APPENDIX 37
Memorandum submitted by All Party Parliamentary
Group for Tibet
This Group is made up of Members who are deeply
concerned about the situation in Tibet. Members believe there
is a moral obligation to support the non-violent approach the
Tibetan people have adopted in promoting their legitimate aspirations.
By renouncing violence to promote their cause, within and outside
Tibet, their only "weapon" is parliamentary and public
support. Members of the Group have a considerable range of relevant
personal experience of Tibet and China. They have also had the
opportunity of discussing the issue at first hand with Chinese
officials, His Holiness The Dalai Lama, ministers of the Tibetan
Government in exile and with Tibetan refugees. Meeting have been
held with a considerable number of ministers and Foreign Office
officials, as well as other key individuals such as the US Special
co-ordinator for Tibet.
The experience of the Group, which was founded
in 1987, is that whoever the Minister and whatever party is in
power, in practice the approach of the Foreign Office towards
China has remained the same throughout the period of the last
and current administration. The FCO has consistently shown deep
apprehension of the Chinese aggressive style of diplomacy. Three
specific instances illustrate the point. Under the previous Government
it took months of meetings by the Group to persuade the Foreign
Office to agree to state that "they supported negotiations
between Chinese Government and The Dalai Lama "without pre-conditions",
such was the concern of Chinese Government's reaction which has
set a raft of pre-conditions. More recently, the British Prime
Minister was the only Prime Minister in Europe who felt the need
to have a Bishop with him when he met His Holiness, to assuage
Chinese anger at the meeting. The third illustration is the unprecedented
attempt to protect the Chinese President from seeing any form
of demonstration or Tibetan flag during his State Visit.
This approach means that the policy of engagement
has become a highly effective diplomatic weapon for the Chinese
Government, who have used it to reduce pressure on China in the
field of Human Rights, particularly over the Tibet situation.
The Chinese government has adroitly managed to use the UK/China
bilateral dialogue to play on FCO fears that they might withdraw
from the dialogue, further constraining HMG's ability to robustly
bring pressure to bear on the Chinese Government in the area of
Human Rights and the Tibet issue. This is despite a series of
EDMs showing extensive support among Members for HMG to scale
up, rather than down its pressure on the Chinese Government in
respect to Tibet.
The driver of policy appears to be trade opportunities
for the UK. But little account is taken of the increasing imbalance
in trade relations with China to the UK's disadvantage. Virtually,
every UK/China business contract includes a transfer of plant
or skills to China. The problems for companies investing in China,
for example of payment, invariably result in advantage to the
Chinese economy.
HMG will argue that the programme developed
for China to assist with the development of the judiciary and
legal system are tangible outcomes of the UK/China bilateral dialogue.
It is arguable that in the long term it will help move China towards
the rule of law. But the fact remains that the legal system remains
firmly under the control of the political system particularly
in respect to any show of dissidence. The Group has not been able
to ascertain any benefit to Tibet from any of the programmes.
As regards Tibet the Chinese policy is to put
up so many barriers to negotiation with The Dalai Lama, as to
make them impossible. Recently they have required him to state
publicly that Taiwan is an inalienable party of China as well
as Tibet, as a pre-condition to any negotiation. The approach
is to economically consolidate control of Tibet, while waiting
to The Dalai Lama to die. This fails to recognise that the population
shows all the reactions of the oppressed peoples of Eastern European
states under the Soviet Union. Increasingly Tibet resembles the
South Africa of apartheid. Because of the inhospitable geographic
environment of Tibet, Chinese migrants are given advantages that
put Tibetans at a disadvantage in their own country.
Currently China is adopting a hard-line approach
within Tibet in the run up to the fiftieth anniversary of the
Chinese occupation of Tibet. Tibet's culture and religion are
part of its national identity which is viewed by the Chinese authorities
as a threat and which they perceive as being used to foster the
"splitting" of the motherland. In August an attempt
to raise a Tibetan flag by a resident of the capital, Lhasa, resulted
in arrest and the death of the individual in prison, such is the
determination to crush any non-violent, civilised expression of
self determination.
The weakness of HMG's policy in the context
of Tibet is exemplified in the Ministers responses to Baroness
Williams's debate on Tibet in the House of Lords on 10 May (appended).
Tibet is a country of considerable size. Its
occupation has major strategic and environmental consequences
for Asia. Any regime, which cause over three thousand men women
and children a year to climb the highest mountains in the world
to escape from their country, would normally result in expressions
of major Government concern, except in the case of the Chinese
Government.
The Group would appreciate the opportunity to
make a verbal submission to the Committee.
| 
