The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora.
The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities.
For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights into global events, human rights issues and Tibetan cultural preservation.
The cessation of these broadcasts leaves a vacuum, making it even harder for Tibetans in Tibet to access unbiased information. This could lead to increased isolation and a greater reliance on state-controlled narratives, further eroding the community’s ability to stay informed and connected to the outside world.
The Tibetan language itself is a cornerstone of Tibetan identity. VOA and RFA broadcasts have played a crucial role in promoting and preserving the Tibetan language, especially for younger generations who might not have access to formal education in their native tongue.
The loss of these broadcasts risks accelerating the erosion of linguistic and cultural heritage, a concern that resonates deeply within the Tibetan diaspora.
For the Tibetan diaspora, the broadcasts have been more than just a source of news, they have been a bridge to their homeland. Many in the diaspora rely on VOA and RFA to stay connected to the struggles and triumphs of their compatriots in Tibet. Discontinuing these services could weaken this connection, making it harder for the diaspora to advocate effectively for Tibetan rights and autonomy on the global stage.
The closure has also broader geopolitical implications. It signals a retreat in the US’ soft power efforts to promote democracy and human rights in regions under authoritarian rule.
By silencing these broadcasts, the US risks ceding influence to China, which has long sought to suppress independent Tibetan voices. The move could be interpreted as a concession to authoritarian regimes, undermining the credibility of US commitments to freedom of speech and human rights.
The termination of Tibetan broadcasts by VOA and RFA is not just a loss for Tibetans, it is a loss for the principles of free speech and cultural preservation. For a community already facing significant challenges, this development adds another layer of difficulty.
It is imperative that policymakers, activists and the international community work to find alternative ways to support Tibetan voices and ensure that the flow of uncensored information continues. The stakes are too high to let these voices be silenced.
Khedroob Thondup is a former member of the Tibetan parliament in exile.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS