John Jones Free Tibet
The current crisis in Tibet might best be summed up as the Chinese government attempting to complete its goal of incorporating an occupied country – invaded in 1950 – in the People’s Republic of China, annexing it once and for all.
There are several strands to this mission, which for the purpose of this presentation, we can identify as:
1. the massive, almost extravagant investment in surveillance and securitisation to police Tibet’s population
2. the building of infrastructure, particularly extractive infrastructure, to physically connect Tibet to the People’s Republic of China
3. the systematic eradication of every aspect of Tibetans’ unique, historic identity
The key event in recent Tibetan history is the 2008 uprising, where mass protests took the Chinese government by surprise. There was a heavy crackdown and a vow that such protests would never happen again.
The goal became a model of control and preemptive policing, rooting out trouble makers through penetrating surveillance, ensuring that future protests would not be put down, but rather prevented from even happening, creating an atomised society.
Tibetans outside Tibet, who advocate for freedom and human rights, are treated as hostile foreign agents, most notably the 14th Dalai Lama, who was forced into exile in 1959 and has lived in India ever since. He is the most famous Tibetan in the world, yet his image is nowhere to be found in occupied Tibet, save for the pictures that some Tibetans keep hidden from the eyes of security forces and government informants.
Police, military police, party cadres and private security were deployed in their thousands across Tibet, accompanied by huge spending on surveillance, including dividing cities into closely watched grids, monitoring villages and installing security cameras on every street corner and sometimes even under fake Buddhist prayer wheels.
Cutting edge methods have also been introduced, with AI and facial recognition technology, apps ostensibly to track fraud, but with surveillance capability installed on Tibetans’ phones, and a giant campaign to take DNA samples from the Tibetan population. In 2022, Citizen Lab found that China’s police may have gathered between about 920,000 to 1.2 million DNA samples over the preceding six years alone. Research by Human Rights Watch has found this sampling includes children as young as five.
The Chinese government has effectively turned Tibet into a laboratory for testing surveillance technology.
The result of these overlapping tools of surveillance is self censorship by Tibetans, cutting them off from family members and Tibetan communities on the outside world, the throttling of the information supply from Tibet and plummeting numbers of refugees reaching the outside world, from around 2,000 a year in the 2000s down to low double figures in recent years.
It is a suffocating environment that our Research Manager once summed up by saying that in Tibet there is no space to breathe. Human Rights Watch’s Research Manager for China once told us four years ago that getting information from Tibet was now like trying to get information from North Korea. Freedom House routinely gives Tibet a rating around 0/100 for civil liberties and political rights, and Tibet is often to be found at the very bottom of its annual reports on freedom in the world.
Regarding the integration of Tibet, we need to note that Tibet is home to precious minerals and metals like copper and lithium and the sources of rivers relied on by over a billion people across Asia every day. These resources are being dug up and massive hydropower dams built across almost every major river to generate electricity, much of which feeds grids for large cities in mainland China. Tibet with its low population and plentiful resources has been turned into an energy exporter, further incorporating it into the People’s Republic of China, with no sovereignty over how its resources are used, and how its pastures, mountains, lakes and rivers are stewarded.
These dams and other megaprojects are imposed without the consent of the Tibetan people and have adverse social and often environmental consequences.Earlier this year, monks and local people at Atsok Monastery were forced to dismantle their own homes and remove their belongings to make way for a hydropower dam on the Yellow River. Atsok Monastery, built in 1889, was once located beside this river, but now lies in ruins under its waters while the monastery’s 160 monks now live in makeshift tin huts.
This is not an isolated event: earlier this year in Dege County there were mass protests – and mass arrests – against another hydropower dam on the Drichu River that will flood villages and destroy another six monasteries, some with Buddhist frescoes that are 500 years old. In September, thirteen UN human rights experts publicised concerns they had raised over the destructive impact of the dam with the Chinese government and the company responsible – China Huadian. China Huadian has international investors and partners, including Siemens Energy.
Meanwhile, rural Tibetans are displaced in huge numbers from the pastures that they had stewarded in a sustainable manner for generations. According to official statistics, between 2000 and 2025, the Chinese authorities will have relocated over 930,000 rural Tibetans. 76 percent of these relocations have taken place since 2016. Chinese government initiatives are seeing rural Tibetans, mainly farmers, herders and other rural workers, shunted into low-skilled and low-paid employment that are in direct confrontation with their traditional way of live and the skills they were raised with.
This brings us to the third strand. The policy of sinicisation, the systematic eradication of Tibetans’ unique identity, their language, religion and way of life.
There are many examples but two will have to suffice, both of them with devastating implications, One is the expanding residential school and pre-school system, in which nearly one million Tibetan children have been forcibly separated from their families and communities and placed in remote, highly propagandised teaching environments. This number represents 78 percent of Tibetan students between the ages of six and 18. Notably, the percentage of Chinese students in boarding schools is far lower. This is a discriminatory policy.
In addition, another 100,000 children aged four and five are estimated to be living in boarding preschools for at least five days in a week.
The Tibetan language is being deemphasised more generally as a matter of policy – the China National Program for Child Development for the years 2021-2030, released on 27 September 2021, omits previous directives to “respect and protect the rights of children of ethnic minorities to be educated in their own language” and instead commits to promoting a “common national language”. Across Tibetan areas, orders obtained by Tibet researchers show a deliberate policy of classes being taught exclusively in Chinese save for Tibetan being taught as a language subject, akin to us learning French in UK schools.
Every other avenue of Tibetan-language education is choked off, as private Tibetan schools are shut down and in some cases completely demolished, monasteries forbidden from providing Tibetan classes and teachers and language advocates harassed and arrested. Tashi Wangchuk, a prominent Tibetan language advocate and political prisoner, was once again briefly detained last month.
These policies have attracted international criticism. The Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights states that Tibetans “continue to face severe restrictions in the realization of their right to take part in cultural life, including the right to use and teach minority languages, history, and culture”. Last June, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women called on the Chinese authorities to “abolish the coerced residential school system imposed on Tibetan girls” and to allow and subsidise private Tibetan schools. These criticisms and recommendations need to be adopted more forcefully by the UK government.
The second policy I would like to raise is restrictions on religion in Tibet, where Tibetan Buddhism is widely practiced and permitted, but subject to a range of tightening restrictions, regulating monasteries and the conduct of monks and nuns. Perhaps the most striking example of this dogmatic, megalomaniac approach are the statements from Party members that when the time comes to identify the next Dalai Lama, a lineage that is centuries old and centres on the idea of reincarnation, it will be Beijing and its avowedly atheist government that makes this decision. When the Dalai Lama floated the idea that his lineage might end with him and that there will be no 15th Dalai Lama, he was rebuked by Chinese officials who insisted that he will indeed reincarnate and his successor will be loyal to the CCP.
This is about control and dominance, but also about stripping Tibetans of the heritage, customs, traditions and conventions that make them unique, to end the defiance to CCP rule that comes from being different and to complete the take over of their occupied land.
Tibetans continue to resist, despite being among the most silenced and spied on people in the world. There are protests, information sharing with the outside world, small daily acts of defiance. And there have been self immolation protests, at least 159 of them since 2009, the majority fatal.
What can the UK do?
Firstly, it should hold the line on Tibet by raising the human rights violations inflicted on its people. The UK government should be vocal in criticisng the colonial boarding school system and the social costs of these megadevelopment projects, utilising the criticisms and recommendations from UN human rights experts and the testimonies of Tibetans. It should put pressure on the international companies that invest in or partner with those exploiting Tibet’s land. It should continue to speak out for Tibetans’ right to freedom of religion.
We recognise that pressing China for change inside Tibet is like shouting into a void, but to stop doing this is to assist the Chinese government in its aims of removing Tibet as a human rights concern. No news from Tibet does not mean good news and the absence of stories from Tibet is a story in itself.
There are other things that can be done that are well within the UK government’s power, where China requires international governments to indulge in its fictions. Firstly, the UK should commit very clearly to not recognising a Dalai Lama imposed on Tibetans by Beijing. The Dala Lama’s 90th birthday is next July. The UK should make note of this landmark and use its voice now to make it clear that the succession is a matter for Tibetans. MPs can press the government to speak up.
Secondly, the UK needs to drop language about how it recognises Tibet as part of China. A resolution to the Tibetan crisis was undermined by the Labour government’s statement in 2008 that Tibet is part of China, which reversed decades of UK policy.
Thirdly, the UK government should platform Tibetans at fora where their knowledge and experiences can be truly valuable. Delegations to climate summits and environmental reports and panels would all benefit from the presence of Tibetans, who live on the roof of the world and have a first hand view of the climate crisis. The Chinese government, which is choking its rivers and digging up its landscape, should not be left to speak for them. The UK should be providing a space for them to speak about their country with their own voices.
===
Speech on the Current Situation in the Uyghur Homeland by Rahima Mahmut of World Uyghur Congress and Stop Uyghur Genocide
I’m truly honoured to share the platform with such distinguished speakers and feel privileged to speak about the current situation of the Uyghur people on East Turkestan National Day.
In recent years, the Uyghur region has become the epicentre of what many human rights organizations and governments have described as atrocities amounting to genocide. This is no exaggeration, and the weight of this truth cannot be overstated. The Chinese government has conducted a systematic campaign aimed at erasing the Uyghur identity, beliefs, culture, and history. This campaign has involved numerous, grave human rights abuses.
The most harrowing aspect is the mass detention of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in so-called “re-education camps.” Since 2017, up to three million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims have been detained in these facilities, facing torture, forced indoctrination, and conditions that violate their basic human dignity. Survivors of these camps describe horrific abuses, ranging from physical torture and gang rape to psychological torment, all aimed at erasing their cultural and religious identity. This isn’t just about detention; it’s about a campaign to forcibly change and control the identity of an entire people.
Those not in detention face harsh conditions. Freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion have been stripped away. Mosques and cultural sites have been destroyed, traditional Uyghur practices have been outlawed, and the Uyghur language has been marginalized in schools. Simply being Uyghur is, in many ways, seen as a threat to the state.
Forced labour is another devastating aspect of this oppression. Uyghurs are forced to work in factories within detention camps and in various industries, including solar panel production. Additionally, countless Uyghurs are transported from their homeland to factories across China to work in gruelling conditions, often manufacturing products for global brands. Despite the international community’s awareness, forced Uyghur labour remains a significant part of global supply chains, implicating corporations worldwide.
Perhaps the most personal and painful violation is the forced separation of Uyghur families. Uyghur children have been removed from their homes and placed in state-run orphanages where they are raised in a manner that erases their Uyghur heritage. Thousands of Uyghur children are growing up without parents, culture, or connection to their heritage—raised to be obedient to the very government that has separated them from their families.
Many Uyghurs who escaped the region in search of safety abroad have instead faced imprisonment in countries like Thailand. A recent New York Times report highlights the harrowing conditions endured by innocent Uyghurs locked in Thai jails for over a decade, with many losing their lives due to inhumane conditions—among them, tragically, even children.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/10/magazine/uyghur-china-escape.html
Meanwhile, Uyghurs abroad live in fear. Many are surveilled, threatened, and pressured to provide information on their families, facing intimidation tactics that reach beyond borders. The Uyghur diaspora, though living in freedom, often feels as though the shadow of oppression stretches across continents.
But amidst these hardships, the spirit of the Uyghur people remains resilient. Uyghur activists, advocates, and their allies around the world are fighting tirelessly for justice and recognition. Organizations like the World Uyghur Congress, Stop Uyghur Genocide and dedicated individuals are working to amplify Uyghur voices, ensuring that these crimes do not go unnoticed.
So, what can we do? We call for comprehensive sanctions against those responsible for crimes committed against Uyghurs, including targeted sanctions on individuals, entities, and corporations complicit in these abuses. We urge the blacklisting of high-tech surveillance companies like Huawei, Hikvision, Dahua, and others that facilitate the oppression of Uyghurs. The U.S. government has already implemented such measures—why hasn’t the UK followed suit?
The UK government must recognize the gravity of the Uyghur plight and act accordingly. It should support legislation and policies that hold perpetrators accountable, that block the import of goods produced through forced labour, and that provide sanctuary to Uyghurs fleeing persecution. Additionally, the government must continue to pressure corporations and governments to stand firm against complicity in these abuses.
Our solidarity can empower those whose voices have been suppressed. We must keep the light shining on the Uyghur struggle so that these acts of injustice do not occur in darkness.
Thank you for listening and for standing with the Uyghurs in their fight for dignity, justice, and freedom.
===
Remarks by Benedict Rogers of Hong Kong Watch
Firstly may I thank Lord Alton very much for hosting this event – and for his tireless efforts on all four of the grave human rights crises we are considering tonight.
I would also like to thank our friends from the International Democracy Hub in South Korea for initiating the idea, my colleagues in Hong Kong Watch for their hard work organising it, and Rahima, John and Seung-hyeon Kim for speaking on this panel. It is a privilege to speak alongside you all.
This is a very important initiative, bringing together voices on these four extremely serious human rights situations. And it is so important that we do stand together, support each other and speak out with one voice, because all four situations have a “common cause” – the repression of human rights by a brutal dictatorship. More specifically, we have a particular “common cause” behind that repression – the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In the case of three of the situations we are discussing the CCP is the direct perpetrator. In the case of the fourth, North Korea, the CCP is the primary facilitator. Kim Jong-Un’s regime is kept alive by Beijing – and increasingly Moscow too – and China’s policy of forced repatriation of North Korean refugees back to a certain terrible fate of torture, imprisonment and possible execution in North Korea not only violates international humanitarian norms but is a direct contribution to North Korea’s repression.
I have been involved with all four issues for a long time. I visited North Korea with Lord Alton in 2010, have visited North Korean refugees in China, been in South Korea many times, serve on the advisory board of the Stop Uyghur Genocide Campaign and have written widely on the plight of the Uyghurs, and I have supported Tibet for many years. Last year I had the privilege of travelling to Dharamsala and having an audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
But it is the situation in Hong Kong that, on behalf of Hong Kong Watch, I will focus my remarks today, as I know the other speakers will very eloquently and ably focus on the other three situations.
The United Kingdom should be concerned about all four situations, but if there is one to which we have a particular and specific moral and legal obligation, it is Hong Kong. Not only given our history together, but also given the promises made in an international treaty, the Sino-British Joint Declaration, registered at the United Nations and valid until 2047. In that treaty, China promised to uphold Hong Kong’s way of life, basic freedoms, the rule of law and a high degree of autonomy. It was to be “one country, two systems”.
Over the past decade or so – and most intensely the past five years – China has torn up its promises and trampled on that treaty. I lived in Hong Kong from 1997-2002, the first five years after the handover, and to be fair, Beijing during those early years by and large kept its promises. The Hong Kong I lived in, the Hong Kong where I began my career as a journalist and my life as a human rights activist, was a very different Hong Kong from today. It was one of the freest and most open cities in Asia. It was a city where I could write and publish articles very critical of the CCP regime in Beijing and officials in the Hong Kong government, freely and without consequence – and I did often. On one occasion I wrote an article very critical of the then Security Secretary Regina Ip – who subsequently played a key role in the crackdown in Hong Kong and is as we speak in the United Kingdom. (My question for the British government today is why is she, as a party to the dismantling of Hong Kong’s freedoms and the violations of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, welcomed in the UK and yet we recently delayed a potential visit by the former democratically-elected President of one of the region’s most vibrant democracies, Taiwan?). She complained about me to my editor when she bumped into him at a reception that same day, but that was all. He came back to the newsroom and – with a laugh – told me that Regina was not very happy with me. But that’s normal in a free society. Today, if I was in Hong Kong, articles of the kind I wrote 20 years or so ago would never be published – and I would probably be jailed for writing them.
In the past five years, the crackdown has escalated with alarming speed and severity. The police brutality against peaceful protestors in 2019 marked a turning point. And then the impact of the draconian National Security Law in 2020 – and a further domestic security law, the Safeguarding National Security Law introduced this year – and the use of sedition laws has been devastating. The effect of these laws has been to shut down and dismantle all remaining basic human rights and freedoms. In Hong Kong today, there is no freedom of expression; no press freedom, following the forced closure of Apple Daily, Stand News and other independent outlets and the arrest and imprisonment of Jimmy Lai, Apple Daily editors, Stand News editors and other journalists; there is no freedom of assembly or protest; no freedom of association – indeed at least 68 civil society organisations have been forced to shut down, and civil society itself no longer exists in a meaningful form. Academic freedom and freedom of religion or belief are increasingly threatened, and as our new report launched last week shows, the CCP’s campaign of repression – and transnational repression – has impacted the digital space significantly too.
Transnational repression by the CCP is a very serious issue, and I know the Hong Kong diaspora – who came to this country in search of freedom – are increasingly concerned. We have seen arrest warrants and bounties issued for prominent exiled Hong Kong activists, the authorities in Hong Kong have called in exiled activists’ family members who remain in Hong Kong for questioning, and we have seen the appalling incident at the Chinese Consulate in Manchester two years ago, where Hong Kongers – especially a brave young man, Bob Chan – were brutally assaulted as they peacefully protested outside the consulate’s gates. It is outrageous that the diplomats who carried out that assault – including the Consul-General himself – were not immediately expelled from this country but were instead able to leave quietly in their own time.
And while nothing that I or other British citizens have experienced remotely compares with what Hong Kongers have faced, we have been targeted too. Lord Alton and other Parliamentarians have been sanctioned by China for speaking out. I have received dozens of anonymous threatening letters at my home, some of which went to my neighbours; my mother has received similar letters; I have been subjected to fake emails impersonating me; and have been threatened with a prison sentence in Hong Kong for violating the National Security Law through the work I have done here and elsewhere in the world. The National Security Law, let’s remember, has an extra-territoriality clause, so I am in violation of Hong Kong’s security law every day just by virtue of speaking and writing in the way I do. I have also been named as a collaborator with Jimmy Lai in his trial proceedings, and of course was denied entry to Hong Kong back in October 2017. These attempts at human rights repression across borders have not succeeded in silencing me, and we must do everything possible to ensure that the Hong Kong diaspora in the UK is not silenced either but is given what they need to feel safe and free in this country, as they should.
So that is an overview of the situation in Hong Kong. What should the UK do?
Very briefly:
- Repeatedly demand the release of Jimmy Lai, a 76 year-old British citizen who could die in prison if he is not freed soon
- The Prime Minister should meet at the earliest opportunity with Sebastien Lai – though I am delighted to note that the Foreign Secretary met with Sebastien yesterday, which is a very welcome move and follows the meeting that the previous Foreign Secretary in the last government, Lord Cameron, had with Sebastien at the end of last year.
- We should impose targeted sanctions on those responsible for dismantling Hong Kong’s freedoms, starting with Chief Executive John Lee
- Remove the special privileges of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices (HKETOs)
- Pressure the Hong Kong pension providers to allow BNOs leaving Hong Kong permanently to withdraw their MPF pension savings
- Continue the BNO scheme which the previous government established and deserves credit for; expand it to provide eligibility for those born before 1997, with a BNO-status parent; charge Hong Kong BNO students now residing in the UK local fees and not international student fees for universities
Let me end by expressing my solidarity with the Uyghurs, Tibetans and the people of North Korea; and to Hong Kongers let me say simply: Gwong Fuk Heung Geung, Si Doi Gak Ming. Ga Yau!
