U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–615 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

THE STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN CHINA

AND TIBET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000

Serial No. 106–137

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

PAUL H. BERKOWITZ, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel

NICOLLE A. SESTRIC, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES

Page

The Honorable Julia V. Taft, U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues,

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Populations, Refugees and Migration, U.S.

Department of State ............................................................................................ 4

Lodi G. Gyari, Special Envoy, His Holiness The Dalai Lama ............................. 21

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from New

York and Chairman, Committee on International Relations ........................... 32

Julia V. Taft ............................................................................................................. 35

Lodi G. Gyari ........................................................................................................... 47

Additional material:

Statement of H.H. the Dalai Lama on the 41st Anniversary of the Tibetan

National Uprising ................................................................................................ 43

Response by Assistant Secretary Taft to additional question submitted by

Representative Douglas Bereuter ....................................................................... 57

Response by Assistant Secretary Taft to additional question submitted by

Representative Sam Gejdenson ........................................................................... 86

(1)

THE STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN

CHINA AND TIBET

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. Committee will come to order. During this

past year, conditions inside Tibet have been the worst since the

cultural revolution. Religious freedom in Tibet has been increasingly restrictive and political activity has been met with swift, certain and severe repercussions. Increased numbers of monks, nuns

and laypeople are making the dangerous journey across the

Himalayas to freedom in India. Many of them have died along the

way. Once they do arrive, they have had to have limbs amputated

because of frostbite and gangrene. In addition, many refugees have

been captured by the Chinese military and they never resurfaced.

Many have been beaten and robbed, tortured and imprisoned by

the PLA.

As conditions worsen inside Tibet, the government in Beijing

fails to recognize the opportunity that His Holiness the Dalai Lama

represents for a peaceful settlement to the problem.

Instead of accepting the fact that he offers a simple, moderate

and workable solution to the status of Tibet by his willingness to

accept Tibetan autonomy within China, the Chinese Government

falsely accuses him of seeking independence and being personally

concerned about his own future role in Tibet. Beijing has refused

to negotiate with His Holiness or his representatives, even though

he has made it perfectly clear that he is not seeking the restoration

of Tibet’s rightful independent status.

Although we believe that Tibet deserves nothing less than the

complete restoration of its full independence, we reluctantly support His Holiness’ efforts for autonomy, and I hope that it will help

the Tibetan people and their culture to survive.

It is regrettable that the Chinese leaders believe that by manipulating the enthronement of a few religious leaders and by waiting

until His Holiness grows old and dies, that eventually they will

control Tibet, and then Tibet’s international support. Such a rationale is illogical and certainly ignores reality.

The ridiculous image of atheists involving themselves in appointing religious leaders does not enhance the peace, but it is ludicrous

and an embarrassment to the Chinese culture that, for centuries,

2

deeply respected Buddhist teachings. It is a detriment to China’s

efforts to appear as a legitimate world leader and to be taken seriously as partners in bringing about peace and stability in Asia or

elsewhere. Time is certainly not on Beijing’s side. Nations around

the world do not support the Tibetan people because of one man.

The Tibetan cause enjoys the global support that it does because

it is a courageous attempt by a Nation and a people who are trying

to regain what is rightfully theirs by throwing off the repression of

colonization. It is in the interest of international stability to have

Tibet once again serve as it had for 2000 years as a buffer zone

strategically placed between India and China.

It is said that the greatest threat to peace in Asia are the tensions between India and Pakistan. However, the source of that potentially devastating nuclear war is China’s gobbling up of Tibet,

a vast Nation on India’s northern border, that is the size of Western Europe and a quarter of China’s land mass. Now that Beijing

shares a long border with India, it tries to keep India off balance

by transferring nuclear weapons to Pakistan, and while Pakistan

causes problems on India’s Western border, China has been currying favor with the Burmese military government on India’s eastern border by sending them nearly $2 billion of arms.

During the Second World War, Burma was called the back door

to India by both the British and the Japanese. For the past three

decades, China has steadily increased its political, military and economic influence in Burma, and on the southern tip of India, China

overwhelmingly remains Sri Lanka’s main supplier of arms.

In a recently published book entitled War at the Top of the

World, its author, Eric Margolis, points out:

Most worrisome to India, though, is the steady increase of Chinese military power on the Tibetan plateau which confronts India

with the specter of simultaneously facing serious strategic threats

on its western, northern and eastern borders. This fear has led Indian strategists and politicians to warn that India was being surrounded by a hostile coalition of forces directed and armed by

China.

He went on to say, ‘‘By the early 1990’s China had deployed

500,000 soldiers, a quarter of its standing Army, on the Tibetan

plateau, half of them based on the border between India and Tibet,

half in central Tibet. Four additional Chinese armies, each the

equivalent of a 60,000-man army corps, were based in areas of

China that are geographically suited to support operations from

Tibet against India by delivering flanking attacks or providing follow on reinforcements.’’

Ever since occupying Tibet in 1950, the PLA has worked feverishly to build networks of all weather roads, crisscrossing Tibet—

two other major roads that lead to Pakistan and Nepal, which border India. The new road system allows China to move large military formations swiftly along the entire length of the Indian border,

affording Chinese generals the ability to concentrate mutually supporting armies almost anywhere along the Tibetan frontier. A

chain of permanent bases, many with huge underground storage

sites and heavy-fixed fortifications lead to rear echelons by good

roads, has been extended like a new great wall along the length of

the border with India.

3

The author went on to say that China has constructed 14 major

air bases on the Tibetan Plateau and a score of tactical airstrips.

These bases give the Chinese Air Force unquestionable domination

of Tibet’s air space, the forward edge of battle in the event of war,

and the capability, for the first time, to fly sustained combat operations over India’s north and strike all of India’s northern cities,

including Dehli, Bombay and Calcutta. Chinese electronic intelligence atop the plateau also confers an important advantage of

combat information and battle management in any air war.

The author goes on to conclude:

‘‘But of all China’s military emplacements on the Tibetan plateau, by far, the most alarming to India, is an extensive series of

missile bases and nuclear installations. At least 25 medium-range

ballistic missiles are based in Tibet, as well as a sizable number

of shorter range tactical missiles, all carrying nuclear warheads.

India’s heartland and many of its major cities are now in range of

Chinese missiles.’’

China’s dangerous expansion in Tibet and meddling in south

Asia has brought the region to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe.

The State Department and the Administration have failed to understand the dynamics behind all this tension and continues to

focus on Kashmir, as if it is a localized and isolated phenomenon

between Pakistan and India, refusing to sanction China for violating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty by transferring their

nuclear material to Pakistan. Instead, the Administration has been

asking India to forego nuclear arms.

We have seen no indication by the Administration’s policymakers

that they understand the significance of China’s occupation of Tibet

and how a resolution of that problem could defuse the serious tensions in that region.

We are told that there has been no progress made to ensure that

China will contemplate negotiating with His Holiness the Dalai

Lama, or his representatives. Accordingly, we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today to learn how this situation can be

remedied so that a disaster can be diverted and how to bring peace

to the region.

I am now pleased to recognize our Ranking Minority Member,

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with you and

share those very same concerns. I want to commend the Administration. The President and the Vice President have met with the

Dalai Lama. But all of us are frustrated by the continued attempts

at cultural genocide that go on by the Chinese in Tibet and so

many other places. The fact that there are still people arrested for

simply studying Tibetan culture or following Tibetan beliefs and

other activities is an affront to all of us, and it I think complicates

our relationship with the mainland Chinese.

I believe that the whole world—the United States frankly is better than most countries, but I don’t think we do enough—I think

the entire world needs to step forward and express its dismay and

outrage at what really has to be said is an attempt to just eradicate the Tibetans and their culture and their religion, and I look

forward to hearing from the witnesses today.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

4

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am anxious to hear

from Ms. Taft. I have no questions or comments.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. We welcome Julia Taft, who is the special coordinator for Tibetan issues,

to our House International Relations Committee. Ms. Taft was

nominated as assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration back in September 1997 and has been a leading authority on refugee and humanitarian affairs, held a number

of senior positions in both government and the private sector. She

was president and CEO of interaction, an American council for voluntary international action, and a coalition of a number of U.S.-

based private voluntary organizations.

The refugee resettlement program which Ms. Taft has directed

has brought more than 130 thousand Indochinese into our Nation.

We welcome assistant Secretary Julia Taft. You may put your full

statement in the record and summarize or whichever way you

deem appropriate. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JULIA V. TAFT, U.S. SPECIAL

COORDINATOR FOR TIBETAN ISSUES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES AND MIGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. TAFT. Thank you very much, sir. I am delighted to be here,

my second opportunity to testify on the issues of Tibet. I was appointed just a little over a year ago and have had, since that time,

two real policy goals. The first has been to try to promote a substantive dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai

Lama and his representatives, and second, to try to find ways to

sustain Tibet’s unique religious, linguistic and cultural heritage.

Mr. Chairman, as you and your colleagues know, disputes over

Tibet’s relations with the Chinese government have had a long and

complex history. Recognizing that this is your third hearing on

Tibet, I do not propose to summarize again that history. Instead,

I would rather talk about the current circumstances in Tibet, talk

a little bit about the developments over the past year and what I

have been doing since my appointment.

As the Department of State’s human rights report on China for

1999 makes clear, tight controls on religion and other fundamental

freedoms continued and intensified during a year in which there

were very many sensitive anniversaries and events. This year’s report documents in detail the widespread human rights and religious freedom abuses which you noted in your opening statement.

Besides instances of arbitrary arrests, detention without public

trial and torture in prison, there also has been an intensification

of controls over Tibetan monasteries and on the monks and nuns.

Religious activities have been severely disrupted throughout the

continuation of the government’s patriotic education campaign that

aims to expel supporters of the Dalai Lama from the monasteries

and views the monasteries as a focus of antiChina separatist activity.

2905 Tibetans left Tibet last year, approximately a third of whom

escaped these campaigns and sought to receive religious teachings

in India. In fact, two of Tibet’s most prominent religious figures

5

have left Tibet during the past 18 months reportedly for these reasons. One was the recent departure of the 14-year old Karmapa,

leader of the Kagyu sect and the third most revered leader in Tibetan Buddhism. He actually arrived in Dehli the day before I arrived and that was quite an interesting experience to be in India

at the same time he had arrived.

The second major religious leader that left Tibet was the Agya

Rinpoche, who was the former abbot of Kumbum monastery. He

was a senior Tibetan religious figure and an official at the deputy

minister level. He left China in November 1998, and he is now in

the United States. The reasons for his departure were also related

to increased government pressure on the monastery, his monastery

Kumbum, which included the stationing of 45 government officials

there, imposition of patriotic re-education and a heightened role demanded of him by authorities that he recognize the Chinese designated Panchen Lama, Ghaltsen Norbu. He did not accept those

conditions and left China.

Although China has devoted substantial economic resources to

Tibet over the past 20 years, it remains China’s poorest region.

Language problems severely limit educational opportunities for Tibetan students, and illiteracy rates are said to be rising sharply.

The average life span of Tibetans is reportedly dropping, infant

mortality is climbing and most nonurban children are reportedly

malnourished.

Recent reports suggest that the privatization of health care, increased emphasis on Chinese language curriculum and the continuing Han migration into Tibet are all weakening the social and

economic position of Tibet’s indigenous population. Lacking the

skills to compete with Han laborers, the ethnic Tibetans are not

participating in the region’s economic boom. In fact, rapid economic

growth and expanding tourism and the introduction of more modern cultural influences have also disrupted the traditional living

patterns and customs and have caused environmental problems all

have really threatened the traditional Tibetan culture.

In Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan autonomous region, the Chinese cultural presence is most obvious and widespread. I am sure

your staffers who will be going there later this month will see that

there is widespread Chinese architectural infusions in buildings.

The Chinese language is widely spoken and this is all the result

of large numbers of ethnic Han Chinese who have gone for economic assistance and incentives in the region. Some observers estimate the nonTibetan population of the city to be roughly 90 percent. The Chinese say it is only five percent, but then they don’t

add in the number of temporary Han residents, which include the

military and the paramilitary troops and all of their dependents. So

we are looking at a capital of Tibet——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Could you go through those numbers again because you said your estimate was 90 and that the government’s

was only five.

Ms. TAFT. No, thank you for asking for clarification. There are

some observers who estimate that the nonTibetan population of

Lhasa is roughly 90 percent. The government has said just the opposite. They say 95 percent of the population is actually Tibetan,

but what they don’t calculate in there is the huge number of miliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:37 Nov 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66615.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
6

tary and paramilitary with their dependents. So if you add those

into it, we believe that the ninety percent nonTibetan is about the

right estimate.

Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield for another question?

The first figure is for Lhasa and the second figure is for Tibet? Is

that correct?

Ms. TAFT. No. They are both for Lhasa.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

Ms. TAFT. Reports indicate that increased economic development

combined with the influx of migrants has contributed to an increase of prostitution in the region. We are very concerned about

that obviously, particularly because the prostitution reportedly occurs in sites owned by the party or the government under military

protection. The incidence of HIV among prostitutes in Tibet is unknown, but is believed to be relatively high.

Because of the deterioration of the Chinese Government’s human

rights record, the U.S. Government announced on January 12 our

intention to introduce a resolution focusing international attention

on China’s human rights record at this session of the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. We are working

very hard with other nations to defeat China’s anticipated no action motion and to pass the resolution. I was just in Geneva working on this last week and we hope that we will be able to get adequate discussion and support for our resolution.

Our criticism of China’s human rights practices reflects core values of the American people and widely shared international norms:

freedom of religion, conscience, expression, association and assembly. These rights are enshrined in international human rights instruments, including the international covenant on civil and political rights, which China has signed but has not ratified nor implemented.

In addition to utilizing multilateral human rights fora, President

Clinton and Secretary Albright have continued to use every available opportunity to urge the Chinese leadership to enter into a substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. As

you know, President Jiang Zemin indicated to President Clinton

during their June 1998 summit in Beijing that he would be willing

to engage in such a dialogue if the Dalai Lama affirmed that Tibet

and Taiwan are part of China. Despite our repeated efforts

throughout the year to foster such a dialogue and the willingness

expressed by the Dalai Lama, the Chinese leadership has not followed up on Jiang’s remarks to the President. There is no dialogue

and it doesn’t look as though the prospects are very good. Nevertheless, we remain committed to implementing our vigorous advocacy on this and to try to build on the Dalai Lama’s real resolve

and willingness to engage with the Chinese.

We have also continued to raise individual cases of concern. Most

notable is the issue of welfare and whereabouts of Gendhun

Cheokyi Nyima, the Panchen Lama designated by the Dalai Lama.

He and his parents have been held incommunicado now for nearly

5 years. On April the 10th, he will have his 11th birthday.

Last year we received disturbing and unconfirmed reports that

the boy had died in Gansu province and that he was cremated in

secrecy. Our embassy in Beijing made formal representations exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:37 Nov 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66615.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
7

pressing concern about his whereabouts and his welfare. Although

the reports of his death were unsubstantiated and thought to be

untrue by the Tibetan exile community, the U.S. Administration

publicly urged the Chinese Government to address continuing concerns of the international community about the safety and wellbeing of the child and demanded that the child and his family be

able to be received by credible international visitors and to be returned home freely. To this day we have gotten no satisfaction from

the Chinese Government, and they have refused to allow direct

confirmation of his well-being.

In response to an inquiry from Congress, the Chinese Government acknowledged the whereabouts and earlier ill health of

Ngawang Choephel, the Tibetan ethnomusicologist and former

Middlebury College Fulbright scholar, who was incarcerated in

1996 and is now serving an 18-year sentence on charges of subversion. We have repeatedly urged the Chinese Government to allow

his mother to visit him during his incarceration. It is her right

under Chinese prison law, and it has not been granted. We did find

out he was ill and we said not only should his mother be allowed

to visit him, but also that he should be released immediately on

medical grounds as a humanitarian gesture. He has not been released, and I think they are intending to keep him incarcerated

until 2013.

Over the past year I have made a point to learn as much as I

can about Tibetan issues so that I can ensure the effective presentation of these issues in our U.S.-China bilateral discussions. I

have maintained close contact with the Dalai Lama’s special envoy

to Washington, Lodi Gyari, and I have requested meetings with the

Chinese Ambassador. However, I have never once been granted a

meeting. I am hopeful that this year I will be able to sit down with

the Ambassador and discuss the Chinese Government’s views on

the social, political and economic issues related to Tibet.

I have met with scores of people from many countries sympathetic to the Tibetan issues, government officials, people from foundations and academia, experts in U.S.-China relations and NGO officials. There is a huge constituency out there, informed, committed, wanting to be of assistance to the Tibetan people.

As I am the only special coordinator for Tibetan issues in the

world, I get lonesome at times. We have been working actively with

many other countries to see if they, too, would designate coordinators on the Tibetan issues so we can build a network and share information and strategies. In fact, last week I just returned from

Brussels, where the European Parliament held an all-party parliamentarian session on Tibet to discuss multilateral efforts and how

we can best coordinate future strategies. Coming out of that all

parliamentary meeting was not only a call on the part of the EU

and host governments to establish focal points on Tibet, but also

to endorse the U.S. resolution on China.

In January, I visited Dharamsala, India, in my capacity as assistant Secretary for population, refugees and migration. I was

there to evaluate the $2 million of assistance programs that we

fund for Tibet and the refugees.

It was a wonderful experience. You have been there Mr. Chairman, to be able to meet the Tibetans in exile and the central TiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:37 Nov 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66615.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
8

betan administration. I was also overwhelmed by the tremendous

community that is out there and especially the spirit of the younger generation. One of the things that was particularly striking was

to learn that nearly the entire Central Tibetan Administration is

made up of Fulbright scholars. These bright young adults undoubtedly had many more lucrative opportunities to work in the States

or Europe or India, but 96 percent of them have returned to Tibetan settlements to make their talents available to the CTA.

Equally impressive is how traditional Tibetan culture is integrated

into the daily life.

I went to Nepal in November to meet the new arrivals that had

just come over from Tibet. They were all traumatized. They were

sick. They had suffered such a hardship and I was very anxious on

my trip in January in Dharmasala to see the next stage of their

reception because this is something that the U.S. Government also

funds, not only the reception center in Nepal, but also the one in

India. During the visit, there were hundreds of refugees. They were

quiet, but they at least were animated. They looked healthy. They

were optimistic about their new experiences and being safely in

India. Many were wearing the new shoes and dark pants they had

received at the reception center in Kathmandu. I think the funds

that we are able to provide, thanks to congressional appropriations,

does bring them not only food and clothing and income-generating

projects, it also brings them hope. I am also exploring ways that

foundations and NGO’s can expand their support for these people

who have arrived in India.

I have met twice with the Dalai Lama over the past year and

look forward to seeing him this summer when he comes to Washington for the Smithsonian Folk Life Festival. During the meetings

I have had with him, he has reiterated his concern about the

marginalization of the Tibetan people living in Tibet and requested

that I devote attention to finding ways to improve the lives of those

who are there, particularly through culturally sustainable enterprises. We will use well the million dollars that Congress has appropriated for activities to preserve cultural traditions and promote

sustainable development and the environmental conservation in

Tibet.

I will be prepared to answer questions that you have about that,

but you have before you a congressional notification in which

$750,000 would be given to the Bridge Fund for several agricultural and microcredit initiatives and the remaining $250,000 would

be made available for other qualifying NGO’s.

In conclusion, I want to say that the treatment of Tibetans by

the Chinese Government over the past 50 years has been inconsistent with international norms and standards of respect for fundamental human rights. His Holiness has shown enormous courage

in accepting the impracticality of insisting on independence for

Tibet and has instead called for genuine autonomy within Chinese

sovereignty. Chinese spokesmen have responded by stating their

willingness to engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama if he renounces independence and proindependence activities. He has done

so. The dialogue should proceed.

We also believe that there is significant Chinese interest that

could be advanced in moving forward on Tibetan autonomy. The

9

Dalai Lama is still active and healthy. His prestige will be crucial

in carrying the opinion of the Diaspora and most Tibetans in the

autonomous regions. Only he can ensure the successful and peaceful implementation of a negotiated settlement.

Conversely, maintaining order over an unhappy population is a

drain on the resources of China which is still a developing country.

Widespread knowledge of China’s human rights offenses in Tibet

has brought about pressure on China’s leadership to explain its

Tibet policy to the international community. My impression is that

the situation in Tibet deeply troubles China’s international partners and foreign leaders and that this is affecting diplomatic engagement between China and Western countries.

It is my sincere hope that this year will bring about a dialogue

that we can all hope will mean new life and a return of the Tibetans in exile to an autonomous Tibet in China.

With those opening comments, let me thank you again, sir, for

having me. I look forward to answering any questions you all might

have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taft appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Secretary Taft, and we appreciate

your extensive review of the situation.

Secretary Taft, when the importance of negotiations between Beijing and His Holiness and his representatives is discussed within

the Administration, is it ever spoken of in terms of helping to

defuse tensions in south Asia? Does the Administration take the

view that the pressure India confronts from Chinese nuclear weaponry in Pakistan is related to China’s occupation of Tibet? Is Tibet

only perceived to be a human rights and cultural issue?

Ms. TAFT. I would like to have a more full answer provided to

you by our assistant Secretary for south Asia, Karl Inderfurth, and

I will get that. I must say that the dealings that I have on the

Tibet issue are mostly on the human rights, the cultural preservation and the moral question. The nuclear perspective, and the military perspective are not ones in which I have been involved. I am

sure there are very perhaps closely held discussions about that, but

the Tibet issue did come up during President Clinton’s visit to

India, and I will get a confidential report to you on the nature of

that.

Chairman GILMAN. If you could forward it to our Committee, we

would like to distribute it to our Members. You mentioned in your

testimony that you had made a request to meet with the Chinese

Ambassador, and you have been denied that opportunity; is that

correct?

Ms. TAFT. That is correct, several times.

Chairman GILMAN. When was the date of the latest request just

approximately?

Ms. TAFT. Was February the time—in February.

Chairman GILMAN. How many times had you made an appeal?

Ms. TAFT. The first time I requested it was right after we had

our hearing last year, and you said go ask for it, and I went and

asked for it. It took several weeks before even an aid would call

back my assistant on this. We have had the State Department ask

for it. Susan Shirk has asked for it, several Senators have asked

for it, and we have also put it in writing six times.

10

Chairman GILMAN. What is the response? No response?

Ms. TAFT. No response. When I asked for my visa to go visit

China, we did get a response.

Chairman GILMAN. They allowed you to do that?

Ms. TAFT. No, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. They denied you.

Ms. TAFT. They said the timing was not convenient.

Chairman GILMAN. I am going to ask my staff to put a letter together and ask my colleagues who may want to join us in criticizing and objecting to the People’s Republic of China denying a

leading official of our State Department the opportunity to at least

sit and talk about the problem and denying you access to China.

So I am going to make certain that we do that.

You mentioned the congressional notification for the Bridge Fund

and some other programs. It was our understanding that all of

those funds were to go to the Bridge Fund. Why was the decision

made not to make all of the funds available to the Bridge Fund,

and could you explain that Bridge Fund a little more for us,

Madam Secretary?

Ms. TAFT. I would be delighted to. The Bridge Fund is a wonderful enterprise. It has been working for several years in the Tibetan

region doing microenterprise activities, agricultural enhancements,

juice factories, a yak wool production, and they have a very solid

base there. Last year Congress earmarked money for the first time,

a million dollars for programs in China, and when we read the legislation, I will repeat it here because I know this is of concern, it

said—‘‘. . . $1 million shall be made available to nongovernmental

organizations located outside of the People’s Republic of China to

support activities which preserve the cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in

Tibetan communities in that country.’’

There also is, later in the text, a reference to the Bridge Fund.

When we were trying to figure out what to do with this, we were

a little stymied with the reference to making the funds available

to nongovernmental organizations. The Bridge Fund was not written into the legislation per se. For this reason, I wanted to get the

money out as quickly as possible because there are some very timesensitive projects for the spring that are necessary. I thought what

we should do is, as we did in the CN, allocate three quarters of it

to the Bridge Fund immediately, and then see if there were other

NGO’s that would be available.

If it is the sense of this Committee that all of it should go to the

Bridge Fund, please indicate that to us. We will be glad to do that.

I have not had any other organizations come forward requesting

money. So my sense is that if we don’t hear in a couple of months

from any other qualifying NGO’s, the balance should go to the

Bridge Fund. But I am—it is your earmark. Whatever guidance

you have on this we would welcome.

Chairman GILMAN. Madam Secretary, has the Administration

made any progress in helping to arrange for a meeting between the

People’s Republic of China, their officials and Tibetan officials?

Ms. TAFT. We have made no progress, but at every single bilateral meeting, every trip that any official takes to China it is on the

agenda. It is discussed, and China keeps saying now is not the

11

right time or that His Holiness is not willing to engage. I think Mr.

Gyari will have some more specifics about this, but it is a very,

very frustrating time for us because there was so much optimism

in 1998. Last year, however, there were so many sensitive anniversaries with the 40 years since the Dalai Lama left. China had the

Tiannamen Square 10-year anniversary. There was the bombing of

the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and it was not a good year. So

I am hoping that is all behind us and that this year 2000 will be

more optimistic. It really is in China’s interest to launch this dialogue, and yet the ball is in their court.

Chairman GILMAN. When you are urging your colleagues in the

Administration to help you bring the Chinese and Tibetans together for negotiations, do you point out that a resolution to the

Tibetan problem would help stabilize the region?

Ms. TAFT. Absolutely, absolutely.

Chairman GILMAN. We want to thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of Tibet. I wish more nations would appoint a similar official as yourself so you wouldn’t be a lonely advocate in global meetings.

Ms. TAFT. I feel like the Maytag repairman waiting for the phone

to ring, but I think they will. We are very much looking forward

to expanding our network, particularly with the European countries.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,

good morning.

Ms. TAFT. Good morning.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking you

and Ranking Member Gejdenson for holding this hearing today,

and I would also like to acknowledge and thank Assistant Secretary Taft for her work as Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.

Welcome to the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the tragic occupation of Tibet gets to the heart of

why the defense of human rights around the globe is so important,

not only to Members of Congress, but to the American people. As

I wrote to President Clinton just last week, I consider what the

Chinese authorities have done and are presently doing in Tibet,

their efforts to erase all traces of Tibetan culture to be a crime

against humanity, and that is why I am pleased that the United

States has introduced a resolution on China’s human rights practices at the 56th session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights

that is presently meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. I believe our Nation has a moral responsibility to actively secure support for that

resolution at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and to ensure

its passage.

It is my understanding, Madam Secretary, that last year many

of our closest European partners voted against a resolution censuring China’s human rights record. If that is so, at the end of my

question I would be interested in your comments about that. Clearly China’s efforts this year to thwart the passage of our resolution

citing its poor human rights record cannot be justified. I urge you

Madam Secretary to ensure that our Nation’s representatives in

Geneva serve notice to our allies in Europe and elsewhere that ChiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:37 Nov 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66615.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
12

na’s oppressive rule over Tibet has not gone unnoticed by the

American people and that it is of grave concern to the American

people and jeopardizes any semblance of a normal relationship between the people of America and the people of China. It would be

a shame and a setback to the cause of human rights in China for

our resolution in Geneva to fail, due to a lack of support by America’s European allies or anyone else.

Having said that, Madam Secretary, I would be interested to

know what efforts are presently being made by our Administration

to ensure passage of our resolution in Geneva.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you for your support of the resolution and support of our various initiatives. There are two steps that we have

to go through to get the resolution discussed and hopefully passed.

The first is even getting it considered. Last year when we introduced our resolution, we did not get but one or two countries to cosponsor it, and if you don’t get a large number of countries to cosponsor, then the first hurdle of whether the resolution can even

be discussed is in jeopardy.

Last year when China tried to prevent any discussion of the resolution and there was a vote on whether or not the resolution could

be tabled for discussion, the Europeans voted along with us to oppose the Chinese blockage of that. But we didn’t have enough

votes, and so therefore China prevailed in having our resolution be

just disregarded. So there never was discussion of it. Many of the

Europeans told us last year that the reason they didn’t cosponsor

it and get a surge of support at the beginning was because we introduced it or we indicated we were going to introduce a resolution

too late.

That is why this year we had 3 months lead time. We did it in

January and we sent it to all of the capitals of Europe to ask them

to cosponsor. We have followed that up with demarches. When we

thought the demarches weren’t strong enough we escalated them.

We would get the Ambassador to go in, we had the Secretary making calls. We want right now cosponsors of the resolution so that

we will be able to win on the no motion that China has promised

they are going to introduce.

If China succeeds in not allowing this resolution to even be discussed, our feeling is that it is a great disservice to the whole Commission on Human Rights because where in the world should you

be discussing human rights if not at the U.N. Commission on

Human Rights? China is the only country that has ever tried to

block discussion of its human rights record at the Human Rights

Commission. They said to us last week that they were going to

fight us to the end. We are now busily trying to get every member

of the Commission to agree that that is not fair, and to support us

against the ‘‘no motion.’’

We have yet to receive any cosponsors of our resolution but we

are working on this really hard. The Secretary personally went to

Geneva to urge support. We have been making very high level

calls. I have been spending a lot of time. Harold Koh, our assistant

Secretary for human rights, has been in Geneva for a couple of

weeks. You are right, it ought to pass.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 10 more seconds.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

13

Mr. ROTHMAN. Madam Secretary, may I just say thank you for

your efforts, and if members of this body can assist the Administration by putting together letters signed by numerous Members of

Congress, we would be happy to help.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you. The Chairman has already helped in one

of the countries, and we are very appreciative of that, and we will

give you a call. We will need your help.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Secretary, I want you to know that many

of our Members are calling on the embassies, urging them to oppose the no-motion resolution. I urge my colleagues, if you haven’t,

pick up the list from both our side of the aisle and minority side

of the aisle to make some calls.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Salmon has a

mark-up, and I have to speak on the floor right now. I will be

pleased to split my time with him. Let him ask the first question,

and I will have the second half.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, Mr. Salmon.

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. I won’t take long because I have to run

for a vote. It is a crazy life around here. I appreciate you being

here today. In regard to international relations with China, I think

this and Taiwan are the two single biggest issues that we will have

to deal with, and I just wanted to say for the record that I was

privileged about a year ago to go to Tibet to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and to speak about this very issue.

My mission was threefold. No. 1, I went to ask for the release

of Ngawang Choephel, and if not his release, that his mother visit

him. The first issue was actually the dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

The second issue was Ngawang Choephel. The third was to ask for

the release of other prisoners the State Department believes are either political or religious prisoners.

I felt that the meetings with His Holiness as well as with other

officials in China was very productive, but as we know, they operate in thousands of years cycles and not in the kinds of cycles we

operate in. It is very frustrating sometimes.

I also led a delegation at the behest of Chairman Gilman to Beijing about 2 months ago with six Congressmen, and we met with

President Jiang Zemin. It was the first issue I raised. We would

like you to start a dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and

move toward a resolution of the Tibet issue. We didn’t get immediate results on that.

But the second issue that we raised was the release of Sun Yun

Yee, the political prisoner. We all know the story. I was really

pleased that a week from that I got a call from the Ambassador,

both Ambassadors, our Ambassador and the Ambassador of China

saying, as a result of your efforts, we are releasing Sun Yun Yee,

which was very pleasing. We are still waiting for an answer on dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

But I have introduced House Resolution 389, which requests or

expresses a sense of Congress that we would like to a see formal

dialogue between His Holiness. I know that there are problems

with bits of the language from the State Department in our resolution. I know that there is all kinds of politics going on all over the

14

place. But ultimately, let us put everything behind us. We are willing to work with anybody and everybody. We are willing to work

with the State Department. We are willing to work with anybody

on this Committee, but at the end of the day we would like to see

a resolution from the Congress that says we would like to see a

dialogue between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and President Jiang

Zemin. I would appreciate any help you could give me. Thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER. Ms. Secretary, reclaiming my time or I will be

out of time. I am sure your comments will get to Mr. Salmon.

Madam Secretary, on the bottom of page two and three in your testimony, we still have the contrast in the language with what you

told me. Please reconfirm and clarify which is true with respect to

the population—the Han population of Lhasa versus Tibet.

On page 5, Madam Secretary, you have mentioned the all-party

parliamentary session on Tibet at the European Parliament. I am

very interested in that session. I would like, if you would, give us

all documents that you were given there, and we would have a

chance to submit them for the record. I would ask unanimous consent Mr. Chairman to include them in our hearing record.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Secretary, concluding my time, if you

would like to respond to Mr. Salmon for the record here and tell

me what you got out of this all-parliamentary meeting as briefly

as you can, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

[The statement appears in the appendix.]

Ms. TAFT. We will get all the documents that came out of that.

One of the things that I sensed from the parliamentary meeting in

Brussels was a lot of frustration. Many of the parliaments have

Tibet support group. Even France has about 124 members of its

parliament which are part of their Tibet support group. But all

parliaments are having a great deal of trouble getting their governments to do things like sign on to the human rights resolution that

we have before Geneva right now. What we were trying to figure

out is how do we make sure we are all sending the same message.

There were two staffers from Congress, Mr. Berkowitz and Mr.

Rees who attended as well, to show solidarity. We urged that our

messages to China are the same, let us make sure that whenever

there are high level meetings by our Presidents or our heads of

State with the Chinese authorities, they should all promote the

issue of the dialogue. They should all include the issue of human

rights, not just economic discussions or bilateral discussions that

don’t deal with Tibet.

In Brussels, we did have solidarity. There was a resolution that

was issued as a result of it and some very moving commentary by

Kalon Tethong, who is from the government in exile, Mr. Gyari,

Richard Gere, a number of other speakers.

But I want to jump very quickly to what also happened in Geneva, because I was so moved by an NGO meeting where, in a packed

room of about 350 people, the Tibetan community and some Chinese dissidents were speaking on the issue of the China resolution

and on Tibet. The point came up that many of the European countries were nervous about cosponsoring the U.S. proposed resolution

on China because they did not want to disrupt their bilateral

human rights dialogues with China. As you know, several counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:37 Nov 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66615.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
15

tries, as well as the EU, maintain an annual or semiannual human

rights meeting or dialogue. We have one, too, but it is moribund

now as of last year.

In response to that concern, one of the Chinese dissidents said,

and I will never forget it, he said, ‘‘you know, it is interesting that

so many countries want their bilateral dialogue not disrupted with

China. It is good to have a dialogue on human rights with China.

It is good for these countries to have their dialogue, but the real

dialogue China ought to have is the dialogue with their own people.’’ That is what we are promoting in the dialogue with Tibet.

Ironically that is what the Chinese are saying about Taiwan. They

want a dialogue with Taiwan. We all want a dialogue on Tibet, and

your support I really welcome.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do we know what—

I am going to mispronounce this—Ngawang Choephel, who is an

ethnomusicologist, do you know his status at the moment?

Ms. TAFT. He is in prison. He is sick. He has had hepatitis.

Mr. GEJDENSON. What is he accused of doing besides spying?

What is the specific charge, do you know? If you don’t know you

can get it to me later.

Ms. TAFT. I will get it to you. It is a spy charge.

[The statement appears in the appendix.]

Mr. GEJDENSON. How many prisoners are there in Tibet?

Ms. TAFT. I don’t know. We have asked that the international

Committee for the Red Cross be allowed to make prison visits.

Mr. GEJDENSON. They have been denied?

Ms. TAFT. They have been denied.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Are there many buddist monks and nuns who

have been thrown in jail?

Ms. TAFT. There are some in jail but many of them flee and go

into India.

Mr. GEJDENSON. But there are many in jail?

Ms. TAFT. Yes, sir.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Now when the Soviet Union was in existence

and the Soviet government was putting Jews and others in jail for

religious beliefs, the United States responded with Jackson Vanik;

is that correct?

Ms. TAFT. That is correct.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Our response today is that we have a free trade

agreement before the Congress in May.

Ms. TAFT. Yes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Can you explain the evolution of thinking there?

Ms. TAFT. I think that we have to keep in mind that our relationship with China is very, very complicated and multifaceted. We

have already heard a number of issues that deal with nuclear

weapons, WTO, human rights, but I want to say, sir, is that our

objective is to try to have as much relationship with the people of

China, and with the Chinese authorities on a variety of issues, on

health issues, on scientific issues, on military issues. Regarding

WTO and trade, it is really important that we get our businessmen

also to have a dialogue with China on issues like human rights and

16

also to be accountable for Chinese behavior on trade issues. So I

don’t see it as competing. I see it as complementary.

Mr. GEJDENSON. You have done a great job defending the Administration’s approach. I want to commend you. I understand the

complexities here as well, I think, but I think that what we have

seen in the last several years is frankly a worsening of the Chinese

Government’s reactions to the Tibetans, to people who want to email something to somebody, to almost—to exercise clubs that

seem to threaten the central government. I am not against contact.

I am for trade. I think we ought to get more of the trade than

we have been getting and all those things, but I do think the Chinese look at us and say that we are kind of in this intellectual exercise when we deal with Tibetan rights and human rights and

other things, but it is really inconsequential, and not just the

United States. I think frankly the United States is the strongest

voice here in a world that is silent, that, ignores every outrage in

the world for an opportunity to do business, and I just think that

somehow if these were Europeans, the outrage would be greater,

but there is something about our society that when there are

human rights abuses in places outside of central Europe, it is hard

to get the American people excited.

There is some obviously who care about this in a more general

sense, but it is hard to get the government excited as well, and I

think that as people look at the debates that are coming ahead,

and they are obviously complicated by lots of different issues, that

if there is a country on earth that has a significant number of

human rights violations, that seems to be going backward, not forwards, on dealing with these issues, it is the Chinese Government.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I too had another

hearing that I was at, but rather than running off to it, I had to

run back in after I was involved in that hearing in the beginning.

So I am sorry I missed your opening statement, but I have looked

through it.

First, let me ask you, is there evidence that the Communist Chinese regime in Beijing is putting weapons systems, missiles into

Tibet?

Ms. TAFT. That issue came up earlier. I am going to have a report shared with the Chairman and the Members on this. That is

not my brief. I don’t get into nuclear weapons but there was some

discussion. We will share with you what we have.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We have seen unclassified reports that indicate that there are Chinese weapons systems being placed in Tibet.

So let us go to the other end, what they are placing in Tibet are

Han Chinese and weapons of mass destruction.

Ms. TAFT. Military personnel.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Military personnel, and what is leaving Tibet

is the Tibetan population. There is still an outflow of Tibetan people according to your testimony?

Ms. TAFT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The population of Lhasa was?

17

Ms. TAFT. We were saying that in terms of the statistics, we

think about 90 percent of the population of Lhasa is Han and Hui

and only about 10 percent still Tibetan.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 10 years ago, what was that?

Ms. TAFT. Let me just say at the takeover in 1949—1959, 100

percent of the people in Lhasa were Tibetans.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Has that accelerated in the last 20 years?

Ms. TAFT. Many moved into Lhasa.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So during the time period when we have had

this engagement with this regime that was supposed to bring about

a betterment, an improvement in the human rights situation, at

least in terms of Tibet, it has had not only the opposite impact in

terms of human rights, but we have actually seen weapons and

systems being transported into Tibet. Mr. Chairman, just note that

if there is any evidence of the abject failure of the policy of what

they call engagement and which many of us see as appeasement

to a totalitarian regime, it is what has been going on in Tibet, and

frankly what your testimony is here today verifies that.

Mr. Gejdenson’s point was very well made. I worked during the

Reagan Administration and there was no talk of providing a Most

Favored Nation status for Russia during the Reagan Administration. We improved the situation in Russia by confronting the Communist dictatorship rather than trying to say if we could only make

them more wealthy and have more economic ties they would be

more benevolent.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would say it has been a bipartisan executive

failure on China, that the Reagan Administration gave China mostfavored-Nation status, the Bush Administration and yes, this Administration has continued that policy.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, let me note that that is

true and had there been dramatic improvements in Russia as there

were during the Reagan Administration in the Chinese situation,

we would have probably looked toward opening up trade relations

with Russia but instead the repression continued. In China during

the Reagan years let me add that there was an expansion of democracy which, after Ronald Reagan left office, was annihilated at

Tiannanmen Square, and I feel that there is some, criticism.

This isn’t just aimed at the Administration. Let us face this. This

policy of kissing the boots of these bloody despots in Beijing is not

just the policy of Bill Clinton. It is the policy of a lot of Republican

billionaires who are trying to do business and making money off

China. That is what this all comes down to, and you are doing a

great job. You are sincere. I appreciate you. You are one of the good

people on this planet. I wish you success, but I am afraid that

there are powers that be in this country, and especially in this Administration, that are undermining your good efforts, and the good

efforts of the people on this Committee and elsewhere in Congress,

that believe some of the fundamentals of this country’s supposed to

be about, which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all

human beings, and not just the pursuit of profit by a few billionaires in the United States and power brokers that do their bidding.

18

I agree Tibet is really a bellwether, and the fact that things have

been going the wrong way in Tibet should suggest to us that our

policies in dealing with Communist China are wrong. In the end,

if we ignore the human rights of the people of Tibet, we will hurt

the security of our own country, and that is what we are finding

out now.

So thank you very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Ms. Taft.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you for your support of Tibet and what we are

trying to do. I do think it is really important for us to recognize

the fact that China wants to come into prominence in the world.

They sit on the Security Council. They are striving to get into the

WTO. They are making a lot of efforts to be accepted in the international community. I think that sometimes they don’t understand

what we say and they don’t understand our values. They don’t understand how we operate in terms of universal values and universal human rights. But the only way that they are going to make

progress is if we engage them in a variety of different ways, if they

continue to hear from many Americans; if they continue to do work

with our businessmen; if they continue to have dialogues with their

own people; if they continue to allow tourists to come in, things will

change.

I was first in China in 1979 and while I can’t get in now, I have

been several times and the country has changed. But we have to

keep pressuring them and we have to continue showing that our

values are the human rights values. I must say it was very surprising to me we didn’t have people lining up to cosign our resolution on China this year, and many countries didn’t want to do it

because of the economic interests that they think they have.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Taft.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Taft, thank you

very much for your efforts and your sincerity, but I think we have

to face cold reality. I would ask everyone in this room for just a

second to be very quiet, because if we are very quiet, we can hear

the laughter in Beijing. Let us face it, we are here talking about

human rights in Tibet and other types of Chinese actions toward

Taiwan and, of course, their actions toward their own people, and

yet next month this Congress is preparing to absolutely ensure

that no matter what Beijing does in the human rights area, it will

not lose a single penny.

Of course they will be obligated to listen to resolutions, put forward international forums. They will hire diplomats to go to play

the defensive role in this elaborate ritual where they claim to care

what resolution is passed, where they work to defeat what resolutions they can defeat, and then they can laugh at the entire process

whether they win or lose this or that meaningless battle, because

the fact remains they can’t lose a single penny as long as they get

the permanent MFN treatment that they are seeking in this Congress next month.

As my colleagues have pointed out, we never gave MFN upon the

Soviet Union. We insisted upon calling it MFN and never gave it

to them, and the Soviet Union and the United States had a relaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:37 Nov 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66615.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
19

tionship that was complicated and complex and multifaceted and

nuclear, and one in which we wanted their people to see our businessmen and our ideas, but we never gave them MFN.

Now, for full disclosure in these human rights hearings, I do

want to point out that I oppose MFN for China mostly because I

think it is a bad trade deal. I think it ensures that our trade deficit

with China will continue to be large and will be locked in at

present levels. But I should point out that we lose every bit of real

leverage we might ever have in dealing with China. We announce

to them that no matter what happens, all that can ever happen is

tough resolutions, signifying nothing.

Now, the only reason for China to seek a compromise with the

leadership of Tibet is to defuse a potential problem that they might

have where there could be another blow up. There could be another

1959. There could be something reminiscent of Czechoslovakia in

1968. There could be a test of their power in which they would

have to deploy their troops. If they win next month, they know that

that can’t cost them a penny anyway. They would have to provide

fuel for their soldiers to enter Tibet in greater numbers, but they

don’t stand a risk of losing a single penny. So the reason to compromise drifts away and they can simply rely on the iron boot to

keep Tibet under control, should that become necessary.

What concerns me even more is that under this MFN deal, China

will be free to use its power over individual companies to try to get

them to pressure us not to even have hearings like this. I know

that there will be lobbyists in the offices of some of us here saying,

we are close to getting a good contract with the Chinese, we hate

to think that we are going to lose it to a company in another part

of the United States or lose it to the French.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield for one moment?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Has it been the gentleman’s experience being

in Congress, as it has been my experience, that those companies

that are engaged in China actually go there to make money, and

when it comes to influencing policy, they don’t try to influence the

policy there but instead spend their time trying to influence the

policy here? That’s been my experience.

Mr. SHERMAN. I don’t know what they are doing in Beijing, but

I do know that they try to influence policy here. What concerns me

more is giving up the annual review because as long as we have

the annual review, then China is somewhat limited. They can’t get

outrageous in the pressures they put on American companies, but

if they have got permanent MFN, they can’t publish anything in

violation of WTO rules, but they can let it be known to this or that

big company in your district or mine that it would be better for the

company and better for the economics of your part of southern California or mine if we not talk like this here. Many of my colleagues

have seen this wave of multibillion dollar company pressure.

Those same forces that are in our offices today demanding that

we give, insisting that we give MFN to China will be in our offices

tomorrow asking us to shut up because it is bad for trade and bad

for business. Right now, if they dared to do that they would undermine their chances for the annual review, give up the annual review, and instead of that pressure being there to win the annual

20

review battle or to win the permanent MFN battle, that pressure

will be here to try to control the statements of Members of Congress.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just one last request if the gentleman would

yield.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is, I have asked businessmen who have

come into my office to lobby me on this issue, how many of you

have spoken to local officials or national officials in China where

your companies are located about human rights violations? I have

not met one that has told me that they have spoken out about certain business there to the people around their company. They could

drag, and I understand at times they have actually dragged out of

some of these corporate locations in China, political prisoners or religious prisoners, and just dragged them out and the businessmen

have not stood up for them. Now what is that telling you?

Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time, I think our business people

are sincere. I think they care about human rights in China, but

they also care about the lives of their own employees, and when

faced with the possibility of losing that little bit of an export market that we have in China, which I think is a little smaller than

our market with Belgium, but knowing that that could be turned

off by a simple oral comment by a Chinese Communist commissar,

knowing that they are under that kind of pressure, I think it is not

for lack of compassion, but perhaps a compassion for their own employees that exceeds their willingness to forego a contract in China.

So I am not sure that I am quite as negative as my colleague from

southern California on the motivations, but once we give all the

cards to the government in Beijing, it will be very difficult.

Right now, if we heard a clear story of a business that was about

to sign a contract, and then a commissar made a phone call and

advised the business entity not to make that contract, we might do

something about it. A few votes might go the other way on annual

MFN. Once it is permanent, then nothing can change it. Whether

it is missiles fired in the direction of Taipei just a few days before

an election, or a crack down in Tibet of Czechoslovakia 1968 proportions, or the outrage of threatening to take away a contract if

the company can’t lobby more effectively here in Congress for Beijing’s position, whatever it is, we are going to embolden those who

have nothing to fear from this Congress should China enter WTO,

and should the Congress give up annual review. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Madam Secretary,

we thank you for your patience and for sharing your thoughts with

us. We do hope you are going to stay right on top of all of this on

our behalf with regard to the Geneva Conference. You will continue

to be of help with regard to the conference, but certainly I am appalled the People’s Republic of China is not allowing you to sit with

them to discuss this matter and denied you also the opportunity to

meet in China with regard to this. We will welcome any further

thoughts you may have along the way. Don’t hesitate. You are

going to send us some material and make it part of the record.

Thank you.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you, and I would like to thank everybody, the

staff as well as the members, for the support we have gotten this

21

past year. It has been great and I look forward to working with

you. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you again.

STATEMENT OF LODI G. GYARI, SPECIAL ENVOY, HIS

HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA

Chairman GILMAN. Now we are pleased to welcome Lodi Gyari,

the special envoy to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Lodi Gyari was

born in eastern Tibet where he received a traditional monastic education. He and his family fled from Tibet to India in 1959. Lodi

Gyari was elected to the assembly of Tibetan’s people’s deputies,

the Tibetan parliament in exile and subsequently became its Chairman. He then served as Deputy Cabinet Minister with his responsibilities to the council for religious affairs and for the Department

of Health. In 1988, Lodi Gyari became Senior Cabinet Minister for

the Department of Information and International Relations and

Foreign Ministry.

Currently, Lodi Gyari works as a cabinet adviser and is a Special

Envoy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Mr. Gyari is also the Executive Chairman of the Board of the International Campaign for

Tibet, an independent Washington-based human rights advocacy

group.

Welcome, Mr. Gyari. You may put your full statement in the

record and summarize, or whatever you deem appropriate. Please

proceed.

Mr. GYARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is once again a great

honor for me to be here to testify before your Committee. Before

I read my statement, I wanted to once again, Mr. Chairman, thank

you and other Members of this Committee for the leadership that

you have taken for the cause of the Tibetan people, and particularly, Mr. Chairman, yourself and the Ranking Member and Mr.

Rohrabacher, some of our friends, we really greatly appreciate your

support.

I am sorry that Mr. Bereuter could not be here because I have

always felt that as the chairman of the Subcommittee that deals

with the particular area where I come from, it is very important

that I have the opportunity to be able to educate him more about

the issue of Tibet. I do hope that I will have the opportunity in the

near future.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a brief summary of my written

statement, which unfortunately has become rather lengthy because

I was trying to unburden my problems in absence of any opportunity to discuss them with the Chinese. This Committee is more

sympathetic. My remarks today I wanted to confine generally to

the issue concerning the negotiations because I think that is the

main reason why this hearing was called this morning.

I am afraid I do not really have anything positive to report in

this regard. His Holiness continues to make every effort that he

can to reach out to China’s leaders, to find a negotiated settlement

with regard to Tibet. In spite of a strong warning by the Chinese

Government, he has remained consistent not only in his effort but

also on his position. I had the honor of sending to the Members of

the Committee a statement that His Holiness has made recently on

22

10th March, where he has very clearly reaffirmed his commitment

to find a negotiated settlement without seeking total independence.

In this regard, I wanted to not only thank the leadership that

Congress has provided but I also wanted to express my appreciation to the Clinton Administration. I think in the last few years,

the President and Vice President, the Secretary of State and other

senior leaders of the United States have made sincere efforts, and

particularly I wanted to express my gratitude for the support and

cooperation that I received from the Special Coordinator, Assistant

Secretary Julia Taft, and also from her very able and very dedicated one single staff that she has working on this issue, Kate

Friedrich.

In fact, I sometimes feel that with the tremendous support we

have here in the Congress and this Committee, that we may even

dare to ask for legislation to permanently have Ms. Taft as the

Special Coordinator for Tibet till such time as we can have a breakthrough with regard to Tibet.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I still do believe that the Administration can do more. I appreciate efforts that

the President has made and the Secretary of State continues to

make, but sometimes again, it also becomes a bit ritualistic. When

I say ritualistic, I am not being critical because we ourselves, Tibetans, our own approaches become ritualistic. For example, every

10th March wherever we are, we go out somewhere outside the

Chinese Embassy and demonstrate. We do it, because we need to

do it, but also it becomes kind of ritualistic.

Similarly, I think when senior Administration officials take up

the matter of Tibet with the Chinese government, sometimes it becomes ritualistic because it becomes one of the points you have

been asked to raise with the Chinese, and then you just tick that

little box and come back and report to your government that you

have done your job.

I do believe that more could be done by this Administration, and

I do hope that President Clinton in the remaining period of his

presidency will make a more serious effort, because it is a legacy

he can leave behind. I have always believed that if the U.S. Government combined, both the Congress and the Administration, if

you really single-handedly pursue the matter of Tibet, I cannot believe this cannot happen.

So therefore, I want to urge this approach. I have been in touch

with the Assistant Secretary Julia Taft, as well as with the senior

people in the Administration in the next several months, a more

vigorous effort could be made, and I do hope that they will do that.

Similarly, Mr. Chairman, I think there is also another way that

both the Congress and the Administration can show your support

for His Holiness and your commitment. As Assistant Secretary

Julia Taft mentioned in her remarks that His Holiness would be

visiting Washington, D.C., sometime at the end of June, and early

July. That will give both the Congress and this Administration another opportunity to clearly demonstrate your support and also appreciation of the commitment of His Holiness to a nonviolent solution to the issue of Tibet. Such messages, I think, are very important.

23

I would like to comment on the Human Rights Commission in

Geneva, which was discussed among yourselves and the Assistant

Secretary. I was there with the Assistant Secretary last week, and

I am going to go back there again to make another effort. I was

very much encouraged by the hard work that was being done by

a number of senior Administration officials.

But I still believe that President Clinton himself needs to take

a much more active role in this effort. When President Clinton was

in Geneva I was disappointed that he himself did not make any

public support for this resolution. To be very candid, while there

is appreciation on the part of the Tibetans and others for the lead

you have taken, the Assistant Secretary will agree with me that

there is also cynicism among a lot of people in Europe that the effort that’s being made by the State Department is not really genuine. They say it is, in a way, to balance or camouflage the Administration’s own effort to give China most favored nation trade status permanently.

I personally do not believe that. I think, and I have seen it, that

the effort by the Administration is very sincere, and I wanted also

to express my appreciation to the Secretary of State. She herself

made a special visit to Geneva in strong support of this matter, but

in the last few days I certainly want to urge more directly and

through you that the President of the United States himself take

a lead in this and to make other Europeans join as cosponsors and

also make sure that we get through the no action as well as the

resolution because I think an important message needs to be sent.

Now, specifically Mr. Chairman, I wanted to state here that I

personally believe if there is a political will in China, a solution to

Tibet, in my view, is not very difficult. What we are seeking, as is

not separation, even though the Tibetan people have every right as,

Mr. Chairman, you have clearly indicated. We have been a sovereign independent nation, a nation under occupation, but His Holiness, in his infinite wisdom, has called for a solution within the

framework of China. Now, if there’s political will, I say a solution

is possible because China herself, in her Constitution, guarantees

the Tibetan people autonomy, not only for the Tibetans within the

Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), but for the Tibetans on the entire plateau.

One of the main reasons why I think China cannot make any

move is she has become enslaved by her leftist policies in Tibet.

Her policies in Tibet, her pronouncement on Tibet are very clearly

out of that leftist tendency. It is very much like the Cultural Revolution period when it comes to Tibet. Now she has to be able to

make a departure from that in order to be able to have a breakthrough.

If we don’t do that, I am afraid that things in Tibet can really

get out of hand. I don’t say this to intimidate anyone. I know because I can feel it. I know because I am a Tibetan, because every

policy that China carries out is deliberately provoking the Tibetans

to go in the wrong direction, and I believe it will not be too many

years before the Tibetans will become forced into some other form

of a struggle.

For example, understanding the demise of the Panchen Lama,

which many Tibetans believe was not a natural death, the recent

24

coming into exile of Agya Rinpoche, the recent passing over of a

very, very important Tibetan religious leader who died because he

was not given an opportunity to leave China for treatment in the

United States for cancer, all these things are adding on to the bitterness of the Tibetan people.

In a very personal manner, Mr. Chairman, I lost my father last

year. He passed away in India, and his passing away has also created a tremendous sense of bitterness, not only in my heart but in

our entire family because his only crime was being a Tibetan, being

unwilling to be enslaved.

So every day many Tibetans die in exile without being able to

go back. Thousands of Tibetans die inside Tibet not having the opportunity to see their leader, the Dalai Lama. When anything like

that happens, every time the bitterness, the resentment grows, and

I can unfortunately guarantee you that if this continues there will

be instability on the plateau of Tibet, which I think none of us

would like to have.

So therefore, the issue of Tibet is not just a human rights issue.

It is a issue of great geopolitical importance and, Mr. Chairman,

yourself, in your opening remarks dealt with that in a very analytical manner. So I do hope, and I want to urge this Congress in the

coming months to take that into consideration, study it and also

implement policies which will reflect the importance of Tibet in its

geopolitical dimension.

Now I am not making an official statement. This is my personal

view, but if we do not find a solution soon, if China continues to

say that Tibetans are happy inside Tibet, they are content, then

most probably the only solution we have is for us to ask for a referendum. If the Chinese are really convinced that people are happy

inside Tibet, we, on the other hand, feel the other way, I think the

international community feels the other way.

If the Chinese are really convinced, then I think the best way to

find out is to have a referendum, freely and fairly, a referendum

and ask the Tibetan people, are they happy under Chinese rule,

and if that answer, Mr. Chairman, is yes, I can assure you and you

know him very well, that His Holiness will be the happiest person

because he is not fighting for the restoration of his power. He, in

fact, made it very clear that he has no desire to hold any official

position.

So therefore, if we prolong this and I want to make very clear,

and I do not want to surprise my friend Julia Taft of the State Department. This is not an official statement. I am not saying that

we are now going to insist on a referendum. But if the Chinese continue to stonewall, then I do not think the only logical way for any

sensible person, he will say all right, let the Tibetan people speak,

let the Tibetans speak if they are happy or not happy. That, in my

view, may be best alternate other than to let the situation get out

of hand and become a matter of geopolitical instability in that area.

So these are the remarks that I thought, Mr. Chairman, I should

make, and I will submit my full text for your record, and I have

also, since I think some members have expressed some interest

about what had happened in Brussels at this meeting of some

members of parliament from 16 countries where they have passed

25

a resolution as a result of that meeting, I also have those documents, which I will also submit with my testimony for your record.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gyari. Without objection,

your full statement and any supplementary document will be made

part of the record. We thank you for taking the time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gyari appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Before proceeding with questions, we are

very pleased to be joined today by a delegation of legislators and

policymakers from Taiwan. Recently, the citizens of Taiwan stood

up to Beijing and voted the way that they wanted to and elected

the people and party that they believe will truly represent them.

We welcome our Taiwan legislators to Washington and to our Committee. Thank you.

Mr. Gyari, a couple of questions and then I will turn to Mr. Rohrabacher. What restrictions, if any, have the People’s Republic of

China put on any negotiations with Tibet?

Mr. GYARI. Mr. Chairman, since 1998, in 1998 as Assistant Secretary also stated in her testimony, that we really felt that for the

first time there may be some possibility of a breakthrough, but

which was very short-lived. In fact, the public statement that was

made in presence of President Clinton by President Jiang was both

the beginning and end of that process, and ever since they have

been stonewalling every effort, and there is no formal, no informal,

and sometimes when the Chinese make statement as if indicating

that there are some channels which is absolutely ridiculous, because I know, because I happen to be entrusted by His Holiness as

the lead person in this regard. So unfortunately, Mr. Chairman,

the brief answer is that there is no time of any nature at the moment.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gyari, what can the Administration do to

help facilitate any possible negotiations?

Mr. GYARI. As I said earlier, I think the Administration, in particular, Assistant Secretary Julia Taft is working very hard, but

unfortunately, as she had indicated, she does not herself have any

access to Chinese Government, and I was very encouraged to hear

your remarks that your Committee will support her effort. I think

there has been efforts by this Administration, but as I said in my

earlier remark, I do believe, Mr. Chairman, the Administration,

particularly at the level of President, a more vigorous effort could

be made, and I had taken the opportunity to share some of the

ways how I feel it could be done with senior people at the embassy,

as well as with Assistant Secretary Julia Taft.

Chairman GILMAN. I am sure they can be of some help. Mr.

Gyari, what is the government of Tibet willing to accept from Beijing at this point?

Mr. GYARI. Mr. Chairman, the Tibetan people, every one of us

desires complete and total independence. Who isn’t there? Any sensible human being, I think, would like to be completely free of any

occupation in this day and age. We are now in the 21st century.

However, our leader is deeply respected and admired, who is a

friend of yours, and he, as you know, in his wisdom for the longterm interest of the Tibetans and Chinese, have opted for a solution within the framework of PRC. If the Tibetan people are given

26

a legitimate right to preserve their distinctive way of life, that we

are able to maintain our cultural and religious heritage.

So, Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, we are willing to find a solution

without seeking total political independence.

Chairman GILMAN. Where would the Tibetan negotiators be willing to meet with the Chinese?

Mr. GYARI. Mr. Chairman, we have indicated to the Chinese time

and again that we are willing to meet at any time at any place.

We have made it very clear that it will be unconditional. Even

through the very recent past, through mutual friends, I have again,

once again, conveyed that at any time, right in the middle of the

night, right in the middle of the ocean, if it is feasible we will be

willing to go and meet with them and talk with them at any level

provided that person, he or she, is the fully authorized person from

the Chinese government.

Chairman GILMAN. It sounds like the Tibetans are willing to go

to any length to have a negotiation.

Mr. GYARI. That is right, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. Has the State Department or other officials

approached you or other members in the Tibetan government in

exile to discuss negotiations with the government of the People’s

Republic of China? Has the Administration come forward and said

we would like to work on this with you?

Mr. GYARI. I think the Clinton Administration, Mr. Chairman, I

think is very committed, I think is very sincere in helping us find

a negotiated settlement. As I said earlier, I do believe that more

could be done. It is not a criticism, but I do hope and with your

help, again, to urge this Administration to be more vigorous in the

next 3 months.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

thank you for your leadership, in this issue and on the issues of

human rights. I don’t know what we would do without Chairman

Gilman. He has got a good heart and he is thinking about people

who are being oppressed in different countries, and that has given

this Congress and the United States some leverage to do some

things that we couldn’t do if we didn’t have such a good-hearted

person at the head of this Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Gilman.

I would like to ask a little bit about what has been going on in

Tibet. What is the population of Tibet today?

Mr. GYARI. Congressman, it is very difficult to get exact figure,

but our belief is that there is today, on the whole of Tibet, about

6 million Tibetans, give and take, a few hundred thousand on the

whole of Tibet, about 6 million Tibetans.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. They have moved in how many Han Chinese

now?

Mr. GYARI. Again, it is very difficult to get precise figure, but our

estimate, which I believe is fairly correct, is there is about 7 million

Chinese on the plateau of Tibet. So talking about the whole of

Tibet, Chinese unfortunately already outnumber us in our homeland.

27

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So unfortunately a referendum that included

everyone living there would not yield the kind of results you want.

Mr. GYARI. Yes. Obviously, Congressman, when I talked about,

referendum, if ever such a referendum need to take place, it has

to be very clear it has to be for the people who are of Tibetan origin, because the whole idea is to ascertain whether the Tibetans

are happy or unhappy. So therefore, if the Chinese is also allowed

to participate, then I think the whole exercise would be meaningless.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We have some friends here from Taiwan who

struggled long and hard for democracy in their own part of China,

and there was a big fight, of course. The Chinese Communists are

insisting from Beijing that Taiwan admit that it is part of China,

and under their control, and actually would like to have them

under their control, but if Beijing itself is more democratic, if there

was actually a government in Beijing like we have in Taipei, which

is a freely elected regime government that respects people’s human

rights, the actual, let us say, the desire or the demand for independence in Tibet would probably not be as great, probably people

might be willing to, if it was a freer society, people of Tibet might

not feel so compelled to pull away, isn’t that correct?

Mr. GYARI. Yes, Congressman, I do agree with your sentiments.

In fact, I remember His Holiness making some remarks a few years

back that when the Chinese Government accused His Holiness of

being a splittist, His Holiness, in a very humorous way, that the

real splittists are the leaders in Beijing themselves, because if they

had the policy which was one that takes into account the best interests of all the people that live within the confines of PRC today,

then most probably the urge for the Tibetan people and others to

get rid of the yolk of Chinese occupation would be much less. So

certainly, Congressman, China, if it were more democratic, I think

is going to be a long way, but even if China respects the rule of

law will definitely be far better for all of us.

In fact, I think even for the American business people that you

and one of your colleagues this morning talked about, I always tell

them that look here, because some of your business people in this

country should look at issues like Tibet as obstacles and unfortunately looks at people like me as unwelcome friend, because they

feel I am an obstacle to their profit, their relation with China, but

I always tell them that we can be allies because even for them,

even for the business people, even for the Tibetans to live with the

dignity, we need to have a China that respects rule of law. China

that is governed, not by the whim and wish of a few Communist

leaders, but a China that is governed by rule of law.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Whether it is Tibet or whether it is Taiwan,

there would be a great dissipating of this tension and potential conflict if there was a greater degree of freedom on the mainland of

China and democracy. That is just so evident. We found that, by

the way, there is a greater degree of freedom in Eastern Europe

in what was the Soviet Union. There is less of a chance for conflict

now in terms of the United States and fighting with its neighbors.

Has there been the introduction of new weapons systems that you

know into Tibet by the Beijing regime?

28

Mr. GYARI. Congressman, I am not trying to dodge your question.

I certainly do believe that there are very sensitive and very highly

advanced military installations on the plateau of Tibet. In fact, one

of the many reasons why Jiang’s China immediately after proclaiming the PRC invaded and occupied Tibet is for military and

geopolitical reasons. So therefore, you see it is quite obvious. I

think even a person with elementary knowledge of military and

politics would agree. But precisely as to where and how many is

not an area that I am an expert, but I do certainly know that there

are a number of areas on the plateau of Tibet which are highly sensitive military installations that the Chinese Government has installed in the last many decades.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Hu Chang Tau, I think is how you pronounce his name, was one time the Chinese overlord of Tibet and

since moved on to Beijing where he is now looked at as perhaps

a successor to Jiang Zemin. Was he a benevolent soul when he was

in charge of your area of country?

Mr. GYARI. I don’t think we have ever had any benevolent soul.

They have all been ruthless, and Mr. Hu Chang Tau, Congressman, remember, came to Tibet at a time soon after the demonstrations that had happened in Tibet. He came because the then-Party

Secretary, which was, for the first time, China sent, a minority, a

Hui minority as party Secretary, and the Chinese leadership felt

that since he himself was a minority, he was very soft with regard

to Tibet. He was one of the party secretaries who will wear Tibetan

dress, who will encourage some of the Chinese to speak Tibetan.

So Hu Chang Tau came to replace him. So obviously, the reason

why they sent him there was not to be soft on Tibet, but to be

much tougher on Tibet, but he himself has spent very little time,

even when he was party secretary for Tibet, he spent most of the

time in Beijing because by then, he was already being groomed for

important responsibilities.

For the last many years he has been very silent on Tibet. Precisely I think he is being designated, as you have rightly said, as

the future leader. So therefore, most probably, I think he may want

to very deliberately stay away from sensitive issues such as Tibet.

We haven’t really heard much pronouncements from him with regard to Tibet publicly, but he has not, like any other Chinese leader, he hasn’t been a friend when he was in Tibet. He was ruthless

but was much more subtle. His ruthlessness was a much more subtle way.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you for your testimony today and

thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you for

your kind remarks.

Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for all your

leadership in terms of human rights throughout the world and for

holding this hearing today. This is my first time back in the room

with all these new accoutrements and I am amazed at how hightech we have become.

Mr. Gyari, thank you for your testimony. I am sorry I was unable

to hear your full testimony, but I have it in writing and I will review it later. I just have a couple of questions for you. I am conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:37 Nov 14, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66615.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
29

cerned about the lack of religious freedom in China. It is probably

the main reason for my opposition to PNTR, permanent normal

trade relations, with the People’s Republic of China. How many political prisoners are there in Tibet, or should I say, how many political prisoners of Tibetan origin are there in China, do you know?

Mr. GYARI. Yes, Congressman, we do have a figure, and that figure, I have no doubt, does not include everyone, because first of all,

when I talk about Tibet, I am talking about the real Tibet, the historical Tibet, which is far more than the Tibet that Chinese talk

about, because they are talking about the Tibet autonomous region

which is less than half in terms of operation and area. So on the

whole plateau of Tibet, I think the number of prisoners, especially

political prisoners, can run into thousands. I know the exile government has compiled a list of prisoners and also a London based nongovernment group Tibet Information Network has also compiled a

long form, I think, of about 600 political prisoners. This is a very

well-documented figure of prisoners.

Mr. CROWLEY. This may also have been brought up before, forgive me if it has, but back in May 1998, after a visit by the EU

to a prison, about 10 political prisoners were executed. Do you believe that our government has been outspoken enough on this

issue?

Mr. GYARI. I think there has been ups and downs, I think. There

has been times, I think, the Administration has been forthright.

There has been times I think it has dragged its feet. So to summarize, I think this has not been consistent. I think there has been

some inconsistency. I think that’s one weakness of your China policies, not only with regard to Tibet. I believe that the United States

policy toward China on a number of things has always tended to

be inconsistent, and I think the Chinese have always taken full advantage of, be it trade, be it on human rights, be it on any number

of bilateral relations.

Mr. CROWLEY. How many Buddhist monks and nuns have been

imprisoned?

Mr. GYARI. The number, it could go into thousands. For example,

just 3 months back, an area where I come from, I come from eastern part of Tibet, there for example within a period of 3 months,

they have rounded up several hundreds of monks, but then sometimes they round them up for a few days, 3 weeks, 3 months, then

they release them or sometimes they keep them without any trial

for months together. In fact, in my area they have rounded up a

very learned scholar a few months back, and I have learned about

his activities because he studied in my monastery, and in fact, I

have footages of the video that he has sent to me, and his only

crime is that he was going out teaching Buddhism.

As part of that, he was showing reverence to His Holiness, the

Dalai Lama. For that he was arrested, imprisoned and tortured. So

this goes on throughout Tibet. In fact, I think separation against

religious freedom has been so vigorous in the last few years, and

I think Chinese are actually very much afraid of not only Buddhism, I think they really in nightmare. I think the Chinese leaders in Beijing live in nightmare because they have seen that it is

the belief, the faith of people, even in Eastern Europe and Russia,

30

that finally brought about the ruination of the Communist world.

So I think that they live in fear of religion.

Mr. CROWLEY. Are you saying that torture and death are consequences forced by a Buddhist monk who fails to sign on to a document that calls for the reunification of Tibet and China and calls

for the recognition of the Panchen Lama and the rejection of the

Dalai Lama?

Mr. GYARI. Yes. One of the main reasons why the Chinese Government arrest and imprisoned and tortured religious leaders is

when they refuse to denounce His Holiness, when they refuse to accept the Chinese-appointed Panchen as their true Panchen, these

are reasons, these are the grounds under which they are imprisoned and tortured, and for the Tibetans, this is a very part of their

basic belief.

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Gyari. Let me, once again, thank

the Chairman for holding this hearing. Please give our regards to

the Dalai Lama.

Mr. GYARI. Thank you, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gyari, did you say there are well over

600 prisoners still incarcerated——

Mr. GYARI. Yes, sir.

Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. By the Chinese?

Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief.

I do appreciate the Chairman holding this important hearing and

we thank Mr. Gyari for his testimony here today, which I will review. I apologize for being absent during most of the meeting. We

had markup going on in one of the other Committees that I am a

member of, but human rights and the tragedy of Tibet and the

treatment by China is something that is very important to this

Committee, and I know very important to Chairman Gilman in

particular. We intend to continue to follow this very closely, and

our relations with China, the success or failure of that relationship,

will be reflected in part with how they have treated Tibet, and how

they will continue to treat Tibet. We know that Tibet will one day

be free, hopefully sooner rather than later. There have been many

lives that have suffered through this terrible ordeal with respect to

China. We want to, again, thank you for being here today, and as

I said, I will review your testimony. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Gyari, please extend our very best wishes to His Holiness. We look forward to his

visit at the end of June. We will try to work on a joint session.

Hopefully with Ms. Taft’s assistance, we may be able to convince

the Administration that that would be a good idea. I am pleased

you are able to work very closely with Secretary Taft, who has been

doing an outstanding job for us. We wish you a safe trip. You have

been traveling all over the world. May you continue to travel in

safety with our best wishes. Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(31)

A P P E N D I X

APRIL 6, 2000

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86