Singing Tibetan Nun Enjoys Newfound U.S. Freedom On Oct. 14, 1989, Phuntsog Nyidron, a Tibetan Buddhist nun, was arrested for participating in a nonviolent protest against Chinese rule in Tibet. She would wind up serving a 15-year prison sentence in the notorious Drapchi Prison that included beatings, torture and solitary confinement, according to numerous witnesses. On March 30, 2006, Nyidron found herself in front of a very different audience: This time, instead of facing the Chinese authorities, she faced a cheering group of dignitaries and Tibetan supporters who were welcoming 34-year-old Nyidron to her new home in the United States after her long-awaited release from China. On hand for the festivities at the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) in Washington were U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, who is also a special coordinator for Tibetan issues, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Chair Michael Cromartie, and the many members of ICT who have lobbied tirelessly over the years for Nyidron’s release and eventual transfer to the United States—the timing of which appears to be a gesture in advance of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s upcoming U.S. visit next week. Before introducing the guest of honor, ICT-U.S. Executive Director Mary Beth Markey talked about how struck she was when she accompanied Nyidron during media interviews by her “total lack of bitterness and anger” whenever she described her ordeal in prison. “If I had to endure 15 years of the best part of my life in prison and had to undergo beating and torture, what would my attitude be,” Markey observed, quoting Gandhi that one must “hate the sin but not the sinner.” Nyidron herself was the picture of serenity as she shared memories of her painful experience. “If I were to tell you about all the beatings … it would be like telling you about our suffering. Suffice it to say we were used just like those punching bags soldiers use for their exercises,” she told the captivated crowd through a translator. But she added that despite the physical and mental abuse, “we became stronger because I began to realize that the reason why they did [all of this] to us was because we had truth on our side.” Nyidron’s strength would be tested again in 1993 when authorities extended her original nine-year sentence for “counter-revolutionary crimes” by another eight years after Nyidron and her fellow nuns secretly recorded songs about the Dalai Lama and Tibet’s future on a cassette tape that was smuggled out of the prison and eventually made international headlines. In fact, Nyidron is the last of the so-called “singing nuns” to be released by Chinese authorities, and earlier in March, she was reunited with her former cell mate, Ngawang Sangdrol, who now lives in the United States and was also present at the ICT reception. Nyidron was actually able to hear the song she recorded for the first time at the emotional event. At one point even her translator, Bhuchung Tsering, the director of the International Campaing for Tibet, broke down when Nyidron described her plans to “start my education again” in her new life. Nyidron and others stressed, however, that the fight for Tibet is far from over. In fact, ICT reported just last week that a Tibetan monk and teacher of traditional monastic dance had been sentenced to four years in prison for giving talks about Tibetan culture and history. Nevertheless, it was a moving climax for everyone involved in the campaign to free the last of the singing nuns. Undersecretary of State Dobriansky thanked Nyidron for her sacrifice, while USCIRF Chair Cromartie, who was part of a delegation that visited Nyidron last August while she was under house arrest in Lhasa, talked about his elation when he found out about Nyidron’s pending release. He noted that he could now ask Nyidron one question he was prohibited from asking while she was under house arrest: “Do you still sing? Because we look forward to the CD.” Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, left, comforts Phuntsog Nyidron, a Tibetan Buddhist nun imprisoned for 15 years, at a reception held at the International Campaign for Tibet in Washington, D.C. photo courtesy of Kyle Samperton Front page: Phuntsog Nyidron, left, talks through her translator, Bhuchung Tsering, the Director of the International Campaign for Tibet.

State Official Touts Controversial India-Nuke Deal Prior to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before Congress last week about the proposal to allow the sale of U.S. civilian nuclear technology to India, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations about President Bush’s recent trip to India and why Capitol Hill should embrace the controversial deal. “It’s a strong net gain. It’s not 100 percent,” Burns admitted to the audience, which included representatives from the Indian and Pakistani embassies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chevron Corp., Northrop Grumman and others. But he emphasized that the deal would cement a new strategic partnership with a major global player and would bring India into the mainstream nonproliferation system. Burns’s optimism was met with a good deal of skepticism, although the reaction on Capitol Hill has so far been lukewarm to the landmark accord, which would allow India access to U.S. technology for its civilian nuclear program in exchange for international inspections of 14 of its 22 reactors. Supporters say it will give India the ability to lessen its dependence on coal and oil for its burgeoning energy needs and will bring its civilian reactors under international safeguards, but others point out that India’s military reactors will remain outside any supervision, and that India might tap U.S. technology to actually to ramp up its ability to produce nuclear weapons. Critics also contend the deal might spark an arms race in South Asia, particularly with Pakistan, and it would reward a country that flouted international nonproliferation laws. India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has been treated as a pariah for secretly developing a nuclear weapons program in the 1960s. But Burns countered that it is time to accept the fact that India has nuclear weapons and work with the government instead of isolating it. “It brings India into the international system in a way it never has been before,” he said. “Are we better off in the next 30 years keeping India out of the international system or bringing three-fourths of its nuclear reactors under their safeguards,” he asked, noting that eventually the Bush administration hopes to bring 80 percent to 90 percent of India’s nuclear program under international monitoring. Burns added that the administration placed the onus on the civilian side of the agreement because that’s where India’s future is headed: “[Monitoring all] of the civilian reactors is more important because we think there will be tremendous growth in civilian reactors and energy,” Burns argued. “We are betting on our side and it’s a sure bet that nuclear growth will happen on the civilian side and not on the weapons side.” He also dismissed the notion that the proposal could actually result in an increase of nuclear weapons in India, citing the fact that it is in India’s national self-interest to keep Asia stable and restrain nuclear ambitions in the tumultuous neighborhood. As to the issue of introducing a double standard for countries that have signed the NPT, the normally diplomatic Burns was blunt on the topic: “We welcome that double standard. We’re happy to treat a friendly, democratic country differently,” Burns said, referring mainly to North Korea and Iran, which he denounced for their track record of weapons proliferation and “not using their nuclear power responsibly.” He said that although the NPT is still worth supporting, “we also have to acknowledge what’s not working,” pointing to NPT member countries such as Iran that openly cheat on their obligations. “We’ve overturned some of the conventional wisdom,” Burns concluded. Facing “real-world choices,” he said “we would be disadvantaged by maintaining the status quo. It wasn’t working.” Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, left, meets with Ambassador of India Ronen Sen during a reception at the Indian Embassy.

British Defense Secretary Defends Terrorism Tactics The outspoken and candid John Reid, secretary of state for defense of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, took a break from his talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to share his thoughts on international terrorism during a recent discussion at the Washington Club sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Reid outlined the key elements that have shaped the British and U.S. response to global terrorism, including a “battle of ideas inside Islam” that is pitting a minority that wants society to regress back to the eighth century against the rest of the civilized world. “We are to some extent bystanders but it does mean we have to make an effort to understand,” Reid said. “We are already being targeted by a minority that wishes to destroy us and our civilization. A minority that wishes to impose their vision not only on us but on other Muslims who disagree with them. None of us are immune,” he said, citing recent suicide bombings in Iraq and elsewhere as the “ultimate expression in massacring men, women and little children of the Muslim faith.” Quick with catchy sound bites, Reid said the global war on terror wasn’t about a clash of civilizations but rather “a clash about civilization.” He compared the doctrine of pre-emption to confronting a bully on the playground, arguing that if you run away, the bully only comes after you. But the defense secretary softened his tone a bit by adding that “with the iron fist of military might, we must also be prepared to extend a hand of friendship to the other side of this debate on civilization. In the profoundest sense we are on the same side.” No stranger to conflict, Reid previously served as British state secretary for Scotland and Northern Ireland. He said this is certainly not the first time religion has been distorted to suit terrorist purposes. “What we combat is not religion. It is a twisted evil cover for religion.” What has changed, however, is the nature of the enemy, which now has an “utter lack of constraint—legal, moral and self-imposed,” as well as access to highly sophisticated weaponry, including the possibility of weapons of mass destruction. Reid’s argument met with some raised eyebrows though, given the failure to find any WMD in Iraq, as did his statement that the warring factions in Iraq are “on the verge of forming a unity government.” A jovial man, Reid, who calls himself a “Scottish-Irish mongrel,” was unapologetic about his aggressive opinions, arguing that the Geneva Convention must be toughened to take into account new threats, despite the accusations of human rights violations by British troops. He also took aim at the media, claiming the enemy has used the press to spread its doctrine, noting that a free press would never exist in a world under al Qaeda, but the group is all too happy to distribute press releases when they want the spotlight shone on them. But when asked about a specific timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, Reid took on a more evasive demeanor, repeating the old standby, “We will leave Iraq when the job is done.” U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, left, and Secretary of State for Defense of the United Kingdom (also on the front page) take questions during Reid’s recent U.S. visit. Photo courtesy of Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley, U.S. Navy, and the Department of Defense Front page photo courtesy of Master Sgt. James M. Bowman, U.S. Air Force, and the Department of Defense

---

SPONSOR