Group cited in UK's Guardian report on China's mudslide relief has U.S. financial backing

(ECNS) -- A Sri Lankan-born journalist and author based in Hong Kong has highlighted the U.S. government connections of a self-described Tibetan advocacy group, cited in a Guardian report alleging that China underreported casualties from a recent flood disaster.

In a Sept. 1 post on X, Nury Vittachi questioned the characterization of the organization simply as a Tibetan advocacy group, pointing instead to what he described as its close links to the U.S. government.

Citing publicly available funding records, Vittachi said that the International Campaign for Tibet has maintained long-standing ties with the U.S. government, particularly through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that has faced criticism over its role in “destabilizing sovereign governments.”

The Global Times also verified through Google Maps that the organization is headquartered in Washington, with its offices located roughly one kilometer from the White House.

Multiple board members and staff have previously worked for the U.S. State Department or Congress. They include former senior State Department officials such as Uzra Zeya, who served as the Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights under the Biden administration.

These connections have also drawn attention to the group’s relationship with the NED, which provides funding to organizations and political initiatives in countries around the world to meddle in internal affairs of other countries.

In 2011, the NED awarded the organization two separate grants totaling $70,000. A large share of its financing, however, comes from other so-called “private” and even “charitable” foundations, making the ultimate sources of financial support less transparent, particularly when donor identities not publicly disclosed.

Vittachi argued that the organization’s personnel links with the U.S. government and its financial connections with the NED raises questions about whether its activities are driven solely by advocacy for Tibetans or are also aligned with broader U.S. political and geopolitical objectives concerning China.

The Guardian’s description of the organization simply as an advocacy group, without providing crucial contextual details, has drawn criticism and skepticism from some foreign commentators, including Vittachi.

At the same time, U.S. government documents and funding disclosures made public in recent years have prompted wider debate over how Washington uses programs associated with “democracy”, “aid” and “human rights” to advance its foreign-policy objectives overseas. Such disclosure haves also encouraged greater scrutiny of the organizations and sources cited in Western media reporting.

(By Zhang Dongfang)