As the cases of self-immolation in protest to Chinese oppression cross the tragic one hundred milestone during Losar, world leaders and prominent human rights organizations comment on the situation. However no evidence of a ‘softening’ in Chinese policies is evident.
US State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland
On February 14, US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, commenting on the ‘horrific figures’, called on the
US Secretary of State, John Kerry
Chinese government to ‘address its own policies in Tibet that have caused these kinds of tensions and frustration’. Remaining deeply concerned by the ever-increasing reports of self-immolations, the official US policy is still that the Tibetan acts of defiance to Chinese oppression may not be the best way to express grievances: ‘We call on those who are immolating or those who might be considering this to think hard about whether it’s the best way to express yourself’, Mrs. Nuland said.
Although no official statements have been made by newly appointed US Secretary of State, John Kerry, he did raise American concerns over human rights with his Chinese counterpart during their first meeting. ‘…Obviously, the importance of continuing our human rights dialogue did come up’ Mrs. Nuland said, commenting on the meeting between the two foreign ministers.
UK MP Fabian Hamilton
On February 13, in the UK, a group of bipartisan MPs issued several statements on the tragic situation in Tibet condemning the Chinese hard-line policies, and urged the Chinese Government to examine their current strategy. Labour MP and Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet, Fabian Hamilton, said that China must ‘recognise that it is the failure of their policies in Tibet that have led to not only the 100 self-immolations but also widespread peaceful protests in Tibet’. Especially concerned with the lack of free expression, Mr. Hamilton urged the Chinese government to allow Tibetans ‘the freedom to express their unique cultural identity without fear of persecution’.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
On the same note, MP Lord Alton of Liverpool urged China to ‘afford the Tibetans the rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled, such as the freedom of expression and freedom of religion’. Conservative MP Tim Loughton, commenting on the obviously failed Chinese attempts to diminish civil unrest, said that the ‘heart-rending decision to self-immolate by over a hundred Tibetans is indicative of the failure of China’s policies in Tibet’. Although facing world-wide criticism, there is no evidence that Chinese hard-line policies in Tibet are changing for the better.
UK MP Tim Loughton
When Xi Jinping was elected leader of the Communist Party of China in November, hopes arose that he might habor softer sentiments towards the Tibetan issue. This, however, has not been the case so far. In January 2013, as Chinese security-policies were reaffirmed in Tibet, newly Chinese-appointed Tibetan Governor Losang Gyaltsen praised the Party for its ‘peaceful liberation’ of Tibet, its socialist system and its ethnic-autonomy policies. Since the beginning of 2013, China has also intensified its security operations, both within the formal boundaries of the Tibet Autonomous Region and in the heavily Tibetan areas of the surrounding provinces, where many of the self-immolation cases have been reported.
Both US and UK officials agree with the findings of the Human Rights Watch World Report 2013 which strongly criticizes
UK MP Cathy Jamieson
China, and calls on the Chinese government to soften their policies and address the Tibetan grievances if they wish to diminish the civil unrest in the region. When asked if the US sees any move by China to address the concerns of the Tibetans, Mrs. Nuland said ‘I think you can tell from the situation that it remains quite tense’. A more direct statement was made by UK MP Cathy Jamieson (Labour) on February 13 when she urged the Chinese leaders to ‘ease tensions by withdrawing its armed forces and ending its repressive policies, instead of responding with military aggression and “de facto” martial law conditions’.
Print
Email