The New York Times reports that Dhondup Wangchen, a Tibetan filmmaker who was arrested after recording statements from his countrymen criticising the government’s rule of Tibet, is now on trial for subversion. His film, entitled Leaving Fear Behind, was smuggled out of China shortly before he was arrested in March 2008. He has apparently been tortured while in custody, which, unfortunately, does not seem surprising. Now he has written a letter, smuggled out of prison, saying that his trial on charges of state subversion has begun. This is a particularly blatant and unconscionable attempt by the government to stamp out any public discussion by Tibetans of the issues confronting, and everyone who cares about their own freedom or that of their neighbors should call upon the Chinese government to free Dhondup Wangchen. Furthermore, the public should pressure American authorities and other influential parties to pressure China to show leniency in this case. Since Dhondup Wangchen has apparently not been accused of violent acts or political organising, this seems like the sort of case where the Chinese government might bend under pressure.

Please see the take action page on the Leaving Fear Behind site for suggestions on contacting the authorities in China and in your home country.

The ICT reports on an interesting, if temporary and idiosyncratic, development in rural Dhrango County in Kham (near Nyarong; outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region): at the time of the Dalai Lama’s birthday a couple months ago, instead of preventing the public from celebrating, local officials actively promoted the celebrations.  They apparently handed out photographs of the Dalai Lama and, according to one source, they even “gave a speech in praise of the Dalai Lama”! It’s not unprecedented for CCP officials in rural areas to organise religious festivals, such as, for instance, a festival honoring a local god or King Gesar, etc.;  but a living political figure is something different, and the Dalai Lama is normally considered radioactive in Chinese politics.

The ICT article emphasises that this move no doubt temporary and intended to serve a particular political purpose. Dhrango County has seen its share of unrest during the last year and a half. October 1 is Chinese National Day, celebrating the establishment of the People’s Republic. The government wants the whole country to be peaceful and placid at this time. So, the temporary liberalisation in Dhrango County looks like a move by local officials to give the public something they want in order placate them at least until National Day celebrations are over. Even in a best case scenario, there’s a big giant question mark here: does this mean anything in the long run? It certainly doesn’t mean much in the short term. Dhrango County will probably go back to the status quo of repression, and nobody’s going to be legalising opposition parties or Tibetan flags any time soon. Still, even though the liberalisation in Dhrango County is intended to serve China’s interests, let’s remember that the basic premise of the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way proposal is get the powers that be to realise that China’s interests and Tibet’s interests are not fundamentally at odds. If they really want Tibet to be peaceful and placid, instead of being a thorn in the regime’s side, maybe they could try actually given the Tibetan people most of what they want. It doesn’t take too much of a genius to realise that, if the Dhrango County officials were somewhat successful for little while with temporary, mild reforms, maybe much more could be achieved with more serious reforms. Part of the problem Tibet faces is that many of the high-ranking party leaders in Tibet are the worst of worst, stuck in a Cultural Revolution mentality that makes it impossible for them to think along these lines; and Hu Jintao, a former Tibet party boss, is one of them. But Hu Jintao won’t be around forever, and neither will the current Tibet leadership. If the whoever comes after them can learn something by observing this brief, anomalous episode in Dhrango County, then maybe it will mean something in the long run.

Hat tip to the Tibet Connection podcast for this story.

Dhrango is also spelled Drango. In Tibetan, it’s བྲག་འགོ་, brag-’go (I think that’s pronounced [ʈʰàŋgo], for those of you familiar with IPA; although the locals probably pronounce it differently anyway). In Chinese, Dhrango is called Luhuo (炉霍).

Sep 11, 2009 04:30 AM

Dasey Wangkhang Silva is the niece of one of the first two Tibetans to come to Canada. She is documenting that pivotal time in history.

Stuart Laidlaw

Faith and Ethics Reporter

Dasey Wangkhang Silva is worried.

Her oldest relatives are getting on in age and soon they will be gone – taking with them the stories of an important chapter in her people’s struggle to survive.

“Their memories are too important for us to lose,” she says. “I want to keep them alive.”

She has already lost her uncle, Tsering Wangkhang, who died 10 years ago. He was one of the first two Tibetans to come to Canada at the invitation of Pierre Trudeau and Bata Shoes in the 1970s. She fears the story of how this country opened its arms to the followers of the Dalai Lama will soon be forgotten.

So Wangkhang Silva, who lives in Toronto with her husband David Silva, is setting about to tell the story of the early and small Tibetan community of Belleville, Ont., as seen through the eyes of her family.

It’s really the story of the early Tibetan community and its struggle to survive following invasion by the Chinese in 1950 and a failed uprising nine years later that led to the Dalai Lama’s self-imposed exile.

“Dasey’s father and other relatives were in Tibet when the invasion occurred and fled over the Himalayas with the Dalai Lama,” says Dermod Travis, executive director of the Canada Tibet Committee.

The committee has been trying for the last several years to preserve the stories of the community’s oldest members, with volunteers recording their stories and gathering documents.

“This is a very important issue for us right now,” says Travis, who is looking for a secure place to store the documents so they are not lost to fire or other disaster.

Belleville Mayor Neil Ellis wants a copy of Wangkhang Silva’s family story, saying it’s an important chapter in his city’s history.

“They called Belleville their home,” Ellis says.

“They’ve added a lot to the community.”

Growing up in Belleville, Wang-khang Silva says she learned to balance the fierce pride that bound her tight-knit community with a very Canadian embrace of multiculturalism – a balance playing out today in her continued involvement in Toronto’s Tibetan community and her marriage to a Portuguese Canadian.

In fact, Wangkhang Silva imagines future generations of her family will be a mix of many heritages.

“One day, my great-grandchildren will realize that their great-grandmother was Tibetan and this (family history) will give them some understanding of what that means.”

Her uncle, Tsering Wangkhang, settled with his fellow Tibetan in the Belleville area, where Bata gave them jobs. Tsering – who had worked in India with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader – soon began smoothing the way for others to immigrate.

Among the hundreds who followed was Tsering’s brother (and Wangkhang Silva’s father), Yeshi.

Belleville was the centre for Tibetan culture in Canada for a time, with Tsering organizing the community to celebrate its holidays and to protest outside the Chinese embassy on the anniversary of the 1959 uprising.

In 1980, Tsering Wangkhang put together the first visit to Canada by the Dalai Lama.

Wangkhang Silva is already familiar with the story of Tibetans in this country.

Her home and family restaurant in Belleville played host to much of the early organizing. She speaks proudly of the day her uncle got his picture taken with Trudeau.

But for details of the family’s travels from the mountains of Tibet in 1959 to exile in India and finally to Canada, she is turning to the handwritten memoirs of her uncle.

In the process, she’s learning fresh details about her family.

“Typing it out, it can get pretty emotional and I just have to stop,” says Wangkhang Silva, who was 18 when her famous uncle died.

The Wangkhangs were landowners in Tibet. Chinese officials tried unsuccessfully to turn local villagers against them. Instead, a villager came to Wangkhang Silva’s grandfather one night to warn him that he was about to be thrown in jail.

Under cover of night, he and Tsering escaped into the mountains. Before long, however, they risked coming back for the rest of the family – including Wangkhang Silva’s father, who was studying to become a monk.

“They said, `We can’t do this alone,’” Wangkhang Silva says.

“And they all left.”

As she works her way through the memoirs, Wangkhang Silva fills in blanks with her own research and details gathered from other members of the Tibetan community.

Since the Chinese have changed many place names in Tibet, a map of the country showing the original names of villages, towns and regions will be included.

Wangkhang Silva hopes the map and her family story will help other Tibetans trace their families’ histories.

“We need to understand where we come from,” she says, “before it is lost.”

A Tibetan Residential Quarters, an exclusive Tibetan community, will be built in either New York or New Jersey. This project will be undertaken by the Tibetan Housing Society, with the Office of Tibet, New York, providing necessary support and guidance.

An apartment complex of two and three bedroom units will be built, and the units will then be sold off to individual families. The apartment complex, which is to be a model Tibetan village, will contain a temple, a day care center, a recreation center, a basketball court and a library.

The following proposal contains further information. Please contact Ms. Tenzin Dickyi at tibetvillage@gmail.com  and 212-213-5010 ex 14 if you need the proposal in Tibetan.

“MODEL TIBET VILLAGE”
Tibetan Residential Quarters in New York or New Jersey, US

by Tibetan Housing Society
September 10, 2009

Tibetan immigrants in the West are facing a formidable challenge in preserving and protecting Tibetan cultural identity, language and tradition, despite various ongoing programs for teaching language and culture to the younger generation in almost all Tibetan communities in North America.  In addition, community activities are very limited and, as such, interactions among Tibetan families and between Tibetan children are a very rare opportunity.  As a result, we are witnessing a gradual loss of Tibetan language and cultural identity amongst many of the younger generation.  Given the present trend of Tibetan immigration, which suggests that the Tibetan population will continue to grow significantly over the years, this can be a big problem.

Increasingly, Tibetan immigrants are beginning to feel the need for an exclusive Tibetan community. Many Tibetan parents are experiencing difficulties in bringing up their children as Tibetans. Some have elders at homes who are bereft of a Tibetan social life, and support system, as well the opportunity to visit temples.

The primary purpose of this project is to create a Tibetan environment where Tibetans of all ages can daily practice and enjoy their cultural traditions, thus ensuring protection of Tibetan cultural identity in the US.  However, this project should not be mistaken as similar to that of Tibetan settlements in India where Tibetan government-in-exile oversees the administration as well as looks after the welfare of the settlement members.  This proposed project would be building residential houses meant for Tibetan immigrants and they will have to purchase them. The owner of the property will be individual families and not the community.  The added advantage for these Tibetans would be that they will be able to use various facilities, including a Buddhist temple, community hall, recreation center, Tibetan library etc.

This proposal was approved by the Kashag and as per its guidance the Tibetan community members are taking the initiative in establishing the settlement.  The Office of Tibet will provide necessary support and guidance.

Tibetan Residential Quarters:
Compared to other communities which have large communities with huge populations, Tibetan immigrants are small in number. To begin with, a small residential compound with around 100-200 households can be built in one location to establish the first Tibetan community settlement in North America.  This compound can serve as a pilot project for larger settlements later on.

The residential homes will have the basic necessary facilities that would contribute to the long-term preservation of Tibetan identity as well as facilities that would be of benefit to families and youth alike.  These would include:

•  Approx. 100 family units with double or triple bed rooms;
•  Parking spaces;
•  A Buddhist temple;
•  A day care center where families can keep their children when they are at work. This center will also be used during week ends to teach language and culture;
• A recreation center where Tibetans can gather during week ends and leisure hours for indoor games;
• A basket ball court;
• A library;

Feasibility of the Project:
The success of the project will fully depend on the participation of Tibetans in North America, in particular those residing in New York and New Jersey.  The project will need total commitment from potential Tibetan buyers in order to launch it.  Nevertheless, we are anticipating a massive participation from Tibetan immigrants for the following reasons:

• The location of the project will be near the city where there are plenty of job opportunities and one can easily commute to work.  Change in your residence will not affect your work.
• Affordable prices, lower than the market price
• A Day Care Center run by Tibetans at a very low cost will allow parents to have their children taken care of at a reasonable cost.
• Tibetan children and youths will have educational and social activities to keep them constantly in touch with our culture and social life.
• Tibetan students and elders will also have a library; a quiet study space away from crowded homes where they can read and do their homework.
• Buddhist temple which would be the center of attraction to all Tibetan families, especially elders who will have regular access to it and enjoy a Tibetan environment they would otherwise miss.

Board of Directors and Project Working Committee:
An informal meeting was held May 28, 2009, attended by executive members of various Tibetan organizations and several individual Tibetans to discuss the viability of the project. It was suggested to establish a Board of Directors representing the Tibetan Community of New York and New Jersey, Tibetan Youth Congress and Regional Tibetan Women’s Association, and not more than four individual Tibetans.  The Board of Directors is the final authority to make decisions on the settlement project.  A Project Working Committee was also established whose role is to conduct a feasibility study, survey potential sites and assist the Board of Directors in implementing the project.

Survey of Potential Buyers:
From the date of this announcement, we will conduct a survey of potential buyers.  All those interested should either pick up the printed information from the Office of Tibet or make a request to send the documents through email.  These documents will contain some details of the project, including the size, location and the estimated cost per household.

To launch the project, we require at least 70 percent of the housing units pre-sold.  The Board has given four months to complete the survey, beginning the date of this announcement.  If the required percentage is not met, the Board will review the feasibility of the project and make a decision.

Establishing Tibetan Housing Society:
A legal corporation is required to undertake the project.  Since the corporation needs to be registered in the state where the project would be implemented, we will have to wait until a decision is reached on the location.

Contact Person:
All interested persons are requested to contact Tenzin Dickyi at 212 213 5010 Ext. 14 or tibetvillage@gmail.com for detail information.  Please note that the availability of housing depends on first come, first serve basis to ensure fairness.

Issued by
Board of Directors
Tibetan Housing Project
C/o Office of Tibet
241 East 32nd Street
New York, NY 10016

September 10, 2009

Thanks for posting about the Elliot Sperling-Lobsang Sangay dissension, Jigme. I had actually intended to do a post on the Sperling article when it first came out, but, unfortunately, I got a bit wrapped up in non-blogging responsibilities. I found Lobsang Sangay’s response quite disappointing, both because I have a favorable impression of him (I lack any qualifications to assess his merits as a potential Kalön Thripa, but I like his bearing) and because I think there is a valid critique to be made of Sperling’s conclusions. And yet, Lobsang Sangay seems to respond only with invective. I don’t think it’s a fair criticism to simply accuse him of orientalism. His arguments make sense — it is very difficult to see how a free Tibet can be achieved through China’s legal system. The problem is that, when  you lack any good options, simply demonstrating the faults of Option A doesn’t prove that Option B is going to work well. So, the question must be: if genuine autonomy is a very difficult goal, how is independence going to be achieved instead? Personally, I agree with Lobsang Sangay that there is a better chance of making gains by supporting the Middle Way plan (or going further, even, and simply asking that Tibet be given exactly the same status as Hong Kong), but, unfortunately, I don’t think that this particular contribution to the debate actually helps make that case.

On a vaguely related note, I also recommend this article from Tibet Info Net about the foibles of TGIE’s “Finding Common Ground” initiative, in which they have organised talks and meetings between Tibetan exiles and Chinese dissidents. I don’t object to the basic idea and, moreover, I have no reason to think there was anything wrong with the execution either; but, it’s still important to pay close attention to the inevitable (and occasionally weird) problems that can pop up even with a well-executed good idea. And I completely agree with the Tibet Info Net author that SFT’s rant against Jet Li was pointless. Jet Li definitely said a couple things that I don’t agree with, but Jet Li is really, really not the big problem here.

The TibetTruth Blog (See here) has been running a campaign against the Lhasa Brewery Company Ltd. and it’s importer Lhasa Beer USA, labeling the product as:

…yet another form of cultural oppression waged against Tibetans by the occupying communist Chinese regime. Its mass production and ready availability is producing worrying levels of alcoholism among the Tibetan population.

I was shocked to hear about the statistics concerning the alcoholism problem in Tibet, outlined in the post “Alcohol-China’s Weapon of  Choice,” on the TibetTruth Blog (See here).

According to a 2008 field-study, in part conducted by Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College in London, the extent of alcohol related disorders has reached 31.6% for males and nearly 10 % for women. While a 2003 investigation recorded that “Alcohol use disorder was the most serious problem in Tibet with a point prevalence of 41.89‰ and a lifetime prevalence of 43.6%“.A number of associated mental health problems were also noted amongst those Tibetans examined with neuroses reaching a level of 26.7% and over 20% instance of anxiety related disorders.

But what really is the root of this alcoholism among Tibetans in Tibet? Is it simply because the alcohol is available to Tibetans – like the TibetTruth Blog states, or is it a deeper social environment problem where Tibetans turn to alcohol as an escape from the misery of the systematic unfairness and injustice they suffer from, which leaves many Tibetans with no job, due to lack of education and/or unfamiliarity with the Han Chinese language and ways, and forces many Tibetans to suddenly move from the land they were accustomed to living on to a modern city or a “concentrated settlement” (See here)

If the answer is the latter then how will we help this problem by not supporting this company, which according to the information from the Lhasa Beer website (See here), provides jobs to 450 people in Lhasa, of which 72% are Tibetans (324 Tibetans). Of course it would be better if an even larger percentage of these workers were Tibetans but this ratio is quite good considering the Tibetan Government in Exile has stated that Tibetans have become a minority in Lhasa

To say that it is the availability of alcohol that leads to alcoholism is short sighted in my opinion, it overlooks the deeper social environment problem which leads to these high alcoholism statistics. Here in North America we have an abundance of alcohol which is very easy to get, not to mention the strong marketing of the alcohol companies which we are subjected to, yet we do not have high alcoholism rates in the forty percent range. Therefore, is it really the abundance of alcohol that leads to alcoholism? I don’t believe so,  I think this sort of thinking is similar to the argument that decriminalizing or providing more leniency for marijuana would lead to more users but many studies have shown that decriminalization would have no effect on the rates of use.

I believe that by supporting this company, which has a “commitment to donate 10% of company profits and equity to support direct philanthropic intervention in Tibet,” we will help in improving the social environment Tibetans live in, which in turn would help solve the problem of alcoholism among Tibetan communities in Tibet while also supporting the 324 Tibetans workers who depend on this company for their livelihood in the city of Lhasa where the job markets are already largely dominated by the Han Chinese.

Autonomy? Think Again – Elliot Sperling

Rejoinder to “Autonomy? Think Again” – Lobsang Sangay

A Response to Lobsang Sangay -Elliot Sperling

In my life there have been a few rare occasions when I wished I were younger. Such futile sentiments are usually followed by a mixture of nostalgia and regret. Sitting now in a coffee shop, watching the Tibetan pop vocal group Yudruk perform Milam, I am struck by these feelings once again. I wish I were experiencing this as a younger man. I wish I had had the chance to be cool and be Tibetan when I was a young college student in Beijing.

In those days, I struggled to express who I wanted to be. Looking back, I can see that I was searching for a way to be “cool” and be Tibetan at the same time. Of course, back then, the term cool didn’t exist, either in Tibetan or Chinese. And whatever it was, “coolness” was the last thing associated with Tibetans in the Chinese imagination. As a young Tibetan who grew up in the Chinese education system, we didn’t yet know how to live outside Chinese imagination.

See the rest of the article here

According to this story in the North India Times, the Indian security services have recently been limiting the movements of Karmapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje even more tightly than before.  Since escaping into exile from China in 2000, the Karmapa has been living in Himachal Pradesh at a Gelugpa monastery not far from Dharamsala.  All along, the Indian government has kept an unusually close eye on him: he is constantly guarded by government security personnel, he travels in India only with permission, and he has not been allowed to leave India at all except for a brief visit to the United States in 2008. Now, according to the news story, the restrictions have been tightened further: his visits to Dharamsala are limited and he is largely prohibited from leaving Sidhbari, the town where he resides.

Moreover, the Karmapa had been planning to build a new home monastery near Dharamsala — he is not a Gelugpa, so it doesn’t make sense for him to remain indefinitely at a Gelugpa monastery, while Rumtek, the 16th Karmapa’s exile seat in Sikkim, is tied up in an interminable legal battle — but now it appears he is being harrassed by Indian tax authorities over its funding, with the result that construction has been halted. In any event, under the current circumstances, it’s not clear that he would be allowed to go live there, even if it were built.

What is the reason for all this? It’s quite baffling. To my knowledge, no other Tibetan exile lamas are treated this way. The usual reason given for the restrictions on the Karmapa’s movement is a concern for his security. There are also probably diplomatic concerns which go unstated. And yet, it seems clear that the Dalai Lama is the subject of greater threats to his personal security, and he is more diplomatically sensitive. Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama is allowed a much greater level of freedom. What’s more, the North India Times reports that the Karmapa’s security detail has actually been dramatically reduced even as his personal liberties have been restricted; it’s obvious that this is not intended to protect his safety.

Part of the reason for restricting Ogyen Trinley Dorje’s movements in India might related to the controversy over his identification as Karmapa: one of the highest Karma Kagyü lamas, along with most of the monks of Rumtek, rejects Ogyen Trinley Dorje’s claim and insists that another young man, Trinley Thaye Dorje, is the real Karmapa. This has resulted in an amazingly protracted struggle in the Indian court system over control of the 16th Karmapa’s properties, most importantly Rumtek Monastery itself, which shows no signs of being resolved any time soon. It’s understandable that Ogyen Trinley Dorje would be prohibited from travelling to Rumtek or other disputed properties until their ownership is settled. However, this cannot possibly be the main reason for the restrictions, since Trinley Thaye Dorje also lives in India, and he faces no similar restrictions, except that he cannot visit Rumtek.

What’s the real reason, then? Does the Indian government seriously believe that Ogyen Trinley Dorje is a Chinese spy? I’m sure there were rumours to this effect years ago. A Japanese journalist, Yoichi Shimatsu, has alleged that the Karmapa’s escape from Tibet was actually set up by the Chinese government to plant him close to the Dalai Lama. He further alleges that the man the world knows as Ogyen Trinley Dorje is a ringer: Shimatsu claims that the boy who was identified as Karmapa and enthroned in Tibet was switched out for another boy, ten years older, during the 1990s (it’s true that Ogyen Trinley Dorje seems to have matured quickly: he was supposed to be 14 years old when he left Tibet, and was already an imposing young man. If this bizarre story were true, he would actually be 34 years old now, which would mean he would start to show signs of aging soon). I don’t know much about Yoichi Shimatsu’s credibility (here’s his idiosyncratic take on the 2008 Tibet protests), but the passage of time makes his theory increasingly impossible. Are we supposed to believe that the Chinese government found a young Tibetan man (or a young Han who could speak Tibetan with no accent?), aged no more than 21 years at the time, who was willing and able to go undercover as a celibate monk, living in exile in India for nine years and counting, never breaking charater, fooling the world into thinking he was a charismatic religious leader … to what end purpose? Even in the 21st century, even for the intelligence agency of a police state, that’s a comic book plot. On top of that, we are supposed to believe that the Indian government is on to him, but not willing to public expose him, and everyone else is either in the dark or unwilling to leak the story. No, I’d say some other explanation is necessary for the Indian government’s attitude toward the Karmapa.

To be blunt, unless there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye, it seems barbaric that the Indian government would treat a guest this way. Doesn’t India see itself as part of the “free world”? Didn’t the Karmapa go into exile precisely because of the restrictions the Chinese government was subjecting him to? I’m sure he hopes that the situation in India will improve in the future, but for the moment,  I wonder how much difference he really sees between life in Tibet and life in India.

On May 25th, Chinese media released stories on the BBC’s decision to broadcast a promotional commercial in December on its World Channel free to help promote Lhasa’s tourism (See article here)

At the West China Counties International Investment and Cooperation Forum held in Hong Kong late April, the BBC World showed great interest in Lhasa’s tourism and promised to make a short film costing 100,000 Yuan on the topic.

“This will be the first time for Lhasa to publicize its tourism worldwide. With this 30-second short film, we hope to enhance Lhasa’s international image, help the world know the city better and attract more people,” said Gao Fu, deputy director of the Lhasa’s Tourism Bureau.

This decision by the BBC must be reversed. By choosing to collaborate with the Chinese government in publicizing Lhasa’s tourism the BBC will only add to the exploitation of Tibetan culture, the marginalization of Tibetans in Tibet by supporting the dominance of Chinese owned businesses and enterprises who overwhelmingly control the tourism industry in Lhasa, and the spread of the Chinese propaganda on Tibet that is administered to the tourists in Tibet.

The tourism industry of Lhasa is a manipulated extortion of Tibetan culture. Tourists are only permitted to see only a Chinese government filtered version of Tibetan history and culture. The true nature of China’s violent invasion, occupation, and exploitation is carefully omitted or denied as lies. Tourists are fed a false portrayal of a happy and prosperous Tibetan people who are accepting of a foreign Chinese government, yet from the spring uprisings of last year we see that this neo-communist-Shangri-La is a mockery of the truth.

As has been reported by Andrew Fischer, a fellow at the London School of Economics and author of “State Growth and Social Exclusion in Tibet: Challenges of Recent Economic Growth,” and also by the Gongmeng Law Research Center’s “investigative report into the social and economic causes of the 3.14 incident in Tibetan areas,” Tibetans are increasingly discriminated and excluded from development or prosperity in their own homeland. Han Chinese outsiders increasingly control the local businesses in Tibet, and recent development strategies implemented by the Chinese government have only intensified this growing problem.

Tibetans inside Tibet are denied basic human rights, such as the freedom of movement and freedom of speech. On September 30th, 2006, Kelsang Namtso, a 17 year old nun, attempted to leave Tibet via the Nangpa La pass and was shot dead by Chinese soldiers. On August 1st, 2007, Runggye Adak at a horse-racing festival in Lithang seized the microphone during a speech and called for the return of the Dalai Lama and the release of the Panchen Lama and Tenzin Delek (a Lama from Lithang who was sentenced to life in prison for alleged involvement in terrorism), and the independence of Tibet. Addak was subsequently arrested and charged with four counts of ‘crimes’ ranging from disruption of law and order to state subversion and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment with deprivation of political rights for four years.

This is the oppressive reality of Tibet tourists and the outside world are not allowed to see. Anytime we have seen the emergence of the real Tibet, we have also seen the Chinese government react by quickly shutting down the activities of tourists and foreign media inside of Tibet and a subsequent fabrication of the events in order to prevent the outside world, and even the Chinese people, from seeing the bleak reality of life in Tibet for Tibetans.

This is a reality that tourist traveling to Tibet must also accept. Those who travel to Tibet must accept the surveillance of plain-clothes Chinese authorities, restriction of travel to certain areas of Tibet, and a denial of the right to speak or express themselves freely.

As citizens of freedom-loving nations who enjoy the rights of liberty we cannot accept the denial of the basic human rights and liberties of Tibetans inside Tibet, we cannot accept the BBC’s support for the perpetuation and expansion of the exploitation of Tibetan culture and the marginalization of the Tibetan people, and we also cannot travel to Tibet as tourists and accept the denial of our own basic human rights and liberties. If we were to do so we would not only accept and validate this injustice but we would also cheapen the value of our own liberties that so many have fought for and so many around the world still fight for.