Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Sub-Committee on Human Rights - 29th April 2008 - Situation in Tibet.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Sub-Committee on Human Rights - 29th April 2008 -
Situation in Tibet: Discussion with Representative of the Dalai Lama.

Senator David Norris: I welcome the delegation. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mrs. Takla and Mr. Neil Steedman for many years. I have known Mr. Anthony O'Brien since our days together in Trinity College, the tie of which he is flashing today. I particularly welcome the calm, balanced, reasoned and moderate views expressed by Mrs. Takla which are very much in tune with the attitude taken by the Dalai Lama in very difficult circumstances. I share the concern expressed by my colleague, Deputy Higgins, that perhaps with this spiritual approach to politics there is always a risk he might be outflanked by the justifiable anger of younger Tibetan people. It must be very difficult to see the degradation of their country and the abuse of their revered institutions and religious personnel. It is a reproach against the international community that his single minded adherence to the principle of non-violence has not been rewarded in the way it has tragically been shown that violence sometimes is rewarded with political movement. I honour him and his government in exile for not taking that route.
Like Deputy Higgins, I have also visited Tibet, although it was a number of years ago. I went there on behalf of UNPO and we did not declare ourselves. It was, to a certain extent, a semi-secret mission relating to human rights. One of the most moving things happened in the Barco Lu, where a group of monks passed us pieces of paper with messages written in pencil which indicating that they were not Chinese, that they loved and respected the Dalai Lama and that he represented Tibet for them. They took a great risk in doing so. For that reason I was immensely moved by the press conference we saw on television. It was supposed to show the freedom of Tibet but the monks became very agitated, with some of them in tears. However, they managed to get the message out of Tibet. That is crucial.
If and when the Olympic flame passes through Tibet, it should not pass through in the spirit of its originator, the Nazi Government in Germany in 1936. It was a triumph of fascist will over the wishes of the people. It should, instead, pass through in the real freedom of providing an opportunity for the rest of the world to have access through its reporters and the media. I honour Reporters Without Borders, a parallel organisation to Médicins sans Frontières. It has done us a service through its protests. We need to travel with the flag if it passes through. It is an intense provocation and nothing other than grinding the noses of Tibetans in the dirt to show who is master. That is how the flag will be used. At the very least, the international media should be permitted to accompany the flag, travel through the country and see areas outside the narrow route chosen.
I was most interested to hear Mrs. Takla use the word "country" and speak about the Tibetan people. I am sorry we have allowed ourselves to be surreptitiously moved into accepting the One-China policy. For many years this was resisted by Mr. Frank Aitken, Mr. David Andrews and our other Foreign Ministers. However, it appears that it has been tacitly accepted as a result of a mechanical adjustment in the European Union. I am sure Mrs. Takla is aware of the fact that Deputy John Gormley of the Green Party spoke out on the issue and precipitated a withdrawal by the Chinese ambassador from his party's conference. The reason given for the withdrawal was that Deputy Gormley had used the word "country".

That raises questions allied to what Deputy Higgins was discussing, as to what a genuine autonomy might be within the Chinese system. I do not regard that system as a Communist one. China was a tragically failed experiment as far as Communism is concerned. I do not believe that Mao was a Communist. There were some wonderfully idealistic people who believed in that doctrine but I do not believe he did. The system in China now is an extraordinary and rather dangerous form of mutant capitalism.
With regard to autonomy, obviously areas such as foreign affairs would be excluded, and defence, the entire military business. What was mentioned was areas such as respect for religion and religious ministry, and so on. In the best circumstances there might be negotiation on those issues. I am not certain about that but it would be something to pursue.
The problem is the environment. I do not see Beijing yielding on the environment because it is a wonderful resource to be pillaged. That is one of the reasons they are there, to extract various ores, including ore that is used for certain radioactive purposes, for nuclear fuels and so on. The Chinese have already had a very serious negative impact on the environment in Tibet and I fear that they regard it merely as a resource to be plundered in the interest of central government.
I find it difficult to believe that Beijing would yield control of that issue but if it could happen it would be marvellous. We should all push for that, or at least push for proper environmental controls and regulations within Tibet, whoever is in charge. What they are doing there is dangerous. Water supply, control of rivers and other such issues have repercussions not just for Tibet, China and that whole area, but for the global climate. The scale is vast as everything in China is.
I welcome the fact that Mrs. Takla has suggested a fact-finding delegation arising from this committee. If a delegation is viable it should go as soon as possible. I am indifferent as to whether I am part of it but I certainly believe it would be useful. It must be a small delegation. I do not know whether the budget might sustain it but it would be no harm to make the request. That might put the wind up the Chinese. I might refuse to go because I had a rather warm exchange of correspondence with the Chinese ambassador. When one is an Independent, one can do these things and I deliberately sowed into my letter terms such as "colonialist exploitation", "imperialism" and so on. It provoked a wonderful shriek of rhetoric from Shrewsbury Road or wherever the Chinese Embassy is.
I am sure that Mrs. Takla is aware that an invitation has issued from this committee to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. I have also initiated moves to investigate if he can be invited to address the Senate, the upper House of Parliament. I foresee some difficulties there but I hope to be able to get over them because, following advice from my excellent friends, I couched the invitation in a particular fashion, namely, that His Holiness should be invited as the world's best-known proponent of non-violent political action and as the winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. The fact that he was invited to the US Congress and that there was no difficulty in that provides a wonderful precedent as far as I am concerned. I understand that my colleagues in the Senate are enthusiastic about this but we must overcome what I have no doubt will be the hesitations of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
On the other hand, we are supposed to be a free Parliament. It should be up to the Senate and committees such as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to make this decision. There will be an opportunity to cause some turbulence if it becomes apparent that officials in the Department have stymied this against the wishes of the people. His Holiness will be in Europe at a certain time but obviously it is a question of programming and scheduling. If those two invitations were to arise simultaneously it might indeed be worth drawing his direct attention and I suggest this to Mrs. Takla although I understand there may be difficulties. In such a case there might be what that lamentable figure, Mrs. Thatcher, used to describe as a "double whammy".
The other day on my way to a demonstration for the Palestinians - I point this out to Deputy Higgins - I passed through O'Connell Street where there was a very significant demonstration by local Chinese businesspeople. They watch a lot of Chinese television and they have swallowed the line that it is the Dalai Lama's "splittist" clique who are doing all these things, trying to spoil the party and the Olympic Games. I spoke to some of them and they asked me what I knew about it, and if I had ever been to Tibet. They thought they had me there because I was merely an ordinary Dublin Joe. I said that I had and asked if they had been there. They had not but they had a lot of literature with them.
This is a subject which should be addressed because I believe that it is a line that the Chinese will push in the Western world. As Minister for Information, Mrs. Takla might be in a position to do this. They raised the issue of feudalism that existed before the Chinese invasion. They attempted to maintain that the Dalai Lama was an absolute, ruthless and cruel monarch who presided over a filthy feudal system where the majority of inhabitants was enslaved, their noses ground into the dirt, yoked to their yaks and all the rest of it. A simple but clear, historical and honest answer to that is that that period was very long ago in a remote part of the world where conditions did not equate to what we in Europe understand as democracy. One should be aware that this is the line being pushed and it is very dangerous and damaging. It would be useful to provide people such as myself, who strongly support Tibet, with the facts, the answer and the context. The Chinese will be very adept at wrenching out of historical context and presenting in an ahistorical way any little blemish that pre-existed in Tibet. I welcome and thank the delegation.
Chairman: It might be important to mention at this stage, so that the delegation will know it, that at the last meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, the situation in Tibet was discussed at great length. Some members here may be aware that that committee also agreed to extend an invitation to the Dalai Lama to come to Dublin and speak to it, whenever that might suit his diary. I presume that the invitation is taking its own course.
Having heard my two colleagues, I believe that the most important thing is to have some form of meaningful dialogue. There are people in this Parliament and indeed some in this committee, and in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, who have been instrumental in the success of the Irish situation whereby today we enjoy a peaceful island. That was done through tedious, long and hard work, all the time going back to the table, by way of negotiation and dialogue and compromise on all sides. It was a long and difficult process but success came with it.
Regarding a visit to Tibet, as mentioned by Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris, I do not see a difficulty in the committee proceeding down that road. The make-up of the delegation would be a matter for the committee to decide. If we were to do that, it would be important that prior to doing so, we would invite the Chinese authorities before the committee so that we would be seen to play a fair game.

Senator David Norris: I have a practical suggestion. If it is possible for us to go, and it may not be, I believe we should include in the delegation the professional services of a Tibetan interpreter. If the Chinese were to provide an interpreter it is often the case that such an interpreter does not report what the people are saying.


Chairman: That is a fair point. We are somewhat away from that but it is an idea we can record at this stage. If we were to participate at some meaningful level, whatever the outcome, I believe it should be done in a careful progressive manner in the knowledge of what we want to achieve at each step on the way. One of the first initiatives of this sub-committee should be to write to the appropriate Chinese authority. I shall be guided by the secretariat, but I presume this would be the Chinese ambassador to Ireland. We can formulate the letter later among ourselves and perhaps send a copy of it to other people, as appropriate. We should try to initiate matters in that fashion. I do not know what Mrs. Takla's views are in that regard, but she might, perhaps, respond to what has been said in the wider context.
Mrs. Kesang Y. Takla: Senator Norris mentioned the importance of the environment, and I should like to say a few words in that regard. The environment is something which is of concern to the global community, not just the Himalayan region or the Tibetan people. Already, because of the environmental destruction, both in China and Tibet, that part of the Himalayan region is in real danger. Because of the high altitude and the condition of the air, it really needs to be attended to. China, I believe, in some ways realises this. We have been crying out for protection of the environment for many years, and of course there is an enormous amount of deforestation and mining, even to the extent that there has been some discussion about Tibet becoming like the northern region of China and so on.
This issue is already of concern to the countries neighbouring China and Tibet, and will affect all of us. Of course one hears a great deal about the damage being done by the ice region melting and so on. This is of concern and in order to save the world's environment it needs to be addressed by the Chinese Government. It is of concern not only for the Tibetan people but for all of us. It is a crucial issue that needs urgent attention. I appreciate the Chairman's decision to try to send a fact-finding delegation to Tibet, which is very important.
At this point, given the Chinese policy of being very stubborn about everything and accusing everybody but themselves, this does not help in finding a solution for the Tibetan people, much less for the people of China. Many Chinese scholars and students have written to their Government urging it to stop telling lies, have open dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and his representative and treat the Tibetan people in a more appropriate manner. These appeals are coming from the Chinese people, our Chinese friends.
It is high time the Chinese Government was given enough support and encouragement to look at the situation in a practical manner. When we ask for genuine autonomy, we are seeking something we believe may be considered by China. According to the written constitution of China, it claims to be giving autonomy in some regions of Tibet. Of course they have broken up the three historic provinces of Tibet into different regions and given them separate powers of autonomy and so on - different provinces with different names. If that is the position, China simply has to define what type of autonomy it wants to give. That can be resolved only if and when we can sit across the table and hold discussions on what the future is to be for Tibet.
For this to take place we need all the support we can get. If China were to open up in response to the international pressure that exists, it would be good for the Chinese also. We have been crying for help for 50 years. Not enough has been done, and what is happening now is the result. How long can we continue to let matters go on as they are? I plead with the sub-committee to do all it can to urge the Government, Oireachtas and the Irish public to support our cause. We have pinned great hope on the Irish people because we have strong connections with Ireland. The United Nations has adopted three resolutions on human rights in this regard. It has agreed there should be self-determination for the people of Tibet but the situation since then has worsened, not improved. I appeal to the committee to do what it can.
Chairman: I thank Mrs. Takla. Mr. O'Brien indicated he wanted to say something.
Mr. Anthony O'Brien: There are a couple of points as regards information which should answer some of the issues raised by Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris. I was talking yesterday to a friend of mine, Zhao Ming, whose name the committee will remember. He was the Trinity Chinese student who was arrested, imprisoned and badly tortured. He works as a journalist and was on the pro-Chinese demonstration in O'Connell Street in his capacity as a reporter. He said most of the Chinese students, when he asked them why they were there, said they did not actually know. They had just been told by the Chinese students' association in Ireland, which is run by the embassy, that they were to go to O'Connell Street and celebrate the Olympics. Other than that, they did not know why they were there.
We heard in a report from Tibet this morning that local Tibetans along the route the torch will take are as we speak being trained in what to say to Western media. It looks as if they will let, as they have done before, some hand-picked journalists speak to Tibetans and hear what the Chinese want those Tibetans to say.
Since this is the Sub-Committee on Human Rights, I thought the meaning of the phrase "patriotic re-education" for monasteries should be explained. I should like to put this quotation on the sub-committee's record from the Tibet Autonomous Region patriotic education for monasteries handbook No. 4, Policy on Religion, dated May 2002. Section 2.9 (b) states:
Concerning religious belief, Communists use persuasion and education but not force or commands. They give honest guidance but do not bully or beat people into changing their minds, using democratic means rather than coercion. Since such issues cannot be resolved through the use of force, which may even cause very great damage, and as long as there are people with religious faith, the party and the Government has devised the policy of individual freedom of belief to allow people to believe in accordance with their personal choice.
That is from the Chinese Government's handbook on patriotic re-education in Tibet.
Mr. Neil Steedman: I shall first of all clarify that the role in which Mrs. Takla now represents His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, is as kalon for information and international relations in the Tibetan Government in exile. Effectively in our terms she is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. She referred to Tibet as a war zone, and that sums it up very neatly. Tibet is de jure a country still under colonial occupation, no matter how many countries choose to ignore that and just look at the de facto situation. Under international law de jure means that it is a country under colonial occupation. It is the size of western Europe.
To put in context for the sub-committee what "war zone" means right now, hundreds of people have been killed and thousands injured, many seriously, who cannot go to hospital, although dying from their wounds. An estimated 5,000 or more have been arrested. The Chinese admit to having arrested over 4,000 people. Many hundreds, possibly thousands, have fled to the mountain areas, or are effectively being held hostage in monasteries or in their homes with water cut off and food supplies stopped, so starvation is a real possibility.
In the prisons, people are being beaten, tortured and killed as we speak. Bodies are being piled up and not returned to relatives. This we know from many phone calls to Tibetans in exile from Tibetans in Tibet. I had a report to the effect that yesterday morning, in Tibetan time, in the Kham region in the eastern part of the country which is now part of Sichuan, the Chinese have imposed a levy on Tibetan families of 1,000 yuan per adult, approximately €100, to pay for the army, believe it or not, which they have had to send in to suppress them. This has involved hundreds of thousands of soldiers. As in the past, when they have executed Tibetans, the Tibetan families have had to pay for the bullet or the body to be returned, now they have to pay for the army to be sent in, to be fed and to suppress them.
More recently, the media and tourists have been expelled. Mrs. Takla referred to the two very controlled groups of journalists, which backfired on the Chinese.

More recently the Chinese have been backing away from allowing the media to accompany the torch relay up Mount Everest and through Tibet. They are placing ever greater restrictions. Members may not be aware that The Times of London carried a report on, I believe, 25 April that the International Olympic Committee had even planned for the possibility that deaths might occur while the torch was being taken through Tibet. It issued a secret memorandum, which is no longer secret because The Times has it, to its more than 520 national Olympic committees giving them the appropriate phraseology to use if and when deaths occurred. If that is not an irresponsible action by the so-called International Olympic Committee of human dignity, then I do not know what is.
Senator David Norris: In the light of this very serious news, should the committee not write to the Olympic Council of Ireland to ask whether it is in possession of this memorandum and, if so, whether it will make it available to us?
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: I agree.
Chairman: I do not see a problem with that. Having spoken to the clerk, we hope to have a meeting in the first fortnight of May in which case we might be in a position to have clarity.
Mr. Neil Steedman: I will add one more point. The important issues emphasise what we have been saying. The first is to have immediate access and free reporting for both media and diplomatic representatives in order that we will know and to limit what the Chinese are doing. The second concerns what will happen in the medium to long term. The international community must maintain the pressure on the Chinese Government about Tibet and human rights in China as a whole. This should not just happen up to the time of the Olympic Games. It must take this issue seriously as a global issue of human rights of great standing and importance. It must plan how it will continue to deal with this issue long after the Olympic Games. To paraphrase an Irishman, "The Tibetans aren't going to go away, you know."
Chairman: I thank Mrs. Takla and the delegation for attending and the very informative presentation and exchange we have had. From our discussion no one can doubt the concern that remains regarding the abuse of human rights in Tibet, as in the case of reports of human rights abuses anywhere in the world. Equally, it is important for us to acknowledge some of the encouraging reports I read over the weekend of China having indicated its willingness to engage in dialogue with His Holiness, the Dali Lama. The question is how positive a development it would be and how fruitful an outcome it might have. However, perhaps we should not say that at this stage if there is such a willingness. As I mentioned, in the light of our experience in Ireland, at least if there is dialogue, there is a hope something can come to fruition.
Senator David Norris: The chance to meet face to face.
Chairman: I hope that will happen also. There was a time when people in Ireland would not shake hands or sit at the same table and we have experienced a U-turn. Dialogue is very important.
I mentioned we could write to the Chinese authorities. We mentioned it could be the ambassador. In that communication we could express our desire that the dialogue should be substantive.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: And meaningful.
Chairman: Yes.
Senator David Norris: That is an excellent suggestion.
Chairman: We should move slowly on this one. The Olympic Games will take place, but there is a bigger issue that will not be resolved quickly.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: We should write a good strong letter. An issue that must be addressed is that of having a two-legged relationship regarding diplomacy. We can send a jumbo load of people willing to conduct trade and claim to have a separate dialogue on human rights. At a certain point we need to be for real and have an integrated view when we talk about the relationship within Ireland and the People's Republic of China on the issue of Tibet and so on. It needs to be approached in that way. I will be very happy if a letter is sent stating we are supportive-----
Chairman: We will do other things. I know some committee members expressed concern about whether we would have funds available for a fact-finding mission to Tibet.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: We could scrap several of the meetings we attend in Europe and such places.
Chairman: I again thank Mrs. Takla and the delegation.