Tibet Exposes Genocidal Australian Human Rights Abuses
By Dr Gideon Polya
Australia and other Western nations have been properly chiding China for human rights abuses in Tibet. However Australia has an appalling human rights record as assessed by the horrendous avoidable deaths of its domestic and overseas Indigenous subjects. Indeed White Australia’s appalling and genocidal human rights record has prompted formal complaint to the ICC over Australia’s involvement in ongoing Aboriginal, Iraqi, Afghan and Climate Genocides.
of the absence of outside reporters it is difficult to assess what
is actually happening in Tibet. According to a March 30 News.com report:
“Exiled Tibetan leaders have put the death toll from the Chinese
crackdown at between 135 and 140 Tibetans, with another 1000 people
injured and many detained” (see: http://www.news.com.au/story/
0,10117,23454758-23109,00.html ). On April 10 the Dalai Lama claimed that “hundreds” had been killed (see: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2213780.htm ).
Amnesty International criticized China over human rights abuses in Tibet in a recent statement to the UN Human Rights Council (see: http://action.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/11342/ ). In short, Amnesty International recognized the right and duty of China to protect all citizens from violence but expressed concern over past abuses (including lethal force and torture of detainees), the exclusion of independent human rights monitors from Tibet and its fears for human rights abuses in Tibet.
QUOTE: “We are deeply concerned at human rights violations during recent events in the Autonomous Region of Tibet and neighbouring regions.
Read our oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council:
Amnesty International is deeply concerned at human rights violations during recent events in the Autonomous Region of Tibet and neighbouring regions.
Initial protests by Tibetans in these regions appear to have been peaceful and suppressed in violation of protesters' right to freedom of expression, association and assembly, including through excessive use of force.
Amnesty International is aware that protests later turned violent, with individuals apparently attacked solely for their ethnic identity, resulting in death, injury and damage to property. Amnesty International condemns such attacks unreservedly, and acknowledges the Chinese authorities' right and duty to protect all individuals against violence.
However, Amnesty International is concerned that in restoring order, the Chinese authorities have resorted to measures which violate international human rights law and standards. These have reportedly included excessive use of force, including lethal force and arbitrary detentions.
Amnesty International has previously documented a pattern of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in Tibet by China's security forces, especially those accused by the Chinese authorities of "separatist" activities. Moreover, China has long banned independent human rights monitors from Tibet, and the region is now virtually sealed. For these reasons AI fears for the safety of those recently detained.
Amnesty International calls on the Human Rights Council to address the human rights situation in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in the neighbouring provinces which have experienced unrest. Amnesty International also calls on the Chinese authorities to:
- release all those detained solely for peaceful protest;
- fully respect the rights of all persons to freedom of expression, association and assembly;
-avoid unnecessary and excessive use of force in restoring order and protecting individuals and property;
- fully account for those detained, ensuring they will not be ill-treated and are released unless they are charged with recognizably criminal offences and remanded by an independent court;
- ensure that all killings, violent assaults and other attacks on persons and property are investigated promptly, independently and effectively, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators and the victims, and that suspected perpetrators are prosecuted in proceedings which meet international standards of fairness and are without the imposition of the death penalty;
- allow independent UN scrutiny into the current human rights situation in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and neighbouring provinces;
- grant unimpeded access to the Tibetan Autonomous Region and neighbouring provinces for journalists and other independent observers.
Beyond these immediate concerns, Amnesty International calls on the Council to urge the Chinese authorities to address Tibetans' long-term grievances, including restrictions on religious practice, persecution for exercising their freedoms of expression, association and assembly, government policies that have weakened their culture and ethnic identity, and perceived exclusion from the benefits of economic development.” END QUOTE
PM Rudd has acknowledged China’s sovereignty over Tibet –
as has the Dalai Lama – but has been touring the world criticizing
Chinese human rights abuses. Addressing more than 500 students students
at Peking University, Rudd stated (in Mandarin): "Australia like
most other countries, recognises China's sovereignty over Tibet. But
we also believe it is necessary to recognise there are significant
human rights problems in Tibet . . . the current situation in Tibet
is of concern to Australians” (see: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/
response has been an official rebuke delivered while PM Rudd was visiting
China : “"Tibet is purely an internal affair and none of
the foreign countries or other groups has any right to interfere"
Australian academic summary of the current Tibet situation in April
2008 see: http://www.newsroom.uts.edu.au/
For decent humans who believe that “all Men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness”, one key, baseline measure of human rights adherence is “under-5 year old infant mortality” that can be expressed as “annual death rate percentage” (the percentage of under-5 year olds dying each year) or “under-5 year old infant deaths per 1,000 births”.
ESCAP (UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific)
has used data from the China Population Information and Research Centre
(CPIRC) to estimate infant death rates in China (see: http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/
population/database/chinadata/intro.htm ) and in Tibet (see: http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/
database/chinadata/tibet.htm ).According to ESCAP the overall mortality rate has fallen from 28 per 1,000 in the 1950s to 6.60 per 1,000 in 2000; there was a wide gap between urban and rural people in the death rates; mortality at all ages in Tibet was much higher than the national average; and in 1990, life expectancy in Tibet had reached 59.64 years, 57.64 for male and 61.57 for female. The life expectancy for China as a whole was 67.5 in 1990 and is now (2005-2010) about 73 years as compared to 67 for Tibet (see: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ ).
China has made enormous progress in reducing excess deaths (avoidable deaths) both in Tibet and China as a whole (see: “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ).
According to the UN ESCAP the infant mortality rate [“under-5 infant deaths per 1,000 births”] in Tibet had fallen from 430 per 1,000 in 1951, 91.8 per 1,000 in 1990 to 35.3 per 1,000 by the year 2000 – as compared to 34 for China as a whole in 2000 according to the UN Population Division (see: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ ). Dr Sonal Singh wrote in The Lancet (The Lancet 2004; 364:1009, “Tears from the land of snow: health and human rights in Tibet”): “Infant mortality rates at 92 per 1000 live births and maternal mortality rates at 20 per 10000 in the TAR were nearly three times those in the Chinese population in the 1990s” but this has evidently improved according to the UN ESCAP statistics quoted above. However it must be cautioned that medical services are better in urban areas (that have a higher Han Chinese population) than in rural areas (where there is a much higher Indigenous Tibetan population). Further, these statistics are for the Tibetan Autonomous region rather than for Indigenous Tibetans. Independent scrutiny as advocated by Amnesty International is urgently required.
Consulting the “World Population Prospects: the 2006 Revision Population Database” of the UN Population Division (see: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ ) we find that for 2007 (2005-2010) the “under-5 year old infant deaths per 1,000 births” is 29 (for China, and a similar value for Tibet as indicated by UN ESCAP data) as compared to values in China’s “good outcome” neighbours of Russia (21), Vietnam (23) and Kazakhstan (29) and in its “poor outcome neighbours” of Mongolia (54), Kyrgyzstan (64), North Korea (65), Bhutan (65), Laos (67), Nepal (72), Tajikistan (78), India (79), Myanmar (97) and US Alliance-occupied Afghanistan (235).
By way of comparison for 2007 the “under-5 year old infant deaths per 1,000 births” were in the range 5 - 8 for the US (8), Australia (6) and other Western Occupiers of Afghanistan.
These infant mortality statistics can also be presented as “annual under-5 year old death rate percentage” (the percentage of under-5 year olds dying each year) which for 2007 was 0.61% for China (and similar to this for Tibet according to ESCAP data) as compared to values in China’s “good outcome” neighbours of Russia (0.44%), Vietnam (0.47%) and Kazakhstan (0.66%) and in its “poor outcome neighbours” of Mongolia (1.14%), Kyrgyzstan (1.43%), North Korea (1.28%), Bhutan (1.28%), Laos (1.46%), Nepal (1.56%), Tajikistan (1.68%), India (1.69%), Myanmar (2.09%) and US Alliance-occupied Afghanistan (6.15%).
By way of comparison, for 2007 the “annual under-5 year old death rate percentage” was in the range 0.10% - 0.16% for the US (0.16%), Australia (0.12%) and other Western Occupiers of China’s neighbour Occupied Afghanistan.
Now the Ruler is responsible for the Ruled and there is a moral obligation of a Ruler to do everything possible to preserve the health and lives of subject citizens. However International Law via Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (see: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm ) is quite explicit in demanding that the “Occupying Power” does everything it can “to the fullest extent of the means available to it” to ensure food, medical supplies, and health of the population.
Australia, the US, the UK and their allies have been patently FAILING to meet these obligations in Occupied Afghanistan and indeed in Occupied Iraq as reflected in huge post-invasion under-5 infant deaths totalling 2.3 million and 0.6 million, respectively; post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths) totalling 3-7 million and about 2 million, respectively; and refugees totalling 4 million and 4.5 million, respectively (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21138/42/ ).
Key evidence of this sustained, remorseless, war criminal US Alliance failure to provide life-sustaining requisites is given by the World Health Organization (WHO). Consult WHO (see: http://www.who.int/en/ ) and you will discover that the “annual total per capita medical expenditure” permitted in Occupied Iraq by the US Coalition is $135 (2004) as compared to $19 (Occupied Afghanistan), $2,560 (UK), $3,123 (Australia) and $6,096 (the US) (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17139/42/ ).
If we want to reliably quantitate “human rights abuses” we could use the ratio of “annual infant death rate” in the Occupied Country to that in the Occupier country. In relation to Occupied Afghanistan and its Occupier White Australia this “Occupied/Occupier infant death ratio” is 6.15%/0.12% = 51.3 and in relation to Occupied Iraq and Occupier Australia the ratio is 2.32%/0.12% = 19.3 – whereas the ratio for Tibet infant death rate /China infant death rate is roughly 1 (i.e. equality).
For the US, the world’s #1 terrorist state, the Occupied/Occupier infant death rate ratio for Occupied Afghanistan is 6.15%/0.16% = 38.4 and 2.32%/0.16% = 14.5 in relation to Occupied Iraq.
On this measure, war criminal White Australia is currently the world’s worst human rights abuser by far.
Australia is currently loud in its criticism of Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet (thereby pleasing Australian and Western humanitarians and Bush-ites simultaneously). Chinese human rights abuses are no doubt occurring in Tibet and should be urgently addressed as indicated by Amnesty International – but it is gross hypocrisy of war criminal Australia to buy into this issue without reference to its own actions.
is defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention as follows (see:
genocide/convention.html ): “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
You can therefore understand why I have recently made a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court (ICC) (see: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya030308.htm and http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008/02/formal-complaint-to-international.html ) over Australian involvement in Aboriginal Genocide (90,000 excess deaths in the last 11 years; Indigenous population now 0.5 million); Iraqi Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 1.7-2.2 million; 4.5 million refugees); Afghan Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 3.3-6.6 million; 4 million refugees); and Climate Genocide (16 million people die avoidably from deprivation annually and this is increasingly climate change impacted; Australia is one of the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluters; over 6 billion are predicted by Professor James Lovelock FRS to perish this century from unaddressed global warming).
Australia has been described by John Pilger as America’s Asian sheriff (see: http://www.newstatesman.com/200803060031 ) – and indeed Australia in its Orwellian and Goebellsian criticism of China over Tibet can be seen to be acting as America’s puppet. This gross hypocrisy by genocidal White Australia can be seen as America’s Pot calling the China Kettle black.
Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm .