Co-editors: Seán Mac Mathúna • John Heathcote
Consulting editor: Themistocles Hoetis
Field Correspondent: Allen Hougland


TIN and the Betrayal of Truth
Jeffrey Bowe

The Tibetan Government-in-exile

The Independent Tibet Network

Independence for Tibet

Support the campaign to persuade the Lord Mayor of Dublin from agreeing to the twinning of the Irish capital with Beijing

Tibet Online

Tibet Online - Photo Gallery

Towards a Free Tibet

Independence for Tibet

An Annotated Chronology of Tibet in the 20th Century

Tibet links page

Bicycle trip over the Himalayas

Tibetan Cultural Region Weblink Directory


Within the Tibetan movement many pay homage to the work and reputation of the Tibet Information Network (TIN); an organisation which claims to provide well researched factual material on matters relating to Tibet and China. Since its arrival on the scene in 1989, it has established an often influential role, and become a valued source of information. Certainly, it offers a detailed insight into the situation inside Tibet and has brought to light many cases of political prisoners. Although steadfastly denying any role as a campaigning body, its work has greatly assisted others in the Tibetan scene, and improved the flow and quality of information. Credit for this achievement is often directed towards founder Mr Robert Barnett, and there is no doubting his efforts. But little is mentioned of the role played by Tibetans themselves. Not only the Tibetan Government in exile, which many believe were instrumental in helping to establish TIN, but those forgotten heroes inside Tibet who have taken a genuine and dangerous risk to obtain, verify and transmit information. Without their efforts a major element of TIN would cease to function, and it is they who truly deserve our applause and admiration. It is their patriotism and courage which has furnished TIN with a wealth of information and thus helped earn its standing.

Denial and Deceit

Having crafted a standing for accuracy, independence, and quality, some consider that TIN has acquired an almost iconic status within the Tibetan movement (beyond critique and examination to some of its adoring fans). Indeed to speak out against it runs the risk of being charged with a form of blasphemy, a gross insult towards a true friend of Tibet. Yet there remains one issue upon which its record is abysmal and that is human rights violations within Communist China's population programme. Since its inception, under the stewardship of Barnett, it maintained a careful policy of glossing-over, marginalising or ignoring the more odious aspects of the programme (see Tibet: Defying the Dragon March 1991 page 89). Under the guise of journalistic standards, and with a implacable cynicism reserved only it seems for this issue, it mirrored official Communist Chinese arguments by claiming that the one-child policy: "covers only 'nationalities' in China which has more than 10 million members ..So officially Tibetans are exempt from this policy" (TIN correspondence to Optimus, 29th November 1993). The same letter also suggested "..there are no first hand accounts of forcible (in the sense of physical force) abortions and sterilisations". The TIN correspondent went on to dismiss the testimony of Tibetan women as "very imprecise" or "vague". Others too joined the chorus of denial, deception and propaganda. Ms Kate Saunders, later to become an active member of TIN, wrote in the October 1992 edition of Tibet News (newsletter of the TSG&endash;UK) "There are few first-hand accounts of forced abortions and sterilisations from Tibetan women" adding that " is not clear to what extent local authorities act on the directives from Beijing…". This baseless assertion was in stark contrast to the findings of Dr John S Aird former China specialist at the US Bureau of the Census and author of 'Slaughter of the Innocents', whose researches, using official communist Chinese sources, calculated that between 1971 and 1985 ALONE there had been some 100 million coercive 'birth-control surgeries' including forced sterilisations and forced abortions.

It is difficult to imagine how this staggering scale of operation could exist without the knowledge, involvement and ultimate sanction of Beijing, any more than the concentration camps could have existed without Hitler's knowledge.

Thanks to the efforts of Independent Tibet Network, Optimus and Dr John S Aird, there is no longer any doubt over the brutal nature of the Communist Chinese programme and the trauma and violations it inflicts upon women (The British Medical Association, Amnesty International, US State Department and British Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs have now recognised and condemned human rights violations associated with the programme). The dismissive and misleading arguments used to deny coercion were reduced to ashes by the facts and detail documented in reports such as 'Slaughter of the Innocents' by Dr John Aird (AEI Press 1991), 'Children of Despair' by Martin Moss & Paul Ingram (Independent Tibet Network/Optimus 1992) and more recently 'Orders of the State' by Jeffrey Bowe & Martin Moss (Independent Tibet Network 2000).

Smokescreens and Censorship

Yet there still remains a determined and orchestrated effort to suppress and distort open debate on this subject, and some suspect the cancerous tentacles of the British Foreign Office have been silently extended to prevent exposure of what is a highly sensitive issue, and one that could cause a considerable deterioration in relations between London and Beijing. Could such influences have taken root within TIN's administration? There has been speculation surrounding its rapid elevation and the late Tsering Wangyal, former editor of the Tibetan Review, commented in 1990 that there "was a lot of money sloshing around the Tibetan scene". Notwithstanding such conjecture although the merciless scepticism it previously demonstrated may have softened, its general coverage remains characterised by tentative and extenuating terminology. The following featured in a TIN Bulletin February 2000:

"Cadres in local areas are judged by their success in enforcing population targets, and it is the punishments and rewards associated with the limits they impose that are most likely to lead to excessive enforcement. According to reports received by TIN, a considerable element of coercion is applied to women, particularly in rural areas, through the mechanisms of fines and administrative structures introduced by these officials. (emphasis added)

Once again we have the old TIN mantra in deliberately vague and euphemistic form (worthy of communist China's State Family Planning Committee), the message though is clear. The responsibility for "excessive enforcement" lies with local officials not with the central communist regime and that these are defined as financial penalties and "administrative structures".The obscure terminology masks widely documented penalties of arbitrary arrest, detention, forced sterilisation and/or forced abortions. Compare this with a quote from Defying the Dragon by Barnett "In areas where a birth-control policy has been announced the principal method of enforcement appears to be a range of serious administrative penalties" (emphasis added). Such cynical resistance to acknowledge the brutal reality of the population programme was in stark contrast to the concerns of the Dalai Lama who, responding to questions from Paul Ingram and the author at UK Parliamentary meetings (1996 and 1993 respectively), described the situation as "very serious" and that matters were "getting worse".

During an audience with His Holiness, which I had the honour of attending, this subject was raised, and it was agreed that it demanded far greater exposure. Yet despite the often stated concerns of Tibet's Head of State about abuses resulting from the population programme, TIN's long tradition of fudging this issue remains intact. Indeed one wonders had this organisation operated during World-War-Two how they would have described eugenic and birth-control 'experiments' inflicted upon Gypsy and Jewish women. Presumably it would not have been Himmler who was responsible for the medical atrocities but over-zealous local Nazi officials!

Mum's the Word!

A specious defence was once offered by a former TIN member who claimed, during a conversation with the author, that careful reportage and phrasing was essential for maintaining credibility and that a cautious approach were the hallmarks of sensible journalism. Well a couple of points came to mind. The truth that Tibetan women are being forcibly sterilised is, it seems, too sensational for TIN, which explains the limited detailed references to such abuses in its literature. Secondly this claim dismisses passionate, forceful and truthful journalism as being inherently flawed (and by implication thus unworthy of TIN). This is not the case of course as so eloquently demonstrated by Irish reporter Maggie O' Kane's award-winning coverage of the conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo. She and other writers have shown that compassion and emotion have a role in journalism, and need not detract from aspects of balance or fact. One only has to recall the coverage given to the mass rape of Muslim women in Bosnia. Had TIN been reporting this tragedy would the testimonies of rape have been dismissed with the callous suspicion they seem to reserve for the accounts of Tibetan women?

Reading TIN material on this issue, which in most cases seems to originate from the offices of Xinhua (communist China's propaganda outlet), one inevitably compares the aspirations and motivation of Tibetans supplying information with this stunted coverage. One cannot help feel a witness to an unwholesome betrayal of the facts, as the abuses inflicted upon Tibetans and others is diluted and marginalized into a form that conceals the brutal nature of the population programme. The following extract taken from a TIN report (February 2000) illustrates the point:

"Enforcement measures include a combination of economic sanctions, in the form of 'extra birth fees' for those who transgress the limit and administrative penalties, such as the denial of birth certificates for any additional child born outside the quota". (emphasis added)

Now, according to this, 'enforcement' appears limited to financial penalties or bureaucratic measures, of course this Beijing-style propaganda is in violent contradiction to penalties as experienced and widely documented by women in East Turkestan, Tibet and communist China. These reports, containing a wealth of detailed information, are readily available and have been featured by Amnesty International, Independent Tibet Network, Optimus and Asia Watch. Accounts have appeared in the written and broadcast media too which, unlike TIN, have not been afraid to report freely and forcefully on medical atrocities and violations resulting from this programme.

One only has to recall the BBC Television documentary 'Women of the Yellow Earth' (24th July 1994) which featured a young Chinese named Bai, whose family and home were threatened by family planning official for weeks before she 'agreed' to attend a local clinic, where she was tied onto a medical slab and sterilised. In pain and crying for anaesthetic she was told to "put up with it", by the surgeon, traumatised and in obvious agony, she was left in a grimy dormitory, before being left to make her way back across the mountain to her village.

These disturbing images were eclipsed by the acclaimed documentaries 'The Dying Rooms' and 'Return to the Dying Rooms' (British Channel 4 television 1995) both of which recorded the inhuman treatment of orphaned baby girls, left to die in state controlled orphanages, as a result of the one-child-policy and the traditional preference for boys. The misery and suffering recorded in all these films resulted in public outrage across Europe and the US, and intense public debate in the British media. The intensely harrowing scenes exposed the coercive nature of communist China's population policies, and supports the evidence, that continues to emerge, which documents a series of draconian measures inflicted upon women including financial penalties, arbitrary arrest, detention, emotional, social and physical coercion, and forced sterilisations and forced abortions. Yet the TIN extract (February 2000), below unquestioningly repeats communist propaganda and suggests that far from being abused and coerced, Tibetan women are simply 'volunteering' for sterilisation as a result of rewards offered:

 "The 1992 TAR birth control regulations stipulate that women who "adopt corrective measures", or undergo sterilisation and women who have "induced births in the mid-term of their pregnancy" (officially sanctioned abortions) are to be given a set time off work determined by which of the operations they have. The women who have the operation are rewarded with a supply of "10 jin [5kg]" of flour (glutinous rice) and two jin [1kg] of edible (butter) oil", according to the regulations."

As a premier source of information, TIN has access to the same testimony and evidence as other organisations with an interest in Tibet so why does it demonstrate such reticence in featuring detailed testimonies which describe the actual nature of coercion and associated human rights violations? It cannot claim with any credibility, that to do so would jeopardise its journalistic credentials, as far more respected established media outlets such as the Washington Post, Boston Globe, The Observer, The Independent, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail have no problem in exposing and describing the more odious aspects of the programme. Furthermore, in the interests of balance and impartiality, one imagines TIN would wish to give equally detailed and prominent coverage to eyewitness/personal testimony. Yet, apart from some isolated interviews recorded in 1990, it is hard to locate comprehensive references to the atrocities caused by the population policies. One is always left with the impression of reading an amended script, perhaps remodelled beyond the requirements of standard editing? I too have met and interviewed Tibetan women who have witnessed and experienced the horrors of 'birth-control' surgery and noted the amount of detail, consistency and facts in their accounts. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity and honesty nor the obvious trauma which has blighted their lives. Some committed suicide. TIN has also questioned such women, therefore it is difficult to grasp why their experiences are reported in the truncated and adulterated form that they are.

Excusing the Dragon

Can it be possible that this organisation is actively watering-down accounts by expunging any reference to forced sterilisations and forced abortions? Perhaps, as speculated earlier, it is due to the perfidious influence of the British Foreign Office? Whatever the reason we are witnessing a concealment of the facts, hardly befitting a group dedicated to providing "accurate and objective" information. Having "sought the truth in the groves of academe" it seems TIN has resorted to the ultimate form of censorship, by deleting any detailed reference to violations resulting from the population programme.

A further spurious excuse used to justify the manner in which TIN reports this issue is that it is not a campaigning body, and therefore is required to adopt a 'neutral' position. Well how balanced is it to fill output on this subject with official propaganda, which by its very nature offers a grossly single&endash;sided and duplicitous perspective? The following exemplifies how TIN's heavy reliance upon communist Chinese sources leaves them open to the charge of being unwitting partners in a deliberate attempt to deceive foreigners, concerning the coercive nature of China's population programme.

"Although the Chinese authorities generally deny the use of coercion in imposing birth-control restrictions, a rare admission was made by a Chinese official…Cong Jun said in a speech.. on 29th October 1998 that the State Family Planning Committee had issued circulars throughout the country to prohibit its branch organisations from forcing women to undergo abortions or sterilisations…." (TIN Report February 2000)

At first glance this appears a routine account of events but wait a moment what about these 'circulars'? When and why were they issued? New York Times writer, Elizabeth Rosenthal was, it seems, deceived by this Chinese official and invested considerable importance in her article (Ist November 1998) to the supposed assurances given by State Family Planning Committee spokeswoman, Cong Jun. In fact the regulations prohibiting coercion, mentioned by Rosenthal and TIN, have not been published in the recent Chinese media and no reference to them has appeared in provincial level family planning documents which usually reflect any amendments to national policies on population policies. So what is going on?

More importantly, close examination of the Xinhua dispatches, quoted by Rosenthal, TIN and others, reveals they have either been inadvertently or deliberately misled. The statements by Cong were carried by TWO Xinhua releases (dated 29th October 1998), one of these, and presumably the version used by TIN, and other foreign writers was an English language version released in Beijing quoted Cong as follows:

"The State Family Planning Committee has issued circulars throughout the country to prohibit its branch organizations at all levels from forcing women to undergo abortions or sterilization..".

This statement creates an impression that the "circulars" were recently issued. However, the other Xinhua dispatch, published in Chinese from Hong Kong, made it clear that this was not so and quoted Cong Jun as stating:

 "The Chinese Government long ago issued circulars throughout the country specifically prohibiting family planning departments at all levels from forcing women to undergo induced abortions or sterilization.". (emphasis added).

The key phrase "long ago," expunged from the English version, indicates that the reference was probably either to the Party Central Committee "open letter" of September 25, 1980 or to the unpublished Party Central Committee Document No. 7 of April 12, 1984, or perhaps both. The open correspondence of 1980 cautioned against coercion and was issued following an adverse reaction against the grim realities of the initial year of the one-child policy in 1979, while Document No. 7 was seemingly released in response to a popular backlash which resulted from the extensive birth-control surgeries carried in 1983, but were superseded and effectively reversed by ensuing policy documents which took a far more draconian line.

Cong Jun's original address was made to a Sino-European seminar on women's issues, and therefore was aimed mainly at a foreign audience. It was not quoted in the Chinese domestic media outside of Hong Kong. Her speech may have been a deliberate response to the damaging testimony on coercion in family planning in Fujian Province presented by Ms. Gao Xiaoduan before the U. S. Congressional committee on June 10, 1998.

Betraying the Truth

The point of all this is that communist China manipulates its foreign audience to believe that they prohibit coercive measures, but they assiduously make such claims only in channels not likely to be noted by family planning officials in China, whose coercive excesses they obviously do not wish to discourage. It appears that in publishing this misleading statement, TIN is guilty of assisting Xinhua in that end, which raises serious questions about its uncritical acceptance of official communist sources that undermine its objective to "provide an accurate, impartial and comprehensive news and information service".

As recognised experts in their field, surely TIN would be aware that if the communist authorities were serious about placing a check upon coercion, they would issue recurrent orders against it in their annual national report sessions of family planning, and they would see to it that warnings against coercion and penalties for local officials guilty of using coercion would be incorporated into the latest versions of the provincial family planning regulations.

According to Dr John S Aird, not one of these regulations contains a word about coercion. The obvious explanation is that coercion is a necessary and intended aspect of program implementation in communist China.

Meanwhile, central family planning policy documents continue to call for the use of "administrative measures," the Chinese euphemism for the use of local administrative powers, to enforce compliance. For years the central authorities have hinted broadly, that coercive measures were needed, and even in some of the most recent central statements about family planning, it is acknowledged that the program is not voluntary and that any easing of pressures would result in a rebound in the birth rate. This information is available to any serious researcher, as it is presumably for TIN, so why feature an account which sought to create the impression that the communist regime's family planning committee were taking positive action to curb coercion?

Seen in isolation this could be attributed to administrative oversight and sloppy research. However taken in context with the general softly-softly tone TIN employs when reporting on issues linked to communist China's population programme, one may be forced to come to a darker conclusion.

Double Standards

The degree to which this issue is obscured is brought into sharp relief when compared with TIN's reportage of political prisoners. Their smoke-screen of balance and journalistic caution, which has stifled a full exposé of the abuses resulting from communist China's population policies no longer seems to apply. Subscribers are offered harrowing details of systematic torture. The following account from a Tibetan nun is taken from it's website:

"They beat us so savagely that there was blood everywhere, on the walls and on the floor. It looked like an abattoir. They beat us with their belts, until their belts broke ... then they used electric batons ... Some of us had torn ears, others had wounds in their heads. There was so much blood."

The criticism here is not directed at the quality, tone or use of such testimony, which has greatly served those engaged in human rights and Tibet, but towards what appear conditional standards applied by TIN. Unlike reports from political prisoners, personal and eyewitness accounts given by Tibetan women, would seem to require textual revision, removing any unpleasant realities, and concealing the odious nature of the population programme in euphemism and extenuating terminology.

TIN (Tibetan Infants Nil)

Has this respected organisation been engaged in a deliberate and consistent campaign to camouflage the actual nature and extent of coercion within the communist Chinese population programme? Does the spectre of Foreign Office influence hold true? Certainly there have been many instances which indicate that something is going on; the International Consultation on Tibet (1990), International Lawyers Conference (1993) UK Foreign Affairs Committee (1993) and International Development Committee (1999) either ignored or gave virtually no coverage of this issue in their published reports.

They also withheld any reference to the detailed material supplied to them by Independent Tibet Network and Optimus; including the acclaimed document Children of Despair. Why does TIN follow this lead? If, as it claims, it is wholly independent why does it adopt a similar position on this issue and employ syntax of such striking similarity?

Others have expressed their dismay at the censorship surrounding this subject, Ms Carol Devine, author of Tibetan Women and the Struggle for an Independent Tibet noted "In my lobbying for Tibet's freedom and Tibetan women's rights, I have found so many people unwilling to say that issues of forced abortion and sterilization should be at the top of the list when speaking of human rights abuses in Tibet" (correspondence 5th October 1993 to Independent Tibet Network)

Devine's book could have proved a valuable asset to an understanding of conditions facing Tibetan women however it was seriously undermined by a deficient chapter entitled 'The Quality Baby'. In researching this chapter she had, significantly as it turned out, sought the advice of Robert Barnett (then director of TIN) who it seems had assured her that "credibility and professionalism" were the hallmarks of his organisation. The result however was a confusing, misleading and flawed analysis which contained a textual error on page 68 that "..the evidence does NOT support the very serious claims of coercive abortions and sterilisations.." She later admitted that this should have read "..the evidence DOES support the very serious claims of forced abortions and sterilisations..". In a letter (5th October 1993) to Optimus and Independent Tibet Network Devine wrote, "I sincerely wish I had been more outspoken, and convincing in this chapter".

Quite so, but one wonders if this was ever possible once she had engaged with an organisation that had consistently glossed-over the haunting testimony of women traumatised by 'birth-control surgery'. This section of her book certainly generated much confusion, and I know of many independent researchers who could make no sense of it.

Whatever the truth, TIN remains an authoritative source of information to the Tibetan movement, and exerts much influence upon how various issues are reported. It is therefore not surprising to note that organisations such as the Australia Tibet Council, Free Tibet Campaign, and others exhibit a similar tendency to obscure the facts. Such diffusion, along with a general inactivity on this issue, has no doubt cost lives and resulted in other groups and individuals taking no action. One only has to recall the international gatherings of Tibet supporters, during which every aspect of the Tibetan issue was recounted in detail, APART from the subject of coercive birth control, which has been consistently ignored. In diluting and overlooking the true nature and extent of medical atrocities resulting from the population programme TIN is guilty of complicity. It is supposed to be helping the very Tibetan women whose lives have been blighted and wrecked by the communist China. How much human misery would have been avoided if TIN had rectified its blinkered coverage?

Coercion: the Reality

Meanwhile the atrocities continue. According to a report (The Times 24th August 2000) from Hubei Province in August last year, a pregnant woman identified as Mrs Liu was forcibly given a saline injection by her local family planning officials in an attempt to bring on an abortion and kill the child But, surprisingly, it was born alive and healthy. The officials then ordered the father to take the baby out of the hospital and kill it, but though he was afraid of punishment, he merely left the baby behind an office building, where a doctor found it, and returned it to its mother. The infant was given its inoculations and discharged. When the couple got home with their new baby, they found five family planning officials waiting for them in their living room.

 A struggle arose in which the officials wrested the child from its parents, took it out into a paddy field, and drowned it in sight of the parents, and their neighbours. The action so enraged people in the community that they brought the story to the attention of provincial newspapers, and from there it got into the foreign press as well, embarrassing the central government.

On 12th February 2001 Amnesty International issued a new report entitled "Torture: A growing scourge in China--Time for Action" declaring that torture is increasing in China. Among many examples cited, was a 1998 incident, in which a peasant from a village in Changsha, Hunan Province, whose wife was suspected of having fled because she was pregnant, was tortured twice. On the second occasion he was

"...denied food, hung upside down, whipped and beaten with wooden clubs and burned with cigarette butts. He reportedly became doubly incontinent, his body covered in excrement. The officials reportedly then branded his lower body with soldering irons, tied wire around his genitals and ripped off his penis." (The man died on 15 May 1998)

Episodes of this sort are doubtless the most staggering examples of coercion, which reach international attention, because they generate such local outrage that they find their way into Chinese regional newspapers, and thus into the foreign press. Other atrocities lay hidden, until the victim escapes. Independent Tibet Network had an interview with a 37 year-old woman from Kham in East Tibet, following her flight into exile to India. She was another victim of the population programme, "I was taken by force by the Chinese and sterilised, having gone beyond the stated limit of children. Nearly 30 women were also sterilised at the same time as me, in my village 70% of woman at 18 have been sterilised. They treat us like animals and use many crude methods, my husband's sister was sterilised before his very eyes. She was four months pregnant and had been taken to the centre by force. They tied her hands and legs while the doctor, wearing gloves, put his hand into the vagina and squeezed the foetus. She was delirious and bled profusely for sometime". Other women, details the testimony ".. had an injection given in the stomach, the women cry and later deliver a dead foetus" Alternative forms of 'surgery' used more brutal methods "While operating they cut the stomach vertically and horizontally often without anaesthetic and with little consideration for the pain that is being inflicted. I have witnessed these terrible things with my own eyes".

According to the testimony, birth-control officers would visit the villages once a month and take down names of all those who were to be sterilised, any that showed resistance were taken by force. The staff carrying out such 'surgery' were, it was claimed, often unqualified and showed little concern for the well-being of the women. The witness reported highly detailed instances of women, almost nine months pregnant, being "given medicine to induce labour and afterwards the premature infant is put into a bucket of hot water". Such accounts have surfaced time and again from East Turkestan, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and China itself.

More routine cases of coercion probably do not get reported in the media, especially with the Chinese authorities doing what they can to suppress such reports. Groups such as TIN, Free Tibet Campaign and Australia Tibet Council seem willing partners in the effort to conceal the truth. In light of the censorship surrounding this issue the words of TIN's current director, Richard Oppenheimer appear somewhat tainted: "The world needs to know what is happening in Tibet today. Tibet Information Network (TIN) is dedicated to giving the world the facts - accurately and objectively… ". (emphasis added)

Dark Horizon

At a national meeting convened by the Party Central Committee in March 1999, Jiang Zemin said:

"Family Planning and population control constitute arduous work involving many aspects. Instead of putting a brake on the work, we must strengthen it. We should further improve our population macro-control, family planning management... Education, legal, economic, and administrative measures should be adopted."

The euphemism "administrative measures," includes mandatory IUD insertions, sterilisations, and abortions, suggest that, for the foreseeable future, at least, communist China's population programme will remain as coercive as it has been since its inception. According to Dr John S Aird the abuses look set to continue:

 "In sum, the evidence throughout the 1990s and up to the present moment is that the central authorities are determined to tighten their control over family planning work to maintain China's current low birth rate. They have made it clear that these efforts are to continue even in the 21st century. Coercive measures are to be refined and "perfected" but not relaxed. In fact, they seem to be assuming more extreme forms"

The prospects for women in occupied Tibet, East Turkestan and China itself look bleak as they continue to be at the knife-edge of family planning policies that inflict the most appalling violations. Some of these have endured the darkest trauma, yet had the courage to report their suffering to organisations such as TIN, presumably in the hope that the brutal reality of communist China's population programme would be brought to a wider audience. Little did they realise that not only would their testimony be subjected to merciless scepticism and censorship but that their trust and hope could be betrayed by an organisation supposedly dedicated to reporting truthfully on conditions inside their country.

Jeffrey Bowe
Independent Tibet Network


"Torture: A growing scourge in China--Time for Action" Amnesty International (12th February 2001)
Briefing Paper on Communist China's Coercive Population Control Programme (2000)
Orders of the State, Jeffrey Bowe & Martin Moss, Independent Tibet Network (2000)
Increased restrictions on birth of children in Tibet TIN report (9 February 2000)
New birth control policies to 'help families become richer ' TIN Report (9 February 2000)
Human rights Report: China, US State Department (25th February 2000)
Gender and Catastrophe, Edited by Ronit Lentin, Zed Books (1997)
Human Rights and Family Planning in China, Dr John S Aird, Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs Canberra ( 26th September 1995)
Femmes Et Violences dans la monde, Michele Dayras, L'Harmattan (1995)
Tibet Action Bulletin, Campaign Free Tibet (1995)
Women and Violence, Miranda Davies, Zed Books (1994)
Children of Despair, Martin Moss & Paul Ingram, Independent Tibet Network (1992)
Slaughter of the Innocents, Dr John S Aird, AEI Press, (1991)
Defying the Dragon, Lawasia/TIN (1991)


Thanks to Dr John Aird, Optimus and Ms Denise Foley