JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Human Rights) debate -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 2008

Situation in Tibet: Discussion with Representative of the Dalai Lama.

Chairman

The subject of the discussion is the worrying situation that has developed in Tibet which, as we are all aware, has become an issue of major international concern. There have been extensive reports of protests and demonstrations by the Tibetan people in their capital and at other locations in Tibet in defence of their human rights and religious freedoms. However, what has worried the international community is the perceived response of the Chinese authorities to the events. Many reports from Tibet have told of severe human rights abuses by the Chinese military authorities and their attempts to crack down on protestors and end demonstrations. There have been reports of extensive loss of life, while access by journalists to the region has been curtailed.

From his place of exile in India, the Dalai Lama has spoken of his deep concern at the events unfolding in Tibet. He has said he is deeply saddened and concerned by the use of arms to suppress the peaceful demonstrations of the Tibetan people's aspirations that have resulted in unrest, causing, he said, many deaths, more casualties, detention and injury. He has also said that, because of his moral obligation and responsibility to the Tibetan people, he has repeatedly asked the Chinese leadership to stop immediately its suppression in all parts of Tibet and withdraw its armed police and troops. He has further said that, if this brings results, he will advise Tibetans to stop all current protests. In the broader international community there have been many other calls for restraint by the Chinese authorities. There have also been calls for a boycotting - in different formats - of the Olympic Games to be held in August in Beijing.

It is against that background of growing international concern about what is happening in Tibet and especially about reports of human rights violations that the sub-committee has invited Mrs. Takla, the northern European representative of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, to make a presentation to us. I extend a very warm welcome to her and the representatives of Friends of Tibet in Ireland, Mr. Neil Steedman, Mr. Damdul and Mr. O'Brien, whose name we know well from the good briefing documents he sends us regularly by e-mail and texting.

Mrs. Kesang Y. Takla

I thank the Chairman. I deeply appreciate the opportunity he and the sub-committee have extended to me. He has kindly given us all an idea of what is happening in Tibet. I would like to speak about the context and why protests have taken place in the past two months or so.

Tibet has been occupied by the communist Chinese Government for nearly 50 years. When it came into our country, the reason for occupation that it came up with was to liberate, improve and develop Tibet. The Tibetan people have since been crying out to the world to pay attention to their sufferings and the extreme violations of their human rights. Even after so many years and so many urges from governments and parliaments, the Chinese Government has, unfortunately, failed to improve the human rights conditions for people in Tibet.

There are so many cases about which one could talk to relate the sufferings of the Tibetan people, but I will present just one example. The Chinese Government claims it gives us freedom to practise our religion. Although that is stated in the Chinese constitution, in reality the Tibetan people have no right to practise their religion. The Chinese Government interferes in the exercise of our freedom to practise our religion. For several years it has controlled the number of monks and nuns who can join the monasteries and nunneries. It is only when it approves the number who can join those institutions that Tibetans can participate in such training. It has introduced what it calls the re-education programme in monasteries. Re-education sounds strange and irrelevant to the Tibetan culture because in the monasteries we have religious teachers who teach people the Buddhist faith of being compassionate, non-violent and concerned for others as a priority. With the re-education programme, the Chinese authorities are telling the monks that they have to be faithful to the party line and to vilify and criticise His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. It is like a Catholic person being requested to vilify and criticise the Pope. The sub-committee can well imagine what that means and something to that effect is happening to our monks in Tibet. For the monks, that would be the worst thing to do; many of them have escaped the villages and monasteries rather than be forced to do this. Some have decided to lose their lives rather than to criticise His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.

In free societies it is no issue for people to keep a picture of somebody in their private homes. However, for the Tibetan people to keep a small picture of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama in their private homes is considered against the law. I heard of one particular case - among many - when I was in London last winter. I met a Tibetan girl who was studying in the United Kingdom. She told me about a family friend in Tibet whose father was a Tibetan in a fairly important position in the Chinese Government. One day there was a theft from his home and the police came to check. Unfortunately for him, they found a small picture of the Dalai Lama in the home and the next day he lost his job in the Chinese Government. There are many other similar cases. When such pictures of His Holiness or documentation on his teachings are found in the possession of Tibetans, they are arrested, punished, tortured, questioned and often taken away and nobody knows where they are. Those are examples of the violation of human rights.

I understand that when the Olympics Games were given to the Chinese Government, other countries and, in particular, the International Olympic Committee were given to understand China would improve human rights and give free access to the media. We have to look back over the past two years or so and ask whether the Chinese authorities have done this and whether human rights have improved in China and Tibet. For Tibetans, the situation is going from bad to worse. It was out of desperation that in March Tibetan people made peaceful protests in three provinces. They were not armed - they had sticks as their weapons. They were challenged by the armed Chinese police who came with guns and in large numbers. I need not elaborate on what happened too much because everyone will have seen images on the BBC and CNN news programmes, unlike when protests and human rights violations took place in Tibet in 1959 and 1989 and the world had no access. None of us could see what happened then, but this time in March many of us saw what happened in Tibet.

I believe that, because the outside world saw people put their lives on the line to speak up for their human rights, it has touched the conscience of the world in a more effective way. As a result, there have been many protests all over the world, particularly as the Olympic torch has moved from country to country. For me as a human being, I find it most unfortunate that this should have happened. We question why it is happening and I think it is the world's response to the Chinese Government's policies in China and Tibet. Things will be better if and when the Chinese Government starts to listen to the grievances of the Tibetan people, is willing to address the situation to try to find a solution and is willing to respect and treat the Tibetan people as equal human beings.

I was also asked during my travels to various countries in the past three weeks whether the Olympic Games should be stopped, whether the torch should pass through Tibet or whether there should be an opening ceremony. For us, that is not the main issue. The Olympic Games will be held. Therefore, it is unfortunate that there is so much displeasure surrounding them. Why is that the case? They should have been a source of celebration for all Chinese people. Initially, when we supported the Olympic Games being hosted by China, the reason was we respected and wanted the Chinese people to enjoy the occasion. It is a special occasion for them. For that reason, we agreed the games should take place in China. What we are engaged in now is not a protest against the Chinese people whom we believe are equal human beings. Our difficulty is with the Chinese communist regime which is giving such a hard time, not only to Tibetans but also to many Chinese people in China.

As recently as last Friday, the Chinese Government made a statement that it was ready to start negotiations or a dialogue with the representatives of His Holiness. If it means what it says, that is very welcome. We should have substantive negotiations to start solving the problem in Tibet. However, we are a little sceptical about the statement, the reason being that in recent years we have tried very hard to get the Chinese to come to the negotiating table. We agreed we would not raise the question of independence, in keepng with the request made by the Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, in 1979. He said that if we did not raise the question of independence, China would be willing to talk to find a solution for Tibet. For that reason, His Holiness and the government in exile agreed, leaving past history behind, that we would look forward to finding a solution and that as China did not want us to raise the question of independence, we would not do so. However, we wanted a genuine form of autonomy, by which we mean we should have freedom to exercise internal control in Tibet in order that we can have a Tibetan way of life and culture, practise religion and, most important, protection of the Tibetan environment which is in great danger. With regard to external affairs, defence matters, etc., we made it clear that the Chinese Government could deal with them. Despite this, the Chinese continue to accuse His Holiness of asking for independence and accuse him of being the cause of the all the current problems. The rest of us know that they can be solved only if and when the Chinese Government is willing to address them in a meaningful and sincere way.

We urge the sub-committee to put pressure on the Chinese Government to ensure it will be willing to start meaningful negotiations as soon as possible. It should not be just a meeting for the sake of holding one because we have done this for the past six years without much progress and have not yet been able to start real negotiations. Having considered the critical situation in Tibet, we urge parliaments and governments to encourage China to allow fact-finding delegations to visit Tibet to see for themselves what is going on. The Chinese Government claims that things are okay. If that is so, it should not have any difficulty with people coming to Tibet to see for themselves.

It is also important that the media should have free access into Tibet. I am sure sub-committee members have been following the news in the past two days. Sadly, this morning I read in the newspapers that some 17 Tibetans have been sentenced for periods from three years to life in prison. This is all we know, but from the little we have heard, it seems the whole area is like a war zone. Tibet, a huge country, is very much like a prison. People are not allowed to move about and live in great fear. It is with this situation as a background that China is going to celebrate the Olympic Games, while the rest of us in the free world witness them knowing that people there are suffering. They are dying of hunger and subject to torture and beatings. That is the reality in Tibet today. I urge all the members of the sub-committee to use their good offices and do what they can to encourage China to do the right thing.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I join others in welcoming Mrs. Takla and the delegation. They are most welcome, particularly at this crucial time for Tibet. It is important to note that they have come as the representatives of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, who carries a peaceful message at this dreadful time in the planet's history. They are all the more welcome because of this.

As a member of a previous Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs, under the chairmanship of Desmond O'Malley, I visited Tibet with David Andrews and others. We visited Beijing and Llhasa. I have often thought about that visit.

To diverge a little, there is a big gap with regard to international law on occupation and human rights generally. The meaning of occupation is losing its force. Think, for example, of what it means in Palestine, Tibet and for the Saharawi people in the Sahara since 1975. It is as if the international community has lost interest in vindicating the obligations of occupying powers or, more importantly, the rights of those being trampled on by occupying powers.

When we visited Beijing, we had a list of specific human rights cases about which we were to ask. On the way our meetings were structured, the politburo in Beijing indicated to us that it would answer some of our questions, that substantive answers would be given when we met the politburo in Llhasa. It was very clear to me that there was a great difference between the politburos in Beijing and Llhasa because in Llhasa it was very reluctant to answer specific questions on where people had been arrested and about people who had disappeared, including the whereabouts of the Punchin Lama and the circumstances of his detention.

What was most impressive was that we were able to see what had taken place in Llhasa. Curiously, some of the streets reminded me of a place such as Knock, except that all of the shops in the row were owned and operated by new Han occupants. To a large extent, the Tibetans seemed to have withdrawn into the mountainous areas near the city. It was also clear that there was grave discomfiture in the three categories of monasteries we visited. Some were clearly under the control of the occupying power, some were nervous about the occupying power, while the third were vicariously opened and closed as a result of incursions by the authorities relating to their practice.

I mention this to illustrate that there is nothing abstract about what is described in the documentation we receive. These are the realities. I see what is happening as ethnic violence and an attempt at cultural suppression, not just domination. It is a major abuse of freedom. A difficulty for many Tibetans who have left Tibet and gone into exile is that they find the message of His Holiness too peaceful and soft, one which has not brought results through dialogue as indicated by the belief system of Tibetans. I understand this. The belief system is uniquely non-hegemonic. The nature of the spiritual heritage and culture of Tibet is that it does not seek to dominate or exclude other spiritual practices. That is much in contrast to the history of forms of Christianity, for example, in their imperial and colonising ventures in parts of the world. However, the Tibetan belief system is perceived in the current circumstances as a weakness.

The point put to our delegation when we visited Beijing - I support the suggestion that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs should visit again - concerned the unsustainable argument I have heard elsewhere that such issues are ones of sovereignty. I have long held the view - it is consistent with my notion of positive neutrality - that sovereignty should not be used as a screen to shelter the abuse of human rights. That is one of the biggest challenges facing us. The other side to the issue is the exclusion of the press and commentators, which is now far worse. For a start, there is limited opportunity to get into Lhasa because there is a short time when one can, in fact, manage it. Even when one reaches it, there is no such thing as freedom of comment.

The European Union has obligations. When, for example, it uses terms such as "the European Union-China human rights dialogue", it should give meaning to them. What does it mean by "dialogue"? Does it simply mean a statement of what the European Union would like, then an obstinate statement from China telling the Union to mind its own business, that these are issues of sovereignty, followed immediately by the question of whether the Union agrees with the One China policy and so forth? This also arises with regard to our committee which, through another sub-committee, deals with Irish Aid in Africa. Irish Aid in Africa is continually under scrutiny as to human rights issues, empowerment and so forth. The Chinese investment in Africa is a separate, conscious alternative to human rights led development. It is, therefore, increasing all the time.

I welcome the delegation. I hope the European Union will stand up to this aggressive presentation of a totally unsustainable view. If we have an opportunity, we should request a visit but I suspect we would not be allowed to visit Tibet now. I envisage difficulties in presenting, in a European context, this notion of meaningful autonomy. As I understand it, it almost becomes an idealistic notion in which there would be freedom of expression, freedom of religious observance and respect for culture and heritage. However, how does one sustain such a conceptual apparatus when what the Tibetans face is a type of militant, materialist invasion and aggression? Is the Han invasion of Tibet going to stop? There does not appear to be any Chinese intention of doing this. Will there be a withdrawal of the Chinese occupation to facilitate an institutional structure in Tibet that would allow the exercise of autonomy? Perhaps that is where the international community might be able to help, but it is complex to understand. When His Holiness states he is not seeking independence, he speaks of the most benign possible version of dialogue, but the dialogue we have witnessed so far has just evidenced bad faith on the other side. Where the international community can be of best assistance is by stating it will be realistic on human rights.

The last issue, which was just scraping the gutter, is the suggestion that the protests are being organised by what is called the Dalai Lama clique. That is such a preposterous, offensive suggestion it does not merit comment.

Senator David Norris

I welcome the delegation. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mrs. Takla and Mr. Neil Steedman for many years. I have known Mr. Anthony O'Brien since our days together in Trinity College, the tie of which he is flashing today. I particularly welcome the calm, balanced, reasoned and moderate views expressed by Mrs. Takla which are very much in tune with the attitude taken by the Dalai Lama in very difficult circumstances. I share the concern expressed by my colleague, Deputy Higgins, that perhaps with this spiritual approach to politics there is always a risk he might be outflanked by the justifiable anger of younger Tibetan people. It must be very difficult to see the degradation of their country and the abuse of their revered institutions and religious personnel. It is a reproach against the international community that his single minded adherence to the principle of non-violence has not been rewarded in the way it has tragically been shown that violence sometimes is rewarded with political movement. I honour him and his government in exile for not taking that route.

Like Deputy Higgins, I have also visited Tibet, although it was a number of years ago. I went there on behalf of UNPO and we did not declare ourselves. It was, to a certain extent, a semi-secret mission relating to human rights. One of the most moving things happened in the Barco Lu, where a group of monks passed us pieces of paper with messages written in pencil which indicating that they were not Chinese, that they loved and respected the Dalai Lama and that he represented Tibet for them. They took a great risk in doing so. For that reason I was immensely moved by the press conference we saw on television. It was supposed to show the freedom of Tibet but the monks became very agitated, with some of them in tears. However, they managed to get the message out of Tibet. That is crucial.

If and when the Olympic flame passes through Tibet, it should not pass through in the spirit of its originator, the Nazi Government in Germany in 1936. It was a triumph of fascist will over the wishes of the people. It should, instead, pass through in the real freedom of providing an opportunity for the rest of the world to have access through its reporters and the media. I honour Reporters Without Borders, a parallel organisation to Médicins sans Frontières. It has done us a service through its protests. We need to travel with the flag if it passes through. It is an intense provocation and nothing other than grinding the noses of Tibetans in the dirt to show who is master. That is how the flag will be used. At the very least, the international media should be permitted to accompany the flag, travel through the country and see areas outside the narrow route chosen.

I was most interested to hear Mrs. Takla use the word "country" and speak about the Tibetan people. I am sorry we have allowed ourselves to be surreptitiously moved into accepting the One-China policy. For many years this was resisted by Mr. Frank Aitken, Mr. David Andrews and our other Foreign Ministers. However, it appears that it has been tacitly accepted as a result of a mechanical adjustment in the European Union. I am sure Mrs. Takla is aware of the fact that Deputy John Gormley of the Green Party spoke out on the issue and precipitated a withdrawal by the Chinese ambassador from his party's conference. The reason given for the withdrawal was that Deputy Gormley had used the word "country".That raises questions, allied to what Deputy Higgins was discussing, as to what a genuine autonomy might be within the Chinese system. I do not regard that system as a Communist one. China was a tragically failed experiment as far as Communism is concerned. I do not believe that Mao was a Communist. There were some wonderfully idealistic people who believed in that doctrine but I do not believe he did. The system in China now is an extraordinary and rather dangerous form of mutant capitalism.

With regard to autonomy, obviously areas such as foreign affairs would be excluded, and defence, the entire military business. What was mentioned was areas such as respect for religion and religious ministry, and so on. In the best circumstances there might be negotiation on those issues. I am not certain about that but it would be something to pursue.

The problem is the environment. I do not see Beijing yielding on the environment because it is a wonderful resource to be pillaged. That is one of the reasons they are there, to extract various ores, including ore that is used for certain radioactive purposes, for nuclear fuels and so on. The Chinese have already had a very serious negative impact on the environment in Tibet and I fear that they regard it merely as a resource to be plundered in the interest of central government.

I find it difficult to believe that Beijing would yield control of that issue but if it could happen it would be marvellous. We should all push for that, or at least push for proper environmental controls and regulations within Tibet, whoever is in charge. What they are doing there is dangerous. Water supply, control of rivers and other such issues have repercussions not just for Tibet, China and that whole area, but for the global climate. The scale is vast as everything in China is.

I welcome the fact that Mrs. Takla has suggested a fact-finding delegation arising from this committee. If a delegation is viable it should go as soon as possible. I am indifferent as to whether I am part of it but I certainly believe it would be useful. It must be a small delegation. I do not know whether the budget might sustain it but it would be no harm to make the request. That might put the wind up the Chinese. I might refuse to go because I had a rather warm exchange of correspondence with the Chinese ambassador. When one is an Independent, one can do these things and I deliberately sowed into my letter terms such as "colonialist exploitation", "imperialism" and so on. It provoked a wonderful shriek of rhetoric from Shrewsbury Road or wherever the Chinese Embassy is.

I am sure that Mrs. Takla is aware that an invitation has issued from this committee to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. I have also initiated moves to investigate if he can be invited to address the Senate, the upper House of Parliament. I foresee some difficulties there but I hope to be able to get over them because, following advice from my excellent friends, I couched the invitation in a particular fashion, namely, that His Holiness should be invited as the world's best-known proponent of non-violent political action and as the winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. The fact that he was invited to the US Congress and that there was no difficulty in that provides a wonderful precedent as far as I am concerned. I understand that my colleagues in the Senate are enthusiastic about this but we must overcome what I have no doubt will be the hesitations of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

On the other hand, we are supposed to be a free Parliament. It should be up to the Senate and committees such as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to make this decision. There will be an opportunity to cause some turbulence if it becomes apparent that officials in the Department have stymied this against the wishes of the people. His Holiness will be in Europe at a certain time but obviously it is a question of programming and scheduling. If those two invitations were to arise simultaneously it might indeed be worth drawing his direct attention and I suggest this to Mrs. Takla although I understand there may be difficulties. In such a case there might be what that lamentable figure, Mrs. Thatcher, used to describe as a "double whammy".

The other day on my way to a demonstration for the Palestinians - I point this out to Deputy Higgins - I passed through O'Connell Street where there was a very significant demonstration by local Chinese businesspeople. They watch a lot of Chinese television and they have swallowed the line that it is the Dalai Lama's "splittist" clique who are doing all these things, trying to spoil the party and the Olympic Games. I spoke to some of them and they asked me what I knew about it, and if I had ever been to Tibet. They thought they had me there because I was merely an ordinary Dublin Joe. I said that I had and asked if they had been there. They had not but they had a lot of literature with them.

This is a subject which should be addressed because I believe that it is a line that the Chinese will push in the Western world. As Minister for Information, Mrs. Takla might be in a position to do this. They raised the issue of feudalism that existed before the Chinese invasion. They attempted to maintain that the Dalai Lama was an absolute, ruthless and cruel monarch who presided over a filthy feudal system where the majority of inhabitants was enslaved, their noses ground into the dirt, yoked to their yaks and all the rest of it. A simple but clear, historical and honest answer to that is that that period was very long ago in a remote part of the world where conditions did not equate to what we in Europe understand as democracy. One should be aware that this is the line being pushed and it is very dangerous and damaging. It would be useful to provide people such as myself, who strongly support Tibet, with the facts, the answer and the context. The Chinese will be very adept at wrenching out of historical context and presenting in an ahistorical way any little blemish that pre-existed in Tibet. I welcome and thank the delegation.

Chairman

It might be important to mention at this stage, so that the delegation will know it, that at the last meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, the situation in Tibet was discussed at great length. Some members here may be aware that that committee also agreed to extend an invitation to the Dalai Lama to come to Dublin and speak to it, whenever that might suit his diary. I presume that the invitation is taking its own course.

Having heard my two colleagues, I believe that the most important thing is to have some form of meaningful dialogue. There are people in this Parliament and indeed some in this committee, and in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, who have been instrumental in the success of the Irish situation whereby today we enjoy a peaceful island. That was done through tedious, long and hard work, all the time going back to the table, by way of negotiation and dialogue and compromise on all sides. It was a long and difficult process but success came with it.

Regarding a visit to Tibet, as mentioned by Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris, I do not see a difficulty in the committee proceeding down that road. The make-up of the delegation would be a matter for the committee to decide. If we were to do that, it would be important that, prior to doing so, we invite the Chinese authorities before the committee so that we would be seen to play a fair game.

Senator David Norris

I have a practical suggestion. If it is possible for us to go, and it may not be, I believe we should include in the delegation the professional services of a Tibetan interpreter. If the Chinese were to provide an interpreter it is often the case that such an interpreter does not report what the people are saying.

Chairman

That is a fair point. We are somewhat away from that but it is an idea we can record at this stage. If we were to participate at some meaningful level, whatever the outcome, I believe it should be done in a careful progressive manner in the knowledge of what we want to achieve at each step on the way. One of the first initiatives of this sub-committee should be to write to the appropriate Chinese authority. I shall be guided by the secretariat, but I presume this would be the Chinese ambassador to Ireland. We can formulate the letter later among ourselves and perhaps send a copy of it to other people, as appropriate. We should try to initiate matters in that fashion. I do not know what Mrs. Takla's views are in that regard, but she might, perhaps, respond to what has been said in the wider context.

Mrs. Kesang Y. Takla

Senator Norris mentioned the importance of the environment, and I should like to say a few words in that regard. The environment is something which is of concern to the global community, not just the Himalayan region or the Tibetan people. Already, because of the environmental destruction, both in China and Tibet, that part of the Himalayan region is in real danger. Because of the high altitude and the condition of the air, it really needs to be attended to. China, I believe, in some ways realises this. We have been crying out for protection of the environment for many years, and of course there is an enormous amount of deforestation and mining, even to the extent that there has been some discussion about Tibet becoming like the northern region of China and so on.

This issue is already of concern to the countries neighbouring China and Tibet, and will affect all of us. Of course one hears a great deal about the damage being done by the ice region melting and so on. This is of concern and in order to save the world's environment it needs to be addressed by the Chinese Government. It is of concern not only for the Tibetan people but for all of us. It is a crucial issue that needs urgent attention. I appreciate the Chairman's decision to try to send a fact-finding delegation to Tibet, which is very important.

At this point, given the Chinese policy of being very stubborn about everything and accusing everybody but themselves, this does not help in finding a solution for the Tibetan people, much less for the people of China. Many Chinese scholars and students have written to their Government urging it to stop telling lies, have open dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and his representative and treat the Tibetan people in a more appropriate manner. These appeals are coming from the Chinese people, our Chinese friends.

It is high time the Chinese Government was given enough support and encouragement to look at the situation in a practical manner. When we ask for genuine autonomy, we are seeking something we believe may be considered by China. According to the written constitution of China, it claims to be giving autonomy in some regions of Tibet. Of course they have broken up the three historic provinces of Tibet into different regions and given them separate powers of autonomy and so on - different provinces with different names. If that is the position, China simply has to define what type of autonomy it wants to give. That can be resolved only if and when we can sit across the table and hold discussions on what the future is to be for Tibet.

For this to take place we need all the support we can get. If China were to open up in response to the international pressure that exists, it would be good for the Chinese also. We have been crying for help for 50 years. Not enough has been done and what is happening now is the result. How long can we continue to let matters go on as they are? I plead with the sub-committee to do all it can to urge the Government, Oireachtas and the Irish public to support our cause. We have pinned great hope on the Irish people because we have strong connections with Ireland. The United Nations has adopted three resolutions on human rights in this regard. It has agreed there should be self-determination for the people of Tibet but the situation since then has worsened, not improved. I appeal to the committee to do what it can.

Chairman

I thank Mrs. Takla. Mr. O'Brien indicated he wanted to say something.

Mr. Anthony O’Brien

There are a couple of points as regards information which should answer some of the issues raised by Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris. I was talking yesterday to a friend of mine, Zhao Ming, whose name the committee will remember. He was the Trinity Chinese student who was arrested, imprisoned and badly tortured. He works as a journalist and was on the pro-Chinese demonstration in O'Connell Street in his capacity as a reporter. He said most of the Chinese students, when he asked them why they were there, said they did not actually know. They had just been told by the Chinese students' association in Ireland, which is run by the embassy, that they were to go to O'Connell Street and celebrate the Olympics. Other than that, they did not know why they were there.

We heard in a report from Tibet this morning that local Tibetans along the route the torch will take are, as we speak, being trained in what to say to Western media. It looks as if they will let, as they have done before, some hand-picked journalists speak to Tibetans and hear what the Chinese want those Tibetans to say.

Since this is the Sub-Committee on Human Rights, I thought the meaning of the phrase "patriotic re-education" for monasteries should be explained. I should like to put this quotation on the sub-committee's record from the Tibet Autonomous Region patriotic education for monasteries handbook No. 4, Policy on Religion, dated May 2002. Section 2.9 (b) states:

Concerning religious belief, Communists use persuasion and education but not force or commands. They give honest guidance but do not bully or beat people into changing their minds, using democratic means rather than coercion. Since such issues cannot be resolved through the use of force, which may even cause very great damage, and as long as there are people with religious faith, the party and the Government has devised the policy of individual freedom of belief to allow people to believe in accordance with their personal choice.

That is from the Chinese Government's handbook on patriotic re-education in Tibet.

Mr. Neil Steedman

I shall first of all clarify that the role in which Mrs. Takla now represents His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, is as kalon for information and international relations in the Tibetan Government in exile. Effectively in our terms she is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. She referred to Tibet as a war zone, and that sums it up very neatly. Tibet is de jure a country still under colonial occupation, no matter how many countries choose to ignore that and just look at the de facto situation. Under international law de jure means that it is a country under colonial occupation. It is the size of western Europe.

To put in context for the sub-committee what "war zone" means right now, hundreds of people have been killed and thousands injured, many seriously, who cannot go to hospital, although dying from their wounds. An estimated 5,000 or more have been arrested. The Chinese admit to having arrested over 4,000 people. Many hundreds, possibly thousands, have fled to the mountain areas, or are effectively being held hostage in monasteries or in their homes with water cut off and food supplies stopped, so starvation is a real possibility.

In the prisons, people are being beaten, tortured and killed as we speak. Bodies are being piled up and not returned to relatives. This we know from many phone calls to Tibetans in exile from Tibetans in Tibet. I had a report to the effect that yesterday morning, in Tibetan time, in the Kham region in the eastern part of the country which is now part of Sichuan, the Chinese have imposed a levy on Tibetan families of 1,000 yuan per adult, approximately €100, to pay for the army, believe it or not, which they have had to send in to suppress them. This has involved hundreds of thousands of soldiers. As in the past, when they have executed Tibetans, the Tibetan families have had to pay for the bullet or the body to be returned, now they have to pay for the army to be sent in, to be fed and to suppress them.

More recently, the media and tourists have been expelled. Mrs. Takla referred to the two very controlled groups of journalists, which backfired on the Chinese. More recently the Chinese have been backing away from allowing the media to accompany the torch relay up Mount Everest and through Tibet. They are placing ever greater restrictions. Members may not be aware that The Times of London carried a report on, I believe, 25 April that the International Olympic Committee had even planned for the possibility that deaths might occur while the torch was being taken through Tibet. It issued a secret memorandum, which is no longer secret because The Times has it, to its more than 520 national Olympic committees giving them the appropriate phraseology to use if and when deaths occurred. If that is not an irresponsible action by the so-called International Olympic Committee of human dignity, then I do not know what is.

Senator David Norris

In the light of this very serious news, should the committee not write to the Olympic Council of Ireland to ask whether it is in possession of this memorandum and, if so, whether it will make it available to us?

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I agree.

Chairman

I do not see a problem with that. Having spoken to the clerk, we hope to have a meeting in the first fortnight of May in which case we might be in a position to have clarity.

Mr. Neil Steedman

I will add one more point. The important issues emphasise what we have been saying. The first is to have immediate access and free reporting for both media and diplomatic representatives in order that we will know and to limit what the Chinese are doing. The second concerns what will happen in the medium to long term. The international community must maintain the pressure on the Chinese Government about Tibet and human rights in China as a whole. This should not just happen up to the time of the Olympic Games. It must take this issue seriously as a global issue of human rights of great standing and importance. It must plan how it will continue to deal with this issue long after the Olympic Games. To paraphrase an Irishman, "The Tibetans aren't going to go away, you know."

Chairman

I thank Mrs. Takla and the delegation for attending and the very informative presentation and exchange we have had. From our discussion no one can doubt the concern that remains regarding the abuse of human rights in Tibet, as in the case of reports of human rights abuses anywhere in the world. Equally, it is important for us to acknowledge some of the encouraging reports I read over the weekend of China having indicated its willingness to engage in dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. The question is how positive a development it would be and how fruitful an outcome it might have. However, perhaps we should not say that at this stage if there is such a willingness. As I mentioned, in the light of our experience in Ireland, at least if there is dialogue, there is a hope something can come to fruition.

Senator David Norris

The chance to meet face to face.

Chairman

I hope that will happen also. There was a time when people in Ireland would not shake hands or sit at the same table and we have experienced a U-turn. Dialogue is very important.

I mentioned we could write to the Chinese authorities. We mentioned it could be the ambassador. In that communication we could express our desire that the dialogue should be substantive.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

And meaningful.

Chairman

Yes.

Senator David Norris

That is an excellent suggestion.

Chairman

We should move slowly on this one. The Olympic Games will take place, but there is a bigger issue that will not be resolved quickly.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

We should write a good strong letter. An issue that must be addressed is that of having a two-legged relationship regarding diplomacy. We can send a jumbo load of people willing to conduct trade and claim to have a separate dialogue on human rights. At a certain point we need to be for real and have an integrated view when we talk about the relationship within Ireland and the People's Republic of China on the issue of Tibet and so on. It needs to be approached in that way. I will be very happy if a letter is sent stating we are supportive--

Chairman

We will do other things. I know some committee members expressed concern about whether we would have funds available for a fact-finding mission to Tibet.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

We could scrap several of the meetings we attend in Europe and such places.

Chairman

I again thank Mrs. Takla and the delegation.

The sub-committee went into private session at 4.35 p.m. and adjourned at 4.40 p.m. sine die.