No more Chinese consulates in India until we get one in Lhasa

By B Raman

China was annoyed when President Barack Obama met the Dalai Lama in the Map Room of the White House during the latter’s recent visit to the US. But China may have reasons to be further irritated and concerned over the directive on 20 July  by the US House Foreign Affairs Committee to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that China should not be allowed to open any more Consulates in the US until Beijing allowed the US to open a Consulate in Lhasa.

The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2012 passed by the Committee said: “The Secretary shall seek to establish a United States consulate in Lhasa, Tibet, to provide services to United States citizens traveling in Tibet and to monitor political, economic, and cultural developments in Tibet, including Tibetan areas of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan provinces and, until such consulate is established, shall not permit the establishment in the United States of any additional consulate of the People’s Republic of China.”

There is reportedly a pending request from the Chinese Foreign Office for permission to open Chinese Consulates in Atlanta and Boston. Now, these two may not materialise unless and until Beijing allows the US to open a Consulate in Lhasa.

India should emulate the US and should not allow Beijing to open any more Consulates in India until it permits India to open a Consulate in Lhasa. We have a much stronger case than the US for a Consulate in Lhasa.

Non-governmental supporters of the Dalai Lama in the US have organised an exhibition to educate the public about the Panchen Lama. They also intend to start a movement to ensure that the Chinese do not disregard the Tibetan traditions by imposing their own Dalai Lama on the Tibetan people when the current Dalai Lama is no more. Chinese interference in the traditional religious practices of Tibetans in order to impose their own Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama on the Tibetan people could become an important issue in future interactions between Washington and Beijing relating to Tibet and the Dalai Lama.

While passing the resolution on a US Consulate in Lhasa, the House Foreign Affairs Committee also expressed serious concerns over the increasing suppression of religious freedom in Tibet and directed representatives of the US government to call, during exchanges with officials of the Chinese government, for a cessation of all interference by the Chinese government in the reincarnation system of Tibetan Buddhism.

The Panchen Lama who was nominated by the Chinese authorities (after arresting the Panchen Lama selected by the representatives of the Dalai Lama) was to tour Tibet during July to attend functions held to mark the 60th anniversary of the occupation of Tibet by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. According to reports from Tibet, he did not undertake the tour; it was deferred indefinitely without giving any reasons.

On 5 August, the Nepalese Police arrested Thinley Lama, the new volunteer coordinator of the Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office in Kathmandu, after he held a news conference in which he called for the protection of the human rights of Tibetan refugees living in Nepal. Beijing has been exerting intense pressure on the Nepalese government to ban what it calls the “anti-China activities” of the refugees.

In the first week of July, the Nepalese Police, under pressure from the Chinese Embassy, tried to prevent the refugees from celebrating the birthday of the Dalai Lama. Thinley Lama is a Nepal resident and acts as the Dalai Lama’s representative in Nepal.

Human Rights groups have condemned the detention of Thinley Lama and appealed to the international community to intervene to stop the persecution of Tibetan refugees by the Nepalese authorities under pressure from Beijing.

They allege that the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu has been aggressive in urging Nepal to take action against Tibetan refugees since last month when a new Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Yang Houlan, assumed office. China says there are no Tibetan “refugees”, only illegal immigrants.

It has been reported that as a quid pro quo for curbs on the activities of refugees by the Nepalese authorities, Beijing has offered financial assistance for the development of the tourist infrastructure in Nepal, including for the development of the infrastructure at Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha.

Meanwhile, reliable reports from Tibet say the Chinese authorities refrained from taking any action against about 5,000 Tibetan monks, who defied authorities’ orders and held a meeting at Lithang Gonchen in Sichuan Province from 15 to 24 July to discuss the promotion of Tibetan cultural values and national unity. Initially, Chinese authorities tried to prevent the meeting, but when the monks expressed their determination to go ahead with it, they did not intervene.

All the proceedings were conducted in the Tibetan language and all the participants were required to dress typically like Tibetans. There were discussions not only on religious, social and cultural issues, but also on the need to preserve the Tibetan language and the unity of Tibetans living in Tibet’s traditional three provinces of U-Tsang, Kham, and Amdo, all now occupied by China. The monastery of Lithang Gonchen, which hosted the meeting, had sent invitations to over 100 other monasteries—in Kardze and in neighboring prefectures—to take part. About a half of them participated.

Representatives also came from Kirti monastery in Kardze, from where about 300 defiant monks were arrested and moved to re-education camps in March this year following an incident of self-immolation by a young monk to protest against the Chinese rule. The Chinese have continued to reject requests from international human rights organisations for permission to visit the detained monks of the Kirti monastery.

B Raman is Additional Secretary (Retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India; he is currently Director of the Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and an Associate of the Chennai Centre for China Studies. Republished with permission from the Chennai Centre for China Studies.