Last week, the Dalai Lama embarked on an international tour to keep the issue of Tibet alive ahead of the Olympics. His talks with leaders in Berlin, London, Canberra and elsewhere, which will continue through part of the Games, are aimed to maintain pressure on Beijing to address Tibetan discontent.
A degree of calm has returned to the region, but developments indicate that the storm continues — out of the public eye. Last month, the authorities tried 30 Tibetans in closed-door proceedings for their alleged roles in the protests that erupted in Lhasa in March, Human Rights Watch reported. Those sentenced were denied fair legal representation.
The regional government then paraded those 30 people at a public rally to announce their sentences — anywhere between three years and life in prison. Beijing proudly called this an “open court.”
As the weeks pass, more reports of secret trials will likely emerge as China makes public the sentences handed down against scores of demonstrators. Although Beijing has averred that the protesters instigated violence, its refusal to present evidence in open trials casts its charges in a dubious light.
Likewise, fresh arrests of apparently peaceful protesters indicate that the crackdown continues. Last week, Sichuan police told Radio Free Asia that “many” Tibetans had been detained in recent weeks. Three monks and 14 nuns were arrested in separate incidents last week alone.
Other reports indicate that authorities have stepped up “patriotic education” of Tibetan children, with the goal of teaching them to value Chinese culture above their own.
None of this is anything new. Arrests of dissidents and anyone else perceived as a threat weren’t uncommon in Tibet before the March protests and there is no reason to think that this would subside after the strongest show of local discontent in decades.
This is evident in the context of China’s growing intolerance of dissent around the country. At the National People’s Congress in March, Beijing revealed that arrests of “political criminals” hit an eight-year high last year. The violators include those who agitate for independence or autonomy, or petition against human rights violations.
As the Dalai Lama renews his efforts to highlight these and other disturbing developments, he will need to win strong support from key leaders to engage Beijing. But with China pressing countries to spurn the spiritual leader, governments will be loath to upset Zhongnanhai.
The Dalai Lama’s visit to Germany this week differed from a trip last fall in that he did not meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was abroad. The Tibetan spiritual leader in exile instead spoke at the Reichstag and met Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul. That sparked concern that Berlin may not be prepared to risk another falling-out with Beijing. Likewise, observers made much of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s decision this week to receive the Dalai Lama not at Downing Street but at Lambeth Palace, a subtle but telling signal.
How Berlin and other governments respond to the ongoing abuses in Tibet will be a crucial ingredient if progress is to be made. The people of Tibet have made their pain and frustration clear at enormous personal cost and are still suffering the ramifications. Without increased pressure on Beijing by the international community, they can do little more to secure the nominal freedoms China has granted them.
But the world’s attention span is short, as is the media’s. With news out of Tibet far less sensational than a few months ago, there is a risk that its plight will again drift out of the world’s consciousness.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military