Whither Tibetan Refugees?
The statement that Tibetans who fled their homeland after Chinese occupation are not refugees is so patently absurd that it does not deserve our attention—except for one thing: it was made by no less a supposed authority on the subject than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. One cannot help but wonder what he considers them to be instead. My old and battered, although still faithful and reliable, copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a refugees as a “person escaped to foreign country from religion or political persecution.” With regard to Tibet there is no need to quote less important or less reliable pronouncement ; the United Nations itself on three separate sessions of its General Assembly has declared Tibetans to be victims of genocide. Now, how can one be a victim of genocide without suffering from religious and political persecution? And what other reason can the High Commissioner offer for Tibetans in thousand leaving their homeland at grave risk to their lives? It is clear that he holds on to the fashion popularised during Jimmy Carter’s US Presidency that violation of human rights only occur in Russian-held territories and everybody else, especially a sworn enemy of the USSR, cannot be faulted on this count.
If the High Commisioner had a slightly better grasp of the Sino Tibetan affairs, he would have put the Tibetans in a spot by qualifying his statement as applying only to the current state of things, to wit, the case of the Tibetan exiles who are visiting their relatives, but is is understood that a large number of the visits are purely for the purposes of business. The Chinese also readily oblige them with travel documents since they are required to re-register themselves as “overseas Chinese.”
Citing these as examples, the High Commissioner would have been quite justified in declining to regard the Tibetans as refugees because a they are calling themselves overseas Chinese and b) if they are able to travel in and out of their country so easily, it leaves hardly any ground for us to complain that there is persecution and oppression in Chinese held Tibet. Of course, most of use are in no doubt that Peking has started this policy as a temporary measure and to give just that impression. But how can we legally prove this until it is too late, where as legal proos are being provided by the Tibetans themselves to support the Chinese claim?
In the past, when a negligible fraction of the Tibetan population in exile accepted financial aid from Taiwan, there was a great deal of hue and cry about damage to our ‘cause’. Now, an increasing number of people are accepting financial aid—albiet indirectly—from Peking, and all we can do is look around helplessly. And indeed there is little else we can do as our government in exile has no real power. It is for the individual himself to realize the consequences of his action. Surely, if he took time off from thinking about petty gains for a moment, he should be able to see that it is not impossible for his selfishness to eventually create a situation which could compel all Tibetans to end their exile. Can he sincerely see himself continuing to enjoy the benefits derived from his business acumen once that happens?
The statement that Tibetans who fled their homeland after Chinese occupation are not refugees is so patently absurd that it does not deserve our attention—except for one thing: it was made by no less a supposed authority on the subject than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. One cannot help but wonder what he considers them to be instead. My old and battered, although still faithful and reliable, copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a refugees as a “person escaped to foreign country from religion or political persecution.” With regard to Tibet there is no need to quote less important or less reliable pronouncement ; the United Nations itself on three separate sessions of its General Assembly has declared Tibetans to be victims of genocide. Now, how can one be a victim of genocide without suffering from religious and political persecution? And what other reason can the High Commissioner offer for Tibetans in thousand leaving their homeland at grave risk to their lives? It is clear that he holds on to the fashion popularised during Jimmy Carter’s US Presidency that violation of human rights only occur in Russian-held territories and everybody else, especially a sworn enemy of the USSR, cannot be faulted on this count.
If the High Commisioner had a slightly better grasp of the Sino Tibetan affairs, he would have put the Tibetans in a spot by qualifying his statement as applying only to the current state of things, to wit, the case of the Tibetan exiles who are visiting their relatives, but is is understood that a large number of the visits are purely for the purposes of business. The Chinese also readily oblige them with travel documents since they are required to re-register themselves as “overseas Chinese.”
Citing these as examples, the High Commissioner would have been quite justified in declining to regard the Tibetans as refugees because a they are calling themselves overseas Chinese and b) if they are able to travel in and out of their country so easily, it leaves hardly any ground for us to complain that there is persecution and oppression in Chinese held Tibet. Of course, most of use are in no doubt that Peking has started this policy as a temporary measure and to give just that impression. But how can we legally prove this until it is too late, where as legal proos are being provided by the Tibetans themselves to support the Chinese claim?
In the past, when a negligible fraction of the Tibetan population in exile accepted financial aid from Taiwan, there was a great deal of hue and cry about damage to our ‘cause’. Now, an increasing number of people are accepting financial aid—albiet indirectly—from Peking, and all we can do is look around helplessly. And indeed there is little else we can do as our government in exile has no real power. It is for the individual himself to realize the consequences of his action. Surely, if he took time off from thinking about petty gains for a moment, he should be able to see that it is not impossible for his selfishness to eventually create a situation which could compel all Tibetans to end their exile. Can he sincerely see himself continuing to enjoy the benefits derived from his business acumen once that happens?
posted by editorla at
9:12 PM
<< Home