By Ngawang C. Drakmargyapon
Phayul Special Correspondent
United Nations, Geneva, 20 March – Ms. Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, has said that she was seeking dates for a fact-finding visit to China. This observation was made in an annex on “summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received” to the main report by the Special Rapporteur to the current session of the UN Human Rights Council.
Making the observations on cases transmitted to China, Ms. Jahangir (Pakistan) said that the Special Rapporteur “would also like to thank the Government for the invitation it has extended in 2004 for a follow-up visit and she hopes to receive a reply from the Government further to her last letter of September 2006 requesting dates for the visit.”
In November 1994 when this mandate was held by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor from Tunisia at the UN Commission on Human Rights, he became the first-ever UN human rights expert to make a fact-finding mission to present-day China, which included a short stay in Lhasa. Following the visit, the Special Rapporteur “noted the extremely devout attitude perceptible in Tibet, the full scale and extent of which has not, perhaps, been sufficiently appreciated so far. This factor must be taken into account when analysing the religious situation in Tibet. Moreover, the question of Tibet would be less acute if it did not have an added dimension, in other words if it turned solely on religious aspects…The Special Rapporteur considers that deep religiousness may be the source not only of great spirituality, but also of real difficulties. The latter should be dealt with through dialogue, tolerance and education. Any repression of religion can lead to greater religiousness, or even, in some cases, a form of extremism, despite the apparently non-violent nature of Buddhism in general and Tibetan Buddhism in particular, the values of which might be severely tried by changes to the demographic data of Tibet.”
On 26 November 1994, the Special Rapporteur met with late-Yulo Dawa Tsering and made these references to their discussion in the mission Report: “Mr. Yulo Dawa Tsering expressed concern on two matters, firstly, the fact that monks jailed for demonstrating and poster campaigns were excluded from places of worship upon their release and, secondly, the international community’s concept of the history of Tibet. He also voiced his disquiet over the fate of Mr. Lobsang Tenzin, imprisoned for having attempted to hand over a letter addressed to an ambassador which had been intercepted by an interpreter. He concluded by expressing his hopes regarding the international community, in particular, should his meeting with the Special Rapporteur have negative consequences for him.” This was the first ever meeting between a UN human rights expert and a Tibetan human rights victim.
This year, Ms. Jahangir’s report show that on 6 December 2005, together with the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on Torture, an urgent appeal was communicated to the China regarding the crackdown at Drepung Monastery in November 2005, including the arrest of five monks following a patriotic re-education session.
China responded to the three UN human rights experts stating that the five monks were expelled for breaching rules and regulations. China’s letter of 12 January 2006 said: “…five monks at the Drepung Monastery in the Tibet Autonomous Region were expelled from the monastery by the monastery’s management committee, for having breached the monastery regulations. After the announcement of this administrative decision, a number of monks from the monastery came to the management committee to demand an explanation. After hearing the explanation provided by the committee, the assembled monks all dispersed and the five monks who had been expelled also expressed their acceptance of the decision and returned to places of origin.”
The crackdown at Drepung Monastery happened when the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture was actually conducting a fact-finding visit to Lhasa. Contrary to reports which emerged about the intense pressure on Drepung monks in the following months, the Chinese authorities told the UN experts the monastery remained open to the public and religious activities were continuing. “Throughout this entire process, there has been no instance of any monk being physically or verbally assaulted or detained, nor has any monastery been shut down,” China said.
Ngawang Namdrol, Ngawang Nyingpo, Ngawang Thupen (aka Shogbu Metok), Khenpo Ngawang Phelgyel and Phuntsok Thupwang were the five monks identified in the UN expert’s appeal to China. The appeal said that on 25 November 2005, “approximately 400 monks held a silent sit-down protest in the monastery courtyard. There is concern that members of the army and officers from the People’s Armed Police and the Public Security Bureau beat a number of monks in their efforts to disperse them.”
Ms. Jahangir also informs the Human Rights Council that the Special Rapporteur brought up the cases of two monks of Sera monastery, Tsering Dhondup and Changchub Gyaltsen (a disciplinarian). The Special Rapporteur wrote to the Chinese authorities that: “According to information received in July 2005, the authorities expelled Changchup Gyaltsen from Sera monastery after he read out a request for prayer, which referred to the Dalai Lama. He was placed under surveillance for a year. Tsering Dhondup, who is alleged to have drafted the prayer, disappeared on the same day. He is thought to be held incommunicado at Gutsa Prison in northern Lhasa. He is alleged to have possessed a distributed documents criticizing China and supporting Tibetan independence.”
China in a response dated 18 April 2006 said that Changchub Gyaltsen was “expelled from the monastery for engaging in activities within Sera monastery calling for the division of Chinese territory and has currently returned to his place of origin.” As regards the situation of Tsering Dhondup, the response said that he “was detained on 26 August 2005 by the Tibetan public security authorities, in accordance with the law, for preparing propaganda materials calling for “Tibetan independence” and advocating division of the State.” Without specifying the results, China also said that on 25 October 2005, “proceedings were instituted against him, in accordance with the law, by the Lhasa people’s procurator’s office on suspicion of the offence of fomenting division of the State.”
The UN Human Rights Council began its Fourth session last Monday and before the meeting conclusion on 30 March, more statements on the human rights situation in Tibet are being prepared. Tibetan NGOs like the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, International Campaign for Tibet-Europe, Tibetan Women’s Association and Gu Chu Sum Association will be attending this UN human rights meeting’s remaining two weeks. On Friday, a Tibet panel, “Nangpa Killings, an Eye Witness Account: China’s Use of Force on Civilians, including Children”, is scheduled take place at the United Nations here which is sponsored several NGOs.
On the opening day of the Human Rights Council, the Swedish Foreign Minister in an address strongly criticized China’s policy on death penalty. Mr. Carl Bildt in that statement during the High Level Segment of the Council’s meeting said: “It is also highly important to move forward with the work to abandon the death penalty all over the world. It is a brutal and vindictive travesty of justice which clearly does not belong in any modern system. It contravenes the very notion of human rights…But more than 80 percent of the total number of executions in the world today takes place in China, where a shockingly high number of crimes can lead to the death penalty. This is certainly not in the Olympic spirit.”
Ms. Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her statement to the Fourth Session of the Human Rights Council said: “…it is considerably more difficult to dismiss human rights violations that are individualized and clearly man-made. Disappearances, Illegal detention, mistreatment of detainees, abuses of patients in mental institutions, discriminatory laws, exploitation of migrants, the selling of women into prostitution or domestic labour slavery, the beating of children, the brutal repression of opinions and beliefs, and the abandonment and neglect of the elderly in state-run institutions can hardly be described as natural, unavoidable occurrences.”
