Posted By Josh Rogin Share

Earlier this year, the self-immolation of one Tunisian fruit vendor sparked a region-wide series of revolutions that upended autocrats around the Middle East. Meanwhile, no less than 10 Tibetan monks have set themselves on fire this year to protest Chinese repression in their homeland, but the international community has yet to take notice.

Lobsang Sangay, the newly-elected prime minister of Tibet's government-in-exile, is in Washington this week to raise awareness of the dire human rights situation in Tibet and to call for U.S. support. He'll be meeting with senators, congressmen, and NGO leaders to educate them on the deteriorating situation in Tibet, but he has not been granted any meetings with senior Obama administration officials -- presumably due to their fear of creating friction in the relationship with China. He sat down Monday for a long, exclusive interview with The Cable.

"The urgent message is the ongoing self-immolations," Sangay said. "That reflects the desperate state that Tibetans are in. They are forced to take such drastic action, which is really sad. The motivation is that they want to highlight the oppressive policies of the Chinese government.... It's tragic."

He met with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a long time supporter of the Tibetan cause, and plans to meet with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), and others. He will also speak on Wednesday at the National Press Club and testify before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA).

Sangay is hoping Congress will pass a resolution expressing solidarity with the Tibetan people and criticizing the repressive Chinese policies. He is also building support for his effort to provide funding that will help young Tibetans in exile receive an education in India and Nepal. Overall, he is simply hoping to highlight to Washington the worsening plight of Tibetans inside China.

"Many people are giving up their lives thinking the international community will come and hear their voices and support them," he said. "A resolution from Congress will send a message to Tibetans that their sacrifice is not in vain."

He also wants the Obama administration to put pressure on the Chinese government to improve the situation in Tibet. Sangay said the administration has raised the issue "in general" with Chinese leaders, but that he's not aware of any formal, concrete action by the administration on this issue.

The list of Chinese aggressive policies in Tibet is long, Sangay said, including economic marginalization, cultural assimilation, environmental destruction, and political repression. The crackdown on dissent has been increased, particularly in monastic communities, since the Tibetan uprising of 2008.

"Inside Tibet, they are giving up their lives and saying ‘Hear us. We are in a terrible situation and it's not worth living. We want you to acknowledge that you see us and you hear us,'" Sangay said. "So to acknowledge their suffering and to raise their aspirations and concerns, also to the Chinese government, that would go a long way."

We pressed Sangay to comment on the perception that the Obama administration has mistreated the Tibetan government-in-exile -- for example, by downgrading the location and publicity of Obama's meetings with the Dalai Lama and, in one case in Feb. 2010, making the Dalai Lama leave through a back door of the White House and walk past garbage in order to avoid the press.

"If we could have a result-oriented action, that would be most welcome. But a public display of support [by the Obama administration] has a symbolic meaning because that would encourage other countries to follow suit," he said. "We welcome both public and private gestures and public gestures have added significance."

He said the Chinese government is moving thousands of ethnically Han Chinese into Tibet to change the demographics of the region, and is installing party apparatchiks inside Tibetan monasteries under the rubric of "democratic management committees." He also said that an undeclared martial law has resulted in scores of Tibetans being arbitrarily arrested under trumped-up charges and then often disappeared altogether.

"When you read accounts of Chinese action in Africa, it looks like a replication of what is happening in Tibet," Sangay said, alleging that Tibet's water and other natural resources are being diverted out of the region. "Ten major rivers of Asia, which feed about one-third or more of the world's population, flow through Tibet.... You can call water the ‘white gold of the 21st century' and the Chinese are controlling that. It's affecting millions of people in Asia and creating a lot of tension."

So why hasn't the Tibetan crisis gotten as much world attention as the Arab Spring? In short, Sangay said that Chinese censorship and the isolation of the Tibetan community has impaired its ability to broadcast news of its plight.

"That's why I'm here, to make sure that these sacrifices do not go in vain," Sangay said, emphasizing that his government does not encourage self-immolation but feels a duty to speak up for protesters once they have acted.

The Chinese government doesn't recognize Sangay's government and often accuses him of promoting "anti-China splittist activities."

The Chinese government has sought to nominate the next Dalai Lama, a selection that Tibet's spiritual leaders said on Sept. 24 belongs to the current Dalai Lama alone. Sangay denounced China's position as ironic, given its denunciation of the Dalai Lama.

"It's a declared communist party, which believes that religion is poison.... They call the Dalai Lama the devil and they ban his photograph. So they want to choose the devil's incarnate?" Sangay said.

Sangay is not your typical prime minister-in-exile because, following the Dalai Lama's decision to transfer all political authority to the prime minister, he won the first really competitive race for the post. Before that, he spent 15 years in the United States, including time as a fellow at Harvard Law School, where he organized several meetings between Tibetan and Chinese scholars.

Sangay is committed to what's known as the "Middle Way," which refers to a call for Tibet's political autonomy and religious freedom but not independence from China. He sees a model in the example of Hong Kong, which is part of China but operates in its own way.

"I have a track record of someone who invests and believes in dialogue and I've met with hundreds of Chinese scholars," he said. "Many Chinese scholars do believe the Tibet issue is solvable because our demands are quite reasonable. It's the hard liners at the leadership level that are yet to come around."

He also said that the Tibetan issue is a matter of ethnic tolerance in China.

"They are willing to grant autonomy to Hong Kong and Macau because they are Han Chinese ... why they are not granting Tibetans autonomy is because they are Tibetans," he said. "Unless the leadership believes in diversity, they will never understand democracy.... Once they grant autonomy to Tibet, they will come around to embrace diversity, which will be the beginning of the real democratization of China."

AFP/Getty Images

 

EKASHA

2:10 AM ET

November 3, 2011

comment above

The comment by "Don Bacon" is clearly made by someone Chinese or on behalf of China! Why else would someone support a powerful country taking over a peaceful country without any provocation??? China is slowly inching it's way into all it's neighboring countries!

 

BETALOVER

11:13 PM ET

November 28, 2011

trees and rocks have a prime minister

"They are willing to grant autonomy to Hong Kong and Macau because they are Han Chinese ... why they are not granting Tibetans autonomy is because they are Tibetans," he said. "Unless the leadership believes in diversity, they will never understand democracy.... Once they grant autonomy to Tibet, they will come around to embrace diversity, which will be the beginning of the real democratization of China."

It makes sense to grant autonomy to HK and Macao because in these places there is no clan mentality that tends to separate the Chinese people permanently.

It does not make actual sense to grant autonomy to Tibet because in the long run a country should promote assimilation. While effort to promote assimilation should start as soon as possible, the process of assimilation should be acknowledged as slow and multi-generational by necessity.

It makes sense also because human beings need freedom to be happy, while human beings do not need ethnicity to be happy. This should be self-evident to any rootless white Americans in our white melting pot.

The more progressive USA promotes assimilation by coercive busing of all children, including unwilling (of parents) black children. 85% of black parents elected to send their kids to segregated all-black schools.

The more progressive USA, the US Senate, rejected the Akaka Bill of 2000 that could have granted the Hawaiians cultural autonomy, citing the American “tradition of assimilation”. I completely agree with the US Senate on rejecting the Akaka Bill, not because there is really a “tradition of assimilation”, but because we have to begin to establish such a tradition starting from 2000.

What is diversity? The more I want to embrace a diversity, the more I will destroy the cultural diversity that he or she used to represent, in love and procreation of the next generation. My brother is a tree-hugger, I am for drill baby drill. This is what diversity means in a country, not clan mentality based on ancestral heritage. My brother and I are not of a different clan.

The USA has no business suggesting that China designs to preserve any ethnic culture within China.

Tibet is a part of China per diplomatic recognition of all the countries, including the USA. This is an established diplomatic reality that has nothing to do with China’s recent growth and economic prowess.

The Tibetans in exile might as well be trees and rocks when it comes to having a "prime minister".

 

BETALOVER

11:44 PM ET

November 28, 2011

Viewing Tibetan serfdom in particular

Tibet is a part of China per diplomatic recognition. This is the main thrust.

However, as an adjunct, if one wishes to lament on the Tibetan situation, one should choose from two combinations: Tibet is independent and serfdom is preserved, OR, Tibet is a part of China and the Chinese government thus has the right to design for and impose social change within its border.

Tibet was a sociological sewer before the central government implemented social change.

That perhaps now under the limelight Tibet may become more just society without China is irrelevant.

One cannot choose from one item from each combination and then lambaste China. Such will neither be constructive nor reasonable.

White Americans at home, in their dealings with minorities, should do away with the whole idea of preserving minority culture and extend this concept worldwide. What the minority youth wants, ultimately, be he Chinese, black, Hispanic or native, is not his culture, but you or your blonde daughters, simply and succinctly put. “Going back to Africa” used to be a yearning, and then it becomes an insult, to be replaced by “where are the white women at”. This is a sociologically natural phenomenon, without any political correctness.

The Tibetan cultural identity will be eroded in a similar way. There is little to lament objectively, but minority adults are often subjective in thinking.

 

BETALOVER

8:25 PM ET

November 30, 2011

HK autonomy: 37 more years or so.

Moreover, HK's autonomy was for 50 years and is due to expire in 2047.

The idea was that due to history HK and the rest of China were at two levels in economically (admittedly) and politcally. The hope is that after 50 years the two sides will be closer in economic and political development; hence HK autonomy for 50 years.

Suppose China gives real autonomy to Tibet for 50 years, what will happen after 50 years? Tibet and the rest of China will not be closer, else the Tibetans in exile will not find autonomy useful.

Autonomy for Tibet is inherently different to that for HK; the former is a plan to heighten separation afterward, the latter serves as a buffer for later social and economic integration.

 

BETALOVER

9:39 PM ET

November 30, 2011

What dire human rights situation?

"Lobsang Sangay, the newly-elected prime minister of Tibet's government-in-exile, is in Washington this week to raise awareness of the dire human rights situation in Tibet and to call for U.S. support."

Nike's ad is right, "just do it". The Tibetan language is allowed in China.

In the USA, an ethnic person can choose to preserve a culture, one person for one generation, if he insists on doing so. A Jew can remain a Jew to the extent that his children will be exposed to choices from Gentiles. Likewise, a Tibetan can choose to preserve his culture one person for one generation.

The problem comes when this is viewed as not enough. When an ethnic people seeks to carve-off a large space, tens or hundreds or thousands of square miles, to isolate their offspring from the majority’s cultural influence, based on the claim of nativity, there is going to be a problem. No progressive country can allow this form of segregation.

Our insistence that China seeks to preserve the Tibetan culture by autonomy, segregation no matter how euphemistically called, is simply un-American.

The Tibetan cultural identity is supposed to be eroded. Erosion of ethnic identity is a part of social progress in any country, the USA and China , whatever.

 

John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner