APPENDIX 13
Memorandum submitted by The Tibet Society:
Evidence on how the FCO dealt with one specific Tibetan case
The Gyatso Children's Home in Lhasa was established
in 1996 by Bangri Rinpoche and his wife Nyima Choedren. It provided
a good basic education and a safe and secure loving environment
for 60-70 children, many of whom were orphans or came from families
who could no longer support them. Individual sponsors for these
children came from the United States (via the Tax Exempt Organisation
"American Friends of Gyatso Children's Home") and from
the UK (via the charitable arm of the Tibet Society, "The
Tibet Relief Fund"). Regular visits to the Home to monitor
conditions and to inspect accounts produced satisfactory reports.
On 7 November, news was received that the Home
had been closed down, the staff (8-10 including a lama, a monk
and two nuns) imprisoned and that the whereabouts of the children
(including two babies) were unknown. The initial reason behind
the closure appears to have been a link between Tashi Tsering
and the Home. In late August, Tashi Tsering lowered the Chinese
flag in front of the Potala and attempted to raise a Tibetan flag
in its place. He was arrested, severely beaten and later died
in custody. Several of his known associates were subsequently
rounded up and these included staff from the Gyatso Home, where
Tashi had been employed as a carpenter.
On 8 November I alerted the FCO, who asked for
details to be faxed through immediately so that they could be
sent to John Battle in Beijing. I expressed the need for discretion
(given our political link), but if the FCO needed individual sponsor's
names in order to pursue the case, these would be provided. I
stressed the urgency of the matter in ascertaining the safety
and well-being of the children, but also asked for the FCO to
establish on what charges the staff were being held. I was assured
the case would be taken up immediately. However, no news was forthcoming
despite repeated requests. In December John Battle denied all
knowledge of the case, demonstrating that nothing had been done.
Again assurances of investigation were given.
In January I received an email from the FCO
stating, "Ultimately, we are concerned that by raising the
case, we would reveal the orphanage's links to donors and damage
our own difficult links with the Tibetan Government or the Peking
body that covers Tibet issues. The latter links have been carefully
nurtured over many years and we judge, should not be used on this
issue." In view of the reluctance of the FCO to pursue this
case, seemingly because of our political connections, British
sponsors formed another group independent of our organisation.
MPs and the APPGT then applied further pressure on the FCO and
some response was forthcoming. Initial letters gave excuses as
to why the case had not been taken up and were full of inaccuracies,
but finally on 28 March the FCO raised the matter with the Chinese
authorities.
Meanwhile sponsors in the United States achieved
substantial progress through the State Department, who took up
the case immediately. In December they requested the assistance
and co-operation of the FCO, but this was not forthcoming. They
reported the case in their annual report on human rights in China
and arranged a meeting between American sponsors and a Chinese
official from the Civil Affairs Department. The latter agreed
to try and track down the children and relocate them in a suitable
premises, so that the funding and sponsorship could continue.
Sponsors submitted a report outlining the requirements of such
a home, and we await a response from the Chinese authorities.
Over the last six months, the State Department have been co-operative,
sympathetic and helpful which is more than can be said of the
FCO.
Why do the British Government continue to treat
China as a special case and why this craven attitude when innocent
people's lives are at risk and vulnerable children are involved?
Excuses are all too easily found to avoid raising human rights
issues. Given that British citizens were involved, this was a
strong case for Western intervention. The matter could have been
raised promptly and discreetly with the Chinese authorities, without
divulging any specific information (as the State Department did).
If the confidentiality issue was a viable excuse, why did Mr Battle
release the Tibet's Society's identity through Michael Portillo
to another sponsor who had nothing to do with our organisation.
On the advice of the FCO, the Gyatso story was withheld from the
press in order for investigations to proceed, but nothing happened.
It is a known fact that well-timed western intervention
can play a role. The crucial issue in human rights and in political
terms is that both torture and legal decisions are carried out
in the first three months in China, the longer one waits before
raising a case the less chance one has of influencing the outcome,
because the torture phase will have been completed and the quasi-judicial
decision already taken by the relevant party officials. The initial
point of intervening is to inform the national level leaders (who
are more moderate), of extreme decisions about to be taken by
local level leaders, who in Tibet are more erratic, aggressive
and secretive than central leaders. The effectiveness of outside
intervention is greatly increased when there is foreign involvement
in the case, as in this instance. Any yet it took the FCO five
months before the case was raised with the Chinese authorities.
The Chinese authorities told the FCO the reasons
behind the closure of the Home, information already received from
the State Department. Insufficient registration, unqualified staff,
poor care and inappropriate education. Somewhat limp excuses,
given that all those who have visited the Home and whose opinion
we value had stated the opposite. The home was registered under
the Lhasa Youth Handicap Association, the staff friendly and well
motivated, the children happy and well looked after and the education
above average. Regarding the latter, education included Tibetan
language, Tibetan art (and therefore a grounding in Buddhism)
and traditional song and dance. No doubt the authorities considered
these subjects "unpatriotic".
The Directors of the Home (Bangri Rinpoche and
his wife) had been charged with "violating Chinese law by
jeopardising state security with financial support from overseas."
This could cover a multitude of misdemeanours which are no doubt
unproven. There is no news on what charges the other staff are
being held and although the children have been declared safe,
there is no information as to their whereabouts. The FCO has given
assurances that they will press the Chinese authorities on both
these issues, I sincerely hope they will. The Gyatso case illustrates
only too clearly how the FCO does not want to get involved in
human rights issues. Excuses are given, delay tactics are used
and only when the pressure is on will they raise their head above
the parapet—but by then it is usually too late.
I have visited the TAR numerous times between
1981 and 1999 and have witnessed with my own eyes the immense
changes that have taken place. The massive population transfer
into Tibet, the blatant discrimination, the religious persecution
and the violation of Tibetan's basic human rights. Gyatso is a
prime example of the latter, an attempt by the authorities to
stamp out an establishment where traditional Tibetan language
and culture exists, thereby threatening the very identity of the
Tibetan people. Foreign involvement merely added further fuel
to the fire, as no doubt all overseas funding is thought to be
linked to the "Dalai clique".
The FCO should strive for an ethical foreign
policy through constructive dialogue, but should not treat China
as a special case when it comes to human rights abuse. They should
offer help to China and encourage her to sign and ratify the various
international agreements, only then will she demonstrate a degree
of global responsibility to which we all aspire.
BROADCASTING
The motto of the BBC's world service is "Let
Nation Speak Unto Nation". Why is it, therefore, that there
exists in the BBC an unwritten understanding that nothing negative,
indeed almost nothing at all, should be broadcast in Britain about
what is happening in the People's Republic of China. Surely we
all, as licence payers, have a right to ask?
China makes up a sixth of world's land mass
and accounts for a fifth of its population. On human rights, the
PRC has a lamentable record, executing over a thousand of its
citizens a year, sometimes after the most perfunctory of trails.
Religions are proscribed, minorities are persecuted, there is
an official programme of euthanasia and female infanticide abounds.
Strikes on a massive scale, involving tens of thousands of disgruntled
workers, are taking place regularly. And yet we hear nothing of
this from the BBC.
Why? Because correspondents and producers in
Beijing are constantly frustrated in their attempts to persuade
Chinese officials to allow them to film anything which might illustrate
the above abuses or the reality of life in China today. Meanwhile,
senior editorial managers at the BBC have promised the Chinese
Government that there will be no more secret, ie unofficial, filming
in China.
In the past, all the reports on human rights
have been filed by journalists entering China illegally. In this
way, the BBC has produced exclusive reports on slave labour, the
sale of kidneys from prisoners held on "death row",
the persecution of the Moslem minority in Xinjiang province and
of the people of Tibet, including the imprisonment of the eight
year old Panchen Lama.
For the past five years, the BBC has ceased
to report events in China properly. Looking back on reports on
human rights issues during this period, there has been nothing
revealing, investigative or original. There have been a few reports
on the persecution of the Falun Gong sect, which are often compiled
by a reporter in London using agency material. The visits of Clinton
and Blair have been followed, with allusions to their stands on
human rights while meeting with Chinese leaders and nothing else.
The BBC has been told that if it attempts to
report China—ie look beyond the permitted pictures of official
visits, government ceremonies etc, that the BBC bureau in Beijing
will be closed. But what is the purpose of keeping a bureau open,
which is presumably very expensive, but which reports only on
the occasional visit to China by Britain's premier and the opening
of the latest Chairman Mao tractor factory?
TRADE
China desperately needs access to the OECD markets.
Without its purchase of Chinese goods, it cannot survive. In the
UK, we import twice as many goods from China as we export. Britain
exports over three times as much to Australia and yet we do not
resort to humiliating sycophancy in our relations with the Australians.
The European Community has now withdrawn all
protests about China's human rights record and yet have reaped
little in return. After the extraordinary behaviour of HMG during
the Chinese president's visit, a meagre £2.1 worth of trade
deals were signed between the UK and China, among them contracts
signed by BP.
BP's investment included support for PetroChina's
planned pipeline across Tibet—a project which would have
despoiled the fragile environment, displaced native Tibetans and
introduced thousands more Chinese workers into the country. Amidst
much embarrassment at these revelations, the British company have
withdrawn.
From a moral standpoint, China colludes in what
critics of globalisation call "chasing starvation wages".
Many well known brand names which have been exposed for exploiting
their workforces in, say Central America or South East Asia, now
operate in the Special Economic Zones of China. Working in a country
which boasts 300 million unemployed and where there are a dozen
applicants for every factory vacancy, the manufacturer in China
can behave with impunity.
An example . . . recently, the Hong Kong based
Christian Industrial Committee recorded interviews with workers
at a factory making sports clothes for the Umbro label in Shenzhen.
They revealed that the rates and terms of employment fell well
short of even Chinese labour laws and that abuse and intimidation
of workers were routine. The HKCIC passed the information onto
the BBC who requested permission to visit the factory. It was
refused.
The football strips worn by the England and
Premier League teams are made in China by UMBRO and yet, because
of the closed nature of information in China and the limited access
to factories, it is impossible to check in what conditions these
garments are made in. British consumers are becoming more and
more conscious about the conditions in which goods are produced.
They have a right to choose not to buy goods made in inhumane
conditions. Many High Street brands now manufacture in China—eg
Umbro, Nike, Littlewoods, Marks and Spencer—but it is impossible
for journalists and those who believe in ethical trading standards
to monitor conditions.
| 
