Tibet’s Winter

US Ambassador Locke in Tibet

My article Tibet's Winter appeared today in The Statesman.

Will the cold Winter Wind continue to blow on the Roof of the World or a more refreshing Spring Breeze be felt? With the  current  instability  in  China,  it  is difficult to know in which direction the wind will blow

Xinhua recently filed a report on  'extreme weather in Tibet’. Quoting the Chinese Meteorology Administration, the Chinese news agency said that heavy rain storms had been occurring since June 15 in the western part of Ngari Prefecture of Tibet Autonomous Region [TAR]. Located north of Uttarakhand, Ngari experienced the most extreme weather conditions; on June 17, an unimaginable 96 mm precipitation created havoc in Purang County; it was a new record for June. The weather was so bad that the first batch of Kailash Mansarovar pilgrims reached the Tibetan border six days late and the following eight batches of the ‘Kailash yatra’ were cancelled by the Ministry of External Affairs.
But that is not all. At the same time, Tibet seemed to witness another ‘climatic change’, a political one. Can it be a Tibetan Spring? First, an interview of Prof Jin Wei of the Central Communist Party School, published by a Hong Kong weekly generated a lot of speculation. Is China’s policy regarding Tibet changing?
Jin Wei (and Beijing) seemed bothered by the possibility of having two Dalai Lamas in the future (one in exile and one in China); Prof Wei suggested making friends with the Tibetan leader and inviting him to Hong Kong. Prof. Jin even admitted that the ‘Golden Urn’ process of selection for the Dalai Lamas can be manipulated (by who else than Beijing?).
The Tibetan blogger Tsering Woeser (today under house arrest) commented on Jin Wei’s interview, saying it was a trick. Difficult to say, but one can foresee that Beijing’s legitimacy in Tibet may be postponed for several decades if the next Dalai Lama takes birth in India or in the US.

Click here to read on...

From AIDS to Tibet: Jin Wei

Prof. Jin Wei (probably younger)

The name of Prof. Jin Wei has come in the news after she took an apparent softer approach on the Tibetan issue; she suggested that Bejing should talk with the Dalai Lama or his representatives.
But who is Jin Wei?
A publication of the Chinese Academy of Social Science and the International Development Law Organization based in Italy gives us some information.
The 2010 publication is entitled "Mapping Initiatives to Strengthen the Legal Environment for the Response to HIV in China" and deals with AIDS/HIV,  the main expertise of Prof. Lin.
Here some biographical information on Prof. Jin:

Professor Jin graduated from the Department of History at Beijing Normal University in 1982 and obtained her LLM degree (majoring in ethnology) from the School of Postgraduate Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 1985.
Professor Jin went on to pursue her doctorate at the Peking University Department of Sociology, ultimately completing her PhD in 2008. Professor Jin Wei is a pioneer in the area of HIV and a leader in HIV-focused training activities.
Professor Jin Wei is the Deputy Director of the Teaching and Research Office of the Social Development Theory Institute, under the School of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (Central Party School). She is also a supervisor of PhD candidates.

The publication of the Chinese Academy of Science speaks of the activities of  Professor Jin, who has managed the training program for HIV prevention at the Central Party School since 2001. Each semester, the Central Party School invites public health experts, sociologists and researchers working at the forefront of the HIV response to present on HIV prevention and treatment approaches and policy.
Professor Jin has published several books and articles on the subject, such as "Implementation of Policy Advocacy for HIV Prevention in the Central Party School (Study Times, No. 10, 2006);or Strengthening the Capacity of Party Schools to Teach HIV Prevention and Social Policy (Study Times, No. 12, 2007).
Prof Jin has organized several international programs on HIV Prevention. For example, on 27 June 2009, the Social Development Institute of the Central Party School signed a cooperation agreement with the Hong Kong AIDS Foundation. It was the first time that the Central Party School had a collaboration with an organization outside mainland China.
In June 2005, Dr Peter Piot, then Under Secretary-General of the United Nations and UNAIDS Executive Director, awarded Professor Jin an Outstanding Contribution Award in recognition of her outstanding leadership and continuous contribution in response to HIV and AIDS issues.
Where is Tibet in all this?
It appears that it is only in 2011/2012 that the lady professor of the Central Party School, the most prestigious school in Communist China, started to be interested in 'ethnic' and Tibetan affairs.
In December 2012, Caixin Online reported: "Aid Programs in Tibet Lack Efficiency, Says Scholar".
Reporter Lan Fang wrote: "Central government programs aimed at promoting economic development in the Tibet Autonomous region have had a disappointing effect on the local economy, according to an academic at the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China."
He quoted Jin Wei in her new avatar, as director of ethnic religious studies at the Central Party School, saying: "the region continues to rely heavily on cash donations and has failed to create a foundation for sustainable growth."
I had mentioned on this blog that on December 15, 2012, a forum on ethnic minority development was held at Minzu University in Beijing. During the seminar, Jin Wei called for a policy overhaul of the aid programs in Tibet.
She said that in her study of 987 central government aid projects to Tibet between 1984 and 2005, she found that 70 percent of the projects had little immediate effect on boosting economic growth in the region.
She added: "The region still relies heavily on central government funding and other donations. The Tibetan government can only cover 7 percent of its local budget demand."
According to her research, Beijing's funding to the region grew to a total of 13.3 billion yuans by 2009 for 6,300 projects. The efforts have generated some improvements to the living standards of Tibetans in the region, but failed to establish business and industry networks to maintain sustainable development.
She affirmed: "Of the projects included in the study, infrastructure and social development programs accounted for 16.42 percent, transportation and energy-related projects accounted for 52.4 percent and 22.6 percent were projects designed to improve individual livelihoods while 9 percent were related to local business development."
Her conclusions were many of the programs failed because the planners had forgotten the cultural context and relied on government-oriented measures. She said: "The lack of financial incentives and supportive regulations [for the Tibetans] reduced the efficiency of projects."
Now a question arises: what is the connection of this research with HIV/AIDS?
Probably none!  Prof Jin is just versatile.
She recently asserted: "Tibetans' reverence for the Dalai Lama has not diminished even as their living standards under Beijing control have improved, an indication that the government should reassess its approach toward the issue. ...Talks between the Dalai Lama's representatives and the government are the best way to solve the problem."
Let us see what the future will be.

Two Distinct Views on Tibet?

Zhu Weiqun (left) in a previous 'avatar'
as United Front Work Department's official

I recently received an interesting write-up by Thubten Samphel, who is Director of the Tibet Policy Institute in Dharamsala.
Samphel argues that there are different views on  the role that the Dalai Lama could play in what Beijing calls 'China's Tibet'.
He quotes Prof. Jin Wei of the Central  Committee's Party School and Zhu Weiqun, a former United Front Work Department's official.
The Zhu Weiqun piece which appeared on June 10 in the 'China News Weekly' was reprinted by the Wen Wei Po and finally made it to the official Chinese press a few days later.
Zhu repeats some of his arguments published last year in an article “Seeking Truth Through Facts.”
His main point is that Party members must leave the Party, if they wish to embrace a religion.
In his opinion, religion could only divide and break up the Party.
Zhu believes that: "The world view of the Party relies on the Marxist strands of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, which form the foundation of all party theory and practice. By contrast, all world religions are driven by idealism and theism, meaning if party members practice religion it would create two contrasting world views that will undoubtedly rock the guiding position of Marxism and cause Party philosophies and theories to fracture."
Though Zhu agreed that a party-wide prohibition on religion would infringe on fundamental religious freedoms, he believes that "if a person volunteers to join the Communist Party, then they are also choosing to forgo religion. People have every right to believe in a religion — but not when they are a Party member."
He severely criticizes local Communist officials who promote religious symbols and religious history to increase tourism and make money.
He also mentions foreign forces using religion to bring instability in China with the ultimate objective of toppling Communist Party rule. As an example he speaks of China’s Christians who are about 23 million.
The former United Front official puts the number of believers in China at about 100 million (the same old figures from Mao's days).
It is in this context that he looks at Buddhism which he also sees as an outside threat, mainly because of the Dalai Lama and his followers.
Regarding the restive regions of Tibet and Xinjiang, Zhu has strong views, he said: "If party members in the Tibet autonomous region are allowed to be influenced by the teachings of the Dalai Lama, for instance, this would be bound to result in the party's organizational fragmentation".
He points out: "It is no coincidence that in Tibet and Xinjiang, where religious disputes are most frequently seen, Party members are prohibited from religious activities."
Zhu adds that for ethnic minorities, the Party may allow some religious activities but the philosophical arguments against religion within the party must stand.
It is in this context that he criticizes the Dalai Lama’s Buddhist credentials on three grounds:
1) the Dalai Lama and his group’s support for self immolation,
2) the Dalai Lama’s refusal to accept 'history and traditions' (i.e., the golden urn) as they are related to his own future reincarnation,
3) the Dalai Lama’s belligerent denunciation of Dorjee Shugden adherents within his own Gelug school which demonstrates little, if any, respect for his predecessors in history.
Thubten Samphel's piece should open up a debate amongst China watchers. Are there different perspectives on the Tibet issue in China today? Are Zhu Weiqun's views outdated?
It has to be noted that The Economist mentions the same topic in its current issue.

In China Two Distinct Views on Tibet
Thubten Samphel
If recent public comments on Tibet made by Chinese academics and officials are anything to go by, two sharply differing views are developing in China on how it should deal with the issue of Tibet.  How these views play out and which view will emerge as actual policy will determine China's attitude to how the issue of Tibet should be resolved, with ramifications for the future of all China.

Prof. Jin Wei of the CCP's Party School

A softer and perhaps a much more sophisticated argument on what medicine China should take to cure its perennial Tibet headache is advanced by Jin Wei, a professor at the Party School of the Central  Committee of the Chinese Communist Party  based in Beijing.   In comments made to Asia Weekly, a Chinese language publication in Hong Kong, on 12 June, Jin Wei said that treating the Dalai Lama is an "enemy" is alienating all six million Tibetans who believe him as "the living Buddha." She said "The Dalai Lama is the key to the issue of Tibet" and recommended that China should re-start its stalled dialogue with him.
On asked what the proposed new round of talks should focus on, Jin Wei suggested that big issues like the Middle-Way Approach should be set aside for the time being. Instead she suggested that the Tibetan spiritual leader be allowed to visit Hong Kong or Macau with the aim of his taking up permanent residence in the former British colony. According to Professor Jin Wei, China's final aim should be to avoid the "embarrassment" of a situation which throws up two Dalai Lamas. Jin Wei says that if China is able to gain control of selecting the reincarnation of the next Dalai Lama the Party will succeed in winning the goodwill of all Tibet and destroy the strength of Tibetan independence forces working outside the country.
The Central Party School at which Jin Wei is the deputy director of minority issues and director of ethnic religious studies trains China top future leaders. The president of the school is Liu Yunshan, a member of the standing committee of the Politburo, one of the seven leaders who run China.  The current President of China, Xi Jinping, was the president of the school from 2007 to 2013. The background of the party school and its importance should be reasons enough for observers to pay close attention to Jin Wei's Tibet comments.
There is another reason for paying close attention. The party academics in China  are well tuned to the thinking of the party on all core issues. They would not dare speak out on their own without some vigorous nods from above. This is an assumption. It could be wrong. Professor Jin Wei might have voiced her own opinion on Tibet. But if she spoke out of tune with official policy on Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, there is no indication yet of any adverse effect on her academic career. There is no news yet that she has been fired from her post.
The official Chinese hardline reaction to Professor Jin Wei's seemingly conciliatory remarks was not long in coming. Zhu Weiqun, who was the principal interlocutor in talks with the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama from 2002 to 2010 as the executive vice-minister of the United Front warned against changing the Party's attitude to the spiritual Tibetan spiritual leader. In an interview to China News Weekly of 16 June, Zhu Weiqun, who is now the director of the ethnic and religious affairs of the Chinese People's Political Consulatative Conference, an organ of the party, made these remarks: "When we refer to Mr. Tenzin Gyatso as the Dalai Lama we are recognising his spiritual rank. However, in the course of time, he has acquired another label which we should never forget. Because of his efforts to split China he has become a political refugee. "
For Zhu Weiqun there can be no talks on Tibet. He said, "The future of Tibet, since 1951 with the peaceful  liberation to 1959 with democratic reforms, has been decided by the Tibetan people themselves. The Dalai Lama cannot change this situation."
In the past, on Tibet and all other issues, China spoke with one voice.  Either in writing or orally, policy statements on sensitive issues like Tibet carried the same turn of phrase or tone of voice. The party, state and military carried the same coherent message.
For observers, the question is why is China's previously internal Tibet debate now out in the open? Which view will prevail? How should Dharamsala respond?

China: Dalai Lama's incarnation to be produced only within the country

Since 2007, the Chinese Communist regime has been deeply interested in religion, particularly in the 'reincarnation' process.
In September 2011, the Dalai Lama decided to counter Beijing and speak about his own reincarnation.
He said:  “Moreover [the Chinese leaders] say they are waiting for my death and will recognize a Fifteenth Dalai Lama of their choice. It is clear from their recent rules and regulations and subsequent declarations that they have a detailed strategy to deceive Tibetans, followers of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and the world community. Therefore, as I have a responsibility to protect the Dharma and sentient beings and counter such detrimental schemes, I make the following declaration. ”
He explained the general phenomenon of reincarnation which could take place either through voluntary choice of the concerned person or at least on the strength of his or her karma, merit and prayers. The Tibetan leader clearly says that the person who reincarnates has the sole legitimate authority over where and how he or she takes rebirth and how that reincarnation is to be recognized. For him, no one else can force the person concerned, or manipulate him or her.
The Tibetan leader added that the Chinese interference in the spiritual process is brazen meddling which contradicts their own political ideology and reveals their double standards.
The Dalai Lama’s conclusion was: “I shall leave clear written instructions about this. Bear in mind that, apart from the reincarnation recognized through such legitimate methods, no recognition or acceptance should be given to a candidate chosen for political ends by anyone, including those in the People’s Republic of China.”
This will probably not stop Communist China to continue to interfere in this purely religious matter. The Communist leadership today, like yesterday, is aware of the important factor religion has played and still plays on the Roof of the World: whoever controls the ‘lamas’ will be able to control the country.
This creates an unsolvable problem for the leadership of the Communist Party in Beijing, particularly when most of the ‘respected’ rinpoches have fled China and today live abroad.
Recently an article in the Asia Week published in Hong Kong, brought inklings on the Party's thoughts on the 'reincarnation' of the Dalai Lama.
The Tibetan blogger Tsering Woeser commented the interview of Prof. Jin Wei of the Central Communist Party School published by the Hong Kong weekly and linked it to an invitation to the Dalai Lama to visit Hong Kong.
The professor (who strangely resembles Woeser) seems very bothered by the possibility of having 2 Dalai Lamas (one in exile and one in China).
In the interview, she uses 'we' (meaning the leadership?).
One can understand Beijing, the legitimacy of their 'liberation' of Tibet may be postponed for several decades if the Dalai Lama takes birth in India.
Strangely, Prof. Jin admits that the 'Golden Urn' process of selection can be manipulated by Beijing.
If Beijing is serious about approaching the Dalai Lama, why can't they do it discreetly from a Chinese Embassy abroad during one the Tibetan leader's numerous trips outside India?
Why Hong Kong where all sorts of people/organizations would be too happy to 'receive' the Tibetan leader for their own glory or  political interests.
It is not the first time that shadowy figures like  Philip Li Koi-hop or Xiao Wunan, both based in Hong Kong try to use the Dalai Lama for their own publicity/business.
In any case, Tsering Woeser's analysis is fascinating. Worth reading...

What Do They Mean When They Say “We Must Strive to See that the Reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is Produced Only Within the Country”?

Tsering Woeser
An article that merits very close reading was published in the Hong Kong Asia Weekly (vol. 27, no. 22) under the title “Exclusive Interview with Professor Jin Wei of the Social Science Teaching and Research Section of the Central Communist Party School: Reopen Talks and Resolve Tibetan Issues.”
In this article the Party School professor’s crucial sentence reads: “We must strive to see that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is produced only within the country.”

Prof. Jin Wei from the Party School

There’s also one sentence that is absolutely revelatory: “Although we could use ‘The Golden Urn’ to restrict an incarnate child from being born outside the country, history also offers the precedent of an incarnate lama designating his successor. We must do everything possible to avoid the embarrassing situation of ‘twin Panchen Lamas.’” The Party School professor is too incautious: how could she have revealed the secret that it was Communist Party yahoos managing the “Golden Urn” ceremony who officially designated a “Fake Panchen Lama”?
This Party School professor, someone who recommends “that the Chinese Communist Party must remain highly self-confident,” is quite callous about what she’s found to be the nature of Tibetan self-immolations: “Self-immolations are continuing and expanding at a fast pace. It’s effectively become a ‘collective plague;’ it’s become a contagion; a movement.”
But the last sentence in her article seems calculated to kill two birds with one stone: “Tibetan issues are exceedingly important to China today. If it is possible to forge a new way of thinking and to break through the deadlock, it will not only advance social stability and allow us to avoid forming nationality wounds that are hard to heal, but also have a positive effect on other minority nationalities. At the same time it will aid in unification with Taiwan, and can also elevate China’s international image.”
The problem is that by some extraordinary coincidence no sooner had the Party School professor made the suggestion to “let the Dalai Lama visit Hong Kong or Macao purely in the capacity of a religious leader; later on we can consider allowing him to reside in Hong Kong,” than on that same day, June 3, the Voice of Tibet reported that “A Hong Kong organization has invited the Dalai Lama to visit Hong Kong to preside over religious activities.” It further states that “The Hong Kong Tibetan and Han-Chinese Friendship Association recently made it known that it had already invited the Dalai Lama to visit Hong Kong and to preside over a ‘World Peace—Universal Harmony’ religious gathering and had forwarded an application for the purpose to the immigration office.”
How could there be such a coincidence?! This is far too bizarre! Could it be that some sort of scam is being played? And what’s the background of this Hong Kong organization?
According to reports, the person who invited His Holiness to visit Hong Kong is a certain someone who’s the founder of the “Hong Kong Tibetan and Han-Chinese Friendship Association.” On Twitter an internet friend from Hong Kong wrote “It’s said that he’s a swindler. Some people say his background includes close ties to the Communist Party. The day before yesterday a friend already came to ask me about his background, saying he was going to hold a press conference tomorrow.”
Even though—contrary to what one might think—being a swindler and having a background of close ties to the Communist Party are very compatible, the question is: how could this sort of person have been allowed to extend an invitation to His Holiness the Dalai Lama to come to Hong Kong? How is this not extremely sinister?

Li Koi-hop

And this “Tibetan-Han Chinese Friendship Association” seems very much like the Confucius Institutes that are blossoming all over the world: complicated backgrounds and a flicker of spy shadows…
And that certain someone who is its founder? According to information supplied by an internet friend on Twitter he was the convener of the 2009 “Right to Inherent Dignity Movement Association” which at that time seriously disrupted the July 1st [pro-democracy] demonstration. The Apple Daily reported that “it had fought over who had rented the Victoria Park site; and similarly along the march route, the same weird group was suspected of seriously disrupting the July 1st demonstration.” At the time the Voice of America also reported that he had wanted to go to Victoria Park to fight over control of the demonstration’s base area.
And now this person has become the founder of the “Hong Kong Tibetan-Han Chinese Friendship Association.” At the beginning of last year he travelled to Dharamsala and saw His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Afterwards he had a photo of himself with the Dalai Lama enlarged and showed it off all over the place. And most recently he declared that he had invited His Holiness to visit Hong Kong to preside over Buddhist teaching activities. He even claimed that he’d already received written approval for this from the government. But, as an internet friend said on Twitter, in previous years the Hong Kong Government had refused entry to Wang Dan; if it were now to allow the Dalai Lama to enter that would be really strange.
So in the end, what is this all about?
The heart of the heart of the whole thing lies in the wondrous nature of this Party School professor. Her first suggestion has already met with a fortuitous coincidence (whether His Holiness actually goes to Hong Kong is another matter; the coincidence has already happened). And as for her second suggestion—“We must strive to see that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is produced only within the country.”—does one dare say that it too will meet with a fortuitous coincidence?
How is it that one feels that there’s a chess game in play, move by move? Ultimately, how should one “strive”? Who is the “we” of whom the Central Party School professor speaks?
Is the Communist Party carefully laying out its opening gambit? Is it setting up moves for a very long-term game? Many people of various identities and statuses are popping up. White faces, red faces; sweet talk, honeyed words. They even play the pity card. And they use “restarting talks” as bait; they use a visit to Hong Kong as bait. This includes the 2,500,000 yuan that Xinhua reports as having been spent by the Communist Party to renovate His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s former residence (which is [in China’s geographical delineation of the area] in Hongya village, located in Shihuiyao Township in Ping’an County, within Qinghai Province’s Haidong Prefecture). As a goal, do they imagine that they can ultimately have His Holiness promise to reincarnate “within the country”? Well, just as the Party School professor said: “We must strive to see that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is produced only within the country.”
But also, as an internet friend said on Twitter, “To make concessions and pay such a high price simply to visit Hong Kong is clearly unreasonable. Connecting this to the Tibetan Government-in-Exile’s impatience to return to Tibet and its resultant promise to renounce the status of political independence and democracy, a visit to Hong Kong at this time may be a pivotal link in negotiations.” Of course, His Holiness cannot commit himself so easily, but the “we” that the Central Party School professor needed to mention certainly can “strive,” because as far as Beijing is concerned just having the Dalai Lama abroad, whether it’s this incarnation or the next one, is a “special” dilemma. And yet the simple “resolution of ‘the Dalai Lama dilemma’ would lend itself to larger uses in the sense of a small investment bringing a large return.”
The Chinese language is just too rich. “Vis-à-vis His Holiness, who is already ‘advanced in years’ and who is facing an imminent reincarnation problem,” there must be “striving,” there must be “a resolution.” What do such verbal formulations signify?
An independent Chinese intellectual sent me an e-mail. Worried and anxious, he said “There is obviously a back story to the two articles in Asia Weekly. The first speaks of the internal divisions among Tibetans and the Government-in-Exile’s inability to stabilize the situation. The article that follows has several keywords that I really don’t like: reincarnation, inviting His Holiness to visit Hong Kong, etc. And an invitation to His Holiness to visit Hong Kong is surely on His Holiness’s mind: he has many times evinced warm feelings when speaking about Xi Zhongxun and is reposing great hopes in Xi Jinping. If moved by rhetoric, His Holiness could gladly go. But think about the affair of the 10th Panchen Lama’s passing away in Shigatse. I think of the old adage, ‘Don’t walk into danger!’”
Indeed, don’t walk into danger! When there’s someone saying “We must strive to see that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is produced only within the country,” my hope is just for His Holiness to be in sound health; for His Holiness to be free of any malady!