COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Fifty-ninth session Item 10: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Madame Chairperson, I am making this statement on behalf of IFOR.
While the international community welcomed the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for having ratified the ICESCR, the Chinese authorities still do not respect the Tibetans right to preserve their cultural, religious and national identity. To give one example, in this statement we would like to highlight the status of education in Tibet. The late Dungkar Lobsang Trinley, one of Tibet’s leading intellectuals once said: ‘Without educated people in all fields, able to express themselves in their own language, Tibetans are in danger of being assimilated. We have reached this point.’
In 2001, one of China’s white paper spoke of the great attention given to the right to study, uses and development of Tibetan language. Yet independent studies and refugee accounts reveal that there is minimal educational development in Tibet. For example, UNDP has found that the educational index for Tibet stands lowest amongst 31 provinces of present-day China. The gross enrolment rate and adult literacy ratio also remains the lowest.
Madame Chairperson, in reality, China’s education policy in Tibet is designed to inculcate love for communism and the ‘motherland’ and demands the denunciation of Tibetan nationalism. The school curriculum, which undermines Tibetan language, literature and culture, is based on the Marxist analysis of history placing cultures as being at different stages of development. The curriculum, taught largely in standard mandarin Chinese and obligatory throughout China regardless of the ethnic composition of the region, generally does not create an environment in which Tibetan children feel their culture, language and history have any value. Chinese is dominantly the language of business and administration in Tibet ‘ a development that many observers view has worrisome implications for the Tibetan culture. The Tibetan students are taught China’s version of Tibetan history and worldview and are deprived of knowledge of their own independent history. According to official statistics, 42 % of persons in Tibet are illiterate or semi-literate. Illiteracy and semi-literacy rate are as high as 90% in some areas. Today, Tibetan children suffer a high degree of discrimination in gaining access to education with an estimated 85% of parents living in rural areas with incomes that do not allow their children the luxury of attending schools demanding high fees, far from their homes.
Madame Chairperson, in short no matter how many institutions the Chinese authorities have in reality developed across Tibet since 1959, their overriding goal in educating Tibetans have always been to groom political loyalty to Beijing. This is clearly reflected in a speech given by Mr. Chen Kuiyuan, the former-Communist Party Secretary in the so-called ‘Tibet Autonomous Region’ when he said: ‘The success of our education does not lie in the number of diplomas issued to graduates from universities, colleges’and secondary schools. It lies, in the final analysis, in whether our graduating students are opposed to or turn their hearts to the Dalai Clique (a reference to the Tibetan Government in Exile) and in whether they are loyal to or do not care about our great Motherland and the great socialist cause.’
In conclusion, we remain deeply concerned that the PRC is yet to submit its initial report to the CESCR, which was due on 30 June 2002. Equally disturbing is Beijing’s failure to submit its second periodic report to the CRC due on 31 March 1999.
I thank you, Madame Chairperson. 7 April, 2003
