IV. Coercion in Relocation and Rehousing Programs

It is necessary to fully hear the opinions of the masses, and not to issue forcible orders.

—TAR Report on the objectives of the Comfortable Housing Project, 2006

They told my village that everyone had to leave their old homes and move to the new houses [at the other end of the valley] by September 2012, and that refusal to do so would be considered as “a political issue.”

—Tenzin Gyaltso, Gyama village, TAR, June 2012

The Chinese government and its critics continue to debate the extent of coercion in relocation and rehousing policies. None of our interviewees claimed they were victims of violent or physical removal from their homes. Human Rights Watch is not aware of cases of opponents to relocation or rehousing being arrested or detained by the authorities solely for opposing rehousing or relocation. Given limited access to Tibetan areas, it is impossible to rule out that violent or forcible evictions have taken place.

However, the fear of arrest or official retribution described by respondents was a major reason people avoided openly opposing the policy. As one man explained to Human Rights Watch:

Nomads were told that now they couldn’t continue to live as before because a “New Socialist Countryside” was being developed. We have to go along because we don’t have our own country and we have followed government orders for so long. If we protest or complain that we don’t have rights, well, then there is only one way it could end […] People are poor and no one dares to oppose this policy.[130]

Challenges to Government Claims that Relocation and Rehousing are Voluntary

The government has stated that the resettlement of both herders and villagers is not compulsory and that households have “the right to choose” whether they want to resettle. According to the government, its policies are guided by the principle according to which “the government shows the way, the masses choose freely,” with no “forcible migration” (qiangzhi yimin) taking place.[131]

In October 2006, in one of many similar articles, Xinhua, the state news agency, quoted a local official as guaranteeing that the government would respect and not interfere with the decision of herders to go back to the grassland if they chose to do so:

Relocation greatly transforms the life of herders, but if they want to go back to the grasslands to continue raising livestock, there won't be any interference. The government respects the right to choose of herders.[132]

Similarly, the TAR government’s Comfortable Housing project report states that local officials ought to refrain from coercive measures:

It’s necessary to fully hear the opinions of the masses, and not to issue forcible orders […] Nothing should be requested forcibly for the construction of the people’s houses. The main thing for this policy to be a success is to get people to want to participate.[133]

In some places local officials appear to have followed these instructions. But interviewees told Human Rights Watch of many cases in which local authorities used a combination of promises, incentives, and threats instead of brute force to persuade households to agree to move.

An interviewee from Jiama (Tib. Gyama), TAR, told Human Rights Watch that in September 2011 villagers were told that refusing to leave their homes within the time limit set by the government would be treated as “a political issue” (zhengzhi wenti). This term is seen as a threat in the context of the intense “war” that the government claims to be waging against “ethnic separatism.” As the man said:

They told my village that everyone had to leave their old homes and move to the new houses [at the other end of the valley] by September 2012, and that refusal to do so would be considered as “a political issue.” Everybody knows what this means: you’re risking a minimum of three years in prison.[134]

Because relocation and rehousing policies were presented as “law” and carried out through policy documents and administrative orders that have the force of law (such as national, provincial, and local regulations), this made it seem that opposing resettlement was akin to breaking the law. One Tibetan recounted officials making direct reference to the legal authority of resettlement plans:

At meetings in the People’s Hall at the county, officials always say that even though people have land use rights they must obey government orders and respect the law.[137]

Another respondent, from Drayab County in Changdu (Tib. Chamdo), TAR, told Human Rights Watch that local communities did not feel they had any choice:

The campaign is an order of the central government. No one can oppose it.[138]

One former herder told Human Rights Watch that appeals to higher level of government often fell on deaf ears:

The township leader also did not want to lose such beautiful grassland, and said that he appealed to the county again and again but that the county authorities did not listen.[139]

An unusually candid Chinese academic survey conducted in Qinghai’s Three Rivers Area, which the government said it would turn into a “no-man’s land,” found that over 50 percent of the herders were “dissatisfied” or otherwise opposed plans to be resettled:

Survey data shows that… only 20% of the herders…are able to understand and support the country’s implementation of the policies of ecological migrations to protect pastures. 20% don’t understand or care about it; and 55% are either dissatisfied or oppose these policies.[140]

Interviewees from herder communities told Human Rights Watch that officials tried to persuade Tibetan households to sign written agreements stating that they agreed to be resettled. These agreements were often presented as a way to obtain government subsidies, while other sensitive aspects, such as compulsory herd or farmland reduction, were often left unmentioned.

Since literacy in both Tibetan and Chinese in many communities is at best poor, many households appear in practice to have been coaxed into signing agreements that they did not fully understand. These agreements were then taken later as the legal basis for the authorities to force these households to proceed with resettlement. As one scholar who did fieldwork in several resettled communities in Qinghai and Sichuan explains:

Only later after the contract is signed, most of the contracted nomads find out about the conditions connected to their participation on a resettlement or settlement program. If these conditions mean a partial or total loss of their grassland, the nomads of course dislike it, but cannot do anything about it anymore.[141]

The academic study cited above also found that fear of getting in trouble with the local authorities was a leading factor in communities deciding to go along with resettlement programs:

Officially, participation of nomads in governmental programs … is voluntary, nevertheless in some places such as Zeku or Hongyuan County the executive officials made clear to the nomads that a refusal to participate would lead to denial of any future governmental help [in the form of subsidies]. Therefore, the nomads usually accepted even those less advantageous conditions included in a resettlement or settlement contract, in order to avoid possible trouble with the local government.[142]

Some respondents interviewed by Human Rights Watch reported similar arguments made by local officials in Naqu (Tib. Nagchu) prefecture, TAR. According to Tsering Kyizom, a member of a farming family there:

County officials were saying: “The state is looking after you this time. If you don’t do what the government says, you won’t find a place to hear your complaints about your well-being in the future.”[143]

A respondent from Zetang township (Tib. Tsetang), TAR, echoed the fear of government offices reporting reluctant families to the police:

No, we cannot disagree. Officials say that the farmers have the right to use the farmland only but do not own the land. Therefore, if the owner of the farmland refuses, the local land bureau would call the police to have them arrested. In any case Tibetan residents are not bold enough to argue about their disagreement and give up their farmland. The relevant government departments force them to agree.[144]

He went on to say that local officials had told villagers that opposing resettlement policy “is no different from separatism and harming national unity.” As a result, “No one dares to oppose government policy directly.”[145]