An Appeal to the Chinese People from His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

Today, I extend heartfelt greetings to my Chinese brothers and sisters round the world, particularly to those in the People's Republic of China. In the light of the recent developments in Tibet, I would like to share with you my thoughts concerning relations between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples, and to make a personal appeal to you all.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in the recent tragic events in Tibet. I am aware that some Chinese have also died. I feel for the victims and their families and pray for them. The recent unrest has clearly demonstrated the gravity of the situation in Tibet and the urgent need to seek a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution through dialogue. Even at this juncture I have expressed my willingness to the Chinese authorities to work together to bring about peace and stability.

Chinese brothers and sisters, I assure you I have no desire to seek Tibet's separation. Nor do I have any wish to drive a wedge between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. On the contrary my commitment has always been to find a genuine solution to the problem of Tibet that ensures the long-term interests of both Chinese and Tibetans. My primary concern, as I have repeated time and again, is to ensure the survival of the Tibetan people's distinctive culture, language and identity. As a simple monk who strives to live his daily life according to Buddhist precepts, I assure you of the sincerity of my motivation.

I have appealed to the leadership of the PRC to clearly understand my position and work to resolve these problems by "seeking truth from facts." I urge the Chinese leadership to exercise wisdom and to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Tibetan people. I also appeal to them to make sincere efforts to contribute to the stability and harmony of the PRC and avoid creating rifts between the nationalities. The state media's portrayal of the recent events in Tibet, using deceit and distorted images, could sow the seeds of racial tension with unpredictable long-term consequences. This is of grave concern to me. Similarly, despite my repeated support for the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese authorities, with the intention of creating rift between the Chinese people and myself, assert that I am trying to sabotage the games. I am encouraged, however, that several Chinese intellectuals and scholars have also expressed their strong concern about the Chinese leadership's actions and the potential for adverse long-term consequences, particularly on relations among different nationalities.

Since ancient times, Tibetan and Chinese peoples have lived as neighbors. In the two thousand year-old recorded history of our peoples, we have at times developed friendly relations, even entering into matrimonial alliances, while at other times we fought each other. However, since Buddhism flourished in China first before it arrived in Tibet from India, we Tibetans have historically accorded the Chinese people the respect and affection due to elder Dharma brothers and sisters. This is something well known to members of the Chinese community living outside China, some of whom have attended my Buddhist lectures, as well as pilgrims from mainland China, whom I have had the privilege to meet. I take heart from these meetings and feel they may contribute to a better understanding between our two peoples.

The twentieth century witnessed enormous changes in many parts of the world and Tibet, too, was caught up in this turbulence. Soon after the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet finally resulting in the 17-Point Agreement concluded between China and Tibet in May 1951. When I was in Beijing in 1954-55, attending the National People's Congress, I had the opportunity to meet and develop a personal friendship with many senior leaders, including Chairman Mao himself. In fact, Chairman Mao gave me advice on numerous issues, as well as personal assurances with regard to the future of Tibet. Encouraged by these assurances, and inspired by the dedication of many of China's revolutionary leaders of the time, I returned to Tibet full of confidence and optimism. Some Tibetan members of the Communist Party also had such a hope. After my return to Lhasa, I made every possible effort to seek genuine autonomy for Tibet within the family of the People's Republic of China (PRC). I believed that this would best serve the long-term interests of both the Tibetan and Chinese peoples.

Unfortunately, tensions, which began to escalate in Tibet from around 1956, eventually led to the peaceful uprising of March 10, 1959, in Lhasa and my eventual escape into exile. Although many positive developments have taken place in Tibet under the PRC's rule, these developments, as the previous Panchen Lama pointed out in January 1989, were overshadowed by immense suffering and extensive destruction. Tibetans were compelled to live in a state of constant fear, while the Chinese government remained suspicious of them. However, instead of cultivating enmity towards the Chinese leaders responsible for the ruthless suppression of the Tibetan people, I prayed for them to become friends, which I expressed in the following lines in a prayer I composed in 1960, a year after I arrived in India: "May they attain the wisdom eye discerning right and wrong, And may they abide in the glory of friendship and love." Many Tibetans, school children among them, recite these lines in their daily prayers.

In 1974, following serious discussions with my Kashag (cabinet), as well as the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the then Assembly of the Tibetan People's Deputies, we decided to find a Middle Way that would seek not to separate Tibet from China, but would facilitate the peaceful development of Tibet. Although we had no contact at the time with the PRC - which was in the midst of the Cultural Revolution - we had already recognized that sooner or later, we would have to resolve the question of Tibet through negotiations. We also acknowledged that, at least with regard to modernization and economic development, it would greatly benefit Tibet if it remained within the PRC. Although Tibet has a rich and ancient cultural heritage, it is materially undeveloped.

Situated on the roof of the world, Tibet is the source of many of Asia's major rivers, therefore, protection of the environment on the Tibetan plateau is of supreme importance. Since our utmost concern is to safeguard Tibetan Buddhist culture - rooted as it is in the values of universal compassion - as well as the Tibetan language and the unique Tibetan identity, we have worked whole-heartedly towards achieving meaningful self-rule for all Tibetans. The PRC's constitution provides the right for nationalities such as the Tibetans to do this.

In 1979, the then Chinese paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping assured my personal emissary that "except for the independence of Tibet, all other questions can be negotiated." Since we had already formulated our approach to seeking a solution to the Tibetan issue within the constitution of the PRC, we found ourselves well placed to respond to this new opportunity. My representatives met many times with officials of the PRC. Since renewing our contacts in 2002, we have had six rounds of talks. However, on the fundamental issue, there has been no concrete result at all. Nevertheless, as I have declared many times, I remain firmly committed to the Middle Way approach and reiterate here my willingness to continue to pursue the process of dialogue.

This year the Chinese people are proudly and eagerly awaiting the opening of the Olympic Games. I have, from the start, supported Beijing's being awarded the opportunity to host the Games. My position remains unchanged. China has the world's largest population, a long history and an extremely rich civilization. Today, due to her impressive economic progress, she is emerging as a great power. This is certainly to be welcomed. But China also needs to earn the respect and esteem of the global community through the establishment of an open and harmonious society based on the principles of transparency, freedom, and the rule of law. For example, to this day victims of the Tiananmen Square tragedy that adversely affected the lives of so many Chinese citizens have received neither just redress nor any official response. Similarly, when thousands of ordinary Chinese in rural areas suffer injustice at the hands of exploitative and corrupt local officials, their legitimate complaints are either ignored or met with aggression. I express these concerns both as a fellow human being and as someone who is prepared to consider himself a member of the large family that is the People's Republic of China. In this respect, I appreciate and support President Hu Jintao's policy of creating a "harmonious society", but this can only arise on the basis of mutual trust and an atmosphere of freedom, including freedom of speech and the rule of law. I strongly believe that if these values are embraced, many important problems relating to minority nationalities can be resolved, such as the issue of Tibet, as well as Eastern Turkistan, and Inner Mongolia, where the native people now constitute only 20% of a total population of 24 million.

I had hoped President Hu Jintao's recent statement that the stability and safety of Tibet concerns the stability and safety of the country might herald the dawning of a new era for the resolution of the problem of Tibet. It is unfortunate that despite my sincere efforts not to separate Tibet from China, the leaders of the PRC continue to accuse me of being a "separatist". Similarly, when Tibetans in Lhasa and many other areas spontaneously protested to express their deep-rooted resentment, the Chinese authorities immediately accused me of having orchestrated their demonstrations. I have called for a thorough investigation by a respected body to look into this allegation.

Chinese brothers and sisters - wherever you may be - with deep concern I appeal to you to help dispel the misunderstandings between our two communities. Moreover, I appeal to you to help us find a peaceful, lasting solution to the problem of Tibet through dialogue in the spirit of understanding and accommodation.

With my prayers,

Dalai Lama

March 28, 2008

Note: translated from the Tibetan original

(www.tibet.net is the official website of the Central Tibetan Administration.)

Bao Tong: Talk To The Dalai Lama

2008.03.26

Bao Tong gives a rare television interview. Photo: AFP

A former top official in China’s ruling Communist Party has called on the Chinese government to open talks with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, as a matter of urgency. Bao Tong, former aide to ousted late premier Zhao Ziyang, says both Tibetans and Han Chinese have suffered at the hands of a Maoist political philosophy. He wrote this essay, broadcast by RFA’s Mandarin service, from his Beijing home, where he has lived under house arrest since his release from jail in the wake of the 1989 student movement:

Take harmony seriously; talk to the Dalai Lama

by Bao Tong

The Lhasa incident has caused massive grief for all the Tibetan people and all of China. Anyone who has ever been through a great historical tragedy will understand its significance. The Chinese government spokesman said the whole thing was orchestrated by the Dalai Lama — a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize — from behind the scenes. However, as a reader from Europe put it: “Nobody here believes what the Chinese government says.”

That one phrase is more eloquent that 10,000 words. It renders the spokesman’s words meaningless. Because it shows how ordinary readers are quite capable of making their own considered and independent decision not to believe what the Chinese government says, but instead use their own experience as a basis for deciding what to think.

Only recently, the government issued a statement saying that the exercise of political power should take place in daylight.

Bao Tong

This has happened because the Chinese government already has a track record of denying responsibility for major historical events. In the first Tiananmen incident [of April 5, 1976], Deng Xiaoping was judged to be the villain responsible for the disaster. In the second Tiananmen incident [of June 4, 1989], Zhao Ziyang was the fall guy. Now, the Dalai Lama is to take the rap for the Lhasa incident. It is very hard for people not to make the linkage in their minds with this practice of upholding wrongdoing.

The Chinese government is very closed, which is another reason for people to mistrust it. Of course there are reasons why they react in this way, shutting off the flow of information, monopolizing news, always behaving as if they are fighting a formidable enemy. Why have they prevented foreign journalists from carrying out interviews freely? Why was it necessary to force all the journalists to stop gathering information and opinion and to leave immediately?

Dialogue should be Plan A

Only recently, the government issued a statement saying that the exercise of political power should take place in daylight. No sooner than it was uttered, the authorities once more withdrew from this line, somehow compelled to bring newsgathering back into the shadows again, and to stuff the whole affair into a big black box.

Harmony means that you have to beat swords into ploughshares. It cannot flourish in a closed society, and it cannot be built by force. It should be an urgent priority to open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. This should be Plan A. With his commitment to pacifism, the Dalai Lama is the only Tibetan leader with the ability to bring about a conciliatory agreement between the Tibetan and the Han Chinese peoples.

In the 1950s, the Communist Party secretary of the northwest China bureau, Xi Zhongxun, focused all of his experience gained from rallying various ethnic groups in Qinghai into a stinging criticism — delivered by Xinjiang branch bureau secretary Wang Zhen — of Han chauvinism. This had a big impact on a lot of people’s thinking.

The Tibetans and the Han are relatives by marriage who have been injured by a common enemy: this lethal Maoist philosophy of political struggle.

Bao Tong

The villain of the piece this time was Mao Zedong and his philosophy of political struggle. That was an evil thing, which brought disaster upon the heads of the Tibetan people, as well as destroying normal life for the Han Chinese themselves. From this point of view, the Tibetans and the Han are relatives by marriage who have been injured by a common enemy: this lethal Maoist philosophy of political struggle.

I do not want to see a Chechnya-style tragedy re-enacted in Tibet in pursuit of a Stalinist obsession with unity. The central Party leadership in Beijing has made “harmony” their mission. I believe that the philosopher’s stone will be revealed to those who are sincere.

All the central government has to do is sit down with the Dalai Lama and talk to him; to show a little wisdom, and with vision and determination, the Lhasa incident can be resolved in an appropriate manner. A little hard work now could win us a peaceful future, heralding a new era of cooperation between the Tibetan and Han Chinese peoples.

Written by Bao Tong for RFA's Mandarin service. Service director: Jennifer Chou. Translation by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Sarah Jackson-Han.

Participating in China’s Political Process

By Fang Jue

March 18, 2008

Three days ago, my old friend and ex-colleague, Xi Jinping, was elected as vice president at the National People’s Congress in China. He will be the President of China within five years.

The incumbent president, Hu Jintao, is an orthodox communist. He has had no any interest in democratic reform. And he has ignored China’s bad human rights record. President Hu is getting old. He had intended to choose his protégé, Li Keqiang, as his political successor. If Hu’s stream of succession had been realized, it would have further delayed political reform in China; therefore, I had to advocate against Hu’s intention although Mr. Li Keqiang was my old friend and close schoolmate at the university.

I wrote an article entitled What Issue Is the Biggest Issue at the Seventeenth Party Congress last March and published it in the Hong Kong-based magazine The Trend in April 2007. In it, I suggested that the standing committee of the political bureau of the Communist Party of China, China’s highest leadership, should include not only Li Keqiang but also Xi Jinping. I expressed my belief that Mr. Xi has had a good record on economic reform and an open-door policy for twenty-five years. I was the first to speak on behalf of Xi’s elevation to his new political position one year ago.

Six months later, the Seventeenth Party Congress endorsed Mr. Xi Jinping as China’s next paramount leader. This was a political victory for us.

However, is political victory enough to assure China’s political future movement toward democracy?

President Hu Jintao, at sixty-six years old, belongs to the fourth generation of Chinese Communist leadership. Vice President Xi Jinping, at fifty-five years old, belongs to the fifth generation of Chinese Communist leadership.

The Voice of America, sponsored by the U.S. government, had a live TV interview with me on Thanksgiving Day, November 27, 2003 during which I gave the VOA advance notice of what was to come. “I think the fifth generation of leaders is not a homogenous body,” I said. “They have different political views. The biggest challenge for the fifth generation of leaders will be whether or not they will accept the democratic transformation when the historic tide comes”. The fourth generation of leaders had just taken office one year ago on that Thanksgiving. Few people even knew that a fifth generation of leaders even existed or who the fifth generation of leaders were. I concluded my interview with this prediction: “Democratic transformation is the biggest task for contemporary China. The fourth generation of leaders does not seem to be up to it. China’s major hope is not within the fourth generation of leaders, but after it. I believe the fourth generation of leaders is merely a transitional stage ”. The transcript of the interview, entitled China’s Big Change Might Happen after the Fourth Generation of Leaders was posted on the United States-based website http://www.boxun.com. Thus, I was the first prophet announcing the fifth generation of leaders five years ago.

The emergence of the fifth generation when we achieved political victory last October did not mean that I was ready to retire from the political stage. “Any democratic transformation in communist nations is not only dependent on a few reformers among the Party’s highest leadership. Power sharing with the communist reformers in China’s democratic process is my favorite vision of the future ”. I wrote in an article entitled Power Sharing with My Old Friends which I posted on the United States-based website http://www.2newcenturynet.blogspot.com when the Seventeenth Party Congress ended on October 22, 2007. Thus, I was the first individual with a claim to advocacy of power sharing between the future communist reformers and constructive dissidents five months ago.

I was satisfied with those three “firsts”.

Last December, a representative from the Chinese authority visited me in New York City to sound out whether I would come back to China. I stressed that there needs to be some power sharing in China. I would only come back to my homeland if I could see some political reform there.

When President Hu Jintao took office five years ago, most Americans raised the question “Who is Hu”? It seems to be time to raise a new question: Who is Xi? And another new question may be: Who is Fang Jue or Jue Fang?

I also have my own special question: Does the United States have an effective and long-term policy toward China rising even though nobody understands China’s political process?

(The author, Fang Jue, is a Chinese political activist living in the United States. fangjue2005@hotmail.com)

CHINA RIGHTS GROUP CHALLENGES BEIJING GAMES

Mr. Arthur Sawchuk
Chairman of the Board
Manulife Financial Corporation
200 Bloor Street East
Toronto, ON M4W 1E5

Dear Mr. Sawchuk,

We write to you because Manulife Financial controls John Hancock Funds, and
that company is a key sponsor of the Beijing Olympics. We write in the name of
Toronto-based China Rights Network, and on behalf of millions of people in China
and its "autonomous" regions that suffer grave human rights abuses.

We are aware that your company and other sponsors of the Games have been
challenged to take a stand regarding China's support for the government of Sudan
– a government that bears responsibility for over 300,000 deaths in Darfur.
China's complicity in that civil war disturbs us deeply, as we expect it concerns
you. However, we are even more disturbed by a frightening array of rights abuses
that impact the lives of Chinese rights and democracy advocates, Tibetans,
Uyghurs and Falun Gong practitioners, among others.

Amnesty International, a member of our coalition, has exhaustively reported on
the human rights situation in China. An excellent overview is provided by the
2007 Report on China by Amnesty, which can be found at
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/asia-and-pacific/east-asia/china
It makes for harrowing reading about torture, cultural and religious repression,
and harsh treatment of dissidents and human rights defenders.

As the world – and Manulife – prepares for the Beijing Olympics, we feel that
China must be held to the promises that numerous officials made in order to get
the Games. In 2001, for example, Liu Jingmin, Vice-President of the Beijing
Olympic Bid Committee, stated:

"By allowing Beijing to host the Games you will help the development of
human rights". The sad truth, according to Amnesty, is that the human rights situation in China
has deteriorated over the past five years.

So what is Manulife's responsibility? We feel strongly that Manulife/John
Hancock and other corporate sponsors must ask Chinese officials why they have
failed to deliver the promised improvements in human rights. We hope your
company will cite reports such as those authored by Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch, all of them online, in order to make the point that China
will not deserve the world's applause in Beijing this summer unless it takes its
human rights pledges seriously.

We feel that you should do this because you respect the rule of law; because,
without it, international commerce would be chaotic and unprofitable. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related Covenants are fundamental to
the rule of law. Hence, you have a responsibility to promote human rights
wherever you do business.

We do not demand that you pull out of China, though that would be an option. We
simply ask that you use every communication avenue at your disposal to tell the
Chinese government that civilized nations do not abuse citizens who protest
peacefully or seek respect for their culture or religion.

Above all, please be aware that ignoring human rights abuses plays into the hands
of the Chinese leadership, bestowing legitimacy on the government and its
policies. In short, tolerating abuse, turning a blind eye, is an endorsement of
repression.

We would like to know if Manulife/John Hancock has formulated a policy for
dealing with the quagmire that is human rights in China. We would greatly
appreciate a response to the above requests.

Yours sincerely,

Chair, China Rights Network
Federation for a Democratic China
Falun Dafa Human Rights Assoc.
Toronto Assoc. for Democracy in China
Tibet Women's Assoc. of Ontario
Students for a Free Tibet
Uyghur Canadian Association
Taiwanese Human Rights Association

以上信件同时发送给如下公司：

Above letter also sent to:

Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Martin Winterkorn
Chairman of the Board of Management
Volkswagen AG
Brieffach 1972
38436Wolfsburg
Germany

Mr. Jeff Immelt
Chairman and CEO
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
General Electric Company
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828-0001

William C. Weldon,
Chairman, Board of Directors and CEO
Johnson & Johnson Inc.
One Johnson & Johnson Plaza,
Room WH 2133,
New Brunswick, NJ 08933

Mr. E. Neville Isdell,
Chairman and CEO
The Coca-Cola Company
1 Coca Cola Plaza NW
Atlanta, GA 30313-2420

Mr. Antonio Perez
President and CEO
Eastman Kodak Company
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650-0001

Mr. Ralph Alvarez
President and CEO
McDonald's Corporation
2111 McDonald's Dr
Oak Brook, IL 60523

Arthur Sawchuk
Chairman of the Board
Manulife Financial Corporation
200 Bloor Street East
Toronto, ON M4W 1E5

Mr. Herbert Hainer, CEO
Chairman, Executive Board
Adidas-Salomon AG
Adi-Dassler-Strasse 1
91074 Herzogenaurach
Germany

Joseph W. Saunders
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Visa Inc.
P.O. Box 8999
San Francisco, CA 94128 - 8999

Comparative politics show China far behind

By CHEN KUIDE, WASHINGTON DC, D.C, United States
Published: March 12, 2008

March has been a month of elections, with the primary polls in the United States and the presidential elections in Russia and Taiwan capturing attention. At the same time, China is holding its annual meetings of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference -- which have attracted little attention, as not many surprises are expected.

These four political events could be said to represent four different levels of political and civil development.

The election processes in the United States and Taiwan are dramatic and absorbing, with voters' attention fixed on the results of polls ahead of the final outcome. By contrast, the political meetings in Beijing are dull and routine. Delegates behave as rubber stamps, with no real guts or ability to meaningfully impact the agenda. Consequently, viewers lose interest in watching the proceedings.

The difference between the political system in China and those in the global mainstream is glaring. Among the three democratic nations, the political and civil processes in the United States, Taiwan and Russia are all different from one another, however.

The most dramatic and unexpected events are taking place in the United States, where for the first time there may appear a black president or a female president. Either one would be history-making.

The voters' zeal and high voter turnout is impressive. On the other hand, there is a high level of uncertainty concerning the final outcome, and a feeling that no one is in control. This is in fact inevitable in a real democracy. Therefore, the U.S. election process reflects a mature democracy. Whatever the result, this election will be considered a milestone in the history of U.S. politics.

Taiwan is another type of democracy. The after effects of the authoritarian politics of the former ruling party, the Kuomintang, and the populism of the current ruling Democratic Progressive Party, are both visible in this presidential election. Judging from their political behavior, the ruling DPP is acting like the opposition, while the KMT is speaking as if it were the ruling party. In other words, the current ruling and opposition parties are not fulfilling their proper roles.

Also, in Taiwan the independence of the judiciary is not yet very sound. As a result, the courts selectively interfere in the political process from time to time.

Objectively speaking, the issue of national identify that has long plagued Taiwan's democratic system does not seem to be prominent in this year's election. The colors of both the blue and the green camps have started to fade; the political struggle based on ethnicity has diminished. Instead, the focus has shifted to competition between concrete strategies that affect the people's livelihood.

Taiwan's March 22 presidential election is just around the corner, but the streets of Taipei are not full of impassioned campaigners and citizens filled with ardor. This is the biggest change compared with previous elections. Neither ubiquitous campaign posters nor vehicles with annoying high-pitched speakers blaring are in sight. The Taiwanese have apparently become mature and composed after all the political trials and hardships of recent years.

If no major incident occurs to impact the election, it can be said that Taiwan's democracy is on track, despite some abuses. Taiwan's two major political parties are contesting the election in a calm political atmosphere. This is good news for both Taiwan and China.

In the case of Russia's presidential election, which took place on March 2, Dmitry Medvedev was elected with 70 percent of the vote. However, among the four candidates it was clear that Medvedev would win, as he had the backing of incumbent President Vladimir Putin. No surprises were allowed in this election.

Before the election, speculation was rife in the international community as to whether Putin would advance or retreat after his eight-year presidency. Would this iron-fisted former KGB operative, who claimed himself the successor to Peter the Great, break the Constitution to renew his presidency, revise the Constitution to continue his presidency, or obey the Constitution, hand over power and become an ordinary citizen?

Such speculation makes sense in a country where the tradition of democratic constitutionalism is not yet deeply rooted and the president enjoys strong popular support.

But all the speculations went wrong, surprisingly. Putin adopted a creative approach by revealing his intention to become prime minister when his term as president expired. This announcement got the whole world talking. But careful consideration shows Putin's wisdom in taking this step.

His wish to take up the prime minister's position revealed Putin's strong desire to hold onto power. This is human nature, especially for those who have tasted power and become addicted to it. However, he didn't dare offend the whole world by either violating or revising the Constitution to allow him to retain the presidency.

Putin's action proves that Russian democracy is not mature. However, it does possess a certain threatening moral power. The system provided enough of a threat that it forced such a powerful political figure as Putin to subordinate his drive for power to the Constitution. Caught between the power of his desire and the power of the political system, Putin was forced to humble himself and take the post of prime minister.

People think that Medvedev will wield power under the shadow of Putin, but this situation is not likely to last long. Medvedev, in keeping with his own human nature and drive for power, will aim for full control of the administration. And the Constitution will back him up.

This Russian election has served as a weathervane and revealed the degree of authoritarianism still inherent in the leadership. It showed that freedom of the press is still inadequate and there are still many challenges on the path to democratic constitutionalism. Nevertheless, the foundation for rule by law has been built. The country cannot return to the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union.

In comparison with these three examples of the democratic process, China's two meetings pale into insignificance. This fact cannot be covered up by the country's booming economic growth. China has not yet mastered the basics of democracy; unfortunately, it is not even at the level of a beginner.

--

(Chen Kuide is editor of the Web site "Observe China," www.observechina.net. He is former executive director of the Princeton China Initiative, which he joined while a visiting scholar at Princeton University in 1990. He holds a Ph.D. degree in philosophy from Fudan University in Shanghai, where he was a professor and editor-in-chief of the magazine "The Thinker." This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Chen Kuide.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/03/12/comparative_politics_show_china_far_behind/4230/

Whose manners need correcting?

By ZI YUE
Published: March 11, 2008

BEIJING, China, In Beijing, the 11th day of every month is to be "queuing-up day," dedicated to teaching the citizenry how to stand in orderly lines, while the 22nd is to be "yield one's seat day," encouraging courtesy toward the weak or elderly on trains and buses.

This sudden fancy, announced recently by the authorities, is designed to teach manners to those who humbly use Beijing's public transport system each day, while local officials travel snugly in luxury cars.

One who eats and drinks well, enjoying a luxurious and dissolute lifestyle while requesting others to live humbly and simply, is generally considered a shameless hypocrite. Unfortunately, that is the role Beijing officials appear to be playing in this context.

Today's officials are not qualified to preach about morality and norms, in fact. If the leaders of the 1950s were to return -- former Premier Zhou Enlai to touch shoulders with the people on a crowded bus, or former Vice Chairman Zhu De to take a causal walk in a park among the common people -- they would be qualified to serve as moral examples to the people.

Now, however, there is a huge gap between rich and poor and conflict between officials and citizens. It makes no sense for officials, who ride comfortably in their official Benz and Audi luxury cars, to create these "whatever days" to instruct the ordinary people.

If such acts cannot be described as sanctimonious and ridiculous administration and governance, then how could they be described?

Indeed, the officials clearly know that the moral standards of the Chinese people have dropped to the lowest point. Authorities have even issued a directive asking citizens to build solid burglar-proof doors and windows, not to speak to strangers, not to give a warm hand to beggars, and not even to help a fallen senior citizen to stand up.*

On the other hand, the authorities wish to maintain the superficial appearance of a "harmonious society" in which citizens display good manners and proper behavior. Are these measures not contradictory, shameless, fake and only for show?

Concerning lining up and yielding seats on specific dates, the people know these are basic norms. There is no need for a propaganda campaign or setting aside specific days for these purposes. The citizens would like to see city officials coming up with something more meaningful and substantially constructive to improve people's lives.

The whole campaign promoting the two special days is big, but not bigger than the stomachs of the officials who came up with such a silly idea. And not bigger than the lies behind China's distorted "harmonious" society.

--

*Editor's note: A recent trial in China punished a young man for helping an elderly woman who had fallen, accusing him of pushing her down. The public tended to believe the youth was innocent and misjudged, the elderly woman was misled and the judge was stupid.

--

(Zi Yue is the pen name of a Beijing-based freelance writer, critic on current affairs and medical doctor. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org and www.chinaeweekly.com . ©Copyright Zi Yue.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Society_Culture/2008/03/11/whose_manners_need_correcting/6736/

Russia's unique 'succession democracy'

By WU JIAXIANG
March 07, 2008

WEIHAI, China, Dmitry Medvedev, elected the new president of Russia last Sunday with 70 percent of the vote, was clearly the choice of President Vladimir Putin, who was quick to congratulate him on his victory.

This news somehow reminded me of an interesting story about Russia revealed in the biography of the late British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Russell's grandmother was the wife of the British prime minister toward the end of the tsarist era in Russia, more than 100 years ago.

One day the wife of the prime minister received the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom in her home. As British parliamentary elections had just concluded, the topic of the elections naturally came up.

"May God bless Russia! Let Russia take the path to parliamentary democracy at an early date," she wished sincerely.

"My honorable Madam, the god Russia believes in may be different from the one the United Kingdom believes in; the god we Russians pray to may not necessarily approve of parliamentary democracy. We pray Russia will not go that way," said the Russian ambassador with smile.

Now more than 100 years have passed. The Russian god has neither helped the country move toward parliamentary democracy as Russell's grandmother wished, nor protected the tsarist state the ambassador prayed for. In fact, a unique Russian democracy has emerged, which I would like to call "succession democracy."

The characteristics of this system can be easily described -- the voters simply choose what the predecessor has chosen. This allows the people to conclude that Medvedev won the election, rather than claiming it as Putin's victory.

One look at a video used in Medvedev's election campaign tells it all -- Putin is holding Medvedev's hand and walking in the snow, like a father taking care of his child. Even if Putin's strong recommendation and support was not the only factor in Medvedev's election, it was certainly the most significant one.

The late Boris Yeltsin, another father-like Russian president, did a similar thing several years ago. Yeltsin actually announced his retirement before the end of his term in office and had Putin assume the throne without going through the election procedure. This colored the selection process of the Russian president and set the tone for "succession democracy."

My purpose is not to analyze the motive behind the behavior of these two retired Russian presidents. What interests me is why the Russian people not only accepted, but apparently appreciated, this kind of arrangement. The answer cannot be found in Russia's despotic or tsarist history.

Russia is one of the biggest countries in the world, and it has a large number of minority ethnic groups. According to my hypothesis, the bigger a country is and the more diverse groups it includes, the stronger the need for stability. As a result, this kind of Russian succession democracy appears to create a balance between freedom and peace as well as authority and stability.

What deserves praise is that the Russian leaders have become more and more confident as the country has built up its economy and recovered its political stability. From Yeltsin's direct succession to Putin's indirect succession, the element of democracy has increased, and that is the merit of this presidential election in Russia. It has removed the shadow of diminishing political freedom.

--

(Wu Jiaxiang is a senior researcher of China Research Center for Public Policy at the China Society of Economic Reform. He is a renowned economic and political scholar and a former visiting scholar at Harvard University's Fairbank Center for East Asian Research. His research areas include economics, domestic and international politics, business strategy, and Chinese traditional strategy and thought. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at http://blog.sina.com.cn/wujiaxiang and www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Wu Jiaxiang.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/03/07/russias_unique_succession_democracy/3228/

Time for China to sign rights covenant

By SHI EHUA, BEIJING, China
March 05, 2008

It has been 10 years since China sent a representative to the United States for the purpose of signing the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998. Yet the National People's Congress has never ratified the document. In other words, the human rights covenant has not yet taken effect in China.

China undertook two major tasks ten years ago: one was joining the World Trade Organization and the other was signing the Civil Rights Covenant. The former was accomplished, and has facilitated China's continuous economic growth. The latter remains on hold, unresolved.

It is said that the NPC's refusal to ratify the covenant is due to reservations over abolishing the death penalty. I don't agree with this speculation, for the Civil Rights Covenant says only that "sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."

What part of this does the NPC disagree with? We cannot expect that death penalties would not be based on China's laws, nor could we assume that the NPC intends to withdraw from the Convention on Genocide, which it ratified in 1983.

Then the NPC's disapproval could only fall on the part that restricts capital punishment to only the most serious crimes. Nevertheless, Article 48 of the Criminal Law, passed by the NPC itself, indicates that the death penalty is only applicable for "extremely serious" crimes. The only difference between the U.N. covenant and Chinese law lies in the crimes to which it applies -- the former restricts it to the "most serious" crimes while the latter allows it only for "extremely serious" crimes.

Explaining the distinction between these two would be a difficult task for even the most excellent linguist. It can be easily recognized in practice, however.

The exact number of Chinese citizens executed by court order remains a state secret. International human rights experts estimate that the number far exceeds that of other countries, including those that have signed the covenant and those that have not. This is to say, China would be ranked Number 1 if there were a world ranking for executions.

Even if we divide the current number by China's population, China would still hold the leading position. Judging by the result, China's leaders appear to have a bigger interest in sending criminals to their deaths than those of other countries.

Some people have attributed this to the Chinese tradition of seeking revenge. This could possibly refer to the tradition of Mao Zedong. Mao is said to have taken pleasure in killing, but he defended this by saying it was at the people's request.

Still, it has been more than 30 years since Mao's death, and the situation has advanced with the times. China has developed and reached a new era in which the leaders advocate a "harmonious society."

Then why would instability result from limiting the type of crimes that merit capital punishment? Who under the sun do the rulers desire to kill? Moreover, who would buy the tall story that restricting the application of the death penalty would change China's political color? Who would believe that a tiny thing like the death sentence could defeat the task of building a harmonious society, the absolute principle in today's China?

When the members of the NPC are asked to vote, is it possible that more than 50 percent of them would be so muddleheaded as to consider the death penalty the foundation of China's stability?

Therefore, we had better admit honestly that the reason the civil rights covenant has never been approved lies in the fear of granting human rights rather than the need to protect the use of the death penalty.

Besides the arguments above, some people defend this disapproval by saying it is related to the system of checks and balances between the NPC and the central government. The check-and-balance system between the congress and the government of a given nation is indeed normal where the separation of powers exists.

However, China does not practice the separation of powers -- this has been true for both the deceased and the current core leadership, and is known by the whole world.

The practice of centralized leadership means that both the central government and the NPC are under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, unless one of the two following situations occurred, the behavior of the NPC would not be out of line with the government.

One case would be if the Party Central Committee were to fall into crisis and lose its dominion over the central government and the NPC. The other would be if a double-dealer existed within the Party Central Committee.

This person would have arranged for the government to send someone to the United Nations to sign the covenant so that China could fish for undeserved fame, gain the United Nations' trust and maintain its seat within the U.N. Human Rights Council. On the other hand, the double-dealer would have instructed the NPC not to take the issue of ratifying the Civil Rights Covenant seriously, not to put it on the agenda and not to approve it.

In addition, I would like to kindly suggest a third possibility -- that the NPC, or the Party Central Committee, has simply forgotten to ratify the covenant. In this case, the central leadership would readily accept good advice if a reminder came to their attention.

Civil society has at least twice offered such reminders recently. One was voiced by Dr. Yang Jianli, chairman of the 21st Century China Foundation. The other was raised in a letter signed by more than 10,000 citizens, including lawyers, scholars and patriotic personages, at the time of the New Year in 2008. Continued forgetfulness cannot be justified after receiving such reminders.

In order for everyone to be winners and to have no losers, in 2008 -- when the members of the NPC and the government will be replaced, the Olympic Games will take place in Beijing, and China is moving forward toward a brand new atmosphere -- it is strongly urged that China's leaders take the initiative to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

--

(Shi Ehua is the pen name of a freelance writer based in Beijing. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Shi Ehua.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Human_Rights/2008/03/05/time_for_china_to_sign_rights_covenant/3779/