APPENDIX 14
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
The Tibet Society: An Ethical Foreign Policy for Tibet
In 1950 the PRC invaded Tibet. The evidence,
accepted by international lawyers is that at the time of the invasion
Tibet possessed all the attributes of statehood and was at minimum
a de facto state (see for example "Report International
Commission of Jurists", 1960 and "Tibet, The Position
in International Law", 1993). Alternatively Tibet should
have been achieved statehood within the UN remit of self determination
and decolonisation following World War II. But the Tibetan Government
was forced to sign away its independence under the so called 17-point
Agreement which the Tibetan Government in exile later repudiated
with every justification in international law on the grounds of
fraud and duress. The Tibetan provinces of Kham and Amdo have
been annexed by PRC. The rest of Tibet is now designated the Tibetan
Autonomous Region. The so called autonomy is a complete sham and
Tibet has been made a PRC colony. Two million Han Chinese settlers
have been introduced whilst the Tibetan people enjoy persecution
and environmentally disastrous exploitation of their natural resources
for the benefit of the PRC.
Since Britain became involved in Tibet in the
nineteenth century the policy of successive British Governments
on Tibet has been dishonest. As an Englishman I feel ashamed about
this country's past actions in Tibet. Great Britain to a large
extent is the author of Tibet's misfortune. In the days of empire
Britain saw Tibet as a buffer against supposed Russian designs
on India by bolstering China. So it borrowed the inappropriate
doctrine of suzerainty from the effete Turkish sultanate and made
spurious treaties with Tibet and China in 1890, 1893, 1904, 1906,
1908 (and in 1914 which China refused to ratify). The thrust of
British foreign policy on Tibet in the late nineteenth century
was that China had a weak form of suzerainty over Tibet and that
Britain as the sovereign power in India could exercise a certain
amount of local predominance there (the justification for the
Younghusband invasion of Tibet). This position was maintained
until Indian independence in 1947. In 1943 Sir Anthony Eden expressed
an opinion on the status of Tibet to the Chinese Foreign Secretary
in which he said that Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence
since 1911 and that the British Government has always been prepared
to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet but only on the condition
that Tibet is regarded as autonomous: FO371/93001. It should be
noted that Sir Anthony to his credit actually recognised Tibetan
de facto independence.
After Indian independence the British Government
continued to recognise Chinese suzerainty. When in 1950 plucky
El Salvador attempted to raise the invasion in the UN General
Assembly Britain professed ignorance of what was happening in
Tibet and declared the legal position of Tibet uncertain. So at
Britain's insistence nothing was done and again in 1959 Britain
abstained on the General Assembly resolution. Yet on 6 November
1950 Labour Foreign Secretary Bevin told the House of Commons:
"We have over a long period recognised Chinese suzerainty
over Tibet but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded
as autonomous". This position was repeated by the Foreign
Secretary in the House of Commons on 25 March 1959. As late as
6 November 1973 Baroness Tweedmuir told the House of Lords on
behalf of the Heath administration: "So far as the status
of Tibet is concerned, we have for a long period, recognised Chinese
suzerainty over Tibet. This had been on the understanding that
Tibet is regarded as autonomous. It was proclaimed an autonomous
region in 1965." But in about 1990 the emphasis changed.
The Foreign Office dropped the reference to suzerainty. Thu speaking
in the House of Lords on behalf of the Thatcher Government on
3 July 1990 Lord Brabazon of Tara said "Successive governments
have recognised Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special
position of the Chinese authorities there." In reply speaking
for the Government in a House of Commons debate on Tibet on 1
April 1998, Foreign Office Minister of State, Derek Fatchett repeated
those exact words. He said "...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 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."
Suzerainty in international law is an arrangement
whereby one state retaining its separate identity is subject to
a sort of guardianship by another state: see Oppenheim's International
Law 9th ed Vol 1 para 81. After World War II, within the framework
of post colonial independence and the formulation of the right
to self determination there can be no doubt that if Tibet was
a vassal state it should have been entitled to detach itself from
its Chinese suzerain and attain independence. It is also clear
from the above Foreign Office statements and documents (see for
example Blue Books, 1904 cd 1920 1xvii 779, 1904 cd 2054 1xvii
1103, 1905 cd 2370 1viii 433 and 1910 cd 5240 1xviii 615 that
at times the British Government considered that the Dalai Lama
was de facto as well as the de jure sovereign of Tibet—see
in particular document No 66, letter 8 January 1903 Government
of India, Foreign Department to Lord George Hamilton, Secretary
of State for India and Sir Anthony Eden's opinion.
One of the few parliaments to recognise Tibet's
true status is the US Congress. In 1987 the US Tibet Act strongly
condemned PRC human rights abuses in Tibet and in September of
that year the Dalai Lama testified before a Congressional Human
Rights Committee on his "Five Point Peace Plan". The
US Tibet Act was followed by the State Department Appropriation
Act 1987 condemning PRC human rights violations in Tibet, calling
on China to release all political prisoners, tying arms sales
to the PRC to a Presidential assessment of the human rights situation
in Tibet and supporting Tibetans in exile. The Act also authorised
a US Special Envoy for Tibet with the rank of ambassador to promote
good relations between the Tibetan Government in Exile of His
Holiness the Dalai Lama, which the Act recognises. The Act also
provides for educational and cultural exchanges for Tibetans and
in the fiscal year 1996-97, 30 scholarships were taken up by Tibetan
students. The Act also provides for the setting up of Radio Free
Asia to provide a forum of opinion from within Asian nations for
people who do not enjoy freedom of expression.
The Government's position as explained by Mr
Fatchett is misleading to say the least. Would the Foreign Office
care to define the special position of China in Tibet. For a start
it is not strictly true that Tibet has never been internationally
recognised as independent (what about the International Commissions
of Jurists, measures in the US Congress and Sir Anthony Eden's
Opinion) to say the least. Moreover 1961 UN Resolution 1723 [xvi]
specifically recognises the Tibetans right to self determination.
If the Government actually regards Tibet as autonomous why was
it necessary for Mr Fatchett to say that Tibetans should have
a greater say in running their own affairs and to call for the
Chinese authorities to respect the fundamental rights of the Tibetan
people which clearly they do not have. And what happened to Ernest
Bevin's pledge that Chinese suzerainty over Tibet would not only
be recognised on the understanding that Tibet as autonomous.
The Foreign Secretary makes much of his ethical
foreign policy. If he is genuine about it he should adopt a genuine
ethical foreign policy for Tibet, at the very least starting to
speak out openly about human rights violations committed by the
CPR in Tibet and starting to support the annual US resolution
in Geneva condemning the CPC over human rights violations in Tibet.
The Government should adopt the Tibetan measures introduced by
the US Congress and introduce them, in particular recognition
of the Tibetan Government in Exile and Tibet's right to determine
its own future. The Foreign Office might also care to explain
why when his Holiness the Dalai Lama visits the UK he is denied
diplomatic protection. The Foreign Office should be called on
by the Select Committee to justify its explanation of the status
of Tibet and why it differs from the generally accepted status
of Tibet in international law.
|
