China’s Body Parts Snatcher Honored By Edinburgh Surgeon’s Institution

Royal College Of Surgeons Edinburgh

Royal College Of Surgeons Edinburgh

Image: pressdispensary

Not since those ghastly 19th Century killers Burke and Hare has Scotland’s premier medical establishment been associated with grisly profits from corpses, not that these days Edinburgh’s Royal College of Surgeons (RCSE) is engaged in any criminal activity, or paying body-snatchers to secure ‘dissection material’. However this august institution is attracting concern as a consequence of one of its Fellows, Doctor Huang Jiefu, a former Chinese health minister, who has been accused of presiding over the removal of organs from executed prisoners without their consent. Report Here


Just what was the RCSE thinking in honoring a man so worryingly linked with such medical atrocities? An individual who has seemingly conceded that “….as recently as November, 2012 that he continues to perform about two liver transplants every week – so that would be 100 organs a year, and using his own figures, 90 to 95 per cent of those would have come from executed prisoners.” Source

We think it is plain wrong that such a respected medical organization, with its ethical principles should choose to honor a man at the heart of a Regime with a notorious record for abusing human rights. If you share our concern then please consider directly contacting the RCSE.

PA to President: Moira Britton and Fiona Ramsay
Tel: (+44) 131 527 1635
Fax: (+44) 131 557 9771

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.

It features a curious agenda that seems strangely remote from championing human rights and freedoms that no doubt will attract criticism as being a dilution of the core principles and objectives of the FDC. Indeed one prominent figure within the organization will be boycotting the Forum and issued a public reassurance that the FDC will continue to promote democracy and human rights in China, and continue its call for an end of single party regime.

The wording of the Forum’s agenda is surely a matter of concern to the Federation For A Democratic China, which while not the organizing authority for the meeting, nor author will be deeply unhappy about this event.

‘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

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!

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.

China’s Regime Fooling Western Media Over One-Child Policy

One of the great fictions subscribed to by a number of prominent Tibet related organizations is that Tibetans are exempt from the atrocities generated by China’s notorious birth-control program. Such groups form this conclusion based upon the official declarations of the Chinese regime, interviews with a handful of Tibetans or the claims of anthropologists whose career interests require a pro-China line!

Curiously such credulity towards an authority expert in deception and propaganda does not extend to other human rights issues. Seems there’s a disconnect at work, with salaried lobbyists simultaneously rejecting China’s claims that Tibetans are not subject to human rights abuses, yet willing to accept without critique assertions from the Chinese government that the grim excesses of China’s one-child policy, including forced sterilizations, are not applied in occupied Tibet!

There exists however a considerable body of detailed information, testimony and witnessed accounts that reveals Tibetans have indeed suffered such abuses and continue to do so. Moreover statements from a number of Chinese officials have over the years conceded such a reality, the most recent was featured in a report by Zee News, an Indian based news-site.

Sadly mainstream media has a tendency to repeat as factual the official pretensions served up by China’s regime, a habit much to the delight of the Ministry Of Disinformation in Beijing which uses such gullibility to spread various propaganda aimed at diluting and deflecting international concern on any range of human rights issues. Meanwhile of course the violations continue, as women in China who suffer forced sterilizations would testify.

The Zee News report however, while displaying a naivete of breathtaking proportions, reported a concession from  Yang Wenzhuang that Tibet and East Turkestan had not yet relaxed the regulations pertaining to the one-child policy, now the propaganda line is that so-called ethnic minorities were exempt from such restrictions. Yet here we have a leading Minister in China’s Family Planning Commission acknowledging without qualification that these occupied territories have indeed been subject to such regulation!