Vol. 577 No. 1
6 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has met, or will meet, with the Ireland, UK and Scandinavian representative of the Dalai Lama; his views on the current situation in Tibet; if Tibet was discussed during the recent visit of the President to China; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30432/03]
On a number of occasions in recent months, I have set out the Government's position regarding Tibet. Ireland established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China in 1979, and has, from that time, recognised Tibet as an integral part of China. The Government has consistently called on the Chinese authorities to respect fully the rights of the Tibetan people. We will continue to address our ongoing concerns regarding the protection of human rights in Tibet, along with the general human rights situation in China, both bilaterally and within the framework of the EU-China human rights dialogue, as well as through appropriate action at the UN, including at the Commission on Human Rights.
In that regard, I am encouraged by China's first ever policy paper on the EU, published on 13 October 2003, which includes a commitment to continue dialogue, exchange and co-operation with the EU in the area of human rights. More specifically, it calls on EU representatives to visit Tibet and welcomes EU support for the economic, cultural, educational and social development of Tibet.
Mrs. Kesang Takla, the London-based representative of the Dalai Lama, is scheduled to visit Dublin later this month. In the course of her visit she will meet with my colleague, Deputy Kitt, the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development assistance and human rights, on 18 December 2003, to discuss the current situation in Tibet. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, had a similar meeting with Mrs. Takla in September 2002. I understand that Mrs. Takla is also scheduled to brief the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs.
During her state visit to China, from 6 to 16 October 2003, President McAleese had meetings with both President Hu and Premier Wen. In the course of wide-ranging discussions, the President conveyed Ireland's general commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The issue of Tibet was not specifically raised, given that our more specific human rights concerns, including those relating to individual regions and cases, are the subject of regular and ongoing official meetings and contacts between the two Governments as described above, which are the most appropriate fora for addressing such specific concerns.
I assure the Deputy that, within the existing frameworks, Ireland will continue to call on the Chinese authorities to respect fully the rights of the Tibetan people, and to voice our support for genuine dialogue with the Dalai Lama.
I realise that the Minister has access to information from meetings with visiting representatives such as those mentioned and through various different sources. How does the Minister keep in touch with the situation on the ground in a place such as Tibet, where we clearly do not have an embassy or permanent diplomatic representation on the ground? Does he know the last time a Minister visited Tibet, and how regularly do officials in his Department or from our embassy in Beijing visit Tibet? Is the situation on the ground monitored from time to time, or do we rely on reports from other sources?
I can find out when the last ministerial visit to that region took place. I know from personal knowledge that the ambassador to China based in Beijing has been in Tibet on several occasions and is quite aware of the situation, keeping up to date with it as far as he can. We also rely on the European Union. We have an EU-China dialogue. I was in attendance as a member of the Troika at a meeting of that dialogue in New York during the General Assembly deliberations in September. Those issues were raised then.
The best way to describe the Government's position is that we feel that the best way to achieve progress regarding the situation in Tibet is through meaningful dialogue between the Government in Beijing and the Dalai Lama. As I said, in that regard I welcome the reports of positive dialogue between Chinese officials and a delegation of the Dalai Lama's envoys when the latter visited China during the summer following the change of leadership in China. I am disappointed that there seems to have been no follow-up to that visit, but we expect to obtain a full assessment when Mrs. Takla visits Dublin later this month.
It is also important to point out that in March 2002 the Dalai Lama wrote to the Foreign Ministers of EU member states, including me, asking that the EU appoint a special representative for Tibet. In a joint response at that time, the EU Ministers were unanimously of the view that nominating an EU special representative would not achieve anything practical. That position has not changed, and it remains the shared view of EU Ministers that our concerns regarding Tibet are most usefully expressed to the Chinese authorities directly.
The EU restated its position on Tibet and raised its concerns at the reports of torture in prisons in Tibet. In response, the Chinese authorities gave an undertaking to investigate any specific complaints of torture, stating that prisons in Tibet were subject to the same regulations as prisons in the provinces. The Chinese delegation also referred to the recent discussions between the Chinese Government and the envoys of the Dalai Lama, indicating its readiness to engage in further discussions. We believe that is how we should proceed.
In the Minister's view, is the current human rights situation in Tibet unsatisfactory?
It will always be part of continuing dialogue with the Chinese authorities. There is no doubt that confronting and dealing with the issue in direct dialogue with the Chinese is the best way for us to influence the situation for the better.
That is not an answer.
On the occasion, within the last two years, when the representatives of the Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Tibet, I was among them. Raising matters directly with the Chinese authorities had some limited success regarding the whereabouts of some people being held. Frankly, however, I got the impression that visits by our ambassador to China were very difficult to arrange and were merely tolerated by the Chinese authorities. I, and perhaps all the members of the visiting delegation, would say that what was taking place was a kind of cultural genocide being visited on the Tibetan people. The economic, social and cultural realities were appalling. I put it to the Minister that he will not get very far by continuing with what was going on just now. There must be an escalation of European Union concern. We should drive on and offer ourselves during the Irish Presidency to facilitate a breakthrough regarding contact between representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities.
Regarding a breakthrough, contact has already been established this summer. We have been disappointed by the lack of follow-on, but we will obviously continue with those efforts and, as President of the European Union in March, we will be able to consider how to address the question of human rights in China during the session of the Commission on Human Rights. That is another area in which we can advance the dialogue in a way which the Deputies would like.
If I understood the Minister correctly, he stated that the appointment of an EU special representative would be impractical. Can he say why he believes that?
It is obviously the view of the European Union that it will not bring about any improvement in the situation regarding a direct dialogue with the Chinese.
That is a bit of a cop-out.
One cannot beat the luxury of opposition.
The Minister will be enjoying it soon enough.
I have enjoyed it before, but I was asking the right questions then.
The Minister will get a chance to answer a few more direct questions before he goes into Opposition.
I thank the Deputy.
The size of the Chinese market has stopped them appointing representatives.
I did not realise that the Deputy's influence had increased.
