Above: Three kick ass activists who don’t have time to smile

The Globe and Mail, Canada’s largest national paper, had a huge, front page, above the fold article yesterday on three Canadian women who have been at the forefront of the Tibetan independence movement through Students for a Free Tibet: Kate Woznow, Freya Putt, and SFT’s Executive Director Lhadon Tethong. I had the privilege of working on staff at SFT with all three of these magnificent ladies for two years and am really happy to see them get this kind of recognition for their persistent leadership on behalf of Tibet. All three have taken part in nonviolent direct actions for Tibet in Beijing and continue to lead the global campaign to make Tibet the front and center issue as the Beijing Olympics approach. Go read the full article, as the full scope of its awesomeness doesn’t lend itself well to excerpting.

Cold Mtn at Tibet Will Be Free directs our attention to large protests that happened again in Lhasa yesterday, just as or shortly after a guided tour of foreign diplomats left Tibet’s capital.

Details are emerging about fresh protests in Lhasa today. According to Radio Free Asia:

Witnesses in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, say fresh protests erupted there on Saturday afternoon despite a massive Chinese police and paramilitary presence there.

Witnesses told RFA’s Tibetan service that several hundred Tibetans rallied around 2 p.m. on March 29, beginning in the area near Center Beijing Road. Shops near the central post ofice on Lhasa Youth Road were closed, as security forces surrounded the Tibetan residential areas in Barkhor and Kama Kunsang, Ramoche, and the Jokhang temple.

“People were running in every direction,” one witness said. “It was a huge protest and people were shouting.”

According to the Associated Press, the protests occurred “as diplomats wrapped up a visit organized by Beijing in an effort to blunt criticism of its crackdown on unrest in the region.”

The 15-member delegation of diplomats from the U.S., Japan, and European countries apparently left Lhasa about an hour before the protests erupted. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing issued a brief statement after the visit that shouldn’t surprise anyone: “The delegation was not permitted to move about independently in Lhasa, and was unable to hold unsupervised conversations with local residents.” [Emphasis added]

Yet again, when presented with an opportunity to allow real access to Tibet, China chose to wall outsiders off from what is really going on in Tibet. Tibetans remain silenced from speaking to the press or diplomats. The world has not yet heard the full extent of Tibetans’ accounts of what has happened in Lhasa and elsewhere over the last 20 days.  It’s truly a testament to the bravery and patriotism of Tibetans inside Tibet that both of China’s dog and pony shows guided tours of journalists and diplomats have been met by large, visible acts of protests that belie China’s claims of control over Tibet. Only in this way, by their continued resistance and defiance to the Chinese military crackdown against their protests, do Tibetans show the world their unequivocal opposition to China’s occupation of Tibet.

Jim Yardley has an article in today’s International Herald Tribune about the relationship between Chinese nationalism and the crackdown in Tibet.

“We couldn’t believe our government was being so weak and cowardly,” said Meng, 52, a mother and office worker, who was appalled that the authorities had initially failed to douse the violence. “The Dalai Lama is trying to separate China, and it is not acceptable at all. We must crack down on the rioters.”

For two weeks, as Chinese security forces have tried to extinguish continuing Tibetan protests, Chinese officials have tried to demonstrate the party’s resolve to people like Meng. They have blasted the foreign media as biased against China, castigated the Dalai Lama as a terrorist “jackal” and called for a “people’s war” to fight separatism in Tibet.

If the tough tactics have startled the outside world, the Communist Party for now seems more concerned with rallying domestic opinion by using and responding to the deep strains of nationalism in Chinese society. Playing to national pride, and national insecurities, the party has used censorship and propaganda to position itself as defender of the motherland – and block any examination of Tibetan grievances or its own performance in the crisis.

I and other people I know working in the Tibetan independence movement, including pretty much all Tibetans, have no grievance with the Chinese people. It is the Chinese government that has created and enforced policies of oppression and cultural genocide in Tibet, not the Chinese people, and as such the proper target of our campaigns for Tibet has been the Chinese government.  Yardley’s piece on Chinese nationalism, though, is deeply troubling as a sign of what obstacles may lie in the way of a policy shift in the Chinese government.

There are two key things to take away from this, though. First, the existence of Chinese nationalism (or Han chauvinism) has been fomented and grown by the Chinese Communist Party. It does not exist like this in a vacuum, but has been amplified be a source of support for the government. Second, the prejudices of a population do not have to veto the right course of action by a government. In America, schools were desegregated despite widespread racism. Women were given the right to vote despite centuries of ingrained misogyny in Western culture. There may be large swaths of rabid nationalists in China, but that should not be what prevents the Chinese government from ceasing their violent crackdown in Tibet, nor should be an obstacle to the CCP Chairman Hu Jintao negotiating directly with the Tibetan Government-in-Exile.

Barbara O’Brien has more on what we can do about the situation in Tibet in a piece on About.com’s Buddhism Blog. Not surprisingly, Barb recommends seeking true information as a predicate for acting in pursuit of freedom and human rights. This is a welcome prescription in an environment where the Western press is often filled with Chinese apologism and the Chinese “press” is filled with propaganda.

Bernard-Henri Levy has a piece at The New Republic on Tibet that is quite simply brilliant.

Now the government has unleashed the most brutal repression the Autonomous Region has suffered since the one imposed by Hu Jintao when he was provincial party secretary 19 years ago–a few months before the events in Tiananmen Square. That is when Jintao, now the president of China, gained a reputation for being an “iron man” and earned his Party stripes.

What are the exact circumstances surrounding this new repression?

How much credibility should we accord the official logorrhea that evokes Tibetan “separatism” and the will of the region’s spiritual leaders to use the resonance of this period to finally make their voices heard?

In any case, it doesn’t matter.

Because what is important is that they shot at the crowd in cold blood, just as they did 19 years ago.

 What is important is that, as I write this, the provincial capital, Lhasa, has been transformed into a war zone, patrolled by police officers in armored cars, cut off from the rest of the world.

 What is also important is that the regime has again shown its supreme, sovereign indifference to the moods of the despised West. What is important is that, having learned from our cowardice in the face of the massacres in Darfur and the violence in Burma, the Chinese know–or think they know–that we will not budge even if they tear Tibet apart.

In the face of such cynicism, I believe that there is still time to use the firm language they think we’re too afraid to utter.

It is not too late to use the threat of boycotting the Olympics as a weapon, as a way to demand that, at the very least, they stop the killing and begin following the provisions of the Autonomous Region’s constitution to the letter–especially where personal freedoms are concerned.

Beijing won’t give in? Boycotts in general don’t work? Well, I say to naysayers, we will never know if we don’t try. We have nothing to lose if we do try–and the Chinese and Tibetan people have so much to gain!

We shouldn’t be mixing sports and politics? We shouldn’t deprive the world of the great celebration that is the Olympics? Fine, I say to our sporting friends. But we must not reverse our roles, either. It is the Chinese who are ruining the celebration. They are the ones flouting the Olympian principles. They are the ones who will be hoisting the Olympic flame atop Mount Everest and, along the way, climbing over the bodies of assassinated men of peace and prayer.

And finally, it is because of the butchers of Tiananmen and Tibet that next August, the athletes competing for medals–athletes who have been transfused, juiced up, transformed into near-robots–will be running, wrestling and parading in stadiums stained with blood.

There is still time to salvage it all: sports, honor and lives.

There is still time to take the same risk Barack Obama did, to remind the Chinese of the possibility–merely the possibility–of a boycott, to say at once “yes” to Olympic ideals and “no” to the Games of Shame.

The clock is ticking. [Emphasis added]

This is as clear a call to action as I have seen any Western advocate for human rights and freedom make in regard to the Beijing Olympics. It is closely in line with what I feel the moral imperative for free people have to stand up in defense of freedom for the oppressed. And Levy makes his case by cutting through the detritus thrown into discourse by the Chinese propaganda machine and their apologists. It is, quite simply, what the world needs right now.

This post is a response to new Huffington Post blogger Harold Parmington III’s Western Activism Won’t Help Tibet. I have spent eight years working in the Tibetan independence movement and have blogged extensively about what has been happening in Tibet since March 10th. That said, I would like to share a response from a friend who has been involved in the Tibetan independence movement far longer than I have and whose analysis of the situation I have always respected deeply.

I am not sure exactly what makes Harold Parmington an expert on the effects that Western activism will or won’t have on the Chinese government, but as producer of the Tibetan Freedom Concerts, former Chair of the Board of Students for a Free Tibet, and a Tibet activist for over 20 years, I have a few thoughts on the subject.

First, his assertion that activists have not effected China is dead wrong. The Tibet movement’s actions over the last 20 years have directly resulted in political prisoner releases, they have stayed executions, and they have caused world governments to support an issue that they would not have paid attention to otherwise. This week, protests have exposed the Beijing government for exactly what it is and, in the Speaker of the House’s words: ‘challenged the conscience of the world.’

What Parmington doesn’t fully grasp is that Tibetans inside Tibet have always and will always resist Chinese rule. Those who resist have always and will always appeal for our help. And those of us who support them have always and will always do whatever we can to help. The Tibet movement is a reality, the Tibetan people’s desire for independence is not going away, and the burden — as it is in all nations who hold occupied territory — is on China to deal with it. There is absolutely no need or political advantage to “working within China’s framework.”

Parmington has joined a very small chorus of voices whose primary point (and I use the term lightly) seems to be: ‘Don’t bother, you’re wasting your time.’ History is full of these detractors and their collective ennui — they’re the same ones who told Gandhi there was no way a single man could overthrow the worlds biggest empire. They’re the ones who urged ‘diplomacy’ with Apartheid and told Dr. King to quiet down. Well, Mr. Parmington, I’d urge you to read up on your history. Protests do work, despotic empires — yes, even really big ones — are toppled, and those who say ‘don’t bother’ generally get left behind as activists shape the course of history.

Josh Schrei
Producer, Tibetan Freedom Concerts
Former Chair, Students for a Free Tibet

I would simply add that we are facing a moment where what is needed is more activism, not less; a greater sense of how to promote human rights, not a diminished drive to improve the world; and a louder call from people like Mr. Parmington III who enjoy the freedoms of thought, press, assembly, and petition that Tibetans lack, for those same rights to be realized inside Tibet and China. Only in this way can we change the world. As Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Surely Mr. Parmington III would recognize that those words are just as true today as they were in 1857.

Cross posted at Huffington Post.

The UN Human Rights Council edition:

China remains untouchable by the UN Human Rights Council, with Beijing to emerge unscathed from the current session despite widespread criticism of its crackdown in Tibet, activists and diplomats say.

The Council, which ends its four-week long session on Friday, will begin adopting a series of resolutions on Thursday, none of which will mention the situation in Tibet.

Although the Council held special sessions on small countries such as Israel and Myanmar, Beijing evaded any special attention to its response to the protests against Chinese rule in Tibet that have left, according to Tibet’s government-in-exile, some 140 people dead.

The full AFP article goes into more sickening detail on how China escaped untouched of criticism during some of the most visible sights of oppression in recent memory.

The New York Times Letters to the Editor section today has some great ones on Tibet.

To the Editor:

As a Tibetan, I take exception to “He May Be a God, but He’s No Politician,” by Patrick French (Op-Ed, March 22).

Mr. French suggests that if the Dalai Lama renounced parts of Tibet, progress could be achieved. Like the Chinese leadership, Mr. French does not appreciate that the Dalai Lama has already made the greatest compromise by agreeing to give up independence. Why should we now be expected to divide up our historical territory?

Mr. French also implies that the Dalai Lama is harming Tibetans by seeking international support. Yet decades of “back-channel diplomacy” have not yielded results.

The issue is not that the Dalai Lama is a poor politician, but that politicians are unwilling to effectively oppose China’s colonization of Tibet. Not only do these politicians conduct business as usual with China, but they have also rewarded China with the Olympic Games, much as the international community rewarded Hitler’s Nazi Germany with the 1936 Games.

It is irresponsible for politicians to give China the Olympic spotlight without insisting on justice for Tibet.

Dechen Tsering
Berkeley, Calif., March 23, 2008

•

To the Editor:

This month we have witnessed an outbreak of protest and violence in Tibet and a terrifying crackdown. At this critical time, Patrick French chooses to follow Beijing’s lead in scapegoating the Dalai Lama and the Tibet movement.

The Dalai Lama has been successful in keeping the plight of Tibetans high on the political and international radar. This focus has protected Tibetans from some of the worst excesses endured by Uighurs in the Xinjiang region, garnered vital support among Chinese in China, provided hope to Tibetans in Tibet living under oppression and created a critical political space for debate within China.

Mr. French’s approach misses the key point that we are currently witnessing an escalating crisis that calls into question Beijing’s policies over half a century in Tibet.

Kate Saunders
London, March 25, 2008

The writer is communications director, International Campaign for Tibet.

•

To the Editor:

There is something we could do to help the Tibetans regain their freedom from the colonialist Chinese: organize a worldwide boycott of trade with China.

That is how great democracies should deal with renegade dictatorships like China.

Timothy Bal
Belle Mead, N.J., March 23, 2008

•

To the Editor:

The headline “Speak Out on Tibet” (editorial, March 24) captures exactly what Tibetans have been asking governments and the United Nations to do for close to five decades: speak out for Tibet. Sadly, nobody has — at least not with any real conviction.

The coming Olympic Games present an opportunity for the international community to finally take a stand on Tibet. Beijing is so desperate to have the respect of its peers that shunning the Games in a full boycott would send a message that would be impossible for Beijing to ignore.

Beijing’s belief that brutal repression can quell the spirit of the Tibetan people must be opposed. And the 2008 Olympics present a perfect opportunity for the world to voice this opposition.

Pema Tulotsang
Toronto, March 24, 2008

•

To the Editor:

Re “Sarkozy Hints at Boycott of Olympics’ Opening” (news article, March 26):

Unlike many of his outlandish propositions, the latest suggestion by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is poignant and should be considered by the United States and the rest of the world.

The International Olympic Committee has urged countries and athletes not to boycott the Games, but it has failed to condemn the Chinese government for its use of force to quell the recent unrest in Tibet.

If the I.O.C. isn’t willing to punish the Chinese government in some way for its human rights violations, then participating Olympic nations must take it upon themselves to effect this punishment.

If that means withdrawing from the Olympic Games, so be it.

Becquer Medak-Seguin
Walla Walla, Wash., March 26, 2008