Yesterday the State Department put out a brief statement on Tibet, China, and March 10th. It was not in Secretary of State Clinton’s name and it was very timid.

Today, during the State Department’s daily press briefing, spokesman Robert Wood was questioned intensely by reporters about the statement and the process that lead it to being so weak.

QUESTION: Yeah. Robert, yesterday at almost about exactly this time – I think it was 11:05, at least according to the transcript – you came down and said that the Secretary would be issuing a statement about the 50^th anniversary of the uprising in Tibet. About eight and a half hours later, a statement was, in fact, released, but it was in your name, not in the Secretary’s name. And I’m wondering if you can explain what happened between 11:05 and 7:38.
MR. WOOD: The statement has the full weight of the Secretary and the State Department behind it. Very simple.

QUESTION: You don’t think that a statement in the Secretary’s name is stronger or sends a stronger signal than –

MR. WOOD: What I’m saying to you is that the statement that we issued last night has the full weight of the Secretary. It was cleared by the Secretary and it represents the Secretary’s views.

QUESTION: Okay. At around the time – in the afternoon, or when this was being cleared, it looks like there was a lot of language removed from the –what I’m told was an original draft. The statement that came out doesn’t make reference to a couple things that I’m told were in the original draft, including stressing access to Tibet, to the region, creating conditions for negotiations between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and the Chinese, releasing prisoners, due process – respect for due process of law, and not criminalizing peaceful dissent. None of these things are specifically mentioned in the statement that came out, and I’m wondering why that is.
MR. WOOD: Well, Matt, I’m not going to talk about internal deliberations that we have with regard to statements, but let me just say that this is a statement that we put out yesterday. It reflects our policy. As I’ve said, once again, the Secretary’s full weight was behind the statement, and that’s where we stand.
QUESTION: How would you address criticism from people who – in the human rights community that this is really kind of allowing the Chinese – giving the Chinese a free ride on this?

MR. WOOD: I don’t believe it’s giving the Chinese a free ride on anything. I think we have said time and time again from this podium – you’ve heard it from previous secretaries of state, you’ve heard it from previous presidents – that we are very concerned about the situation in Tibet. We encourage the Chinese to improve the situation on the ground in Tibet. We will continue to do that. That statement that was issued yesterday evening reflects the State Department’s views about the situation. And once again, I just want to be very clear about this: This is a statement that was cleared by the Secretary, has the full weight of the State Department behind it.

It was disappointing to see Secretary of State Clinton not speak out on behalf of freedom, human rights, and the Tibetan people yesterday. It’s disappointing and quite troubling to see that the State Department dramatically walked back their plans in the course of a few hours, presumably under strong pressure from China.  The State Department has not only dodged an opportunity to be a voice for human rights and freedom — something the House of Representatives is again choosing to be on this issue — but actually dodged substantive, important questions about how US-Tibetan policy is being influenced on a day by day basis.

Congress has long been a leader in speaking out for Tibet and the Tibetan people. It’s time the State Department and Secretary of State Clinton step up and at bare minimum match the words and actions of Congress. Of course real leadership would mean dramaticaly charting a course forward that included recognizing that human rights cannot be separated from our dealings with China.