Editorial by Mr. Pema Thinley (released June 1999)
The profound Tibetan belief, the raison d'être of our professedly non-violent struggle, that truth and justice will ultimately prevail represents only half the truth about survival in this world. A more wholesome truth seems to be that unless backed or complemented by appropriately potent coercive elements, not necessarily violent, a cause, no matter how noble and sacred, cannot move beyond being a mere intention. All the public relations exercises that predominantly and necessarily determine the mode of carrying out a non-violent struggle remain by themselves mere manners of expressing noble aspirations and sentiments, depending on whether you are an embodiment or a supporter of such a cause.
A noble cause waged by non-violent means in the name of the truth depends for success upon its capacity to stir the conscience of those whose minds are sought to be subdued or won over. Unfortunately the truth about human rights and violations thereof in today’s world of international diplomacy and complex layers and circuits of parochial national interests is highly subjective. No one brought home the truth about this truth with more telling effect than South Africa’s President Nelson Mandela during his recent visit to communist China.
During his quarter century of incarceration in apartheid South Africa on an alleged murder charge, the whole free world stood behind him. He became the most famous political prisoner in the world and the inspiration for all other subjugated peoples. It was realistic therefore to expect that upon his release from jail and the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, Mandela would be the last person to compromise on any people’s rights. Unfortunately this was not to be the case. Mandela the President of South Africa rode the rough shod over Mandela the archetypal symbol of crusade for the rights of the oppressed.
The economic and political interests of South Africa in having cordial relations with a powerful communist China, the worst and certainly the most pervasive violators of human rights in the world even to this day, was to him much, much more important than the human rights and democratic aspirations of peoples in such strange, distant lands as Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, China, etc. That is why his expressions of admiration for the communist regime was so explicitly forthright, without an iota of qualification or stammer of hesitation. ‘I am happy to have chosen to end my political career by visiting China,’ the official China Daily newspaper on 8 May quoted him as saying. Mr. Mandela is to retire as the President of South Africa in early June this year.
The South African President played music to the communist Chinese ears, saying he had no advice for mainland dissidents and no criticism of Beijing’s rights record. According to news reports on 8 May, Mr Mandela repeatedly declined to criticise Beijing for jailing dissidents and other abuses, saying instead that he was not prepared to interfere in China’s domestic affairs. Whither the universality of human rights. And he called his trip ‘success,’ though no trade deals or accords had been signed.
No one can, of course, condemn or praise Mandela without making some value judgement that would pit the basically economic and to some extent politico-diplomatic interests of one’s own country against the human rights, no matter how fundamental, of peoples in other, alien lands. Leaders of almost all the countries of the world are not doing it any much differently. Only they pay lip service to human rights in varying degrees of criticism of the communist regime’s record and attitude.
Politicking with human rights does not end with the question whether gross and systematic rights violations are being condemned in concrete, coercive terms or acquiesced to in a conspiracy of silence. The states most responsible for perpetrating rights violations are the ones most combative in seeking positions on the various UN rights monitoring bodies. States whose leaders knew nothing about UN human rights system overnight become members of UN rights bodies upon learning that their records had been subjects of discussion at these fora. Mention any UN rights monitoring body today and you will almost certainly find the very odd presence of a Chinese delegation there—China bulls in UN rights shops! I have personally witnessed a UN working group meeting in Geneva where the Chinese delegation led the violators’ cohort in opposing, diluting, negating, qualifying, etc, each and every draft provision to ensure that a UN declaration on the rights of human rights defenders was delayed and diluted or neutralised as much as possible. Even on such bodies as the Sub-Commission on Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, or the various treaty bodies, such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Committee Against Torture, Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, etc, etc, the supposedly independent human rights experts from China are seen blatantly defensive of the indefensible: their government’s reprehensible human rights record in a manifestly partisan manner.
Thus, with or without Mandela, attitude towards human rights will always be subjective and political. Likewise, human rights violations by the Chinese government will continue whether or not it is condemned by individual countries and intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Commission on Human Rights. After all, the violations are only symptoms of a government whose authority is threatened at home but whose power and influence is feared abroad.
