Self-Censorship and Fear in Chinese Transnational Repression of Tibetan Diaspora Communities

Repression by authoritarian regimes is mostly measured by its visible effects on diaspora communities — arbitrary detentions, arrests, enforced disappearances, torture. In the case of the Chinese Communist Party's repression of Tibetan diaspora communities, an aspect that often gets overlooked and is valued at a lesser scale than visible coercion is self-censorship. Drawing on the 2024 report Chinese Transnational Repression of Tibetan Diaspora Communities by the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD), this paper postulates that self-censorship is one of the most effective mechanisms through which the CCP seeks to target and dismantle Tibetan resistance globally. A startling observation from the TCHRD report makes this significant: 26 individuals approached for testimony refused to participate in the data collection entirely. This gap, far from being a methodological footnote, highlights that the impact of self-censorship runs much deeper than one can easily anticipate or articulate. One can possibly argue that the CCP employs transnational repression as a strategy aimed primarily at delivering compliance through terror first than punishment. James Scott's theory of the "hidden transcript" speaks of the concealed forms of resistance that dominated groups develop beyond the grasp of power. In a similar fashion, this paper argues that the 26 missing testimonies highlight a similar “hidden transcript” of compliance to the state, reflected in the withdrawal of exiled Tibetans from activism, the severing of ties with their own families, and an unsaid allegiance with the oppressor. This allegiance is not just born of subjugation but of rationality: systematic surveillance, threat, and the visible punishment of others makes self-censorship the safer choice. The state does not need to silence everyone. It needs only to punish people visibly enough that everyone else chooses to silence themselves. This principle carries significant implications for how we understand and resist transnational repression. If self-censorship is the primary mechanism, then protecting individual activists under direct threat, however important, only addresses the surface of the problem. A more meaningful approach requires dismantling the very conditions that make self-censorship rational in the first place. The paper concludes by examining moments in the TCHRD testimony data where this logic breaks down: activists who continue their work despite retaliation, and communities that rely on solidarity and courage in making resistance possible even under conditions of prevalent fear.