§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead)I am delighted to have obtained this debate on Tibet. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary Tibet group, and I pay tribute to its members and officers, such as Lord Weatherill, a former Speaker of the House; my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), the chairman; the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), Lord Avebury and Lord Willoughby de Broke, the vice-chairs; my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the secretary; and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
Last month, my colleagues and I attended a wreath-laying ceremony at the monument to innocent victims of violence at Westminster abbey. Many Tibetans are innocent victims of violence, and the debate takes place at a good time, because the Asian leaders summit is taking place in London this week. China, one of the great powers in Asia, will be represented.
I have great respect for the progress that China has made, especially economic and social progress, but it should not expect to flout long-accepted international standards without serious criticism. It has flouted those established standards to a major extent in Tibet. I hope that the Government will tell the Foreign Minister that colonisation, imperialism—a word that they will understand—attempts to extinguish a unique cultural heritage and the denial of proper human rights in Tibet are unacceptable.
If China is to be a truly great player in the world and respected throughout the world, it now has to adopt internationally accepted norms of democracy, human rights and the tolerant acceptance of diversity, especially of cultures of long standing and of religious beliefs. China is not meeting those norms in Tibet.
The legal status of Tibet has a long history, but it was a de facto independent state between 1913 and 1950. Central Tibet was ruled from Lhasa. It demonstrated all the conditions of statehood generally accepted under international law. It was a people, a territory, and it had a Government who conducted their domestic affairs free from any outside authority. Then came the Chinese invasion. In 1951, a 17-point agreement between Mao Tse-Tung and the Dalai Lama was signed. The Dalai Lama had no choice but to sign it in the wake of the Chinese takeover. It was a fait accompli.
Even the 1951 agreement has been violated in main part by the Chinese. They undertook to maintain the existing political system in Tibet, to maintain the status and functions of the Dalai Lama, to protect freedom of religion and the monasteries, and to refrain from compulsory reform. They have not done so. They have proceeded with a policy of absorption of Tibet into China. That has been recognised and objected to by the United Nations in its resolutions of 1959, 1961 and 1965.
A report was published in December last year by the International Commission of Jurists, which has consultative status with the United Nations. The report is a 390-page indictment of Chinese rule in Tibet. It focuses not only on the entire period since the Chinese invasion of central Tibet in 1950, but on events in recent years. It finds that repression in Tibet has increased steadily since 1994. It refers to the third national forum on work 1234 in Tibet, a key Chinese grouping of senior officials. The forum has embarked on a campaign to curtail the influence of the Dalai Lama and to crack down on dissent.
The ICJ report says that, from the beginning of 1996, there has been further escalation of repression in Tibet, with a re-education drive in monasteries, and intimidation of monks and nuns. It says that, in 1997, the forum labelled Buddhism a foreign culture. That is in Tibet, the home of Tibetan Buddhism.
The report is damning in many regards. On autonomy, it says that there is a centralised dominance of the Chinese Communist party, and that Tibetans are excluded from meaningful participation in regional and local administration. Where Tibetans are in positions of nominal authority, they are shadowed by much more powerful Chinese officials. The ICJ says that that is not in keeping with the concept of autonomy.
The report refers to threats to Tibetan identity, and quotes the United Nations resolutions, which talk about the suppression of the distinctive cultural and religious life of the Tibetan people. The report refers to the 1991 sub-commission on prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which expressed continuing concern at the reports of violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms which threaten the distinctive cultural and religious national identity of the Tibetan people.
The ICJ report refers to population transfers. Since 1950, there has been a large influx of Chinese into Tibet. Tibetan urban centres have been sinicised. It is estimated that Chinese people now account for one third of the total population of all areas within the Tibetan autonomous area.
Tibet's cultural heritage is also referred to in the ICJ report. It says that, in the early years of Chinese rule, there was a destruction of the monastic system, and that that was carried on in the cultural revolution. Few of Tibet's thousands of monasteries have survived. Traditional Tibetan architecture has been demolished, and entire neighbourhoods of Tibetan houses have been razed to the ground.
The report says that the Chinese language dominates in every walk of life, and that the Tibetan language has been marginalised. Even subjects such as Tibetan art are taught in Chinese. The report recognises that the Chinese have brought in modern technologies of health care, transport and communication, but says that development has marginalised Tibetans, excluding them from effective participation. The livelihood of most Tibetans has been neglected, receiving little of the Chinese investment.
The report says that, in the 40 years since the Chinese takeover, most Tibetan wildlife has been destroyed, and much of the forest has been cut. Watersheds and hill slopes have been eroded, and downstream flooding has heightened. Degradation of the rangelands has resulted in the desertification of large areas capable of sustaining both wild and domestic herds. The extent of the grassland deterioration threatens the long-term viability of nomadic Tibetan civilisation.
The report says that a primary stated goal of the justice system of the Chinese in Tibet is the repression of Tibetan opposition to Chinese rule. Many Tibetans, especially political detainees, are deprived of even elementary safeguards of due process.
1235 The report refers to the low quality of educational facilities and teachers for Tibetans, and their difficulties in access to education. Their rate of illiteracy, which is triple the national average, is indicative of a discriminatory structure. Education in Tibet serves to convey a sense of inferiority in comparison with the dominant Chinese culture and values.
The report refers to discrimination and false evictions of Tibetans, and the demolition of their homes. On the right to health, the report acknowledges that important improvements have been introduced by the Chinese, but says that there are signs of discrimination in their application. The infant mortality rate of Tibetans is three times the national average, and there is a serious problem of child malnutrition. There is a shortage of trained village-level health professionals to help Tibetans in villages.
The ICJ report refers to arbitrary detentions. Tibetans are detained for long periods without charge, or are sentenced to imprisonment for peacefully advocating Tibetan independence or maintaining links with the Dalai Lama. It quotes the number of political prisoners as having risen in recent years to more than 600, and some Tibetan organisations put the figure at double that, which is an horrendous number.
The United Nations working group on arbitrary detention has criticised China and
called … for the release of dozens of Tibetans detained in violation of international norms guaranteeing freedom of expression and freedom of religion.However, there has been no response from China.The report states:
Nuns account for between one-quarter and one-third of known political prisoners… Torture and ill treatment in detention is widespread in Tibet",involving the use of electric cattle prods and beatings with chains and sticks. The ICJ says:Women, particularly nuns, appear to be subjected to some of the harshest, and gender-specific, torture, including rape using electric cattle-prods and ill treatment of the breasts.On extra-judicial and arbitrary executions, the report states:A number of unclarified deaths of political prisoners, including young nuns, have occurred in Tibetan prisons in recent years, allegedly as a result of torture or negligence… The imposition of the death penalty in Tibet—which was reportedly used 34 times… in 1996—is devoid of the guarantees of due process and fair trial.The ICJ refers to freedom of expression being severely restricted, and says that the Buddhist religion is subject to "pervasive interference" by the authorities. What a damning report the ICJ's is.The Panchen Lama is the second most important person in Tibetan Buddhism, and, by tradition, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama verify one another's reincarnation. The Chinese decided to interfere with that process, and to draw lots for the choosing of the Panchen Lama.
A senior Tibetan abbot, Chadrel Rinpoche, sought a consensus between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese to get Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the boy chosen by the traditional methods, accepted; but, for his pains and because he had consulted the Dalai Lama, he was imprisoned for six years. The Chinese returned to their system of drawing lots, and Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, his parents and all his family vanished, taken into so-called protective custody by the security forces in China.
1236 In New Delhi, six members of the Tibetan Youth Congress are conducting a hunger strike. Their demands include that the UN resume its debate on Tibet based on its previous resolutions, and that a special rapporteur be set up to investigate the human rights situation in Tibet.
I pay tribute to the Dalai Lama and to his representatives and followers in this country—for example, the Tibet Society. The Dalai Lama is a Nobel peace prize winner, and anyone who has met him or heard him speak knows that he deserves that honour. He is a peace-loving, compassionate and wise man, who constantly opposes the use of violence in his people's struggle to regain their liberty. That non-violence is remarkable, in view of the suffering and injustice endured by the Tibetan people.
The Dalai Lama stresses the case for negotiation between him and his representatives and the Chinese Government to achieve a peaceful settlement, and, although that has not been taken up, it remains the way forward. The Chinese say that they moved in to get rid of feudalism, and that they were bringing Tibet forward. The Dalai Lama has moved away from feudal structures, toward a more modern democratic model. In that way, he has surpassed the Chinese in modernity.
The Foreign Secretary in 1947 wrote a memorandum that forms the basis of the United Kingdom Government's position on this matter. It states:
Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence since 1911 and that the British Government had always been prepared to recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous.Well, Tibet is not truly autonomous. In a letter sent to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, the vice-chairman of the all-party group on Tibet, the Government say that they believe that human rights improvements in China could best be achievedthrough the EU's substantive human rights dialogue with China, supported by practical co-operation.I ask the Minister to be specific about how and when he expects those discussions to result in human rights improvements in Tibet.There should be a special co-ordinator for Tibetan affairs, either of the UK Government, or of the European Union. The US State Department has set up such a co-ordinator, and there is a European Parliament resolution calling for the EU to follow suit. I hope that the Minister will support such a move.
The special co-ordinator could argue for the human rights of the Tibetan people, and ensure that they were properly respected and monitored. He or she could press for human rights organisations such as Amnesty and the Red Cross to be allowed to operate freely in Tibet. It is shocking that even the Red Cross cannot work in Tibet. He or she could press for negotiations with the aim of achieving real autonomy for the Tibetan people.
The ICJ report's executive summary says:
These abuses of human rights and assaults on Tibetan culture flow from the denial of the Tibetan people's most fundamental right—to exercise self-determination.It states that the Chinese currently operate an "alien and unpopular rule", and that self-determination should be established.To call what is happening in Tibet repression is the kindest way of putting it; one might call it an inexorable cultural and religious genocide; but, whatever one calls it, 1237 it is not acceptable in a modern civilised world. It is Maoist fundamentalism—a form of nationalism that incorporates racism, insists that only Chinese standards are acceptable, and does not allow diversity or different cultural or religious beliefs.
That fundamentalism is not the modern way, and the Chinese need to be told as much. I hope that the Government will tell China that it needs to move away from Maoism in respect of Tibet, as it has already done in other respects. I await the Minister's reply with interest, and I hope that he will speak up for greater autonomy and human rights for the Tibetan people.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for raising the subject of Tibet and China and the related issues of human rights and the UK's relationship with China. I shall reply to his speech by making a few general points, then turning to human rights and China, and finally making more specific points relating to Tibet. In that way, I should be able to answer the points he raises.
We as a Government are deeply concerned about reports of human rights violations wherever they occur, not only in Tibet, but elsewhere in China and in other parts of the world. The House is fully aware of the Government's commitment to the promotion of human rights—indeed, it is a centrepiece of our foreign and domestic policies. We are committed to the principle of the universality of human rights: human rights— economic, social, cultural, civil and political—are for all people, regardless of their sex, age, ethnic origin or where they live. All human rights are interrelated and interdependent: as my hon. Friend says, people cannot fully realise their economic rights in those countries where their civil rights are consistently violated. We share with my hon. Friend a strong commitment to the promotion of human rights.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the fact that the Asia-Europe conference takes place this week. Asian leaders will be visiting the United Kingdom, and the conference marks the first overseas visit as Prime Minister of the new Chinese Prime Minister, Zhu Rongji.
My hon. Friend knows that, since the smooth transition in Hong Kong last year, the relationship between the United Kingdom and China has moved on to a new, more constructive footing. We hope that Premier Zhu's visit this week will strengthen that relationship.
We will continue to build upon that, but our desire for a better relationship with China does not mean that the Government will turn a blind eye to the many serious concerns about the observance of human rights in China, including Tibet—far from it. We believe that, in the context of a broad, co-operative new relationship with China, we will be able to address those human rights issues directly and to work with China to bring about concrete improvements on the ground. That will be a long process, but I believe that we are already beginning to see the first fruits of the policy.
As my hon. Friend asked a direct question about it, I shall list the areas in which we believe that the United Kingdom-China and European Union-China dialogues 1238 have led to some action on the human rights agenda. I shall then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson).
First, as part of the dialogue, we have raised human rights issues directly with the Chinese Government. Since this Government were elected on I May last year, Ministers have taken every opportunity to raise the subject of human rights with the Chinese Government. We have done so in eight separate Foreign Office meetings, and, most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter during his visit to China in January. We shall continue to press the Chinese Government—as the Foreign Secretary and I have done—to live up to international standards. The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission will address human rights issues in their meetings with the Chinese Premier tomorrow.
Secondly, in September last year, we established a bilateral human rights dialogue with China. In October last year, the EU resumed its human rights dialogue with China. There have already been a total of four rounds of talks, and three more are scheduled to take place this year.
Thirdly, in support of this dialogue, the European Union and China have agreed a package of practical assistance, which includes projects in the areas of civil and political as well as economic and social rights. Projects range from support for village-level democracy to help for orphans. Those projects are in addition to our own bilateral assistance programmes, such as the training of lawyers and judges, which are already in place. Before I talk about the results of that process, I give way to my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South)I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that the troika of the European Union is due to visit Tibet in May this year. Given that it has requested to sight and make contact with the imprisoned Panchen Lama, and that the Chinese authorities have noted that request, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity presented by meetings with Premier Zhu to repeat that request on behalf of the troika with a view to obtaining a definitive answer?
§ Mr. FatchettI shall come to the details of our relationship with China in terms of Tibet in a moment. My hon. Friend is correct to state that the troika wishes to see the Panchen Lama. We welcome the recent press reports that information about the child's whereabouts was given to the Austrian Foreign Minister when he visited Tibet in March. That is a step forward, and we hope to build on that move in terms of our relationship with China.
I shall briefly address the tangible results of the human rights dialogue and the approaches that we have made so far. I can cite nine positive results of that dialogue. That is not to say that that is the end of the story: we believe that it is a continuing process. However, it is important to recognise that there have been some results from the process so far. I shall list them for the benefit of the House.
First, the Chinese have signed the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. That is very much a step in the right direction. Secondly, the recent announcement by the Chinese that they are preparing to sign the international covenant on civil and political rights is a further step in an appropriate direction in the area of human rights.
1239 Thirdly, we welcome the release of Wei Jingsheng, who, as hon. Members will know, met me two months ago and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last month. Fourthly, the Chinese have agreed to transmit Hong Kong reports under the United Nations covenants, which was one of our major objectives. That means that there will be separate reporting of Hong Kong human rights issues.
Fifthly, the European Union technical co-operation package has been agreed. I mentioned that earlier as part of the on-going process. Sixthly, and very importantly, the Chinese have invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, to visit China later this year. We welcome that move. Seventhly, the UN group on arbitrary detention visited China in October last year, as part of the process of more open relations.
Eighthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, an EU troika will visit Tibet in May. That is a good and positive sign regarding the on-going relationship with China. Finally, the EU-China seminar on the administration of justice and human rights, attended by legal experts, academics and Government officials from both sides, took place in Beijing in February.
I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, we are addressing the human rights issue. Secondly, we have a strategy and a process that we believe are beginning to bear some fruit. I hope that I have set that out for my hon. Friend.
I turn now to the issue of Tibet, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead has expressed such knowledge and his understandable concern regarding the situation in that country. Tibet is, rightly, an issue of special concern to both the public and Parliament. I think that every hon. Member regularly receives letters from constituents about that issue. We in Government share the deep concerns expressed by many inside and outside the House, and we are actively addressing those concerns with the Chinese through our human rights dialogue. The situation in Tibet features prominently in that dialogue.
My hon. Friend referred to the legal status of Tibet. I must remind the House that successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of China there. That continues to be the Government's view. Tibet has never been internationally recognised as independent, and the Government do not recognise the Dalai Lama's "Government in exile". However, we strongly believe that 1240 Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs in Tibet, and we have urged the Chinese authorities to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identity of the Tibetan people.
My hon. Friend referred at some length to the case of the Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. My hon. Friend is correct to say that that issue raises particular worries, which not only he but other hon. Members have raised with me several times. The boy is now aged only eight, but he was detained following his recognition in 1995 by the Dalai Lama as Panchen Lama, the second highest religious figure in Tibet.
The Government cannot and will not hold a view about the child's religious candidacy as the Panchen Lama, which we believe is a matter for the Tibetans alone to decide. However, he is a child, and therefore we are deeply concerned about his welfare. His is one of the individual cases that we shall continue to raise with the Chinese at each and every opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South mentioned the EU troika visit. In view of the special nature of the situation in Tibet, the European Union suggested that a delegation of EU troika ambassadors in Beijing should visit Tibet as part of the EU-China human rights dialogue.
I am pleased to announce today that the Chinese have now agreed to that suggestion, and the ambassadors of the EU troika will make a week-long visit to Tibet in May in order to assess the situation there. We welcome that development. The troika programme is not yet finalised, but the ambassadors are expected to have a range of meetings not only with the Government of the Tibet autonomous region but with religious leaders and ordinary Tibetans. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South will agree that that is very good news.
I hope that, in the brief time available to me, I have outlined the Government's policy on human rights, our dialogue with China and the special importance that we attach to the question and status of Tibet. I am sure that I have persuaded the House that we take those issues seriously. There is an on-going process, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead will be pleased to hear about the EU troika ambassadors' visit. We look forward to that visit, and to their report.
§ It being Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.