May 9, 1997
Please find here the text of the US State Department's reaction to the
sentencing of Chadrel Rinpoche given yesterday.
Bhuchung
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Thursday, May 8, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
QUESTION: A senior Tibetan monk convicted. The Dalai Lama was here. You
talked to the Chinese for the umpteenth time about human rights. I know we have a multi-faceted foreign policy. But would you say that your pleas
on behalf of Tibetan culture are succeeding?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have obviously seen the report that a senior Tibetan
monk, Mr. Chadrel Rinpoche has been sentenced to six years in prison. The United States is deeply disturbed by this decision. We would note that Mr.
Rinpoche has been detained for nearly two years, apparently, we think, in
violation of Chinese law - and detained before his conviction.
Under the provisions of the Revised Criminal Procedure Law which went into
effect on January 1st of this year, such a lengthy detention period of two years would have required action by the National People's Congress Standing
Committee upon a request by the Supreme People's Procurator. That didn't
happen. He was held without being brought to trial for more than two years, and that, to us, apparently is a violation of Chinese law.
We would also note that his trial was held in secret, without due process
safeguards, which, of course, does not meet international standards - any notion of international standards. We were surprised to hear of the conviction, frankly, because the events in question for which he was tried took place many years ago.
We urge China to ensure full exercise of religious freedom, as set forth in
its own constitution. We urge China to release all people imprisoned in China simply because they have expressed divergent religious or political views from the Chinese Government. We urge China to preserve Tibet's unique cultural,
linguistic, and religious heritage.
We also reiterate our call to the Chinese Government to address the
continuing concerns of the international community regarding the boy designated by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, and we urge China to do so that the boy and his family can receive visitors, if he and his family wish to do so, and that this boy might be able to return to his home in Tibet as a free person, and his family as a free family. That has not happened. So we do have very deep-seated concerns about that is happening in Tibet to people who simply want to practice their religion. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Follow-up.
MR. BURNS: I think Sid wants to follow up just for a moment. Yes.
QUESTION: Do you think the Tibetans should have the right to pick their own
religious leaders? Or do you agree that this arrangement between the Chinese and the Tibetans on selecting the Panchen Lama is appropriate?
MR. BURNS: We have long believed that the mechanism for formally recognizing or identifying a reincarnated Lama is a religious matter. It's a religious matter. For that reason, we have not taken a specific position on what should be the
specific steps taken in identifying or recognizing a reincarnated Lama.
That we think is for the Tibetan Buddhists and others to work out. We have not taken a position on that.
But we clearly feel that since the Dalai Lama has recognized a reincarnated
Lama, a young boy and his family, that that young boy and his family have been taken away from a normal practice of Tibetan Buddhism, that that boy should be
returned to Tibet and allowed to practice his religion, along with his family's religion, freely. But we haven't said we think this person or that person should occupy that position.
QUESTION: But you know that the practice is that the Chinese pick --
MR. BURNS: Yes, we are very well aware of that.
QUESTION: -- for the Tibetans, their religious leaders.
MR. BURNS: Yes, and the Dalai Lama objects to that, and what we have said
is that we think this problem, a very obvious problem, ought to be worked out, and the steps to recognize a reincarnated Lama ought to be worked out between the Tibetan Buddhists and the Chinese Government. We have not identified an individual who we would recognize. We think the process has not been followed very well because this young boy, identified by the Dalai Lama himself, has been spirited away from Tibet and is not able to receive visitors.
QUESTION: Not to belabor it, but why should the Chinese have any say at all
in who the Tibetans pick as their religious leaders? And why should you say that they should have say?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I think I would prefer to make a different point, with all
due respect. You have asked a good a question. It's a difficult one for someone like me to answer. This is a very sensitive religious issue which has now
political overtones, given the problems in Tibet.
We don't believe that anyone's cause is going to be served if we become part of the argument. We prefer to support the principle of religious freedom, and support the right of a young boy to return to Tibet and practice his religion freely. But we prefer not to inject ourselves into the religious and political
debate by preferring one person or another.
QUESTION: How does the U.S. rate its performance? I mean, you've made your
compromises. You compromise on this. You compromise by making these declarations about Tibet's cultural rights, but being careful to say within China,
and you have the sentencing here. I mean, of course, nobody knows how many
other people would have been sentenced under different conditions. Would you say the U.S. is making headway in human rights in China? All the political opposition is in prison; what else is there?
MR. BURNS: I disagree with the way you've phrased your question and I take
issue with the premises of your question.
QUESTION: Well, there is a compromise here.
MR. BURNS: You name one country in the world, one country, any country,
Europe, North America, Latin American, Africa, Middle East, Asia, Australia, name any country that has spoken out more boldly, more clearly and more consistently for human rights in China. Name one country.
QUESTION: Name one country that has more leverage than the United States,
and chooses not to use it entirely.
MR. BURNS: And I would also reverse in my own view, reverse the way you've
asked the final question --
QUESTION: I mean, you know --
MR. BURNS: -- judge China.
QUESTION: Venezuela can't do anything to force China to change its human
rights policy.
MR. BURNS: -- judge the responsible governing authorities in Beijing about
whether people are free in China or not. It is not the responsibility of the United States that there are no political dissidents in China, that thousands of people are in jail.
QUESTION: Of course not.
MR. BURNS: It is our responsibility to speak to up for those people and we
do that.
QUESTION: I'm just saying how do you rate the success or lack of success of
the U.S.' carefully compromised policy?
MR. BURNS: It is very clear that China has a failed record. China has a
failed record on human rights. The United States is the major defender of the human rights of the Chinese people and I'm not going to submit to your question that somehow the United States is at fault, which is implied, for the current
situation.
QUESTION: I just - how are you doing?
MR. BURNS: How are we doing or how are the Chinese doing?
QUESTION: I'm just asking you. Do you think you're bending them? Do you think you are getting them to --
MR. BURNS: The Chinese know that this issue will remain a central part of
our relationship, and it will continue to be a discussion at every opportunity with the Chinese. We stand up for human rights around the world, Barry, quite
consistently.
QUESTION: I know you do.
QUESTION: I'm a little confused by your answer to the question.
MR. BURNS: On the Panchen Lama?
QUESTION: Yeah, if the selection of a Lama is a religious issue, why shouldn't it be left to religious leaders?
MR. BURNS: Judd, I don't know any other spokesman around the world, frankly, or government or ministry of foreign affairs that even comments on this issue besides us. We comment because it is an important issue of religious
freedom. You have to make a tactical choice.
Does the United States want to inject itself as an actor in these individual questions of human rights and say we agree with this decision, we don't agree with that decision, we agree with this person and not that person. It is clearly a religious dispute and a political dispute between China and the Tibetan
Buddhists. We have enunciated a very clear principle of support for religious freedom. But we chose not to say that we are going to back this religious leader versus that religious leader - very clear.
