Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1996

Vol. 468 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Human Rights Abuse in Tibet.

Helen Keogh

Question:

6 Ms Keogh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps, if any, he proposes to take, as President of the Council of Ministers, to seek to reestablish the basic human rights of the Tibetan people whose persecution by their Chinese invaders has intensified in recent times and who are now in a minority in their own country a a result of forced emigration of Chinese citizens to Tibet. [14649/96]

Ray Burke

Question:

9 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the plans, if any, the Government has during Ireland's Presidency of the EU to urge EU member states to adopt a stronger position on Tibet, in the face of the Chinese armed occupation of that country and its ruthless suppression of the people and religion of that country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14718/96]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 9 together.

Yesterday, in reply to Question No. 55, I recalled that in 1979, when Ireland established diplomatic relations with The People's Republic of China, the Government of Ireland recognised the Government of The People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. The Chinese position at that time was and still is that China includes Tibet.

In relation to Tibet, protection of the human rights of Tibetans is a central concern of Government policy. I have consistently raised this issue of human rights with the Chinese authorities in the past and I will continue to do so at every appropriate opportunity.

I am very conscious of the problems which have been mentioned by the Deputies, human rights violations; immigration to Tibet of persons of Han-Chinese origin; the question of religious freedom, including the whereabouts of the Dalai Lama's choice as Panchen Lama.

These issues have been raised by the European Union, specifically at the EU Troika-Human Rights Dialogue Meeting which took place earlier this year in January; these matters will be actively pursued with the Chinese authorities during the Irish Presidency.

As a priority the Government wishes to see the early re-establishment of the dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities and I am prepared to do everything possible to encourage this.

The Tánaiste again referred to 1979 when we established diplomatic relations with China. Tibet was never part of China. It is a separate country and the only connection it had with China in 1979 was that it had been occupied, against the will of the Tibetan people, by the Chinese from 1949. That armed occupation should no longer cut any ice. Is the Minister aware that the persecution of the Tibetan people has intensified? It is now apparently a capital offence to even have a photograph of the Dalai Lama in one's possession or house. Large numbers of monks and nuns have been taken out of monasteries and tortured and the monasteries destroyed. The nuns have been tortured in an unspeakable fashion. Is the Minister aware that the Panchen Lama, at six years of age, is probably the youngest political prisoner in the world and I am sure does not even know why the Chinese arrested him? Does the Minister agree that these consistent actions against Tibet and the Tibetan people are too much to expect the world, the United Nations or the European Union to accept?

The Deputy is slightly disingenuous in reinterpreting, with hindsight, the decisions of the Fianna Fáil Government in 1979. If the Deputy wishes, I can produce files that will show the facts. When the Government, representing the Irish people, established diplomatic relations with The People's Republic of China in 1979, it recognised it as the sole legal government of China as it was claimed to exist in 1979. The Chinese view at that time was that China included Tibet. The Deputy may not like to hear it, but that is the position the Irish Government at that time accepted.

The way we deal with the abuse of human rights in Tibet is a separate matter. From my information, the Dalai Lama is willing to negotiate with the Chinese authorities about the future of Tibet. The Minister of State, Deputy Burton, met representatives of the Dalai Lama two months ago and, while emphasising the human rights issue, urged them to keep talking to the Chinese. I raise this matter every time I meet Chinese representatives, including the Foreign Minister, and on behalf of the European Union, we will continue to raise the question of human rights and the treatment of the Tibetans.

Does the Minister accept that the Chinese presence in Tibet is an armed occupation and that the ruthless suppression of its people and their religion is an affront to humanity and a flagrant violation of the rights of self-determination of the Tibetan people? I do not want to hear about the position in 1979, I want his view.

The position of this Government, as of previous Governments since 1979, has not changed in relation to recognising the Chinese Government as the sole Government of China, including Tibet. That is the factual situation and there has not been any variation of it. In relation to the situation in Tibet, the EU Troika raised the dispute between the Dalai Lama and the central government over difficulties referred to by Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Burke. We will continue to do so as is our obligation and duty, whether or not we hold the Presidency of the European Union, as a country that has a strong track record on human rights.

Does the Tánaiste agree that the German parliament's resolution condemning China's policy of repression in Tibet, and calling for the protection of Tibetan culture, was right? Would he agree that there is a need to protect that culture as well as condemning the policy of repression in Tibet?

I have no difficulty in condemning the policy of repression and the way the Tibetan people have been treated. I have been consistent in that respect. I am well aware of the discussions that took place in the German parliament, but the difficulty is that the Germans have no opportunity to influence events in China now that the proposed visit of their foreign minister has been cancelled. The Chinese have made it clear that they do not want the German foreign minister to travel to China. He will not have the opportunity of raising these issues face to face with the Chinese foreign minister.

It is a question of striking a balance, but I have no difficulty in condemning the policy of repression and I will continue to do so. Last year, however, the Tibetans wanted us to participate in the Beijing conference on women's affairs. They thought it was right for us to air our views and make our concerns felt in that forum.

The Chinese Government has refused to accept a visit by the German foreign minister, but the German Government has made it clear it will not take directions from China or anywhere else concerning its views on human rights abuses. It is not prepared to be party to a policy of appeasement in order that its minister can visit China. We should stand up and speak out about repression and other human rights violations. Torture and ill treatment of prisoners is common in China despite the fact that they have signed for various UN conventions against torture. They are involved in torture on a daily basis which results in the deaths of victims throughout their society, particularly, in Tibet. Surely we should condemn that. Why should we be afraid to condemn it?

There is no policy of appeasement by the Government nor has there been in the past, in fairness to previous Governments. Ireland has taken an active role in human rights conferences and we have co-sponsored resolutions in relation to China. We have taken a leading role and will continue to do so.

Top
Share