Tibet (Hansard, 1 February 1993)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, we have consistently urged the Chinese authorities to enter into a proper dialogue with the Tibetans, including with the Dalai Lama, as the only realistic means of resolving their differences. Such talks should he held without preconditions. In January we reminded the Chinese Embassy of our position and we will continue to urge dialogue. Both sides must demonstrate imagination and readiness to compromise.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, perhaps I may first say how much I appreciate this step forward in terms of government policy. It is very welcome. But is it not now time to recognise that in 1950 Tibet was invaded by massive Chinese forces; that since then it has been occupied by massive Chinese forces; that this invasion was condemned on three occasions by the United Nations; and that the people of Tibet under the leadership of the Dalai Lama have been struggling non-violently ever since for their right to self-determination and independence?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. The Government's view is that all peoples have a right to self-determination but that this right can be expressed in several different ways. There are difficult issues involved in deciding who are a people with a right to self-determination as there is no authoritative UN text in this respect. I know that the noble Lord has recently written to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who will be replying as soon as possible about this detailed matter. We do not believe that independence for Tibet is a realistic proposal. Some of those who are arguing for self-determination are in fact asking for independence. But it would be no service to the Tibetans to encourage them to seek independence at this time.

§ Baroness Elles
My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that when the Dalai Lama came to Strasbourg in 1989 he offered an olive branch to the Chinese. He was willing to discuss with them any aspect of the future of Tibet and accepted that it might not be possible for the Tibetans to have independence. 6 He said that some time ago. I would therefore encourage my noble friend to follow the line that she and the Government are pursuing.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what she has just said. We understand that the Chinese have offered to talk to the Dalai Lama about Tibet but they have set certain preconditions. We do not believe that one can go into such talks with preconditions. That is how the Dalai Lama has in the past responded—positively to the principle of talks but not to having preconditions. We are aware that there have been subsequent talks but we believe that the impasse still has to be resolved. That is why I finished my primary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, as I did.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, will the Minister ask the Foreign Secretary to point out to the Chinese that so long as they treacherously murder the once free Tibetans the people of Hong Kong will not be very happy about the prospect facing them in 1997?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties but I do not think that there is a read-across or a comparison to Hong Kong. The Joint Declaration on Hong Kong is an international treaty registered at the UN. It lays down a series of guarantees for human rights in Hong Kong after 1997. There is no such similar UN registered treaty for Tibet. They are two separate and different matters. But we will of course watch very carefully and I know that my right honourable friend takes careful note of what is said in your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, if the Dalai Lama comes here later in the year, do the Government intend to have further discussions with him?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Dalai Lama has indeed visited this country—in fact twice I believe in 1991. On the second occasion there was a private meeting with the Prime Minister and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. All these contacts are in the Dalai Lama's private and religious capacity. That does not alter our view of the political status. I understand that should the Dalai Lama visit the UK this May a programme will be arranged for him. We have no objection in principle to British Government Ministers meeting privately with the Dalai Lama as before.

§ Viscount Mersey
My Lords, would it not be a good plan to get together with the United States simply to press the Chinese to end their illegal occupation of Tibet?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying. At the moment it is not particularly clear what line the new President of the United States will take on this matter. The occupation by China as described by my noble friend is obviously not described as an occupation by many others in the world. But as relationships develop still further with the new administration in 7 Washington we will see what may be done to bring about the very talks that my noble friend Lady Elles was referring to in her supplementary question.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Ennals, I welcome the Government's decision to reject preconditions for these talks but I remind the Minister that it is now more than 30 years since the UN resolution on the right to self-determination for Tibet was passed. In the light of that, and in the light of the deplorable record of the Chinese Government on human rights in Tibet, does the Minister not agree that we must continue to exert international pressure on the Chinese Government to change their policies in this respect?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I would not want it to be thought from my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that we are not concerned about the items that the noble Baroness has just mentioned. Of course we are concerned about the reports of widespread human rights abuses in Tibet, and indeed throughout China, because they do not stop at the internal Tibet-China border. We have raised this issue with senior Chinese leaders on a number of occasions in recent months. Unfortunately the stories of detention of prisoners without trial and of physical abuse are very common in the whole area. To the extent that the allegations of torture are true we condemn them. But we will take whatever opportunities we can to bring about a better situation for all the peoples of China, including the Tibetans.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the conference of distinguished international lawyers from 18 different countries which was held in London early in January reached the conclusion that on every basis of deciding by international law whether a group of peoples or nations have a right to selfdetermination—language, history, culture and others —the Tibetans would be considered to be a nation for that purpose? If they had the opportunity and they wished by self-determination to move towards independence, would it not be for them to decide and not for Her Majesty's Government?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, neither we nor our partners believe that this would be a realistic proposal. I cannot see what service it would be to the Tibetans to encourage them in this way. We know that China has long held a special position in Tibet and that Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independent state. Nor does any member of the UN regard Tibet as independent. I simply think that we would be going down a route which would not be satisfied. Successive British governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. I do not believe that that view will change in this country or in the world at large.