Interview
Part-II
'If India can speak up against Pakistan, why not against China?'
T Kumar is the international human rights body Amnesty International's director, advocacy, for Asia. As one of Amnesty International's representatives in Washington, Kumar, who has been watching the Tibet unrest unfold, is trying to impress upon the Bush administration to urge China to give the United Nations and international journalists access to Tibet.
"We also want (the United States) President George W Bush to visit Tibet when he is there in Beijing to enjoy the Olympics," he says.
In a telephone interview with Krishnakumar, he speaks about what China should do to gain a good human rights image before the Olympics, India's role in the issue and the direction that the unrest may take in the future.
As someone who is observing the issue closely, can you tell us what really is happening in Tibet and about the protests around the world?
In Tibet, since independent observers and international journalists are not allowed to enter, it is very difficult to assess what the situation is. According to the information we are getting from inside Tibet and China, the situation has calmed down a little bit now. But the Chinese crackdown is still very much on.
The general situation for Tibetans and Tibet is tense and there is an intense crackdown against peaceful activities. China may be doing this to keep everything under wraps. Even on Sunday (April 13), there were reports that China had detained nine monks.
What sparked the protests?
This was a kind of a pent up tension. It was brewing for years now. And not only Tibetans, but the general public around the world was not happy. China hosting the Olympics was an opportunity for them to express their protest. That is the reason why they used the Olympic torch relay. While it became a little tense in London and Paris, in San Francisco, the torch had to be pretty much hidden.
Did China expect the protests to be as loud and big?
No. Forget China, even human rights activists who have been following the region closely did not have any clue that it would be on such a large scale. Like I said, in San Francisco, we were under the impression that there would be thousands and the torch will go. But in the end they pretty much hid the torch. That really hurt the spirit of Olympics.
We have also told the city of San Francisco that we are against the use of such tactics. They should have had a public display of the torch. But it was hidden for at least half an hour of its journey through the city.
What is the reason behind using the Olympic torch relay to call attention to the problem?
All human rights organisations take advantage of international events to highlight the issues that prevail in that particular country. Twelve years ago in 1996, when the US was hosting the Atlanta Games, we used the event to lobby for a worldwide drive to abolish the death penalty.
So, this is something we do before all major international events. But this time, there is support from the general public also, and it is showing.
Amnesty says China is involved in pre-Olympic 'clean-up'. Does it mean the 'clean-up' goes beyond Tibetans?
When the Olympic games were awarded to China, we were highlighting the human rights violations going on in the country. And China in fact made some promises. They said the Olympic Games will in fact help improve the human rights situation in that country. We were all positive, but unfortunately that did not happen.
So, to begin with they were the ones who linked human rights to the Olympic games and now, we are merely holding them to their promise. Also, the human rights situation in China has worsened ever since it made that promise.
Can you explain how that happened?
It has stepped up crackdown on all peaceful dissent. Again, it is not just Tibet and Tibetan protestors. Even in Beijing and other places, activists and journalists have been arrested. In the name of maintaining stability and order they are pretty much cleaning up the city now.
What should China now do to gain a better human rights image?
We are not asking for everything that is on the table. We have only four areas identified. One is the re-education through labour programme, under which a quarter million people have been imprisoned, without any charge or trial. This system, where a local policeman can arrest anybody and detain them for four years, is arbitrary. We want that to go.
Second, 80 per cent of world's executions are taking place in China. As many as 64 offences, some of which are non-violent offences, are categorised as fit to draw the death penalty. We are asking China to reduce the number of offences to 32 and remove the non-violent offences.
Three, we want more freedom for the media; freedom for international and local journalists to operate. We also want certain clamps on the Internet also removed.
Four, human rights defenders like lawyers and activist, who fight for the rights of others, have been imprisoned. We want them to be released.
About the Tibet issue in particular, we want everyone who has been arrested for peaceful protest to be released. China says some Tibetans also used some violence. For this to be validated, it should provide United Nations officials and international journalists access to Tibet.
Access to the United Nations is important because China is a permanent member of the Security Council and also a member of the Human Rights Council. As one of the five most powerful members of the UN, I don't think China should hesitate to allow UN officials to assess the situation and inform the world.
Also, part of my job is to focus on President Bush. We want him to visit Tibet when he goes to Beijing and see the reality on the ground.
'As a matter of principle India should speak up'
What according to you is the ideal and amicable way forward to resolve this issue?
To get to an ideal and amicable solution, China has to start with what I just said. They should first allow international journalists to help the people get a real sense of what is happening there rather than using this as an excuse to crackdown on peaceful dissent.
Instead of alleging that the Dalai Lama is trying to send suicide bombers into Tibet, China should allow independent people to go there.
What should India do?
India is a sovereign county and they have spoken about human rights in other places too.
Here also, they should speak about human rights, not because India is a neighbour or because it is host to the Dalai Lama, but as a matter of principle India should speak up both in public and private.
India can say it is tricky because it is a neighbouring country. But they have been talking about Baluchistan. So why can't they talk about Tibet? But they should not mix politics. Whether to keep quiet or speak up should not be decided for political reasons. India has spoken about apartheid... even about West Bank and Gaza. So why are you keeping quiet now is our question. They should speak for basic human rights and push China.
Was the Dalai Lama right in talking politics from Indian soil?
He is in exile in India. And he should have his right. India can't commit another human rights abuse on an already wronged people. You are protecting them, yes. They should be grateful to you, yes. But that doesn't give you the right to commit another abuse on them.
If demonstrators are gathering, it is their right in a democratic country. If it is non-violent and peaceful, you should allow that. The main thing for India is not to become another China for the Tibetans. If India also gets into harsh crackdown, then there won't be any difference between India and China for the Tibetans.
If India allows Chinese security to guard the torch on its territory, what will its implications be?
The United States allowed it. It is a question of sovereignty. Each country has a security apparatus. The US thought its security was not enough. But having Chinese security for the torch can aggravate the situation. Japan and Australia, I read, have declined the proposal. Whether India wants to show if they are sovereign is their call.
Again, how much of what India does about the issue will affect its ties with China?
You know, it is India's decision. If they did not think about speaking out against Pakistan's human rights violations in Baluchistan, and violations in Africa in those days, why should they think now?
If you do not speak now, then you can't speak about anything. You pretty much have to close your mouth. You can't be selective in looking the other way. You can't pick a country to go after and then keep quiet against another country. You can't have two foreign policies. You should maintain same standards. If you think it is going to complicate the situation in this case, other people can argue the same way.
Will the issue take an even more violent turn and morph into an armed struggle?
There was an armed struggle in Tibet in the late 1950s. The point is it is the Tibetans who have to decide. Historically, if a community is oppressed, then some groups within the community will take violence as recourse. If the Chinese are smart they should try to allow peaceful dissent and address the genuine concerns of Tibetans.
It is not just the Tibetans China has to look at. There is the Uighur community that lives in Xinjiang close to central Asia. China is using anti-terrorism as an excuse.
China should be sensitive to the ethnic minorities and try to address their basic concerns. When they are non-violently asking for their rights and it is not heard, the chances of it exploding into violence are more. Now, they themselves are saying that there is an armed struggle going on and allege that the Dalai Lama is going to send suicide bombers.
Whether they are using this as an excuse will be known only when independent officials access the situation. If they are indeed using this as an excuse, the more they crackdown, the more they alienate the people.
India should also look at the situation and think. A Tibetan armed struggle will not bode well for it at all. It will create a problem for India as well.
What is the Dalai Lama's role? Does he have a hand in inciting the unrest, as the Chinese allege?
The point is what he is doing is preaching non-violence and seeking a political solution. He is reaching out.
I don't know if he has any hand in inciting the unrest. Again everything China says, it should provide evidence... that is what it boils down to. What is happening is filtered by the Chinese and they should begin to solve the issue by allowing international observers.
More 
