Letter to the Chinese Ambassador to the
Court of St James from the Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter concerning the Foreign
Affairs Committee's meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama on
22 May. The Committee considered this at its meeting yesterday.
We have noted your comments, and propose to
publish both your letter and its annex as evidence accompanying
our forthcoming Report on human rights, together with a range
of other written submissions concerning the human rights situation
in Tibet. We will set out our own conclusions about that situation
in the Report.
The Foreign Affairs Committee takes evidence
from many witnesses who have contrasting and sometimes conflicting
views. The Committee's questioning of witnesses is frequently
robust and seeks to challenge and interrogate the viewpoints put
to it. For instance, in the session on 22 May we questioned the
Dalai Lama about allegations that the rioters in Tibet earlier
this year attacked members of the Han Chinese community, and about
allegations that the old Tibet was feudal, and that a return to
the past would bring an undesirable return to the old social structures.
The object of this type of questioning is not to express either
support or opposition for particular views, but to explore the
position of the witness and test the strength of his or her arguments.
At the end of each inquiry, it is for the Committee
to assess the information given and reach its own judgements.
All this is part of the healthy debate and interchange of views
which takes place in a parliamentary democracy.
My colleagues and I also noted your remarks
about comments on Sina.com. We observe that these comments were
posted on the basis of reports in the Chinese media. The BBC monitoring
unit has supplied us with a translation of one news item issued
by the official Chinese news agency Xinhua on 27 May. This was
headed, "It Is Absolutely Preposterous To Ask Dalai To Testify
to the So-Called `China's Human Rights Issue'". If our evidence
session is presented in such a way in the Chinese media, it is
hardly surprising that people gain a negative impression of our
work. However, if Chinese internet users were able to visit the
BBC news website and the UK Parliament website, and read a full
transcript of the evidence taken on 22 May, I am sure that they
would gain a rather different impression of the objectivity of
our proceedings.
Finally, I would like to correct one error of
fact in your letter. This is in relation to your comment that
"it is indeed ironic for the British Parliament which has
always defended the principle of separation of church and state
to invite someone who personifies the mixing of church and state".
In fact, the UK Parliament has never endorsed the principle of
separation of church and state. The Church of England is an established
state church of which the Queen is supreme governor, Church of
England "measures" (which are the laws of the church)
have to be agreed by Parliament, bishops are appointed by the
Queen on the recommendation of the prime minister, 26 bishops
sit by virtue of their episcopal status in the House of Lords,
and the proceedings of the House of Commons are opened each day
by Christian prayers, read by the House's Anglican chaplain.
Although some other countries have entrenched
the separation of church and state as a matter of constitutional
principle (for instance, the first amendment to the US constitution
provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion"), the British Parliament has never been subject
to any such restriction.
26 June 2008
| 
