The grim spectacle of young monks, nuns and lay people setting themselves on fire to protest conditions in their homeland is a stark reminder of the gloom and despair that now prevails on the Tibetan Plateau. These acts of self-immolation — at least 36 since March last year — have been staged to protest the increasingly heavy controls that China’s government in Beijing has imposed on Buddhist religious practices. At the end of last month, a self-immolation occurred for the first time in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, which may be a powerful portent of new turmoil in Tibet.
The self-immolations are a stark rebuke to the Chinese government’s claims that the lives of many in Tibet have been improving. These singular acts of desperation, irrespective of their motives, should be viewed in the wider context of ongoing religious and political problems in Tibet. Current official Chinese policies threaten the existence of the Tibetan language, culture, religion, heritage and environment.
Simmering tensions have been fueled largely by the lengthy “re-education” campaigns imposed on the Tibetans, who are forced to publicly renounce their spiritual leader and profess patriotism and loyalty to China. The escalating situation in the Aba/Ngaba region, a heavily Tibetan area in Sichuan Province where tensions have led to the imposition of unprecedented security measures, is particularly worrisome.
Aba has long had one of the densest concentrations of Buddhist monks and monasteries anywhere in the world. The security crackdown to stem protests there and the virtual sealing off of the Kirti Monastery in Ngaba, where the first of the current wave of self-immolations occurred, appears merely to have spread protest farther afield. Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of religion; therefore, religious freedom in Tibet should be respected.
In April, a group of 12 Nobel Peace Prize laureates sent a letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) urging him to “respect the dignity of the Tibetan people” and open “meaningful dialogue” with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan leaders. The US Senate and the European Parliament have adopted resolutions expressing their frustration over Chinese policies. There should be no doubt that the rest of the world is well aware of the gross violation of the Tibetan people’s fundamental rights and dignity.
China has legitimate aspirations to be accepted as a responsible stakeholder in global affairs. The best way for its government to achieve this goal is to demonstrate that it can care for the needs of all of the people living in China, including Tibetans, in a responsible manner. The Chinese government should contemplate the merits of greater openness in Tibet and put a stop to intimidation and harassment, which merely breed further frustration and resentment.
The fate of people arbitrarily imprisoned due to their religious beliefs and participation in recent protests adds to the growing worries about stability in Tibet. To ensure greater transparency, the Chinese authorities should lift restrictions on visits by independent international media and human rights monitors to provide as accurate a picture of the situation on the ground as possible.
The international community ought to initiate an open and honest dialogue with China at all levels, urging it to guarantee freedom of religion to all of its citizens in accordance with its international obligations — and its own laws.
Andre Glucksmann is a philosopher and essayist. Karel Schwarzenberg is foreign minister of the Czech Republic. Desmond Tutu is archbishop emeritus of Cape Town and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Richard von Weizsacker is a former president of Germany. H.R.H. Prince El Hassan bin Talal is the chairman and founder of the Arab Thought Forum and the West Asia-North Africa Forum. Vartan Gregorian is the president of Carnegie Corporation of New York. Michael Novak is a former US ambassador to the UN Commission on Human Rights. All signatories are members of the Shared Concern Initiative.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS