Our organization, the International Campaign for Tibet, is just completing the first in-depth report on religious restrictions in the 1980's. The Communist Party maintains strict control over the Religious Affairs Bureau and the Buddhist Association which govern all religious activity. Monasteries are run by state-controlled democratic management committees which actively collaborate with security forces and work teams to find and arrest dissident monks and nuns. In short, religious activity is narrowly circumscribed, closely watched, and constantly threatened.

The governance of religion in Tibet is similar to other aspects of Tibetan life in that Tibetans are have no real power to control their affairs. Religion is being administered by secular, security-oriented officials who are answerable to Beijing. Our study documents how many local officials who are in charge of monasteries are the same officials who oversaw the destruction of the monastery in the Cultural Revolution. We also document how young Tibetans are required to secure the approval of up to seven different government offices before they can join a monastery. Moreover, a limit on the number of monks in each monastery is set by the government. The Chinese claim that they are protecting religion and subsidizing religion by helping to rebuild monasteries. We found that where ever there is Chinese assistance there are many more government controls and political restrictions. It is only in areas where there are few Chinese settlers and administrators where any genuine religious revival is taking place. One Tibetan monk explained religious education as similar to allowing children to go to a school where there is no classroom, no teacher, and no books, where students must constantly declare their allegiance to the Communist Party and may be expelled at any time.

The violations perpetrated upon the Tibetans, for decades before the Tiananmen massacre-and since, take various shapes. In our estimation, the most dangerous and insidious is may well be termed China's "final solution" for the Tibetan nation. China has imposed a policy of population transfer in Tibet whereby large influxes of Chinese are settling on the Tibetan plateau.Tibetans, though occupied, refuse to be conquered and subjugated. However, by changing the very character and national identity of Tibet and its people through a combination of demographic change and discrimination, Tibet is being destroyed.

In the 1950's large numbers of Chinese moved across the borders into Tibetan towns and fertile valleys in Kham (now part of Sichuan) and eastern parts of Amdo (largely contiguous with Qinhai and western Gansu). In the 1960's and 1970's their numbers grew as new settlers moved further westward along new roads into what is commonly referred to as the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Today there are several million Chinese in the whole of Tibet; China's own figures which are undoubtedly of limited accuracy, put the figure in 1982 at over 3 million.

On April 2, 1990, China Daily published an article which described the functions of an office in Chengdu as “a major transfer post for personnel and freight leaving and entering Tibet." The article reported that the office now handles about 2,000 people each day, in contrast to 278 when it first opened in 1964. This would total, by our estimation, 200,000 Chinese civilians enter Tibet per year.

The influx into Tibet appears to be motivated by a Chinese Government policy aimed at reducing Tibetans into a powerless minority in their own country. This strategy proved to be successful in inner Mongolia and Xinjiang (East Turkestan) where the Mongols and Turkish peoples, respectively, are outnumbered and, as result, their culture decimated.

The policy gravely endangers what is left of historical Tibet. If allowed to continue unabated, it will make all other violations pale by comparison. It is for this reason that the Dalai Lama during his last visit to Washington in 1987, when outlining his peace plan, called for the "abandonment of China's population transfer policy which threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a people."

Racial discrimination has always characterized the Chinese administration of Tibet and has been made worse by the large number of Chinese settlers. A typical example of how the Chinese view the Tibetans was published in the official magazine, Peking Economic Research Journal as stating: "They [Tibetans] lack the capacity to absorb advanced technology and are highly imbued with a character of laziness." The patterns of discrimination have been documented in a written statement by the Minority Rights Group. Their statement was submitted, last January, to the United Nations Human Rights Commission's Forty-Sixth Session. Briefly, the discrimination polices outlined to the Commission covered housing, freedom of movement, education, employment and economic development, health care, and the role of official authorities. Their statement is included as an attachment in my written testimony.

With all business being conducted in Chinese the usefulness of Tibetan language is almost obsolete. Education for Tibetans is principally conducted in Chinese, par

ticularly at high school, college, and graduate levels. Tibetans who do get an education find themselves learning Tibetan as a second language.

66#

The health care system primarily serves the Chinese. Of course, the disturbing reports of forced sterilizations and abortions have been widely circulated. As recently as April 20, 1990, the local radio service in Qinghai (formerly Amdo) announced that 87,000 women had been sterilized in the province by the end of last year. In an article that purported to justify population control the China Population News reported on December 22, 1989, that some of our comrades do not understand that to justify lenient policies [for the minorities] is untenable ** human reproduction comprises not only quantitative but qualitative changes in the population. In the minority areas the cultural quality of the population is quite backward, the quality is stagnant there must not be a reason for relaxing family planning." We are also very concerned about reports that Tibetans were refused treatmentas a result of wounds sustained during the violent crackdown last March-by Chinese health care workers. The Physicians for Human Rights issued a well-documented report last November which detailed horrendous and systematic use of torture against Tibetan prisoners.

* * *

With respect to housing, racial discrimination is evidenced by segregated housing between Tibetans and Chinese. Tibetan ghettos are common. Now reports are being received from Lhasa that exacerbate the tension between Tibetans and Chinese over housing. Chinese authorities under an "urban renewal plan" are demolishing part of the historic Tibetan quarter of Lhasa. We fear this is designed to provide better access for police and troops. This brings to mind the terror and methods of China's ally, Nicolae Ceausescu. The Tibetan part of the city has now dwindled in size to about 2 percent of the total area of the town.

The issue of forced labor, or reform through labor, goes to the heart of the Tibetan problem because such a high proportion of Tibetans have suffered and continue to suffer in these camps. Amdo, the birthplace of the Dalai Lama, is oftentimes called the world's largest gulag. Working for the state in order to reform your political, cultural, or religious beliefs cannot be anything less than tortuous, humiliating. and psychologically degrading. These camps, located in historical Tibet have been part of the Chinese Communist system from the outset. They did not go away at the end of the cultural revolution. Rather, they continue to thrive today.

How can we offer preferential treatment to a country that seals off vast territorial areas, refuses access to such areas,, and makes it legal to do so under their law. Under Chinese law, police have the authority to send people accused of disturbing the peace, "fabricating rumors," hindering government officials and other offenses to forced labor camps without a court ruling. Didn't the leaders in Beijing refer to those Chinese who demonstrated in Beijing accordingly? When we hear news that Tibetans have been taken from their homes and "disappear" the first thing that comes to mind is they have been relocated to a forced labor camp.

Social control in China includes the use of identity cards, the work unit system, the use of political indoctrination, and restrictions on movement. In the case of Tibet these controls are more restrictive, more active and more aggressively enforced. They are also entirely different in nature from those applied in China, because they are applied by a foreign civilian administration and enforced by a foreign military power. They therefore resemble not so much the experience of the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, but of France under the Germans.

Mr. Chairman, another aspect of concern for Tibet is the environment. Greenpeace magazine published an account by Galen Rowell, the noted wildlife photographer who has traveled extensively throughout Tibet. Mr. Rowell entitled his article "The Agony of Tibet." The complete text is submitted for the record. The Chinese call Tibet their Western treasury house and with good reason. It is rich with deposits of gold, uranium, iron, lithium, copper, and tungsten. However, it is the rampant denuding of Tibet's forests that are, at the moment, of utmost importance. An estimated 54 billion dollars' worth of trees have been felled. The unchecked environmental effects of deforestation through which flow the Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Indus, and Yangtze rivers means that Tibet's environmental problems is not confined to Tibet alone.

One of the most important reasons China invaded Tibet is strategic. Tibet is a 12,000-foot launching pad overlooking the eastern Arab states, India, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and, of course, the Soviet Union. Authoritative independent sources have reported that throughout the Tibetan plateau China has established 17 radar stations, 14 military air fields, and 5 nuclear bases with at least 80 ICBM's, 75 medium-range and 20 intermediate-range missiles. This commanding position in central and southern Asia gives access to the entire Indian subcontinent.

China's handling of Tibet over the last four decades provides a real litmus of China's human rights policy. A U.S. foreign policy that ignores or minimizes the Tibet issue, is miscast and misrepresentative of American values. I've spoken with Tibetans residing in the United States and India and without exception they support suspending MFN.

We call for the Congress to suspend MFN and overturn the President's waiver. Emigration from Tibet is either impossible or extraordinarily difficult, but moreover the atrocious human rights record justifies suspension. Similarly, the great risks that Tibetans are willing to take in leaving Tibet illegally evidences that these Tibetans believe their application to the Chinese authorities for legal emigration would be useless and, possibly, deadly. Tibetans are willing to risk life and limb to leave Tibet. Reason suggests that they would not do so illegally if there were an easier, legal route out of the country or if conditions were such that they could remain in their homeland.

It is time for Congress to lead on the issue of United States-China policy, to take the same kind of clear and resolute stand when the Jackson-Vanik amendment was passed in 1974 and to show, beyond a doubt, not just sympathy but support for the Tibetan and Chinese people whose suffering by the hands of Beijing's leadership is incalculable.

The President, on May 24 did not grant MFN with conditions. The International Campaign for Tibet supports the revocation of MFN status to the People's Republic of China based on their emigration policies, human rights record and use of forced labor in Tibet and China. Most-favored-nation status will assist the PRC to maintain their costly and large population of military and security personnel in Tibet. Moreover, extending MFN will further entrench the hardliners in Beijing who are imposing policies which systematically violate the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people. I have submitted, for the record, a list of conditions the campaign finds acceptable if MFN is extended. However, I wish to add we believe and extension should be for no more than 6 months predicated on these conditions.

We should not forget the horrific events of last June. We should not allow the emotions the American people felt when seeing a burgeoning democracy movement become crushed by the hardline policy of Beijing's leadership become little more than a memory. Moreover, we should not forget the million-plus Tibetans who have died as a direct result of China's occupation of Tibet.

After the recent summit with Mikhail Gorbachev, the President stated, when asked about Lithuanian independence, that he hasn't "lessened my view as to peoples' aspirations for self-determination. And I feel strongly about that. That's a hallmark of American belief and policy. And I haven't changed one bit on that.

I agree with the President, though his statement begs the question: what is the difference between Lithuania and Tibet? Tibetans have died because they held the Tibetan flag. They have been tortured because they refuse to be subjugated by foreign domination. They have held fast to their cultural heritage, religious beliefs, and national identity against indomitable odds. They refuse, categorically, to denounce their beloved leader, this year's Nobel Peace Laureate, the Dalai Lama. And, it is their hope that some day the U.S. Government will respond to their aspirations for self-determination, human rights, and democratic freedoms. Thank you.

MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS AND THE PRC

The International Campaign for Tibet supports the revocation of MFN status to the People's Republic of China based on their emigration policies, human rights record and use of forced labor in Tibet and China. Most-favored-nation status will assist the PRC to maintain their costly and large population of military and security personnel in Tibet. Moreover, extending MFN will further entrench the hardliners in Beijing who are imposing policies which systematically violate fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people.

If MFN is to be extended, it should only be a limited, 6-month extension with the following conditions:

(i) With respect to human rights, whether the Government of the PRC has

(I) released demonstrators and dissidents imprisoned in China and Tibet because of their political or religious views such as Yulo Dawa Tsering and Wang Weilin; (II) granted permission for international human rights groups to investigate human rights conditions in China and Tibet including visiting prisons to account for political prisoners in China and Tibet;

(III) ceased to arrest, sentence, and/or execute people for the peaceful expression of their political or religious views;

(IV) ended the intimidation and harassment, in the United States, the PRC, and Tibet, of students and others who were involved in, or sympathetic to, the prodemocracy demonstrations of 1989;

(V) ended interference with the free exchange of information, including an end to interference with VOA broadcasts to China and refraining to interfere with the upcoming VOA broadcasts to Tibet.

(ii) The Government of the PRC should engage in active and constructive negotiations regarding Tibet with representatives of the Dalai Lama in order to reach a fair and reasonable settlement of the conflict in Tibet.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL,

May 30, 1990.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC) (TIBET AUTONOMOUS REGION): Migar Tashi AND DAWA, NOW KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED; DHUNDUP TSERING, SUSPENDED DEATH SENTENCE

On 17 May, three Tibetan prisoners detained in a Lhasa prison were sentenced to death for acts allegedly committed in detention. Official reports reaching Beijing on 29 May 1990 say that two of them, Migmar Tashi and Dawa were actually executed on the same day (17 May 1990). The third, Dhundup Tsering, had received a death sentence suspended for 2 years.

The 29 May report said that the two who were executed were already convicted murderers serving suspended death sentences when they tried to organize a mass escape. As mentioned in the earlier Urgent Action, Dhundup Tsering who received the suspended death sentence, had confessed the escape plan to the authorities.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of the right to life and a violation of the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

FURTHER RECOMMENDED ACTION: TELEXES/AIRMAIL LETTERS

-Regretting the execution of Migmar Tashi and Dawa, and urging that the suspended death sentence against Dhundup Tsering be commuted;

-Urging that all death sentences in China be commuted and expressing opposition to the death penalty as being the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Amnesty International is especially concerned that the four Tibetans may have been unable to present an adequate defense and obtain a review of the sentences. Chinese trial procedures and rules of evidence, which fall far short of international standards, have been of longstanding concern to Amnesty International.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of the right to life and a violation of the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: TELEXES/AIRMAIL LETTERS

—Urging that the death sentences against Migmar Tashi and Dawa be commuted if they have not yet been carried out, and that the suspended death sentence against Dhundup Tsering be commuted;

-Expressing concern that the three Tibetans may not have had an adequate opportunity to have their sentences reviewed;

-Urging that all death sentences in China be commuted and expressing opposition to the death penalty as being the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Appeals to: Yang Youcai Jianchazhang, Xizang Zizhiqu Renmin Jianchayuan, Lasashi, Xizang Zizhiqu, People's Republic of China; Telexes: 68014 FAOLT CN or 68007 PGVMT CN (Please forward to Tibet Chief Procurator Yang Youcia).

Appeals to: Hu Jintao Shuji, Zhonggong Xizang Zizhiqu Weiyunahui, Lasashi, Xizang Zizhiqu, People's Republic of China; Telexes: 68014 FAOLT CN or 68007 PGVMT CN (Please forward to Tibet Party Secretary Hu Jintao).

Appeals to: Liu Fuzhi Jianchazhang, Zuigao Renmin Jianchayuan, Beijingshi, People's Republic of China; Telexes: 210070 FMPRC CN or 22478 MFERT CN (Please foreard to Procurator General Liu Fuzhi).

Appeals to: Cai Cheng Buzhang, Sifabu, Sanlihe, Beijingshi, People's Republic of China; Telexes: 21007 FMPRC CN or 22478 MFERT CN (Please forward to Justice Minister Cai Cheng).

Copies to: Jia Rui Zong Bianji, Xizang Ribao, Lasashi 850000, Xizang Zizhiqu, People's Republic of China (Tibet Daily Editor Jia Rui); Fazhi Ribao, P.O. Box 3932, Beijing 100039, People's Republic of China (Legal System Daily); and diplomatic representatives of the People's Republic of China, and to the Office of the New China News Agency (Xinhua) in your country.

Please Send Appeals Immediately. Check with the International Secretariat, or your section office, if sending appeals after 5 July 1990.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL,

May 30, 1990.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC) (TIBET AUTONOMOUS REGION): MIGAR TASHI AND Dawa, Now KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED; DhunDUP TSERING, SUSPENDED DEATH SENTENCE

On 18 May 1990, the television service in Lhasa, capital of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), reported that on 17 May, three Tibetan prisoners detained in a Lhasa prison had been sentenced to death for acts allegedly committed in detention. The sentences were reported announced at a sentencing rally held by the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court within the prison compound, apparently in the presence of other prisoners. A prisoner accused of colluding with the three others received a sentence of imprisonment.

-a ref

The television report alleged that the four Tibetans had "resisted reform"erence to "reform through labor," the punishment normally inflicted on people charged with criminal acts—and that they had established "a prison escape scheme in a planned manner" since February 1989. Two of them, Migmar Tashi and Dawa, had allegedly written letters "showing determination to continue criminal activities after their escape." The report said the escape scheme was foiled on 28 July 1989, when one of the four alleged offenders, Dhundup Tsering, turned himself in to the authorities.

Migmar Tashi and Dawa were sentenced to death. Dhundup Tsering was sentenced to death with a 2-year stay of execution. All three were deprived of their political rights (mainly the right to vote) for life. A fourth prisoner, Tashi, was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment and a further 3 years' deprivation of his political rights. He allegedly provided "protective amulets" and money to the others. The report did not say whether Migmar Tashi and Dawa have been executed. In Chinese practice, however, death sentences are made public after they have been reviewed and upheld by a local High People's Court, which has the right to final adjudication, and are usually carried out immediately.

Article 96 of the Criminal Law of the PRC provides for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for “ringleaders in a mass prison raid or in organizing a jail break," who according to the law are deemed to "counter-revolutionary" offenders. Article 103 provides for the death penalty for offenses under article 96, "when the harm to the state and the people is especially serious and the consequences especially odious."

Amnesty International has on past occasions received reports of sentencing rallies being held in Chinese prisons and of death sentences against inmates being imposed and carried out within prison compounds. To the organization's knowledge, however, this is the first time that a sentencing rally in a prison has been officially reported.

No information was given about the procedure for investigating the charges made against the four prisoners or about the conditions under which Dhundup Tsering's confession was obtained in July 1989. Amnesty International is concerned that the exceptional step taken by the judicial authorities of holding its proceedings within a prison compound may have compromised their fairness.