§ 11.26 a.m.
§ Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ What is their view of the Chinese celebration on 23rd May of 40 years occupation of Tibet.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, our view of the relationship between China and Tibet is well known. We shall not be represented at any celebration of the anniversary of the signing of the 17 point agreement between China and Tibet.
§ Lord Willoughby de BrokeMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Effectively he has anticipated my next question because I wished to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would be represented at the celebrations. I am pleased to hear that they will not be.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the occupation of Tibet by China is completely indefensible and is against United Nations Resolution 1723 of 1961? Do the Government still hold firmly to that view? Can the Minister tell the House how many political prisoners there are at present in Tibet?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, successive British governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. We continue to hold to that view. The Chinese authorities say that between September 1987 and March 1989 following rioting in Lhasa, 1,025 people were detained; of those, 807 were released, 121 sentenced and 97 received re-education through labour sentences.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, do Her Majesty's Government intend to make even a mild protest about the holding of those celebrations?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, we shall not be represented at any of the celebrations. If one country wishes to hold celebrations, it is wrong to interfere.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, if the Government believe that Tibet is autonomous and deplore those celebrations, why do they continue to refuse an official meeting with the Dalai Lama?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, that is a question different from that on the Order Paper and is a subject which has been well discussed in your Lordships' House.
§ Lord GrimondMy Lords, does the Minister accept that his reply that we shall not be represented at the celebrations will give widespread satisfaction? Will he confirm, particularly in the light of the question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, that we are maintaining our protests about the conduct of China as regards Tibet and will take advantage of the celebrations to renew those protests?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, we shall leave no stone unturned when it comes to making representations about human rights not only in Tibet but in the whole of China. I did that when the vice foreign minister, Tian Zengpei, was here in November as did my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on his recent visit to Peking.
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that there are a number of political prisoners and that his information is derived from the Chinese Government. Can he say whether the definition of a political prisoner is the same in the eyes of both governments?
§ Lord EnnalsMy Lords, as president of the all party parliamentary group on Tibet perhaps I may express my thanks to the Minister for his firm and forthright reply in regard to this very cynical action of the Chinese Government in seeking to celebrate 40 years of cruel occupation. The Minister said that the Government recognise that Tibet has autonomy. It is blatantly clear that Tibet does not have autonomy but is in a state of slavery. Does not the Minister therefore feel that it is appropriate that the Government should review what they mean by "autonomy" and accept the generally accepted international principle that these separate people have a right to self-determination?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, in regard to the noble Lord's first question, no, he does not; he represents his own views and his views may happen to coincide with those of the all party group on Tibet. With regard to the second point, we have made our position perfectly clear and continue to do so.
§ Viscount MerseyMy Lords, in view of the widespread deforestation of Tibet by the Chinese and the consequent climate change, landslip and flooding in countries downstream of Tibet—for instance in 1863 Bangladesh—can my noble friend see his way to urging the Chinese to make a sizeable contribution to famine relief in Bangladesh?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, my noble friend puts forward an interesting point. We have all been guilty of deforestation in this country, elsewhere in Europe and throughout the world. I take note of my noble friend's point.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, the Minister reminded the House of the Government's policy on recognition or not of Chinese rule in Tibet. Can he say whether over the years that policy has given rise to any inconvenience in the case of commercial litigation between firms based in Tibet and firms based in Britain? I have in mind the passage through this House yesterday of two stages of the Foreign Corporations Bill.