States support or not?
MR. BADER: The United States does not identify with specific positions in
the dialog, although as I say we have great respect for the position he has
put forward. We think it is for the Dalai Lama and Beijing to discuss and
work out a solution.
SEN. HELMS: Why is that such a difficult question to answer, Mr. Secretary?
MR. BADER: (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, we -- okay.
SEN. HELMS: Now, in 1959, 1960, I believe, was it the International
Commission of Jurist? Do you recall what they said, the judges said? Prior
to the Chinese invasion, Tibet was what? A distinct territory with a
government that exercised authority over both domestic and foreign affairs;
is that right?
MR. BADER: That's right.
SEN. HELMS: Now, my point and my question is, does the United States
acknowledge that before the Chinese invasion, Tibet was a distinct
territory with a government that exercised authority over "domestic and
foreign affairs"?
MR. BADER: Before the PLA moved into Tibet in 1951, the United States'
position dating back at least to the Roosevelt Administration was that
Tibet was part of China. The principle that -- international principle of
governing Tibet through that earlier period was that China exercise --
(inaudible) -- over Tibet; that is that Tibet enjoyed autonomy but that
China had a kind of vague protectorate over Tibet.
SEN. HELMS: But you never agreed with that commission of jurists then? The
United States never did?
MR. BADER: Well, the United States, as I said, considered Tibet a part of
China, so I think there would be some nuance of difference between the two
positions, yes.
SEN. HELMS: Well, I thank you very much and with the understanding that I
believe you're going to have some correspondence. We thank you very much,
and next panel will be a favorite lady of mine, Ms. Jeane Kirpatrick, now
of the American Enterprise Institute, former ambassador to the United
Nations, the likely and widely respected. And we thank you for coming this
morning.
MS. JEANE KIRKPATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: You may proceed.
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank you for inviting me to
testify today. I thank you for holding these hearings and I feel that they
are important and have not been often enough -- this subject has not been
often enough, the focus of the attention of either -- of the US Government
and almost any of its parts. So I am very pleased and gratified -- --
SEN. HELMS: Would the witness pull -- --
MS. KIRKPATRICK: -- you are focusing attention today on Tibet and the
suffering of the people of Tibet.
SEN. HELMS: If you'll pull it a little closer. Maybe somebody ought to turn
up the -- --
MS. KIRKPATRICK: There. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, it was the
pleasure to hear Senator Pell, whose long -- standing interest in this
subject is well noun to all of us and a personal pleasure for me to meet
here and hear the testimony of Mr. Jeffrey Bader, who was a very helpful
member of the US Mission to the United Nations, indeed there, when I was
there and has been a distinguished foreign service officer. I thank you
especially for permitting me to address this heart -- rendering subject of
Tibet today before this committee. You know and I know that the people of
Tibet have been denied most of the human rights, political rights, civil
rights of -- enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
cherished by our country and our own people and by civilized and freedom --
loving people around the world.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, we know the Tibetans are not the only subjects of
the People's Republic of China who are systematically deprived of basic
rights by the government of China. They are not the only Chinese denied
freedom to worship according to their consciences. Many Christians and
Moslems and other Buddhists also suffer these deprivations.
Many others are imprisoned under harsh conditions, and many others are
denied freedom of speech. Prisoners of conscience suffer in Chinese
prisons. It is a fact, which is painful to address, but Tibetans have been
almost uniquely targeted by the government of China's unremitting campaign
of personal abuse, social repression, cultural annihilation, forced
relocation of populations, forced sterilization of young women of child --
bearing age, subject to mass arrests, mass imprisonment, subject to
beatings and rapes and torture of really terrible kinds.
And we know this. I know it; you know it. Senator Pell knows it; the
representatives of the Dalai Lama know it and, from time to time, we talk
about it. I believe it is useful to talk about it. I believe that the
question of what we might do, what we Americans and our government might do
to help and in some way ameliorate the repression and abuse of the people
of Tibet is always a timely subject.
And I know that it is regularly asserted and it is true that China is a
sovereign state and that there is nothing much that we can do about the
internal practices of sovereign states. I also know, as you know, that most
of the great repressions and mass murders of our century, this most violent
century in human history, have been carried out by sovereign states against
their own citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you know the study of RJ Rummel (sp) called "Death
by Government," which catalogs this painful list of governments' assault on
their own peoples in our century. Far more people have been killed, but
many times more people have been tortured and abused and finally executed
by their own governments than by wars, for example, in our century.
Yet, we have institutions devoted to preventing war; I'm for that. That's
-- we all want to prevent wars. That's very important high priority task,
but in fact, the problem of preventing repression of citizens by their own
governments has, for example, in China is an even more urgent problem and
it is good to focus on it from time to time. Senator Helms, you know that
the late Senator Henry M. Scoop Jackson pioneered the idea of linkage,
which linked access to American markets to the treatment by governments of
their own citizens. He pioneered the Jackson -- Vanik Bill, which provided
that any -- as long as the Soviet Union denied the right of immigration to
its own citizens, it could not be according most -- favored nation
treatment by the United States government.
I know that you, like many of us here, were supporters of that Jackson --
Vanik Bill and thought perhaps that it was useful in dealing with that
problem at that time. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you have supported the US
Embargo on Trade with Cuba, which goes still further in linking trade
status to human rights practices in that Caribbean prison off our Florida
coast.
Supporters of such policies believe that they punish the oppressive
governments and also prevent the United States from becoming accomplices to
the brutalities of the repressive governments. Opponents of those practices
argue that they punish American businessmen, perhaps the American
consumers, and do not affect the practices of the targeted governments.
Critics reject such, US policies as feel good policies which make Americans
feel good without affecting the condition of those who suffer human rights
abuses. It's perfectly clear, it seems to me, that Americans do not desire
to strengthen repressive regimes, nor do we desire to in any way
communicate to a government which represses its own citizens our approval
or indifference to that repression.
It is a fact, still, that since the government of Deng Xiaoping, China has
been more open, by far, to outside influences, as well as to trade with
others than the Soviet Union ever was in the period of the Jackson -- Vanik
Bill, more open than Cuba ever was in the period of the imposition of the
Cuban Embargo.
And, Mr. Chairman, we don't want to see China close its borders to contacts
with us and with the rest of the world. We want an open China; we want a
China that respects the rights of its own citizens and grants basic rights
to Tibetans and all other Chinese. And we don't know what to do about it.
We're not quite certain, I think.
I feel myself uncertain about what policy we might adopt that would be most
likely to encourage the government of China to cease its repression of its
own citizens, particularly Tibetans who have been so heinously targeted and
so especially targeted and who are such peaceable people what might, in
fact, have a contrary effect.
It seems to me the certain conclusions might be drawn about what we might
do or might not do. We -- even if we can't answer all the questions and we
don't need to, we can answer some of the questions. I think one thing we
can do is note that the specific treatment of Tibet and the human rights
abuses in Tibet and the suffering of Tibetans by the Voice of America and
by Radio Free Asia is important and should receive even greater emphasis
than it now does.
The administration -- I give credit to the administration for having
stepped up those broadcasts and that service. I hope that they will go
further and further step up that service. I hope that the administration,
which I commend for its greater attention, increased attention to
repression in Tibet will increase that attention even further with, as
Senator Pell suggested, a special consulate or a special office for Tibetan
affairs which is specifically and continuously devoted to the question of
human rights of Tibetans and repression of those rights.
I believe this is -- whatever we can do that focuses attention on the
plight and the suffering and the denial of rights of the peaceful people of
Tibet, I believe our government should do. I believe that we should face
the fact that we can only have truly normal relations with China as China
has normal relations with its own citizens.
And I think that requires a new recognition by the government of China of
the limits on their own power; that's limits of law and limits of humanity.
I am as unimpressed as I feel certain the committee is by the government of
China's expressed concern with the Dalai Lama's tendencies to split -- ism.
This is imaginary, you know.
The Dalai Lama has no tendencies to advocate split -- ism or to promote
split -- ism. He does not advocate independence for Tibet, although I might
say, it seems to me, that in a world in which there are new groups of
people declaring their independence on a sort of monthly basis, it should
not be a crime for a Tibetan to propose that his country or that his group
be independent, although I emphasize that the Dalai Lama does not ask for
independence for Tibet.
The Dalai Lama has been accused -- treated in the most abominable way and
his -- by international institutions. In this year's human rights
resolution, the Human Rights Commission's votes on the resolution
concerning repression in China and human rights practices of the Chinese
government was bad enough.
There was an earlier occasion when the Dalai Lama was actually barred from
the grounds of the United Nations in Geneva, as I'm sure you know and from
the buildings in which the International Commission on Human Rights met. No
one took any action against this absolute -- rudeness and outrage; outrage
against the very notion of concern with human rights, which the commission
presumably has.
I would only -- can't resist mentioning since there was a lot of criticism
of our European friends and allies for their failure to cosponsor the last
human rights resolution concerning Chinese practices. It is also true that
they did vote with us; they voted for the seizure by the commission of
concern with human rites practices in China. Unlike a good many other
nations, the -- (inaudible) -- nations and the second world nations, and so
forth who voted against it.
I think it's always important to focus the principle -- our principle
criticism on those governments which most heinously declined, rejected the
very conception of a UN human rights commission concerning itself with
human rights.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Dalai Lama is a remarkable man who has provided
the model of peaceable leadership in a very non -- peaceable world. And I
believe that the failure of the government of China to recognize the
peaceable non -- threatening character of the Dalai Lama's simple request
for respect for basic rights of the Tibetan people is a very important
failure on their part.
I do not know certainly when the practices of the government of China will
change. But I know that it is unfortunate when a government hears demands
for -- hostile demands all around it. The governor of China hears demands
for independence from the president of Taiwan who says he does not demand
independence and the president -- the government of China hears demands of
independence from Tibet and from the -- his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, who
assuredly does not make such demands.
The government of China saw conspiracy in the entirely peaceable visit of
his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, to Taiwan a few months ago, which visit had
above all religious purposes by this religious leader and was welcomed by
the people, the Buddhists especially of Taiwan.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the committee will give the most serious thought
to concrete steps that can be taken now to call further attention to this
problem. Thank you.
SEN. HELMS: I certainly thank you for coming. I'm going to forego my
questions temporarily and refer to Senator Moynihan.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: Mr. Chairman, I just say that once again, Ambassador
Kirkpatrick has been clarifying her statement. The fact is that it is now
the People's Republic of China, there's a composite of many regions, not
just Tibet -- Moslem regions, Moslem -- Tibet Buddhist regions, and the
Chinese have an interest they may not perceive just now in maintaining --
creating a system in which regional differences are accommodated and do not
lead to instability, which is said to be their current -- their ancient
anxiety. Wouldn't you agree that this is the case?
MS. KIRKPATRICK: I would certainly agree. That's right.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: Thank you.
SEN. HELMS: Mr. Kerry.
SEN. KERRY: Madam Ambassador, thank you for taking time to be with us
today. It's always a pleasure to hear your very articulate and always
eloquent comments on these matters.
I would just ask you, based on sort of your experience as an ambassador
trying to solicit votes and create a coalition that's powerful, I think
it's often the case for many of us here that when we're trying to get
people to support a piece of legislation, if you find a cosponsor, you can
build a movement, but when people sort of say, well, gees, you know, I kind
of can't cosponsor that; I may have to cast a vote your way, it sort of
helps cast the dye a little bit.
And in this case, the lack of co -- sponsorship is, in and of itself, a
kind of message to those second and third world countries that this is not
a really big issue. Some of these guys are going to have the throw their
vote because that's the way it is, rather than really being forceful. I
mean, is that a distinction that's fair to draw here that there is a
difference, that this is not a distinction -- --
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yeah, I think that -- I think that co -- sponsorship is
important, and I believe especially that the decision to withhold co --
sponsorship on the part of one or two or our principal associates and our
democratic allies send a kind of message, however I want to say that most
of the nations who have made the decision to vote against the resolution,
made the decision for other reasons. You can be virtually certain they made
the decision to vote against for reasons that related to China's lobbying,
probably, rather than to France's decision, to be quite specific. Could we
have done something about it? For a price. For a substantial price. The
fact is that it is -- -- as Jeff Bader and John (Long here, two foreign?)
service officers who were faithful members of the US mission when I was
there know very well and Senator Moynihan knows very well -- -- it is
possible to undertake global lobbying, as I called it, on behalf of UN
resolutions and policies.
And it is even possible to carry out such lobbying to a successful
conclusion provided there is strong, clear support of the US Congress and
president. But, it's difficult. It requires a good deal of advanced
planning. It requires a united government willing to also step up and be
counted along with our allies and other countries. It's doable, but it
would have taken a lot more effort and come at a higher price than what we
did.
SEN. : Leaving aside the question of MFN as a tool for the moment, is there
something in our dialogue that you think is missing or that we might be
able to conjure up, either at higher level, more ministerial discussion,
some other lever that might have an impact here without obviously putting
at risk UN (Security?) Council participation -- North Korea, Japan, China
relations -- all the rest of the equation?
MS. KIRKPATRICK: You mean for the UN.
SEN. : No, for us. In our relationship with China, specifically with
respect to Tibet. Is there something that you think --
MS. KIRKPATRICK: I think it's very important for us to continually
communicate with the government of China how important it is to us. I think
we must communicate our priority which we give to China's treatment of
Tibet and the Tibetan people, and I believe we must emphasize it and
underline it and if you will, harp on it. And by harping on it I think we
can perhaps make a difference.
SEN. : Thank you very much, Madam Ambassador.
SEN. HELMS: Senator Robb.
SEN. ROBB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Ambassador, thank you for again
coming before this committee and sharing your views. As I listen to you, it
sounds to me as though you are clearly very much concerned, but struggling
with respect to remedies or leverage, or whatever the United States might
bring to bear on the equation to address in a way that might lead to a more
positive result. You discussed the late Senator Scoop Jackson and Jackson
-- Vanik, and MFN and -- I guess my question at this point, and it may
reflect the ambivalence that many who want to find a way to bring progress
to this particular question have wrestled with it.
Is there anything that you can think of that would give us specific
leverage, or is there any way that we could attempt in working with the
government in China to do something that might incrementally lead to the
autonomy that His Holiness seeks in this particular instance, complete
religious sovereignty and autonomy -- whatever the case might be. Is there
any either leverage or incremental approach that we could consider that
might advance the cause?
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Well, China is a sovereign state. I've said that I believe
that there are some policies we could adopt and press more vigorously than
we do. I believe we can press more vigorously than we do. The issue of
violation by China of Tibetan human rights and political rights --
SEN. ROBB: But in what form. In other words --
MS. KIRKPATRICK: By continually focusing the spotlight of publicity on
those violations, actually. I think that's what I mean -- I mean to harp on
a subject is to be boorish about it. I think the US government needs to be
willing to be boorish about China's violation of Tibetan religious rights
and human rights and denial of identity and forced relocation of
populations. We need to be boorish about it. We need to talk about it a
lot. You know, weekend and week out, and we need to broadcast it. And we
need to bore our friends and allies with it, until finally they begin to
talk about it more too. Because every one of them knows the truth about
these practices, you know. And every one of them who is a true friend or
ally of the United States agrees fundamentally about the unacceptability of
these bestial practices.
I think that's what we must do. I think we must, you know with Radio Free
Asia and with Voice of America and in diplomatic arenas and in UN arenas,
we must harp on it.
SEN. ROBB: But it would be more in the context of jawboning, if I may use
an analogy, than specific prescriptive changes in policy or the threat of
sanctions of some sort.
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Senator Robb, I believe that there are changes in US
policy toward China which need to be made. Some of those wouldn't be
welcome to the government of China I suspect. I believe for example that
the -- I'm certain that the United States should cease selling weapons,
high -- tech weapons to China and should cease sharing technology for
weapons of mass destruction with the government of China, which has in fact
been a major proliferater for a long time. Another issue, but then is it.
You know, China now has most of those weapons of mass destruction and most
of that technology, but I believe we should not provide them.
And I don't believe we need to pose ourselves the question, for example,
for MFN, whether we trade or don't trade anything on the basis of Most
Favored Nation. (Inaudible) (turn offs?). I believe normal trade should
have normal turn offs, but you don't have -- normal trade is not in high --
tech weapons, and in weapons who need to be guarded from others and you
need to sign promises not to share with others. China signs those promises.
China breaks those promises. You know that. I know that. The government of
China knows that. The State Department knows that.
We shouldn't do that. I think when we do that sort of thing, it presents us
as unserious, period, and unserious in our efforts -- presumed efforts to
deal with China in a way that is at least true to our own principles and
most fundamental principles and interests. But it is not consistent with
our most fundamental principles and interests to acquiesce in the
proliferation of really dangerous technology and weapons in the world. We
can, you know, we can do that without closing our borders to China and to
normal trade with normal goods with China. I think if we tried we could do
a good many things that would emphasize and clarify for the world, the
American identification with the suffering of the people of Tibet. That's
what I think we --
SEN. ROBB: Madam Ambassador, your appearance here this morning contributes
to that end, and I thank you. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: Senator Feingold.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, thank you
for your statement and your position on this issue. I just want to pursue
very briefly a couple of more specifics with regard to how to influence
China with regard to Tibet.
I listen to your comments right now with regard to MFN. Did you suggest
that you would oppose extending MFN, or did you suggest that we could do a
partial denial of MFN with regard to certain kinds of transactions?
MS. KIRKPATRICK: I find it not compatible with my views about the way
political change occurs -- to advocate policies which would result in
further isolating China. I want China involved with us and with the world
and not isolated from us. And I want that very much, as a matter of fact.
But I don't think that requires trade in dangerous, high -- tech weapons,
weapons of mass destruction, and I don't think it involves trade that is
based on slave labor, as the AFL/CIO frequently reminds us a good deal of
Chinese goods is based on prison labor.
So I think we don't need to say MFN or no MFN. I think we could develop for
ourselves a policy that at least made sense to us and was more consistent
with what we know about the world and what we believe -- you know, what we
support about the world.
SEN. FEINGOLD: So grant MFN status, but then subsequent to that, identify
areas where we are less comfortable with regard to normal trade relations.
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Senator Feingold, I detest that whole policy of granting
MFN status, frankly. I don't think it makes any sense any more. Normal
tariffs should be available -- sort of normally, and (any?) deviation it
seems to me should be specified by category or something. I don't know why
the Congress has to go on making this decision, or the US government has to
go on making this decision to grant -- to call something Most Favored
Nation status which isn't that, but which means very normal -- you know,
trade with normal tariffs.
You need to do what you need to do, but I wish we could find a new name for
that policy and find a new way of granting and withholding access to the US
market and access to trade with Americans, which made a little more sense
in terms of our principles and interests.
SEN. : My I interrupt my friend to say that Senator Roth and I have
introduced a bill. (We'd?) call it normal trade relations. SEN. FEINGOLD:
How does that interface then with perhaps with --
MS. KIRKPATRICK: I like that.
SEN. FEINGOLD: with another issue of whether the United States should
support China's admission into the World Trade Organization? I guess what
some of us are trying to get at is if we're going to be persistent, even
boorish, what can we as members of Congress do to send a clear signal with
some specificity that we believe that not every single aspect of trade
should be a given to a country that has had such an abysmal record with
regard to Tibet. What about the WTO?
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Well, I believe -- I'm sympathetic, very sympathetic,
Senator Feingold, to the position you just enunciated as that of some of
you in the Congress. I think that it sounds to me as if our government is
trying a bit too hard to try to pave the way for trying to (inaudible)
admission to WTO. When China should have full admission to WTO? When it has
qualified for a membership in WTO, and I don't think that is in our
interest, nor do I think it's our responsibility, nor do I think it is
desirable for us to try to state the case for China or to work China into
compliance on the various things that (why?) we suggest to me we're doing.
I would hope the Congress would simply say, let China make its own case and
when it has met WTO requirements, then we will certainly be counted among
those who welcome (inaudible). But we are assuming that responsibility.
SEN. FEINGOLD: I thank you for that answer. I think it's helpful. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: Thank you, sir. Senator Feinstein.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Welcome Madam Ambassador. It's good to see you. I find
myself very much in agreement with your thinking on this. I have spent a
greater part of my adult life trying to understand the history and culture
of China and I guess the only conclusion that I've come to is that China
will do things because she believes it's in China's interest to do them,
not because it's in someone else's interest.
What has puzzled me is I have always felt that our interest should be to
have a China which is open to the West, which is able to take its place as
a leader of Asia at the table of stable world leaders, and that a China
that was interested in this same goal should look at sitting down with the
Dalai Lama, resolving some of these issues as a sign of strength, rather
than a sign of weakness, and that it should be a sign of a strong leader
that does this rather than a weak leader. And yet what I've gleaned is that
-- particularly this year perhaps because of the party congress coming up
in October, it is really not the time that any leader can step forward and
take this action and not have it interpreted as a sign of weakness.
I have tried to puzzle out why it's a sign of weakness to sit down with a
person who's a world leader, who as you have, I think, eloquently said and
I have tried to say, is not a splitist, but simply wants to work out
something with the government whereby some degree of autonomy, as a product
of this negotiation -- local autonomy could be had for Tibetans. And I
still have a hard time understanding why this isn't a sign of a strong
leader. Have you thought at all about this? Do you agree? Do you have any
thoughts on the subject?
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Well, Senator Feinstein, yes very much, and of course I
agree with your view that strong leaders do in fact -- do not feel
threatened by the exercise of normal rights by their followers. Strong
leaders can tolerate differences. Strong governments can tolerate
differences. Strong societies can welcome pluralism and be enriched by it.
I think it is a fact that China will not be the great nation that we know
that China has all the potential for being, until it can recognize the
character and identity of all its people and permit them to express their
own identity and character. And it will be a pluralist nation when it does
that and can relish in that diversity and grow strong from it, and will be
much stronger than any China which is unified by central power, or which an
effort is made to unify it by central power.
I hope that such a China will come into being. There have been a number of
quite disturbing developments in China I believe, and by the leadership of
China in the last year and a half -- in this period since the late Deng
Xiaoping was no longer in control of the -- at the helm of the government
of China. Li Peng, himself of course was no pluralist, nor did he honor
pluralism, but he was careful in the arbitrary use of power in the world.
And generally speaking I have been disturbed by China's unilateral
declaration of comprehensive sovereignty in the South China Sea, for
example. I was very disturbed by China's -- I feel reckless use of military
power in the Taiwan Straits during that last election in Taiwan. And I feel
that the repression of Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai Lama is of a piece
with the repressive policies. I hope that China will have a leader that
recognizes the right of Chinese to express themselves in all their richness
and diversity.
SEN. HELMS: Thank you, Senator. At the dinner at which Senator Pell was
honored and Congressman Rose, I was thinking along the same lines that you
are that the trouble with this thing is -- one, let's be honest about it.
Aren't so many in control of our government scared to death that they're
going to offend China? Isn't that it? They don't want to do anything about
the -- oh, they come and they talk about the Dalai Lama and love him as
most people do, but when it gets down to the guts and feathers of it,
nobody wants to go down under that (punt?), to use an expression I used to
use in radio.
But what if Dan Rather and Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw, CNN and Larry
King and all the rest of them -- they should concentrate on the ifs and
whys of the way Tibet is being treated. The American people don't know
anything about it. That is the problem. And I will be honest about it, it
dawned on me when I watched Senator Pell being given that award and he was
unique because he understood the problem, and so many other Americans would
feel as Senator Pell and those of us here and you certainly, if they knew.
But nobody gets the details and I said, well, I'm going to announce tonight
-- -- it was an impromptu thing, Senator, that we were going to have some
hearings and that Senator Pell would be the lead off witness.
And I hope that we could persuade some of the powers that be in industry
and other (philanthropic?) agencies, maybe to do something to help inform
the American people what is going on there, and stop this timidity and stop
this fear -- stop this apprehension.
It's always a pleasure to have you here and I appreciate your coming. I
really do.
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.
SEN. HELMS: Now then, we will go to the fourth and final panel. And I'm
eager to hear all of them. I will say that I wish Larry King would invite
Ambassador Kirkpatrick to come and discuss this very subject. I may give
him a telephone call this afternoon. Senator Feinstein, why don't you call
him too. I'm serious. I can just hear him questioning her and her giving
the answers she has just given. Would you mind telling me who this lady is?
Her name is M-a-u-r-a M- o-y-n-i-h-a-n.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: -- who she is. Daughter, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. HELMS: And Lodi Gyari. And by the way, Ms. Moynihan is with Refugees
International. Lodi Gyari is special envoy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
And Dr. Robert A. F. Thurman, and I hope I get this one right, (Jasong
Kapa?) (Chair?) and professor. He's Chairman and Professor of Indo --
Tibetan studies at the department of Religion at Columbia University.
Welcome all and let me see. It says here that you are number one, Mr.
Gyari. You lead off, if you will.
MR. LODI GYARI: Mr. Chairman, I'm very grateful for you and for your
committee for organizing this hearing on Tibet. I will certainly, as you
have advised, not read through my text. I will submit that for the record,
because I think some of the people who had earlier testified had already
dealt with a number of issues that I wanted to raise. In fact I felt so
proud and so grateful to have your former colleague, Senator Pell, and
Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick to come here today and to testify and speak so
eloquently and so strongly for the cause of Tibet. And that certainly makes
my task all so much easier.
And also I must say that I'm quite pleased with some of the statements by
my friend, Jeff Bader, from the State Department, and I just wanted to
share with you, Mr. Chairman, that in the last several years, both in State
as well at the White House, they do give me a great deal of access and at a
personal level I want to share with you that senior administration officers
have been very helpful. However, obviously there are areas where I
unfortunately still do differ, and one area that -- though I do not want to
talk about the past because I think it's very important for us to think
about the future, that is precisely the message that His Holiness always
tries to convey.
In fact, my belief is that the (measure?) obstacle that we have with China
is China always talks about the past, always lives in past -- that his
Holiness always wants to look to the future and therefore, they are moving
in all the different directions -- China's always (moving?) to the past and
we're trying to move to the future. But sometimes (inaudible) I think my
friends in the State Department also tend to talk a little bit about the
past and that then makes me necessary to (dwell?) also to the past a little
bit. I'm always disappointed (the weight of the?) statements that the State
Department makes -- a (sweeping?) statement about the political and the
legal position of Tibet before the Chinese invasion.
But having said that, I also wanted to once again explicitly state that His
Holiness is very clear with regard to (inaudible) Tibet, and I need not say
-- I think, Mr. Chairman, you made it very clear. Senator Moynihan and
Senator Feinstein and Ambassador Kirkpatrick and Senator Pell all this
morning clearly stated that His Holiness is not talking about independent
Tibet. But he is committed and (he is?) committed to find a solution to
what he calls the middle way approach.
But having said that, it's very important that we also deal with the truth.
As (Rimpoche ?) says, seeking truth from fact. And so therefore the
statement by the State Department about the legal status of Tibet is
certainly is not based on fact. So I just wanted for the record, you know,
to state that, because it is -- there are a number of clear instances where
the government of the United States (inaudible) government, both Republican
and Democrat (considered?) that differently.
If that has not been the case then I think what the United States
governments in the past have done was to exploit and in fact, use Tibet. I
mean, its very clear on the record for example that United States
government vigorously tried to pursue His Holiness the Dalai Lama to
renounce the 17 point agreement which we have been forced to sign. The
United States government considered (to be?) Tibet as part of China, then
why on earth would the government of the United States make vigorous
efforts to ask His Holiness to denounce the 17 point agreement which the
Chinese had the (counsel?) to sign. Why is it that various (uses?) of
United States government actively (supports?) the (religious?) movement, if
the United States government did not consider -- were they then just
exploiting us? Were they then just using us? So those are a number of
issues which is best left to the historians to sort out, but every time any
government comes out with a categorical statement to say that Tibet is part
of China period, it weakens the hand of His Holiness.
Whatever future solution we have to find, it has to be found based on the
truth, not on the untruths. So therefore, I just wanted for the record, Mr.
Chairman, wanted to state that because, you know, my friends from the State
Department, you know, did deal quite extensively with that, and also in
their (written?) statement, they go even more, sort of depth into that
aspect. But once again so that the record is set, because I think I agree
absolutely with the Senator Feinstein and others, that we need your help to
let the Chinese know what we are seeking. It is true that no matter how
many times His Holiness makes his position very clear, either the
(inaudible) parliament or here it's the Congress of the United States, in
his conversations with the president and vice president, somehow the
Chinese -- either they don't get the message or deliberately do not want to
accept what His Holiness his trying to convey.
And I think this is one area where I think the United States government can
definitely help by not only conveying that message but making it very clear
as to what His Holiness is trying to say. Because our voice is very weak.
Our voice is very small and we need your voice to help that message to get
across. I also wanted to take this opportunity to ask the administration to
be more supportive. I mean, I very much appreciate that. In fact, I think
the Clinton administration, as I said, has given us better access and it is
true that every time there's opportunity for the administration -- I
believe (above?) the rank of assistant secretary, whenever they have a
formal discussion with the Chinese, I do believe they raise it.
But that's not enough. As Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick has emphasized over
and over again, these need to be raised seriously and the Chinese need to
get the message that this is one area that they have to make concessions to
the United States government. While I know that several people entered
(inaudible) vigorously, others do it with luke warm. You know, they just do
it because it's one of the 17 step points (when?) the meet with their
Chinese counterpart. This doesn't, you know, convey the right message.
If the administration is very serious from the president to whoever, has to
not only (inaudible) but has to also make it very clear that this is a
matter that is not going to go away. And I also wanted to ask because --
and I think response to one of the questions to (Jeff?) that you know, his
response was that the United States does not take very clear position as to
exactly whether they support the middle way approach by His Holiness. What
they do support is that there has to be dialogue. That still has to be
resolved.
I wanted to urge this administration to be more explicit. I felt until this
moment that the Clinton administration -- as I think I was given to
understand -- is in support of the middle way approach. That I hope is the
position. If that's not the position, I want to urge them and I want to ask
you to help so that the administration just doesn't say that you need to
talk with the Dalai Lama -- that they tell the Chinese that the proposal
that His Holiness has come out is a realistic one. It is a position that I
think only a (inaudible) like (inaudible) did. Because the fact is that,
you know, as many of you know, there's tremendous opposition to that among
the Tibetan people, and for I think very legitimate reasons.
As Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick clearly said, that we have the right to
(long ?) for and fight for independence, but it is the (leadership?) given
by this courageous leader that we have and that need (to be supported?).
So therefore I do want to ask that the administration be much more
supportive -- not just say that you need to talk to the Dalai Lama, but you
need to talk with him on the basis of the proposal that he had come out
with, which I think everyone agrees this morning is a very courageous and a
very forward looking. Without any further dwelling in the past, let me go,
Mr. Chairman, to some more important points that I would like this
committee through your help and support, become part of the policy of the
(exile?) government.
Number one I want to ask, as Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick said, that (to
make?) the issue of Tibet the very important bilateral issue between the
United States and China. His Holiness, when he met with the president and
vice president and with the secretary of state, did ask and he was given
assurance, but I want, you know, this to be upgraded so that every time --
and politically I think we talked about the parties, you know, Congress --
(the 15th party?) Congress which is going to take place in China and
(afterwards?). I think there's a window for opportunity if the United
States government, you know, is willing to pursue this matter as an
important priority.
Number two is use every political and economic leverage, because again I do
not want to go into specifics, but I think you have to use all your
leverage because Chinese government is not going to do it simply because
United States government wish it to happen. The reality is that you have to
use your leverage. Again I (inaudible) this committee and the Congress of
the United States and the (inaudible) administration as to how you want to
apply that, but I think the leverage need to be used and in past, it is
effective that I think you have (inaudible) to use leverage. There wasn't a
cohesive -- there wasn't a unified position and the Chinese always took
advantage of it, both here in the United States as well as elsewhere.
We talked quite a bit this morning about the Human Rights Commission in
Geneva. Here again I do defer slightly with the position taken by the State
Department. It is true that in the last (hour?) the State Department did
make vigorous efforts to try to have a resolution, but to be very frank, I
think you know, the last four or five years -- because I'm also the leader
of the Tibetan team that goes there every year to try to lobby for it, and
I think the effort by this (year's?) administration has been not very
satisfactory. It's always last moment. For example, I think this time
because of vice president's visit to China, the United States government
officially did not come out with a clear position. Privately they did start
lobbying, but that doesn't help. You have to get out and you have to
officially start lobbying for it. This I think is the reason why
unfortunately now there is a break in the unity of the Western block.
So I don't think you can point your accusing finger only at your allies. I
think to some extent, the United States is responsible for failing to take
the leadership in the last few years. It's my hope that in the future --
number one, that the United States government make it very clear -- not
weeks before, but months before (inaudible) attention, and do a second
lobbying, because if you do effectively lobby, I have a feeling that you
have the position as a most powerful nation, to bring enough votes around
to pass the resolution. I just don't believe that. If that's the case, then
I think it's very unfortunate because you can't really talk about being the
only super power. You have a tremendous power and I don't think you have
used that leverage. That's my hope that in future, that kind of message is
sent very clearly.
And I certainly wanted to very strongly urge the establishment of senior
position in the administration -- whatever you wanted to call it, whatever
the administration wants to call it -- I think that is unimportant, but
someone to coordinate efforts. Because I think Tibet policy, like the
policy of China, needs to be coordinated. I mean, I know there's wonderful
people in the State Department and the administration -- very brilliant,
very wise, but when together they come out with a policy, I always get -- I
just cannot understand how such an intelligent and farsighted people --
when together they come out with a policy as the Clinton administration
China policy. So we certainly need, I think, someone to help coordinate
with you, sir, and with us and with the Chinese. So I do want to ask your
help and urging the administration to appoint a senior position in the
administration -- whatever the (nation?)or title, you know, is entirely --
I think is not of importance, but I think such position is very important.
And then also bilaterally is not enough. There has to be a unilateral
approach. Again, I think this was discussed this morning. There's a lot of
interest for Tibet and Europe. Our (European?) Parliament, for example, you
know, has been very supportive, just as you are, and my hope is that there
will be more (inaudible) approach -- more consultation between your allies,
not only from administration to administration, but even at the Congress
level so that the issue of Tibet could be more effectively pursued. And
then also I wanted to thank you, sir, and other members for providing so
much assistance -- humanitarian assistance, the Fulbright scholarship, and
for establishing the Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America.
All this needs to continue because, as you know very well, that today the
real Tibet resides outside of Tibet, unfortunately. The real (crux ?) of
Tibet survives in India, you know, in various parts of India -- Nepal, not
in Tibet. (Inaudible) stand, there is a possibility for us to be able to
reestablish (our /) traditions. We need your help so that this
civilization, this culture does not vanish away. Therefore, I wanted to
urge you to do that. With the Voice of America and with Radio Free Asia,
the quality needs to be improved and I wanted you to monitor that, but I
also want you to continue to support any way necessary, you know, support
for extension of it.
And most important is, there needs to be access to (inaudible) students to
visit Tibet. There need access for diplomats to be able to visit Tibet.
There's a need for human rights groups to be able to visit Tibet. Again, I
think the State Department and the administration, if they use all their
leverage, I think they will be able to (pursuade?) the Chinese government.
So these are some of the points that, you know, I thought I would like to
mention and as I said, I will submit my testimony for your record with some
modification as you have been very kind enough to allow -- in the light for
my own edit presentation -- in the light of some of the earlier testimony
and so with those changes and modifications, I would like to be able to
submit together with His Holiness' statement at the recent Parliamentary
Council for which you and many others kindly hosted together, because there
again His Holiness made it very clear as to what is his position with
regard to official Tibet, together with his 10th March statement, which
again I think clearly fills out his position.
And with those two documents edited, I would like to submit them for your
consideration. And once again, sir, thank you very much. And I'm very
gratified that Senator Moynihan also joined you this morning. Thank you
very much, sir.
SEN. HELMS: Thank you very much. Ms. Moynihan.
MS. MAURA MOYNIHAN: I'd like to thank the chairman for inviting me to speak
today and the other distinguished members of the committee, and my father,
Ambassador Kirkpatrick. And I'd like to speak about the humanitarian aid
mandated by the Congress for Tibetan refugees in India and Nepal. I first
came to know Tibetan refugees in 1973 when my father served as the United
States Ambassador to India. And there are about 100,000 Tibetan refugees
living in India -- about 20,000 more living in Nepal at that time, and the
population has now increased to about 120,000 in India and in the last 10
years -- 10, 15 years, as Tibet has opened to trade and tourism, there has
been a second exodus of Tibetan refugees escaping from Chinese -- occupied
Tibet to join the Dalai Lama in the exile community in India and Nepal, but
mostly in India.
In the last seven years, I've made a dozen field trips to India, Tibet and
Nepal to investigate conditions in occupied -- Tibet and the refugee flight
over the Himalayas and the problems of protection at the Nepal -- Tibet
border and resettlement issues in India. I just wanted to show how, for
example, it's very important to remember how far --
SEN. HELMS: Tell you what. Take the mike with you.
MS. MOYNIHAN: Few people know how large Tibet is and the occupation of
Tibet by China is an event of enormous significance in the history of Asia,
because Tibet constitutes one -- third to one -- fourth of China's land
mass, and has given them an enormous strategic advantage all over Central
Asia, pressing into South Asia. It is the river head of the most important
water sources in Asia. It gives them a place to put ICBMs. It sits on the
(upper ?) border with India, Bhutan, (Seking?), Nepal, (Ladoc?),
Kazakhstan, et cetera.
As you can see, Tibet -- as my friend, the distinguished scholar, Dr.
Warren Smith said --Tibet is a country defined by altitude which is why it
could never have been invaded until the mechanized warfare of the 20th
Century allowed the People's Liberation Army to invade in 1949.
So when Tibetan refugee's escape on foot, they have to cross the longest
and most perilous escape route on earth, and 80 percent of the new arrivals
are coming from (Con and Endo?), eastern and northern Tibet, and that takes
two to four months of flight inside Tibet before they can reach Lahsa where
they usually hire a guide -- an underground railroad that leads refugees
into Nepal. And this is also very, very risky. Then they have to go over
the shelf of the Himalayas into Nepal, which as you can see is an enormous
distance. Many die in flight and of course, a great many contract frost
bite. And in 1991, the Congressional aid that was mandated for Tibet
refugees started a UNHCR, that's the United States High Commission on
Refugees reception center in Kathmandu which provides humanitarian aid for
the new arrivals, as they're called.
This aid -- here's a photograph of a group that was found at the Tibet --
Nepal border in (Suma Kumbe?). This is Mt. Everest behind, and already
they're suffering from extreme frostbite. And about half of the refugees
(inaudible) religious persecution and I would say another 40 percent are
children who are escaping (assignification?) and seeking education. As you
can see, this is a typical group of Tibetan refugees. And, this boy, for
example, was five years old and was left to die in a path just above the
Tibet -- Nepal border, but because of intervention -- emergency
intervention by UNHCR, he was helicoptered from the Everest region to Nepal
where he received emergency amputation. He has lost both of his feet, as
you can all see here, but his life was saved. He certainly would have died
of gangrene if not for the United States humanitarian assistance which has
saved many, many lives.
I have met all these people. These are the photographs I have collected.
Here's a girl of 16 years old who's lost most of her feet. This is the
UNHCR reception center clinic which is also funded by American aid. Here
are two young (inaudible) (miss?). Here's another refugee who runs the
clinic. This is Sera Lamo (ph), the chief nurse and United States Fulbright
Scholarship recipient who studied in the United Stated in the early '90's
and again that's our American aid going a long way toward helping this
community in need. These refugees have all been transited to India where
they're studying. This is a young man from (Con?), from Eastern Tibet.
Refugees are seriously malnourished and weakened from their long flight
inside Tibet before they reach the border. Once they get to Nepal, they
often suffer molestation, rape, robbery and mistreatment at the hands of
Nepali border guards. Until recently, they were being deported in very
large numbers by the Nepali government, particularly the United Marxist
(inaudible), and now that the UN (inaudible) have fallen from power and our
Ambassador in Nepal, Sandy Vogel (sp) raised this issue at the highest
levels of the Nepali government, deprecations appear to be down. They no
longer appear to be an official policy of the Nepali government, but they
still do occur. This man was beaten at the border and he's also just
suffering from infection that has set in from his (wound site?). And this
is Miss Sera Lamo who is giving him aid.
This is a nun that I interviewed who was tortured in Tibet. When she was 19
years old, she took part in a non -- violent demonstration for Tibetan --
for human rights in Lhasa. She spent three years in (Dropshe?) prison where
she was repeatedly tortured, particularly with electric cattle prods which
are manufactured purely for human torture, because I have seen those that
have been smuggled out of Tibet and held them in my hand. An American
cattle prod that might be used by a rancher in the state of Montana is this
large and it's for whacking the back of a steer. These are about this big
and you can see they are just used to torture human beings. She was raped
with the cattle prod and she had it shoved in her mouth. She is now dying
with the effects of torture, even though United States -- US humanitarian
aid has been provided to help her and she's doing better.
As you can see, she also is representative of the kind of people who are
seeking asylum in India. These two boys, aged 9 and 12, I met in Kathmandu
last summer and they were caught trying to escape -- deported by Nepali
border guards back to Chinese authorities and spent over six weeks in the
labor camp in the (She gatze?) region that the Panchen Lama is from, and
they were not tortured, but they were beaten and made to do menial labor.
There are a great many child refugees who have also suffered in this way
escaping. And this is Sera Lamo providing vaccinations to child refugees.
She's the Fulbright recipient. This is our aid at work. And here are
refugees being processed for transit into India. This is a (foreign in
Tibetan and English?) that our aid pays for.
And the final photograph is a 65 year old refugee from (Kamahat?), had all
his hands amputated. He certainly would have died of gangrene if not for
the aid intervention. So you can see that all our work at the border has
done a great deal to save lives and provide protection, even though
problems with deportation and abuse and rape of Tibetan refugees at the
border continue, which is why I would recommend assignment of a full --
time protection officer to supervise the 900 kilometer Tibet -- Nepal
border. And I know my time is running out, so I'd prefer that the balance
of my statement be included in the record as it's (read?) to show how our
aid to schools and to medical facilities in the Tibetan refugee community
in India has gone an extremely long way to keeping that community stable
until such time as the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees can return to
their homeland. Thank you.
SEN. HELMS: Thank you very much. And last, but certainly not least, Dr.
(inaudible?).
DR. : I long ago made the career choice of becoming a religion professor.
I'm used to going last. I'm very, very happy to be here though and I
learned a great deal from the other testimony and from your questions and
discussion. And I'm delighted that you're holding these hearings and I hope
they will lead to some serious changes in America's policy about Tibet,
because -- and this is the gist of my message, although my mandate today is
to talk about religion and religious persecution -- but the gist of my
message is that what we are witnessing in Tibet now in the last three years
is a new stage in the Chinese handling of Tibetan religion and this fits
with a policy change of theirs in these last few years that I think can
only be properly called genocide.
And religion, as the core structure of the Tibetan national identity is
something that has to be eradicated if you're trying to eradicate a
distinct people. And so that's why religion is such an important matter.
It's not just an important matter because Tibetans are particularly
religious. They are, but it is because the Chinese have now finally decided
to go for broke, sort of speak, and completely eradicate this if possible.
And so that is the burden of my testimony. I have written a very hastily
drafted -- in the last two days, at the time of the end of the semester, in
preparation for these hearings, a paper of some 20, 15, 16 pages which I
would like to submit for the record.
And I plan only to touch on some highlights, but that is my major point.
The Tibetan Buddhist's insistence on -- you know, I'm going to just skip
through different things. One of my original points is that Tibetan
Buddhism amongst the world religion's, Buddhism in general -- and Tibetan
Buddhism in particular, is a religious system that relies a great deal on
education. Buddhism considers that human beings have the ability to
understand the world and become enlightened -- this sort of thing. It's
focused on that and it's not only focused on people having faith in a
supreme being, but it additionally is focused on people becoming
responsible individuals who have a thorough understanding of the world and
of themselves.
Therefore, it is not a matter, as we might think when we hear the world
religion, of simply people sort of adopting a certain credo and then
performing certain rituals on certain occasions -- that that's not what
religion is in Tibet. Religion is, in fact, a total way of life, a total
culture, and a total system of education. And this Tibetan -- Buddhist
insistence on education and on the cultivation of wisdom in the Tibetan
people is what made Buddhism especially undesirable to the Chinese
Communist state. Not only did the Maoist commissars and (inaudible)
reformers encounter in Tibetans, a powerful faith in the mysterious
goodness of the divine forces of the universe, but they also ran straight
into a powerful understanding of the world that rejected the (naive ?),
materialism, unrealistic assumptions and the inhuman violence of Maoist
invaders.
Therefore, the prime directive for the Maoist invaders of Tibet, beginning
in 1950, was to eradicate root and branch, all substance and even traces of
the Tibetan -- Buddhist religion and its institutions.
So we have to realize this the point where we start from -- is that Mao
originally, as he promised in a way, His Holiness, in 1953 and 4, when His
Holiness was visited in Beijing -- the Dalai Lama was, as a young boy of
only 18 years of age and remember the famous statement that His Holiness
reports in his biographies where Mao said, "Religion as you know is
poison," he said -- Mao did. So they were bent on eradicating Tibetan
Buddhism from the beginning and they did a tremendous job. It was not only
a matter of the cultural revolution, it was part of their policy from the
very beginning.
I personally have been visiting Tibetan refugee communities in India, Nepal
and Bhutan for 35 years myself. I speak the language fluently -- read and
write most of its ancient and modern forms, and have spent over 30 years as
a professional scholar investigating all aspects of Tibet -- it's religion,
art, culture, civilization, and history. During the 60's and 70's, I heard
innumerable heart rending personal accounts of escaped and murdered monks
and nuns. Accounts of public humiliation, arrest, imprisonment,
brainwashing, torture and mass killing.
I began to visit Tibet itself during the 1980's and have been in most parts
of the country, including parts of the two -- thirds of Tibet in the east
that have been incorporated into various Chinese provinces, and which
create such confusion that we have in talking with China about Tibet, where
the Chinese want to only talk about the Tibet autonomous region, but the
Dalai Lama and the (Barrican?) government should be talking about the
residence of all Tibetan citizens, which in fact includes an area that is
three times larger than the Tibet autonomous region, and two thirds of
Tibetans, in fact, live in the areas that are now called the Tibet
autonomous (pre secture?) of (Gansuz?), (Shewang?) -- all these other
Chinese provinces. They cleverly carved it up way back then, you know.
Before it even became a matter of discussion.
I've seen -- during those trips, I've seen the ruins of thousands of
monasteries, temples, stupas, monumental rock (carved?) statutes, walls of
many stones, and nuns struggling in these monasteries which are somewhat
reconstructed, trying to practice their religion in the face of relentless
persecution and systematic oppression. So this is the first point that we
have to understand -- that the original motive in going into Tibet by the
Chinese was to irradiate Tibetan religion and I give this in a little more
detail and furthermore, there's another very important point which is that
since the Chinese -- and here I must, although I'm not supposed to speak
directly about politics, I must step out of my religion chair a little bit
and concur with my colleague, Lodi Gyari, and say that the Chinese moved
into Tibet in 1950, and whatever any other government might have been
saying formally in public in the 1930's about the relationship of China and
Tibet, the fact is there were no Chinese in Tibet in the 1930's -- zero of
China's population in Tibet. So it could hardly have been part of China
really.
And we also -- when we say part of China, in the 1930's the US recognized
India as a possession -- a rightful possession of England, of Great
Britain. And until 1990, we recognized the Ukraine as a part of Russia. So
these recognition's are an unfortunate place to start from. They start from
a position of submissiveness in dealing with the Chinese government that
does not befit our democracy and our own sovereignty when we say, oh, yeah,
we recognize that something which in fact was not the fact in the 1930's,
40's -- until 1950. The Chinese themselves in 1950 when they invaded Tibet,
Mr. Deng and Mr. Zhou Enlai and Mao Zedong himself, knew perfectly well
there was no Chinese presence in Tibet. There was a (Mancherian ?)
protectorate and the Manture itself was an empire, like the British empire,
or the French empire or Russian empire -- any other empire. It was not the
nation of China. It was the Manture empire. And they knew perfectly well
that they had no ownership of Tibet in fact.
They had a previous, discredited imperial government of China had had a
protectorate there, which they themselves rebelled against -- the
Communists. So the claim that it was indelibly part of their (thing?) is
kind of silly in a way. So if we start from there, then we can understand
the Chinese treatment of the Buddhist religion and Tibetan religion. The
treatment of it is that the Tibetan religion is (proof?) on the ground that
Tibet is totally different from China. The language is different. The
culture is different. The religious belief is different. No Tibetan who
meets a Chinese in the street -- today of Tibet or in the Chinese border
areas, thinks there's another Tibetan -- there's a fellow Chinese. They
don't think of that. No Chinese who meets a Tibetan in the street, sees
that Tibetan and says there's a fellow Chinese.
These are fictions -- bureaucratic and diplomatic fictions used to annex an
occupied territory by a government that is actually operating from the
beginning in an illegal manner indeed, and they know that within the
balance of the charter of the UN, where self -- determination is the human
right, where the British are asked to give up their empire and the other
European powers are asked to give up their empires -- the very basis on
which China demands Hong Kong be returned to them. Under these terms, they
know that they are moving against international norms in taking Tibet, and
therefore, they have had -- it is not an emotional policy by the Chinese to
destroy Tibetan culture, destroy Tibetan religion, destroy Tibetan identity
and therefore, and assimilate the Tibetan people.
It is a calculated policy consistent through all Chinese governments since
they founded the Communist government of China, which is to irradiate those
who might some day claim the land of Tibet back from them. That's clear
cut, and we should understand -- I'm not saying that we should deviate from
His Holiness' position that he is willing still to be partners and to join
even the same country with a government that has treated his people this
way. He is the saint. He's the holy man and the wise man. I'm not saying we
should question that policy, but I'm saying we should understand the true
basis of which it emerges and not start based on a falsity.
Now my final point, and that is that since 1994, and here I have to defer a
little bit from Ambassador Kirkpatrick's statement, which was very lucid
and eloquent, but in one thing I think this committee should be aware of
that -- Chinese behavior has been influenced by trade restrictions in the
past. The Jackson -- Vanik commitment did work in the case of Russia. It
also worked in the case of the previous government of South Africa. These
have been successful. You yourself, Senator, are employing this method in
relation to the undesirable government in Cuba. So to say that such
economic measures have no impact and we don't know whether they'll do
anything with China, is not reasonable actually, based on history.
It is definitely a fact. Anyone who goes to Tibet regularly. I have been
there eight times -- who goes there regularly will tell you that since
1994, when our executive branch misguidedly delinked trade assessment of
trade privileges from the Chinese behavior, the Chinese behavior
accelerated in a negative direction to an extreme degree and since 1994,
the complete oppression of Tibetan religion and the Tibetan national
identity has been reembarked upon by the recent and current administration
in China. From 1994 to '97, their policy has returned to being completely
genocidal. No longer pretending even to tolerate Tibetan religion. They
have stated -- they have put in work and study groups in the Tibetan
monasteries. They have expelled any monks from any monasteries. They have
closed important monasteries.
And the final point, people I was delighted to note are aware of the
Panchen Lama situation very much, but one thing people have not brought
into clear focus, which proves my point, and that is that if the Chinese
were still using religion to try to manipulate the Tibetan people, as they
have done in the past 25 -- 30 years, they would certainly have recognized
the Dalai Lama's choice of Panchen Lama, and then simply sought to educate
and influence that person to use them as their puppet. That would've been
the old strategy, because they know the Tibetan people will accept that
Panchen Lama because the Dalai Lama has approved of his choice you see. But
they fact that they refused to accept the Dalai Lama's choice, who's a
young boy who they had under their power and they could educate any way
they wanted and influence in any way they wanted.
But on top of the fact that they refused to accept him, placed a puppet
pretender as Senator Kerry said, of their choice which they know perfectly
well no Tibetan can possibly accept in good religious conscience, means
that they are basically stating that we are just going to crush these
Lamas. We're going to crush these people, and it's one of the age -- old
Communist devices, which is put up something that people can't accept and
the ones of conscience will stand up and protest and then you can arrest
them -- purge them, imprison them and get rid of them. And so this is the
proof -- this choice of policy, which is a conscious choice of policy by Li
Peng and Jiang Zemin the last three years.
The Panchen Lama is a symbol of a very dangerous decision that put these
hearings and the need to change American policy about Tibet in a very
urgent light. It puts it back in the context of now a resumed intensified
program of genocide that the Chinese government is conducting in Tibet.
And I don't think that Americans who are learning about this and they will
be learning about it more widely thanks to you, Senator, that they really
would want to be condoning this in any way. So all measures that you can
think of -- although I'm a religion professor, I do have a lot of ideas. I
don't think it's such a mystery. People will say, what could we do that
would influence the Chinese. We're terrified they're going to isolated
again. This is silly. The Chinese are not about to go back into the blue
pajama era of Mao Zedong. They have no intention of doing that. They are
not going to be isolated themselves.
But even without anything really aggressive, for example, if our president
would have His Holiness come in the front door of the White House for a
change. Just come in and put his arms around him in the public view.
Chinese are very sensitive to this kind of like human thing, you know. They
very much pay attention to them. If yourself, Senator, were to set up a
joint session of Congress where the Dalai Lama would address on religious
matter, on world peace, whatever topic to the American people. This kind of
thing would have a very powerful impact and they would decide that their
policy of trying to quickly get rid of the Tibetans, so that Tibet does not
become their Lithuania, which they're so afraid of in the future, they will
decide that policy doesn't work. They will abandon a failed policy. They
are pragmatic men as well.
But they will never abandon it when they feel that we have no real will to
do anything serious no matter what they do. Then they will never abandon it
and this has been proven in religious terms which is my area in the last
three years since 1994. Once you delink the money from their treatment of
human rights, there treatment of religion in Tibet, they just went and just
completely abused everything totally. And undid all sorts of liberties that
had been allowed in the 80's in fact. They completely have undone them. And
this puts an urgency that I feel it is my main responsibility to
communicate today. So thank you very much.
I saw I went past the red light, Senator. I apologize.
SEN. HELMS: All right.
DR. : I'm a New Yorker.
SEN. HELMS: Senator Moynihan, would you say that this is an eloquent panel
here.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: Wow. I hope the Chinese are watching.
SEN. HELMS: Well, let's encourage them to watch and also get the American
people. Thank you, sir. I'm much impressed with all three of you. I wrote
your Daddy a note about you. I'm going to forego the question period
because each of you receive written questions and I know that your time is
precious as well. Though I do thank you on behalf of the committee and I
thank you, Senator Moynihan.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: May I thank you, Mr. Chairman (inaudible) great courtesy.
SEN. HELMS: They'll be no further business to come before the committee.
We stand in recess.
END
_ 1998, Congressional Information Service, Inc. All Rights Reserved.