LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: Permanent Normal Trade Relations, House or Senate or Joint

Document 207 of 374.

April 6, 2000, Thursday

SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 4992 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. LODI GYALTSEN GYARI SPECIAL ENVOY OF HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

SUBJECT - THE STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN CHINA AND TIBET

BODY:
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear before the International Relations Committee and respond to your concerns about the situation in Tibet, and especially the status of negotiations. I am particularly grateful that for some years the Committee has made the effort to schedule an annual hearing on or around 10 March, our Tibetan National Day. This was not possible this year due to conflicts in scheduling, but I appreciate the fact that the Committee recognized the gravity of the situation in Tibet and was interested in finding a date as soon as practicable for the hearing.

It is always a personal honor for me to represent the Tibetan people before this Committee that has done so much to advance the cause of Tibet in the United States Government. U.S. programs for humanitarian assistance to Tibetan refugees, Fulbright scholarships -- now called the Ngawang Choephel Tibetan scholarships, and Voice of America and Radio Free Asia Tibetan language broadcasting all have their origins in the interests of members of this Committee and its counterpart in the Senate. Numerous Tibet resolutions have been authored and passed by this Committee, including in this session, a resolution which we support as introduced by Congressman Salmon, H.Res. 389, reaffirming that it is the sense of the House that a renewed formal dialogue should begin between the leadership of the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama or his representatives. Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the Committee, for all these measures, we are extremely grateful.

Today's hearing also serves as a timely reporting by the State Department on U.S. policy towards Tibet and progress in implementing that policy. It has been my distinct privilege to meet regularly with officials of the Clinton administration, including the National Security Council, and especially Assistant Secretary Taft, the U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues. Mrs. Taft has tenaciously represented the politics and programs of this administration among the often competing interests of the State Department and in various exotic and foreign venues. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for her efforts and those of her able assistant, Ms. Kate Friedrich.

The decision taken by Secretary of State Albright in 1996 to name a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues can be attributed in part to her vision of a principled U.S. diplomacy rooted in American values of democracy and fundamental human freedoms. Certainly more directly, Secretary Albright's decision was once again a result of a commitment by members of this Committeeand its counterpart in the Senate to nudge successive administrations towards a more responsive position on Tibet. In 1996, that commitment was expressed in a section of the foreign relations authorization bill which called for the establishment of a Special Envoy for Tibet.

Assistant Secretary Taft, our second Tibet Coordinator, continues to amplify official U.S. support for Tibet, as her predecessor, Gregory Craig, did before her. At its inception, the central objective of the Office of the Tibet Coordinator was determined by Secretary Albright to be the promotion of dialogue between the Chinese leadership and His Holiness the Dalai Lama or his representatives. As the person entrusted by His Holiness the Dalai Lama with the responsibility of spearheading this effort, I fully acknowledge the challenge of that mandate. Nonetheless, its significance to a resolution for the Tibet issue is unparalleled. As this administration well understands, there can be no end to the suffering in Tibet until a negotiated settlement is achieved which will provide the six million Tibetans with the legitimate right to preserve their unique heritage and distinct identity.

On different occasions, Vice President Gore and President Clinton have elevated the issue of dialogue to a priority in important exchanges between the United States and the People's Republic of China, including the November 1997 and June 1998 summit meetings. During this period, there were some indications that Beijing would begin a process that could lead to meaningful dialogue. Specifically, during the 1998 summit, President Jiang spoke publicly of his willingness to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama. Regrettably, since that time, all doors have been shut to us. Whether the Chinese are now unwilling or unable to act with sufficient vision on Tibet, the position of His Holiness remains the same.

I have with me a copy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's 10 March statement. I respectfully ask that the full text be included in the Committee record, and would like to read a small part at this point.

"It has been my consistent endeavor to find a peaceful and mutually acceptable solution to the Tibetan problem. My approach envisages that Tibet enjoy genuine autonomy with the framework of the People's Republic China. Such a mutually beneficial solution would contribute to the stability and unity of China -- their two topmost priorities -- while at the same time the Tibetans would be ensured of the basic right to preserve their own civilization and to protect the delicate environment of the Tibetan plateau.

"In the absence of any positive response from the Chinese government to my overtures over the years, I am left with no alternative but to appeal to the members of the international community. It is clear now that only increased and concerted international efforts will persuade Beijing to change is policy on Tibet. In spite of immediate negative reactions form the Chinese side, I strongly believe that such expressions of international concern and support are essential for creating an environment conducive for the peaceful resolutionof the Tibetan problem. On my part, I remain committed to the process of dialogue. It is my firm belief that dialogue and a willingness to look with honesty and clarity at the reality of Tibet can lead us to a viable solution."

Mr. Chairman, I have acknowledged the gratitude all Tibetans feel for the conviction this administration has demonstrated on the issue of Tibet. Do I believe, however, that all that was possible has been done? No I do not. I not only see opportunity in the remaining months of this administration, but also a need for a redoubling of efforts at this very moment.

First, the administration needs to invigorate its efforts to advance the issue of dialogue and take care not to raise it in a ritualistic or formulaic manner. Even in the recent past, cabinet level people have traveled to Beijing and reiterated calls for dialogue. But they must do more than that, and I have shared with the National Security Council and Mrs. Taft and her colleagues at the State Department some of our ideas about how this could be done. As the President considers his legacy, he should revisit the issue of Tibet.

It is my hope that President Clinton's just concluded visit to South Asia, as well as his intimate knowledge of China, have given him the opportunity to understand that a resolution of the Tibet issue not only benefits the Tibetans but that it is a key factor in bringing about lasting peace and stability in that whole region. We cannot afford to leave the issue of Tibet unattended, as it could contribute to an emergence of a situation not unlike those that have confronted us in the Balkans and elsewhere. I also urge this Committee to undertake a serious examination of the geopolitical significance of Tibet and enhance U.S. policies to reflect that importance.

Similarly, both the administration and the Congress have the opportunity to welcome the Dalai Lama early this summer. His Holiness has been invited by the Smithsonian Institution to give an address on the Mall as part of the National Folklife Festival's focus on the Tibetan culture. It will be his first visit to Washington since 1998, and I am hopeful that he will be received in official Washington in a manner that demonstrates the importance attached to finding a resolution of the Tibet issue and that confers on His Holiness proper appreciation for his leadership. I think we would all agree that His Holiness has become one of the foremost spokespeople for a responsible and ethical approach to living in the new millennium, and his role as a moral leader should be acknowledged.

This may well be the last visit of His Holiness during this administration, and it is important that there be a fulsome endorsement of his efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement. While President Clinton will be leaving his official duties as commander and chief behind, His Holiness has no such term limitation.

As we speak, some very committed and senior State Department officials are engaged in an effort to gamer support for a U.S.-sponsored China resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. I myself was in Geneva last week and saw how very hard they are working. I also wish to compliment Secretary Albright for making a special effort to stress U.S. concern for the human rightssituation in China and Tibet by flying to Geneva from South Asia to address the Commission. However, China has predictably mounted significant opposition to what it views as a serious threat to its prestige at the United Nations. The Chinese delegation has threatened to "fight to the end" to defeat the resolution, and we can be assured that they will hold no punches.

Nonetheless, the U.S. is at risk of missing a rare opportunity for some advantage. There is vocal and widespread cynicism among delegates at the Commission that the U.S.-sponsored resolution is merely a ploy to win Congressional approval for permanent normal trade relations for China. It is also understood that the E.U. nations, who will vote as a block in Geneva, are divided among themselves. Nonetheless, President Clinton who in 1995 was successful in securing European support for a China resolution, chose to be silent on the resolution when he visited Geneva two weeks past. Not only did he not use a critical opportunity to lobby for the resolution, but he did so in the context of a campaign that has him on an almost daily basis speaking out publicly for the passage of PNTR.

E.U. leaders will meet on April 10 and 11 in Brussels. The following day, April 12, is the last possible day for co-sponsorship at the Commission. It is my sincere hope that President Clinton's commitment to human rights will have been communicated personally to wavering European leaders before it is irrelevant.

There are those who believe that in order to influence China to do the right thing, it is first necessary to cajole China. I have always held the opposite view. China is an important nation whose leaders respect strength and candor. But China will never be a great nation while its leaders condone the abuse of its citizens. Neither should the international community hesitate to condemn China to the fullest extent when it continues to pursue a policy that contradicts all norms of moral and civilized behavior.

Last month's presidential election in Taiwan was particularly instructive on this very issue. Under a barrage of extreme rhetoric and even the threat of war, the people of Taiwan voted their conscience and elected the candidate mostreviled by Beijing. One Chen Shui-bian supporter was reported in the Washington Post to have said on the eve of the election, "We know that there is an 800-pound gorilla across the Taiwan Strait, but what the rest of the world does not understand is that it is just a gorilla.

Again, I do not advocate a dismissive policy towards Beijing, but rather a policy based on the expectation that as an emerging power China is compelled to take on the responsibilities of leadership. However, if powerful and free nations, such as the United States, allow China to act with impunity and escape international condemnation, we should not be surprised at the kind of leader China will become.

My own understanding of China is based on the experience of occupation and the tremendous suffering my people have undergone. And no one feels that suffering or the burden of Tibet's freedom struggle more deeply than HisHoliness. This Committee is, of course, aware of the efforts His Holiness makes to raise the issue of Tibet internationally. Indeed, you have welcomed him in this very room many times. You may not be aware that he also meets with every new arrival from Tibet, roughly 3,000 each year. Their individual and personal tragedies are difficult for anyone to hear; the ugly accounts of Chinese brutality are difficult to comprehend or to forgive. Compiled together, in the many thousands, they weigh heavily on the heart.

It is said that generals can be the most tenacious advocates for peace because they know the price of war. This may be an awkward analogy in the case of His Holiness who is certainly not a general, but rather has been lauded around the world for his non-violent approach to conflict resolution. However, it is the intimate connection he has to the situation in Tibet, as well as the mutual long-term interest of the Tibetans and Chinese that His Holiness continues to seek a negotiated solution, From his 10 March statement:

"If China is seriously concerned about unity, she must make honest efforts to win over the hearts of the Tibetans and not attempt to impose her will on them. It is the responsibility of those in power, who rule and govern, to ensure that policies towards all its ethnic groups are based on equality and justice in order to prevent separation. Though lies and falsehood may deceive people temporarily and the use of force may control human beings physically, it is only through proper understanding, fairness and mutual respect that human beings can be genuinely convinced and satisfied."

Mr. Chairman, while His Holiness has exhibited patience and consistency in his efforts to engage the Chinese leadership, then' failure to respond will no doubt lead to a more dangerous scenario. There is an Tibetan adage which says, "if someone who is righteous is deeply wronged, the ferocity of such a person can be awesome."

It may very well happen that the peace-loving people of Tibet will become completely the opposite. In fact, in our not too ancient past, before the arrival of Buddhism in Tibet, we Tibetans were a nation of warrior tribes. Even in recent history, my own mother, a Khampa women, fought against the Chinese on horseback. Some months back my father died in exile. His only crime was being Tibetan and unwilling to be enslaved by the Chinese. Thousands of Tibetans like my father die in exile every year. It was not an easy thing for him or for his children. And the bitterness we share has been compounded and passed to his grandchildren. I am simply saying to the Chinese, don't kick us around for too long, I have been saying this for some time and some people may think that I am just saying it. But I am saying it because I am genuinely frightened of such a prospect, and I can feel it in me.

Similarly, inside Tibet, there is increasing frustration. A flood of Chinese settlers are taking our land, our resources. Prostitution, gambling and karaoke bars, which the authorities quietly encourage, are undermining the moral values of our people. And, because the Chinese authorities see the distinct culture and religion of Tibet as the principal cause for separation, there is an attempt todestroy the integral core of the Tibetan Buddhist identity. His Holiness is kept outside, away from his people. Although his presence is felt, his people have no access to him.

The untimely death in 1989 of the 10th Panchen Lama, took from the Tibetan people a fundamental refuge and struck a deep blow against their spirit. Last year, Agya Rinpoche, the abbot of Kumbum monastery, was granted asylum in the United States after a period of increasing exploitation by the Chinese authorities. At the time of his escape, Agya Rinpoche, as a Chinese government official at the Deputy Minister level, was the second most senior official ever to defect to the West and held the following positions: Deputy Chairman of the CCPC in Qinghai Province, Deputy Chairman of the Chinese Buddhist Association (for all of China), Chairman of the Buddhist Association in Qinghai, and the Deputy Chairman of the Chinese Youth Association. Agya Rinpoche accepted these promotions believing he could better protect the Tibetan people, and his monks at Kumbum. However, in his own words, "the costs to me of these promotions were great." He has recently made a statement which reads in part as follows:

"Although Kumbum has been regarded by the Chinese government as a good model for other monasteries to follow, in 1997 the government decided to further emphasize at Kumbum its policy of "love motherland - love religion.

" Forty-five communist cadres were sent to the Monastery to live. All of the monks and residents of the Monastery, including me, were divided into 12 discussion groups, and the groups were forced to repeatedly denounce His Holiness the Dalai Lama, to remove all pictures of the Dalai Lama from the Monastery, and to sign contracts expressing love for the "motherland" and agreeing to keep religious practices within the government-prescribed regulations. These were all required against our will.

"In addition to the increased pressure that the Chinese government had placed upon Kumbum Monastery, I was singled out for special treatment which forced my decision that I had no choice but to try to escape from China right away. First, late in 1997, 1 learned that the Chinese government intended to require me to hold an elaborate ceremony at Kumbum in June 1998, coinciding with the celebration of the birthday of Lama Je Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelupa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. The ceremony planned by the government would celebrate the third year of its identification of Gyaltsen Norbu as the so-called 11th reincarnated Panchen Lama. This would have been the first widely announced and publicly held ceremony for the Chinese government' s Panchen Lama. Thereafter, the Chinese government intended to have this so-called Panchen Lama live at Kumbum and be educated under my auspices. From the bottom of my heart, I could not accept this Communist-appointed Panchen Lama, yet I was told that I would be required as the abbot of Kumbum to administer this entire enthronement ceremony myself. I could never recognize Gyaltsen Norbu, the Chinese appointed Panchen Lama, as the true Panchen Lama, and as a result, I could never conduct a religious ceremony in which he was being confirmed in thatposition. To do so would violate my loyalty to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and my profoundest beliefs in Tibetan Buddhism."

Mr. Chairman, Agya Rinpoche's flight from Kumbum, followed in December by the young Karmapa's escape from Tsurphu Monastery, the arrest and abuse of Geshe Sonam Phuntsog in Kandze, and the death of Gungthang Rinpoche at Labrang Tashikyil Monastery in February leave a terrible void in Tibet.

The essence of the practice of Tibetan Buddhism is the transfer of our spiritual philosophy from teacher to disciples. Because successive Chinese policies in Tibet have destroyed this distinct process, with all but a handful of learned religious leaders either dead, under detention or in exile, the loss of even these four important lamas to the Tibetan people is significant. Of course, the Dalai Lama is the foremost example of destruction to the link between teacher and disciples, and China's refusal to allow his return to his people the most profound commentary on the status of religious freedom in Tibet.

Each time an important leader is lost to us or treated inhumanely, our anger and frustration builds because we hold China responsible for this. For example, Tibetans universally believe that there was foul play in the case of 10th Panchen lama's death. Moreover, because Tibetans do not believe that the Chinese authorities act in their best interest, religious leaders are commonly called on to act on secular matters, Gungthang Rinpoche, took on the responsibility for settling disputes among Tibetan nomads pushed into competition for diminishing pasturelands due to Chinese encroachment and the imposition of artificial administrative areas. The loss of Gungthang Rinpoche was compounded by anger among Tibetans that he had been prevented by authorities from traveling abroad for cancer treatment.

Geshe Sonam Phuntsog, a well-known scholar and student of the abbot of my own monastery, Lumorab Monastery, was arrested and beaten for nothing except that he taught the Bodhi-dharma and by that demonstrated his reverence for His Holiness the Dalai Lama. This sad state of affairs in Tibet, illustrated here by these few cases, is why resentment is increasing and stability is far from guaranteed.

As I said early in my testimony, the 1998 Clinton-Jiang summit evoked hope that progress on Tibet would soon be at hand. This has not happened and there is some indication that Beijing has, in fact, privately adopted a hard-line position. In late 1999 a Tibetan- language journal from India published a confidential document in which a senior Chinese official is quoted as saying:

"We have no need to engage in dialogues with the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama' s return to China will bring a great risk of instability. We will then not be able to control Tibet. The Dalai Lama is now fairly old. At the most, it will be ten years before he dies. When he dies, the issue of Tibet is resolved forever. We, therefore, have to use skillful means to prevent his return."Assistant Secretary Taft and I recently were together in Brussels at a conference on Tibet attended my members of 16 European national parliaments and E.U. parliamentarians. On that occasion, Kalon T.C. Tethong, the Foreign Minister of the Tibetan exile government, offered the following analysis on China's hardened policy on Tibet. I would like to read from it in part and ask that the full text be included in the hearing record.

"The new attitude and thinking on the Chinese leaders' part, we believe, has to do with the growing prestige of the institution of the Dalai Lama. Now His Holiness the Dalai Lama is an international figure and with growing spiritual followers world-wide, including Taiwan and China. This is especially irritating for the Chinese Communist Party whose ability to retain the loyalty of the Chinese populace is diminishing gradually, losing followers to traditional religious beliefs. It is in this context that some senior Chinese officials in December 1998 commented that even a visit to China by His Holiness the Dalai Lama would unleash great problems for China, make the Tibetans and the Mongolians go crazy, and have an impact on the latent prodemocracy activists who could be galvanized by such a visit."

In the meantime, China is pumping money onto the Tibetan Plateau for massive infrastructure, development and natural resource extraction projects. This economic boom is intended to attract more and more Chinese settlers in hopes that swamping the Tibetans in a sea of Chinese will consolidate Beijing's rule in Tibet. As Kalon Tethong predicts, "these may be dangerous delusions to entertain, and will only provoke an angrier form of Tibetan nationalism."

Here I thought I should bring to the attention of the Committee a recent news item indicating that the World Bank would lend $5-7 billion to China in the next 3 years, primarily for projects in "Western China." I have never and do not now oppose economic development assistance for China, but rather have always viewed China as a deserving recipient. However, there are well-founded concerns that such an infusion of funds could facilitate China's colonial hold over Tibet and hasten the economic marginalization of the Tibetan people.

Institutions, such as the World Bank, can become powerful instruments not only in alleviating poverty but for bringing about stability and peace -- and even harmony and understanding among peoples. However, as an individual coming from the developing world, I have seen these multi-national institutions, with all the best intentions, sometimes become the cause of more suffering and, in fact, widen the gap between rich and poor. Under the leadership of James Wolfenson, I believe that the Bank can and is moving in the right direction. At least his personal philosophy and vision reflects an understanding of the realities that the various regions of the world confront. I will watch this new Bank scheme very closely and certainly hope to be included in deliberations if and when these funds are allocated to ensure that they will be of general benefit to the Tibetan people.Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to explain in my testimony why vituperative rhetoric from Beijing has failed to bring about the desired results. Instead of unity and accord, it breeds anger and resentment.

I have reiterated the consistent position of His Holiness that he is willing and ready to enter into serious discussions with the Chinese leadership without preconditions.

And, I have appealed for stiffened resolve on the part of President Clinton and his administration in its dealings with China and its efforts on behalf of dialogue, especially in the remaining months. Immediately, the President must be more visible in pushing for European co-sponsorship of the China resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

Finally, if indeed the rational behind Beijing's approach to Tibet is that the Dalai Lama cannot live forever, it could not be more simplistic or misguided. There are six million Tibetans who will carry our struggle to succeeding generations.

I recently wrote in the Far Eastern Economic Review that "While China is an important global power with the potential to become a leader among nations, she is also her worst enemy. Ignoring the value of working with the Dalai Lama ranks at the top of its self-destructive tendencies."

Mr. Chairman, the re-emergence of central Asia following the break-up of the Soviet Union should give pause for serious consideration by regional powers and the United States.

For centuries, Tibet served as a buffer zone between the great empires of Asia. Since Tibet's occupation by the People's Liberation Army, China has inserted itself into the center-most, highest elevations of Asia, and a Chinese border war with India has been launched from Tibetan lands.

A positive response to the Dalai Lama, would prove to the world that China not only is genuinely capable of respecting diversity within her territories, but that it has assumed the mantle of responsible regional leadership.

Finally, let me reiterate for my Chinese brothers and sisters. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the solution to the situation in Tibet. If the political will exists, no major hurdles to negotiations exist, at least on the fundamental issues.

One of the root problems that enslaves the Chinese leaders and makes it difficult for them to deal with Tibet in a forward-looking manner is the legacy of China's leftist policies which have been in place for the last several decades, in varying degrees at various stages. Even a casual study of China's pronouncements and policies in and with regards to Tibet clearly reflects this position.

The paramount concern of China is the unity of the Peoples Republic of China, and the Dalai Lama is committed to not seeking independence. Theoretically, China claims to have given the Tibetan people autonomous statusand the PRC Constitution provides such guarantees. Mind you, autonomous status is not limited to those Tibetans living within the boundaries of the Tibet Autonomous Region, but applies equally to the majority of Tibetans who live in other parts of Tibet. What is required is a reexamination of those Constitutional provisions and the enactment of changes that would meet the legitimate concerns and fulfill the aspirations of the Tibetan people, and which also reflect the commitments made to the Tibetan people by Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlal, Hu Yaobang and Deng Xiaoping and others.

I am saying that not only is His Holiness not seeking independence, but the solution can be found within the Constitution of the People's Republic of China.

Therefore I strongly urge Chinese leaders, and once again seek the support of the international community, including this Congress and the administration to find an amicable solution for Tibet before it becomes too late. In particular I urge the Chinese leaders to break this vicious circle and resolve our differences through dialogue and negotiations.

If the Chinese continue to stonewall all efforts of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated settlement for Tibet within the framework of the People's Republic of China and continue to insist that the Tibetans in Tibet are happy and contented -- a view which the Tibetan people and the international community contest -- then the only solution may be to have a fair and free referendum to ascertain the true wishes of the Tibetan people.

If the result of such a referendum affirms China's claim that the Tibetans are happy and contented, the His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be the happiest person of all. His fight is not for the restoration of his privileges and powers. He has made it repeatedly clear in a very categorical manner that he will neither seek nor hold any official position once the Tibet issue is resolved.

Let me clearly state that I am not, at this stage, calling for such a referendum. These are my own thoughts, but rationally I see such a path as the only alternative if there is no movement on the issue in the near future. His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the leadership in exile continue to be committed to finding a negotiated settlement within the framework of the People's Republic of China as I have stated over and over in this testimony.

END

LOAD-DATE: April 8, 2000

Document 207 of 374.


Search Terms: Permanent Normal Trade Relations, House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: