Forum For Chinese Democracy Or The Status Quo?

China's Regime Targeting Exiled Chinese Democracy Federation

China’s Regime  Targeting Exiled Chinese Democracy Federation


What troubling currents are flowing through the Federation for a Democratic China (FDC), an organization dedicated to human rights, democracy and freedom? It seems to be targeted by the corrosive influences of the CCP. Should you consider such as the ramblings of baseless conspiracy have a look at the website of the Forum for a Democratic China and Asia which we understand is formally associated with the FDC.

It features a curious agenda, that far from championing human rights and freedoms emphasizes economic and social rights to such an extent that it will no doubt attract criticism as being a dilution of the cores principles and objectives of the FDC.

‘First, adhere to the principle of peaceful, rational and non-violent, Abandon the idea and means of “violent revolution”.

Second, the non-violent movement need to be brought from human rights, politics to other areas of the national and people’s daily living in social activities, For example: the establishment of an effective anti-corruption system, to curb housing prices, focus on employment, social security system, and the abolition of the urban and rural household registration system.

Third, China’s social democratic movement is a comprehensive renovation project requires attention and participation of the whole society.

In order to mobilize the people to participate in change, In order to reduce the fear for the ruling group, they may be afraid of to be liquidated in the future, in order to reduce the cost of social change

We advocate a rational justice, equality before the political and legal system. In order to resolve the violent atmosphere of the community, to relieve tensions between nations, we need to use a fair and tolerant approach.’

Many tireless activists for China’s freedom and democracy will no doubt be extremely disappointed by such assertions, and while social and economic issues are of importance, these should not be at the cost of excluding individual freedoms. The syntax featured in the Agenda has a worrying similarity to that used by the CCP in its National People’s Congress, cynical euphemisms and distractions that evade any genuine respect of human rights and freedom, while promoting blind loyalty to the Regime!

On what basis does the author, Mr Fei Liangyong, a former President of the FDC, demand that violence be abandoned as a means of revolution? As far as we can determine the Federation For A Democratic China, and indeed the present demonstrations in Hong Kong, have not called for, nor exercised violence. That is the bloody specialism of the Chinese Regime! It appears to be something of a fallacy therefore, especially given that the FDC rejects violence and revolutionary ideas in words and deeds.

Secondly it is the terrorism of China’s authorities which surely demands to be exposed and challenged at the forthcoming Forum, not issuing demands of China’s people who have neither the resources or ability to mobilize any violent revolution!

Thirdly the Agenda of the Forum fails to acknowledge that it is China’s people who are the victims of violence, as observed most recently during the Occupy Hong Kong movement, imposed by a merciless regime. Yet the state-engineered repression and abuse seems strangely absent from the Forum’s agenda, instead demands are made ordinary citizens to end civil resistance!

Fei Liangyong Promoting A Troubling Agenda

Fei Liangyong’s Troubling Agenda


Lastly, Fei Liangyong has forgotten a simple yet profound reality, fairness & tolerance cannot exist under an atmosphere of tyranny. Such values are dependent upon justice and truth, how absurd it is to expect tolerance and understanding from China’s people when their daily lives are subject to such restriction, censorship and state-violence? Yet his agenda states: “In order to resolve the violent atmosphere of the community, to relieve tensions between nations, we need to use a fair and tolerant approach.”

Surely a forum dedicated towards democratic values should be standing in unquestioned solidarity with the people, not proposing compromises and tolerance towards a regime that seeks to maintain its corrupt and oppressive grip!

There are many questions raised by the agenda of this conference which is due to be held in Munich from Nov 1 to 3, 2014 and anyone committed to human rights and freedom will be concerned at what looks more like a manifesto of appeasement than a declaration of support for a democratic and free China. Meanwhile it is hoped that the exiled Tibetan Administration or related organizations will give serious thought to being associated with this event, as their participation would make a mockery of the resistance being waged by the Tibetans inside Tibet. Who are sacrificing their lives, personal liberty and well-being to oppose the tyranny of China’s regime

BBC Five Radio Show Again Channels China’s Disinformation

Former BBC Director-General Mark Thompson in Beijing, With China’s Propaganda Maestro, Li Congjun


Once again the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has revealed an unhealthy willingness, to parade as fact, China’s propaganda, more on that shortly. It has served as a conduit for Beijing’s disinformation for a number of years now, influenced and encouraged by the foreign policy objectives of its colleagues in the Foreign Office (equivalent of the State Department) whose task is to maintain positive relations with China at any cost. The BBC’s senior executives enjoy trips to Beijing to attend media summits hosted by China’s disinformation agency, Xinhua, relations at a senior level are cordial to say the least. As this special cooperation has developed we have witnessed, in BBC reportage, a corrosion of the truth on issues relating to China, a withdrawal of independent and forceful analysis, replaced by a syntax that bears a worrying similarity to the official disinformation of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Information. This is most noticeable on subjects of political sensitivity to the Chinese Regime such as Tibet, East Turkestan and related issues on human rights, such matters as reported by the BBC often repeat China’s official position and are virtually absent of critique, balance or an alternate perspective and context.

Such a development must be a source of satisfaction to China’s propaganda ministry and its front organization, Xinhua, whose former chief and World Media Summit President, Li Congjun wrote in the Party’s official Seeking Truth journal in February 2009:

“We must actively seek out new horizons, new mechanisms, new channels and new methods in the area of outside dialogue and cooperation, particularly, as by the demands of central party leaders, successfully organizing the first meeting of the World Media Summit, building a platform for dialogue among first-rate international media (, further raising the capacity of Xinhua News Agency to make its voice heard in the international news and information sector.(Source CMP)

Dotun Adebayo Offered An Uncritical Platform For Robert Kuhn


This accommodation reached a new level of appeasement during a late night radio show from BBC Radio Five Live, a station which has previously been exposed as displaying a bias towards China’s official orthodoxy. We are extremely grateful to our friends in England for providing details of this latest incident, which was broadcast on October 19 on a program called ‘Up All Night’ hosted by Mr.Dotun Adebayo. About 30 minutes into the show an item on the Hong Kong protests appeared which featured an interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn. Who was presumably invited on the basis of providing an authoritative and impartial analysis, unfortunately in this case the researchers had either clearly not done their homework, were incapable of recognizing a propagandist, or worse simply conformed to an Editorial attitude sympathetic to a pro-China position.

Well listeners surely got that (and how!) as they listened to the oiled assurances from Doctor Khun that the Chinese regime was sophisticated and seemingly dedicated to major reforms; as claimed in a book, ‘The Governance Of China’ by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Which Khun repeatedly referenced as supposed evidence of such objectives. It maybe helpful to examine briefly significant and revealing aspects of this individual’s résumé. He is described as “an international corporate strategist, investment banker and expert on China” and there’s no doubting his credentials regarding his relationship to the Chinese Regime, having cooperated since 1989 with senior Chinese leaders and served as an adviser on economics and other subjects to the Regime. Robert Kuhn is also a senior consultant to China Central Television (CCTV) and Xinhua News Agency, both of which are main channels of official propaganda in China.

Robert Kuhn


In researching a suitably balanced and objective guest to feature in that item were BBC researchers not troubled by such a curriculum vitae? Did they not pause to question if this individual may in fact have developed a certain bias towards China’s Regime, or that his position as adviser to Xinhua was an indication of views somewhat tainted with officially sanctioned disinformation? Yet, with a minimum of scrutiny they would have found expressions of concern regarding the ideology and words of Robert Kuhn. Most recently documented in his florid hagiography of China’s Regime titled, ‘How China’s Leaders Think: the Inside Story of China’s Reform and What This Means for the Future’.

An insightful review of this book appeared in Forbes by noted author on China, Gordon C Chang. In a highly critical dismissal of Kuhn’s work, which the reviewer notes: “I gave up reading with 401 pages to go. I wanted to stop earlier, after Kuhn stated–on the fifth page of the introduction–that Chinese leaders are not authoritarians. That’s demonstrably untrue, but I struggled on for another hundred pages before finally realizing there was no point in reading a work of propaganda…’s evident that Kuhn is not going to say a critical word about the theoretical underpinnings of present-day Chinese authoritarianism.”

There were then serious questions being asked about the impartiality of Robert Kuhn, yet such concerns did not trouble the producers, editors, researchers and presenter of the BBC show ‘Up All Night’, which allowed this individual a generous platform to air China’s toxic propaganda and effectively act as an apologist for a Regime

It is a matter of great disappointment that once again a mainstream media organization has permitted such obvious propaganda to be presented as fact, without any serious counter-view or challenge. The team responsible for the offending Radio Five Live show have at best been found wanting in terms of being able to identify such a biased and partisan source, at worst they are guilty of assembling a flawed and distorted program that has seriously mislead its audience and denied them a balanced, impartial and factual coverage of a story of great concern and interest to many. This would be in violation of the BBC’s stated editorial policies and relevant broadcasting commitments to its license fee payers, anyone who wishes to lodge a formal complaint about this subject may do so online here:

New UN Rights Commissioner To Swallow China’s Lies On Tibet

Graphic courtesy of @tibettruth

The recently appointed UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mr Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein is to visit occupied Tibet, with a possible trip to East Turkestan, (Report Here) the presumed purpose of his journey is to witness for himself the situation facing the oppressed Tibetan and Uyghur  peoples. Unfortunately as with other fact-finding delegations ( permitted by the Chinese authorities he will be seeing very little apart from stage-managed propaganda!

Tibetan In Self-Immolation Protest In Golog, Amdo Region

“A Tibetan man has burned himself in front of a police station in protest against Chinese rule.Kunchok, 42, set himself in Gade county in the Golog Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture on Sept.16 but Tibetans nearby managed to douse the flames and rushed him to a nearby hospital.Information of his burning in Tsang Khor town emerged only on Saturday due to communication clampdowns imposed by Chinese authorities.Tibetans who saw Kunchok on fire immediately went to put out the flames and rushed him to an undisclosed hospital where he is being treated secretly.The family members fear that Kunchok could be taken away by the authorities if he survives.Chinese authorities have beefed up security, installing security cameras at vantage points in Gade county, following the self-immolation. Chinese authorities have tightened controls in a bid to check self-immolation protests, arresting and jailing Tibetans linked to the burnings. Some have been jailed for up to 15 years.”


A Response To The Statement Of Lodi Gyari

Mr Lodi Gyari

Mr Lodi Gyari


Lodi Gyari, former main negotiator for the exiled Tibetan Administration in its fruitless efforts to seek progress in talks with China’s regime on resolving the thorny issue of Tibet has issued a curious statement on his website Reading its contents there’s a feeling that concealed somewhere in his recollections of the early beginnings of the Tibetan Youth Congress, the clever arguments and academic posturing, is an unspoken sense of apology or regret. There’s much to be sorry about, after all this prominent Tibetan has been at the forefront of pressing a surrender of Tibetan nationhood in exchange for slavery under China’s rule. A condition charmingly described as ‘meaningful autonomy’.

Thankfully the ever suspicious and paranoid psychopaths of China’s leadership have consistently rejected this orchestrated appeasement. For now, albeit precariously the door remains ajar on Tibet’s rightful cause for at the very least self-determination, with the objective of restoring its national independence. Problem is that the articulations of the elite cabal, within which Lodi Gyari has a central place, argue that such aspirations are the stuff of fantasy. Better they counsel to be ‘realistic’ and call only for the application of existing communist Chinese law on autonomy and so-called ‘ethnic minority’ rights, ignored in all this of course are the Tibetans of occupied Tibet who are opposing China’s terrorism to assert their national and cultural identity, while demanding Tibet’s independence and a return of the Dalai Lama.

This key issue of a people currently seeking national liberation is  avoided by the honey-coated reasoning offered by Lodi Gyari, instead he chooses to toss the common aspiration of Tibetans for nationhood into the muddy pool of historical perspective and interpretation. There are a number of takes on Tibet’s history, each colored by the thinking, bias, understanding of the author, while geographic and political boundaries shift, emerge and disappear making any definitive single Tibetan political territory elusive. It is not however a falsehood to assert that Tibet and those territories inhabited by Tibetans enjoyed cultural and political freedoms. Moreover in terms of what constitutes a ‘people’ a tough definition, then Tibetans enjoy/ed characteristics that mark them out as ‘distinct’, certainly not Chinese and for considerable periods experienced either directly or more distantly a national and cultural freedom. Such a reality, though challenged by Gyari’s pseudo-intellectual critique, probably remains at the core of Tibetan national identity, the spark that lights the fire resisting China’s tyranny.

Disappointingly however his statement chooses to gloss-over that factor, far too busy in asserting the complex nature of Tibet’s status and former territorial status, he suggests is unknown to many, what is he seeking to achieve, a simple restatement of a select historical view? A darker interpretation may read his comments as a barely disguised attempt to undermine as credible the advancement of an independent Tibet constituting the three traditional Tibetan regions. Having drawn upon the scrutiny and perspectives of history to question an independent Tibetan polity, he then goes on to claim international law as being equally unable to convincingly establish the veracity of Tibet’s independent status. Take this extract for example:

“International legal experts and strong Tibet supporters could not clearly establish the legality of an existence of an unquestionable independent sovereign state of Tibet according to international law in the past few centuries….”

Note the cute extenuation injected in his remarks, subjective assertions which misrepresent the facts somewhat, these additions require us to ask in what circumstances, and by which party, is an independent state ever truly recognized or established by a process of international law without being questioned, or realized in absolute clarity? The descriptive lengths he went to in dismissing claims of Tibetan sovereignty would no doubt be greeted with welcome applause by China’s regime, which has for many years been offering similar arguments!

Meanwhile Lodi Gyari appears to have forgotten the deliberations and findings of a forum of which his colleagues Gyaltsen Gyaltag and Kesang Takla were formal advisors  in which a large number of highly respected and experienced international lawyers convened in London to examine the case of Tibet’s status. It is worth visiting the archives to read the findings of this august assembly of legal experts, conclusions which question the comments asserted above. Reflecting on the claim that prior to 1949/50 Tibet was an independent state for the purposes of international law the eminent collective assessment stated

“5.5) By consensus, the participants of this conference reached the conclusion that the attributes of sovereignty were sufficiently present at that time, in the context of a nation such as Tibet and given its history, to sustain the Tibetan argument as the preferable one. In doing so they took fully into account the arguments of the PRC concerning the historical relationship between China and Tibet.” (Source:  CONFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS ON ISSUES RELATING TO “ “SELF-DETERMINATION AND INDEPENDENCE FOR TIBET “ LONDON, JANUARY 6-10, 1993

So there we have it, there exists an authoritative legal assessment that affirms Tibet enjoyed sovereignty, a conclusion which perhaps Mr Gyari chooses to ignore to better serve his stated support of the Middle Way?

As regards his repeated insistence that the ‘Tibet’ featured in various United Nations Resolutions, was during the time, that defined by and governed by Gaden Phodrang (the Tibetan Government) an area largely absent of Kham and Amdo Tibetan regions, we cannot wonder if this claim has a fallacious objective. After all what counts more than such evidence-free assertions is the present reality, which is that across all Tibet’s regions Tibetan protests, collective and individual are demanding national liberation. However their sacrifices, courage and rightful demands are being callously ignored by the cynical sophistry reflected in the wording of Mr Gyari’s statement which selectively focuses upon debatable aspects of Tibet’s territorial and political history and distorts the facts relating to Tibet’s previous status. Now why would such a prominent supporter of surrendering Tibet’s right to nationhood choose to misrepresent in such a fashion? Could it be that our warning, made some years ago, of a stealthy effort by the Exiled Tibetan Administration to abandon Kham and Amdo in favor of securing progress with China’s Regime on the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region maybe revealing itself further?

Should Lodi Gyari, described on his site as a “…seasoned and skilled diplomat who is an impassioned advocate for the Tibetan people” wish to offer a reply to our article his comments will be most welcome.