Written evidence from Free Tibet / Tibet Watch (CIR0016)

Executive summary

• While the Chinese government engages with international mechanisms when it suits its needs, Beijing has consistently emphasised its own approach to human rights, distinct from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• China’s stance on ‘non-interference’ has been used to justify closing its territory, and that of occupied Tibet, to UN experts, human rights NGOs and other actors attempting to uphold the international human rights system
• The United Nations and its human rights bodies have been critical of Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet. However, international governments need to enforce these criticisms with vocal, consistent pressure to ensure that Beijing observes international human rights law

About Free Tibet and Tibet Watch

1. Free Tibet is a London-based international campaign organisation.  Our vision is a free Tibet in which Tibetans are able to determine their own future and the human rights of all are respected.[1] 

2. Free Tibet’s research partner, Tibet Watch, promotes the human rights of the Tibetan people through monitoring, research and advocacy.  It documents human rights abuse in Tibet using sources in Tibet, interviews with Tibetan refugees and monitoring of Chinese government websites and media. 

3. All of the information provided by Tibet Watch about events in Tibet is verified and corroborated as far as is possible within the limitations which apply in Tibet.[2]

Overview

4. This submission will evaluate China’s engagement with UN bodies, particularly human rights bodies, and its approach to international human rights law. The focus will be on Tibet, which has been subject to Chinese rule since 1950 when the Chinese army invaded. It is currently administered as a military occupation and has been the scene of repeated and severe human rights abuses.

5. China’s expanding political and economic influence, and its increasingly assertive foreign policy under Xi Jinping, present the international community with a question: whether or not Beijing will adapt to the current international system or try to recreate it in its own image. Despite opening up its economy to the rest of the world the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) remains committed to securing its one party political system. As such China has not embraced liberal-democratic ideals and instead harshly represses any form of challenge within its borders.

6. This is particularly true in occupied Tibet, where the Tibetan people are systematically denied basic human rights and the authorities and security services routinely subject dissenting voices to harassment, restrictions on movement and assembly as well as beatings and torture.

7. These human rights violations have been met with widespread condemnation from other states[3], international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) whose mission is to uphold international human rights norms. For example, the political watchdog Freedom House regularly highlights China’s lack of democracy and political freedom and its poor human rights record, categorising the country as ‘Not Free’. In addition, the organisation’s separate report into Tibet ranked it the second worst place in the world for political rights and civil liberties, behind only Syria.[4]

The United Nations and Tibet

8. Beijing has imposed a multitude of restrictive measures on Tibet and its people, in part to prevent international organisations from researching and reporting on the human rights situation there.  Tibetan communication with the outside world is very closely monitored and Tibetans transmitting information about human rights abuses or concerns both within and outside Tibet face arrest and punitive prison sentences. China has also stemmed the flow of refugees escaping Tibet (from thousands to less than 100 in recent years), who were previously crucial sources of detailed information about life inside Tibet.[5]

9. Despite facing these difficulties, the United Nations and its human rights bodies have spoken out against repression in Tibet, most notably the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the UN body responsible for promoting and protecting human rights around the world. For example, during the recent opening of the 36th session of the UNHRC, in September 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, raised Tibet, highlighting the cases of the late Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and Tibetan language advocate Tashi Wangchuk.[6] His predecessor, Navanethem Pillay, also used her position at the 12th session of the HRC to condemn the use of violence by China against “disturbances” in Tibet.[7]

10. Member states have also used the UNHRC as a forum to raise concerns about Tibet. In September 2016, during the 33rd UNHRC, the human rights situation in China came under scrutiny by several other states including the UK.[8] During a general debate among council members about which human rights situations urgently required their attention, France, Germany and the UK all expressed concern about the human rights situation in China, highlighting the harassment of political activists and lawyers, and tightening restrictions on religious freedom across China.

11. The German representative, mentioning Tibet directly, said:

“Germany is deeply concerned about the human rights situation in China, in particular in Xinjiang and Tibet. Among those who suffer from widespread human rights violations, there are many lawyers, human rights activists or academics whose only offence was to lawfully defend the most vulnerable parts of society. In many cases, their courageous efforts resulted in detention. The widespread harassment and extension of persecution measures to family members of suspects is especially worrisome. We urge the Government to immediately release all detained human rights defenders.”[9]

12. Human rights in Tibet, including China’s restrictions on Tibetan’s freedom of religion, were also explicitly mentioned several times during the debate. Noting the increasingly stifling restrictions on religious freedom in China and Tibet, the Slovakian representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, urged China: “to respect cultural diversity and freedom of religion, not least in Tibet and Xinjiang, and foster dialogue with the different ethnic groups”.[10]

13. Religious freedom was also the theme of the statement by Keith Harper, the United States representative, who also expressed concerns about the “narrowing of space for civil society” across China.[11] Prior to this, in March 2016, Mr Harper was also responsible for delivering a statement to the UNHRC condemning China's “deteriorating” human rights record on behalf of twelve countries.[12]

14. As the next section will explore, China does not respond well to such criticism of its human rights record and often deploys longstanding narratives to counter such scrutiny.

China’s interaction with UN mechanisms and the international human rights system

15. In the case of criticisms made during the 33rd UNHRC, the Chinese delegation responded to the criticisms defensively, stating that national sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected during the debate and that countries should avoid “naming and shaming” and “double standards”.[13] Such attempts to deflect criticism are longstanding policies, along with China’s attempt to redefine human rights or in the first instance prevent or obstruct monitoring.

16. The cases below highlight China’s unwillingness to comply with the international rules-based system. At the very worst, certain cases show a determined effort to undermine the international human rights system and establish a new one in its own image.

Obstructing the Monitoring of Human Rights

17. China blocks access to Tibet to diplomats, human rights organisations and journalists. Since the Tibetan Uprising in 2008, independent international media, human rights NGOs, diplomats, government and parliamentary representatives and institutions of the United Nations have been given almost no access to Tibet by the Chinese government and no free access at all – the rare, officially sanctioned visits are tightly-controlled.  UN experts who have been able to visit Tibet have seen their work obstructed.

18. Despite High Commissioner Zeid Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein asking China to allow him to conduct a visit, specifically seeking access to Tibet, no such visit has happened. Like his predecessor, Navanethem Pillay, he has experienced prolonged and delayed discussions.[14]

19. In cases where UN experts have obtained access to China, Beijing has impeded their work. In August 2016, Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, complained about Chinese government efforts to interfere with his work during a visit to the country by blocking access to individuals whom he had hoped to meet. Instead Alston stated that he was taken on an “abysmal tour” of a model ethnic village near the southwestern city of Kunming, where officials presented minorities in terms of colourful dances but not in terms of education or meaningful protection of language and traditions. Furthermore, attempts to meet selected academics failed despite such requests being routine practice and the government being notified in advance. Alston also claimed that those he contacted had been advised not to speak to him.[15]

20. Free Tibet and Tibet Watch have witnessed first-hand China’s efforts to undermine similar monitoring. Both organisations, alongside other NGOs, submitted evidence in advance of China’s periodic report for the UNHRC’s Committee against Torture (CAT) which concluded in December 2015. As a signature to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, China is required to submit evidence to the CAT every four years to show the implementation of the convention. The CAT’s latest periodic review stated that the committee: “remains seriously concerned over consistent reports indicating that the practice of torture and ill-treatment is still deeply entrenched in the criminal justice system”.[16]

21. Additionally, despite denial from Beijing’s delegation the committee said:

“Notwithstanding the delegation’s statement that “the allegations of unfair or cruel treatment to suspects or criminals from ethnic minority groups are groundless”, the Committee has received numerous reports from credible sources that document in detail cases of torture, deaths in custody, arbitrary detention and disappearances of Tibetans.”[17]

22. Despite past constructive guidelines by the CAT to improve its record in torture, China’s interactions with the body have been far from constructive. While it is not uncommon for other countries to submit their reports after the deadline China’s repeated and excessive lateness suggest an unwillingness to engage with the CAT. On several occasions China has submitted their report two years after the due date while on one particularly egregious occasion Beijing submitted its report due on 2 November 2001 was not submitted until over four years later on 14 February 2006.[18] China’s final follow up response to the CAT’s latest periodic review was also submitted two months after the deadline.

23. Furthermore, the information supplied by China in its most recent submission did not address all of the questions raised by CAT and also contained sweeping and easily disproved claims. Statements by Beijing that “[t]here has been no ‘crackdown’ by the Government of China on human rights lawyers and activists” [19] again demonstrate an unwillingness to cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms.

24. Despite its lack of engagement with international human rights bodies, China nevertheless put itself forward, and was successful, in its re-election to the Human Rights Council in October this year. China will remain on the Council until 2019.

Redefining Human Rights

25. Another way in which China attempts to get around international human rights norms is to redefine human rights. In recent years Beijing has pushed the concept of human rights with Chinese characteristics which has been criticised by Human Rights in China (HRIC) for its relativistic approach, which emphasises each country’s unique history, culture, values, and political system, undermines the principle of the universality of human rights.[20]

26. Additionally, China’s conception of human rights focuses on the second-generation of human rights which are principally economic and social. While perfectly valid, in China’s case this tends to be at the expense of first-generation rights that promote civic and political liberty. Such an approach can be seen in President Xi Jinping’s address in Geneva to the United Nation’s Office in January 2017. His speech entitled ‘Work Together to Build a Community of Shared Future for Mankind’ only makes a fleeting reference to human rights and only in the context of economic development.[21]

27. Xi also boasted of China’s contribution to the global cause of human rights: ‘China has met the basic living needs of its 1.3 billion-plus people and lifted over 700 million people out of poverty’ he told the UN.[22] These are statistics which are regularly rolled out by Chinese officials to bolster or deflect attention from China’s human rights record.

28. China’s efforts to redefine human rights are not merely rhetorical. The launching of China’s South-South Human Rights Forum, in December 2017, can be seen as an attempt to carve out and project its own international voice on human rights – separate to the UNHRC and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to China’s state news agency Xinhua, over 300 delegates from over 70 countries attended the conference.[23]

29. In his opening remarks Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi claimed:

“China’s experience shows that human rights can be protected in more than one way. Countries can find their own models of human rights protection in light of their national conditions and people’s needs. The key factor contributing to China’s remarkable achievements in its human rights endeavours is its firm commitment to a human rights development path with Chinese characteristics.”[24]

30. Wang Yi also encouraged all developing countries to uphold human rights in their own way, as “there is no one-size-fits-all approach in human rights protection.”[25]

31. The forum concluded with the adoption of the Beijing Declaration which in Article 1 states: “The cause of human rights must and can only be advanced in accordance with the national conditions and the needs of the peoples.”[26] This statement, alongside Article 8, clearly seeks to promote a relativistic approach to human rights and bolster the notion of non-interference.

Promoting Sovereignty and Non-Interference

32. As mentioned above, China’s response to criticisms made during the 33rd UNHRC, which urged other states to respect territorial sovereignty and avoid double standards, is typical of its approach. Not only does this attempt to deflect attention but also attempts to shutdown decision the allegations which they often swiftly deny.

33. Following Human Rights Day 2016, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang responded to a question on criticism of China’s human rights record, saying that: “To promote and protect human rights is the ideal and aspiration shared by all mankind”. However, he added that human rights have been: “used as an excuse for some individual countries to hurl accusations at other countries, interfere in their domestic affairs, and politicize human rights issues. We are strongly dissatisfied with and opposed to such behaviour.”[27]

34. Governments and international organisations that challenge Beijing over its human rights violations in Tibet are frequently accused by the Chinese government of interfering in China’s internal affairs. In February 2017, UN experts asked Beijing to address the reports of evictions and demolitions at the Tibetan Buddhist institutions at Larung Gar and Yachen Gar. While this aimed to put pressure on Beijing in the run-up to the meeting of the UNHRC, China simply stated that matters related to Tibet are internal affairs.[28]

Chinese pressure on other countries

35. Despite its steadfast commitment to non-interference China regularly puts pressure on IGOs, NGOs and governments on Tibet. In March 2016, China’s diplomatic mission in Geneva urged all diplomats and officials based at the UN to boycott an event for Nobel Peace Prize laureates at which the Dalai Lama was due to appear. The letter sent by the Chinese delegation said:

“Inviting the 14th Dalai Lama to the aforementioned event violates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China, in contravention of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China resolutely opposes the 14th Dalai Lama's separatist activities in whatever capacity and in whatever name in any country, organisation or event.”[29]

36. While this event went on as planned, China’s threats over meetings with the Dalai Lama have resulted in Beijing successfully getting the governments of Slovakia, Mongolia and the UK to either apologise or promise not to meet the Dalai Lama again. After publicly ruling out future meetings with the Dalai Lama, a source close to British Prime Minster David Cameron told the media that he had “turned a page on that issue”.[30]

37. A 2017 Human Rights Watch report highlights numerous occasions where the Chinese government has sought to censor NGOs, and other actors critical of China’s human rights record, from being present at the UN. China puts pressure on UN bodies to insist that these groups hew to China’s position on Tibet, or at the very minimum use pro-Beijing terminology. By doing so China is seeking to exclude those unwilling to accept the CCP’s line from participating at the UN.[31]

Recommendations to the UK Government

• Challenge and reject any moves by Beijing to adopt a relativist approach to human rights by championing the universal values which the international human rights system is founded on.
• Vocally condemn instances where China fails to engage with, or obstructs the work of, UN human rights instruments.
• Push China to allow greater international monitoring of the situation in Tibet, including access for British officials, as well as UN officials and human rights organisations.
• Provide strong and swift support to other nations that are effectively having their domestic policy dictated to them through Chinese economic and political pressure.
• Place any strategy, targets and performance related to the UK-China Human Rights Dialogues in the public domain.

January 2018

10