Human Rights in Tibet: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann—

(1) Noting the 40th Anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and noting that Chinese police on 10th December, 1988 in Lhasa fired pointblank at a non-violent parade of Tibetans marking the said anniversary resulting in the death of several Tibetan monks and the injury of nearly thirty other people, including a Dutch tourist, and

(2) Noting the Irish Government's support for the fundamental rights and very existence of the Tibetan nation at the United Nations, with particular reference to Resolutions 1353 (XIV) of 21st October, 1959, 1723 (XVI) of 20th December, 1961 and 2079 (XX) of 18th December, 1965, and

(3) Noting that an estimated 1.20 million Tibetans have been killed since the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1949,

(4) Concerned that an estimated 2,200 monks, nuns and lay Tibetans were imprisoned without trial, interrogated and tortured following demonstrations in Lhasa in October, 1987 and March, 1988—

(a) strongly condemns the Chinese regime for its grave violation of human rights in Tibet and calls on other international bodies to protest these actions,

(b) urges the Irish Government to support all international measures for establishing peace and the respect for human rights in Tibet,

—(Senator Robinson)

Mr. J. O'Toole

I am trying to dispel the nice sentiments out of the Chamber for the moment and to bring the Minister back to close attention on this. We have had no indication on how the Minister will respond but we are hopeful that the Government will show an enlightened and progressive approach to this matter. I know the Minister would feel very close to the comments that were made by his fellow county person, Senator Robinson, last week and would wish to support those views and the positive proposals from her. I look forward to hearing from him.

The difficulty we have, which the Minister will not refer to, is the fact that nowadays everybody needs China and everybody wants to be friends with China, and if you are not friends with China it can be a costly thing in commercial and trade terms throughout the world. That is the underlying issue which will not be adverted to in the response of nations to the problems in Tibet. It is the underlying cause for the lack of response in the western and developed world to the problems of Tibet.

Tibet, Nepal and that area over the centuries was considered to be almost a closed part of the world and it is now suffering from that reputation. It is a country that over the years has been a peaceful one, where the head of State, the Dalai Lama was also the head of the religion in the area, the Tibetan Buddhism, an area where they have had stable government from 1391 or roughly that period, 100 years before the discovery of the United States of America. Since that time there has been stability and succession until 1959. In 1959, because of the abolition of the republic through the invasion and the influence of China the Dalai Lama had to leave and has since been in exile. He lives away from Tibet. From 1912 until 1959 Tibet operated as a republic. This was abolished by the Chinese. That is the sort of background which has been well teased out by previous speakers.

It is important to recognise that the issues we are talking about are the issues of self-determination, the right to self-rule, the right to participation in democracy which is of particular importance, and the right to human, civil and political rights. That is why this matter is being discussed here tonight. We are discussing the position of the people in Tibet. The proposals in the motion are a response to the position of the Tibetan people at the moment.

In many other ways it is an issue of decolonisation. We have all had experience of that and in Ireland it strikes a chord. I ask Senators to respond in their own way to it. The fact is that the Tibetan people at the moment are under the uncaring hand of China and have been controlled by suppression and violence. It is not without much consideration that I would criticise a nation which aspires to socialism as China purports to do but it is not socialist practice to rule with the system of suppression and violence which is now the day-to-day reality of life in Tibet.

The Tibetan people can best at the moment be described as fifth-class people in their own country, with little or no access to civil or political rights. As a country they have suffered massively and are still suffering the results of the Cultural Revolution which extended into Tibet. During that time a very sensitive, well developed education service was erased. Starting from scratch, with the idea of the revolution starting at nought, they are still at nought. There is no access to proper education facilities in Tibet at the moment because of the refusal of the Chinese rulers to invest in a developed education service.

A similar case can be made about the health service. It is not being developed. There is not access to a decent health service for the Tibetan people. Hand-in-hand with the oppression, poverty and suppression there is a rich country, a country of natural richness, beauty, minerals and many other assets which at the moment are being exploited, and many of the assets exported by the Chinese rulers in Tibet. The people of Tibet do not profit from the wealth of their own country. Apart from the loss of civil rights and the material loss, the Chinese have now made Tibet a nuclear dump with the positioning and basing of nuclear arms and nuclear warheads in Tibet, and also we are told, with the use of areas of Tibet for experiments in chemical warfare.

I hope the Minister will respond to those two points because there is a clear policy of the Government on the question of nuclear proliferation and the extension of nuclear activities in other countries. I hope the nettle will be grasped and a decent response given to it, to say to us, "We are not prepared to comment on another Government" but not to ignore the fact that this is happening in Tibet. The world deserves to know about what is happening and developed First World countries need to respond to it.

We also hear about the terror and intimidation that is being brought to bear on the people of Tibet who are seen or known to speak with or in any way have any interaction with non-Tibetans. Amnesty International published a report in February 1988 on Tibet and what is going on there. They referred at some length to the question of detention without trial, to the widespread ill-treatment of detainees, of detainees being held incommunicado without access to lawyers, to family or friends, and allegations of brutality and ill-treatment of detainees while being arrested or while being held in detention. That is the position there at the moment. We do not get too many reports because there is almost an international news black-out. There is need to expose what is happening in Tibet so that the world will know about it. We get reports of police shooting civilians on a number of occasions. We have had descriptions of Buddhist monks demonstrating for the independence of Tibet on a number of occasions over the past couple of years and, in particular, last March on the 29th anniversary of the loss of the republic.

The question of harassment, arrests, intimidation of peaceful demonstrators and scenes of violence has been the story from Tibet over the past number of years and it is growing. Next month will be the 30th anniversary of the abolition of the republic. Undoubtedly there will be demonstrations, violence, killings. Our request here is that the world takes note and that the world responds. Our control and influence extends through this State. Tonight we are requesting that this State takes note and responds, takes a lead and shows responsibility in responding to the problems of the people of Tibet. It is not a time to bow to the sensitivities of the Chinese. It is not a time for us to say: "Let us not put our trade, commercial prospects and material gain at risk for the sake of a suppressed and oppressed people". Our history should not allow us to do that.

I appeal to the Minister first to address the issue, to respond to the rights and wrongs of the issue, to indicate how the Government read the scene and then to indicate to us the action the Government propose to take. In the area of action it is the responsibility of people like myself, if I am to stand and demand things of Government and perhaps try and influence the direction taken by Government, to have some proposals to make and I would like to make very definite proposals to the Minister. I ask that the Irish Ambassador to India or to China lead a fact-finding mission to Tibet on behalf of the Government, to meet the people, to meet the different interest groups on all sides and to put together a report on what they have found. The report of the mission led by an Irish Ambassador should be brought to the Government. Following consideration of that report by the Government they should seek formal discussion with the Chinese authorities to assess the situation internationally and participate internationally.

I hope I will not get a sort of "I am all right Jack" response or "It is none of our business". If we participate in the international community we have responsibilities and duties as well as privileges and rights. What might be right in terms of trade might be all wrong morally. The objective of the discussions the Irish Government might have with the Chinese authorities would be to persuade the Chinese to move towards granting civil and political rights to the people of Tibet and that they would respect and recognise the dignity and culture of the Tibetan people, that the Irish Government would demand that the Chinese discuss with the Dalai Lama, the religious and political head of the Tibetan people, a programme which would lead to self-rule for the Tibetan people.

I have briefly referred to the history of Tibet, to international opinion and in some sense have summarised what has been said about Tibet. I have put forward proposals. Those proposals should start off with the prerequisite that we would not be dependent on the propaganda of other Foreign Offices, that we would take the lead ourselves, that we would send on behalf of the State an Irish Ambassador on a fact-finding mission to Tibet, who would report back and set the ball rolling for an intervention by this State in resolving the problems of the Tibetan people. I commend the motion and support it.

Mr. Ferris

In supporting this motion totally in the wording used, a motion signed by my colleague, Senator Jack Harte on behalf of the Labour Party, we went over in detail the actual requirements of the resolution on Government. We did so in the knowledge that, first of all, there is a contravention of the human rights of the Tibetan people and, secondly, there is the principle of how the Irish Government, as a neutral nation, a long-serving member of the United Nations, have a proud history of defending minorities and defending oppressed people throughout the world. The Department of Foreign Affairs originally proposed that China be admitted to the United Nations. That courageous act carried out by the late Frank Aiken in his day as an Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs showed a marked departure from the attitude of people of that era to the whole concept of allowing a different ideology and culture to take part in the magnificent organisation of the United Nations. That is something we can be proud of. In doing that we were of the belief that any country we would support and sponsor for membership of the United Nations would live up to the charters of that organisation for oppressed people throughout the world. That is why they have declarations from time to time on important subjects. Forty years ago they issued a declaration on the rights of individuals, namely, United Nations Declarations of Human Rights. We are all proud of it. We are coming up to the anniversary of that declaration.

It staggered all of us to hear that when a non-violent people, the Tibetans, had a small demonstration of that recognition of independence some of them were mowed down in cold blood for just a passive demonstration to remind the oppressors, the Chinese, that they had broken that convention. Those of us who have read books on Tibet have looked in amazement at their magnificent culture which has been influenced by their religious beliefs on reincarnation. A nation which is so steeped in religious culture, that was never among the warring factions in the world, to be annexed by such a powerful nation as China, a nuclear nation, is against all the principles we have ever espoused in this House.

It is for that reason that we are asking the Government to do something through our membership of the United Nations which has issued these charters. They have three declarations with refer specifically to Tibet which we supported. I hope we will reaffirm our support for them. We should also do so as part of the European Community. As part of the 12 countries we carry some weight and, hopefully, we can in the Council of Ministers there stimulate an interest by the European Community in the misfortunes of Tibet which has a proud religious belief in pacifism. If a Catholic nation had been occupied by another country, particularly a communist country like China, then we would not be sitting here tonight discussing it; we would be participating in every activity to ensure the freedom of that country because we would believe that from the religious point of view alone, they had a right to self-determination.

We have been slow in being associated with other areas of discrimination of human rights. The Israelis have done some extraordinary things to the Palestinians, coinciding with the 40th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. There have been advancements in that regard, and we welcome them, but our Government have to do more than just be involved in associations like the United Nations and the European Community. As a nation which is respected throughout the world for its impartiality, its acceptance of the rights of minorities and oppressed people, its nuclear stance, its support of most of the principles of CND and its recognition that the Chinese are now using Tibet as a dumping ground, not alone for nuclear waste but also as a base for nuclear weapons, the distribution of nuclear chemicals and other deadly weapons which are condemned and outlawed by international law, how can we stand by and allow what is happening in Tibet to continue?

I hope that in his response the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, will be receptive to the motion as it is worded at present. If there are some areas the Minister is worried about he should communicate them to us. I do not think this is a subject the House should divide on by voting because it could be a misrepresentation of the support we have for the Tibetan people. One of the ways we can overcome the necessity of having this type of debate here is to establish a foreign affairs committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas——

Mr. J. O'Toole

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ferris

——who would have an input into deciding how we should deal with problems such as this in a structured way. This committee could advise the Minister and the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs who, unfortunately, are not permitted to go outside recognised parameters which have been set for them by precedent and otherwise. Most other democratic states already have this type of committee and they make a major contribution in assisting governments in the formulation of their foreign policies and I believe such a committee should be set up here to assist our Government.

The Minister should take on board the suggestion, which has been passed by resolution in this House, to establish an all-party foreign affairs committee. I am confident that there are people in this House who could make a major contribution to that committee. I believe their work would be recognised by the Department of Foreign Affairs for what it would be, namely, assistance in the formulation of policy. I do not know whether an ambassador has the right to carry out an independent investigation — perhaps that is outside his brief — but maybe the Minister will say how people in Ireland can get first-hand information about what is happening in Tibet. If we have the information then we can act on it and if the information is obtained at ambassadorial level, parliamentary level or by the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs or by the Minister, we should pursue it to make sure we have the correct facts and figures before us about the loss of life. To all intents and purposes the Tibetan people are living in a concentration camp or a work camp; they have no right to self-determination, the expression of civil liberty or any of the rights, which they as a small nation aspire to having. I do not think this motion is asking our Government to do too much in this case.

Mr. Bradford

I should like to support the motion and to congratulate the movers on bringing it before the House. While my comments might be slightly repetitive, it was about time we got the opportunity to speak about the problem which faces the Tibetan people today and, in that respect, I think the more attention given to the matter the better. Unfortunately, up to now we have perhaps regarded this problem as one that is out of sight and therefore out of mind, but we must now face the sad reality that under the present regime the future for the people of Tibet is not very bright. In fact, one wonders if there is any future at all for them. Their problems have to be brought to the centre of the world political stage and while this motion which, hopefully, will be passed by Seanad Éireann tonight, may not produce an immediate response, it will be a move in the right direction. We must at least make whatever move we can at that level.

The history of the people of Tibet is a very sad example of the violation of the human rights of a minority people. The fact that this problem has not been on our political agenda at the level it should have been reflects in a sense what was said by Senator O'Toole earlier tonight — perhaps we do not want to criticise a régime who we feel are moving slightly in our direction and we do not want to rock the boat. If we are to note the positive changes that have taken place in China, and one day to recognise China as a totally mature, free, democratic country, then the Chinese themselves must act in the sort of manner that would befit such a country. However, while that country is stamping down — and I think one could use that phrase — the people of Tibet, we must be quite reserved in our position towards China.

I hope that the political difficulties which face the Irish Government in criticising a country of the size of China will not stop us from making the points that have to be made and will not stop the Government from raising this issue at the highest possible level. We do not have the military might, the financial might or economic wealth of larger nations but as a small, independent, neutral country I think our voice will be heard and we must use that voice in whatever forum is available to us. While the issue of Tibet may be far away from us in a sense it should not be regarded by the Irish people as being remote. Our history has shown us what can happen to a country that is forgotten by its neighbours. We must do what we can for small countries the world over and if enough countries try to bring the problems of Tibet to the world stage then hopefully, action will be taken on their problems.

The history of Tibet has been well documented during the debate on this motion but I would like to briefly refer again to the major difficulties which have arisen in that country since it was invaded by the Chinese in 1949. Since those days the people of Tibet have been persecuted, their religious and democratic rights have been removed totally from them and by taking their minerals and other sources of wealth, etc., their economic wealth has been removed from them also. Much of this has been done by the use of forced labour, as operated by the Chinese authorities. We are talking about a people whose political freedom, democratic rights and religious liberties have been removed from them and whose economic wealth is being removed from them on a daily basis.

The facts of the matter speak for themselves. The Tibetan people will become a minority race: in Tibet at present there are only 1.8 million Tibetans as opposed to 2.5 million Chinese. That shows the extent of the problem which has been created as a direct result of modern-day colonialisation. The Tibetan people have always regarded themselves as an independent race and just not an autonomous area within China. Unfortunately, their voice has not been heard on the world stage and their problems have not been presented as they should have been. As a result, their difficulties and sufferings have been more or less ignored or kept from us for the past 40 years, and, in particular, since the 1959 rising. The Cultural Revolution operated by Mao Tsetung between 1966 and 1976 had, of course, a dramatic effect on a country such as Tibet which had serious enough problems in 1966. As a result of the Cultural Revolution the monasteries in Tibet — I believe almost 6,500 of them — were destroyed, the Tibetan language, religion and the culture were repressed and removed almost totally from the people of the country.

As Senator Ferris said, we would speak in very lofty tones if there was a problem such as this in Europe, particularly in eastern Europe, but because this is happening many miles away from us we think we are removed from it. Unfortunately we have to face the fact that while there is a problem, regardless of where it is, we have some responsibility for highlighting it and for attempting to take action to seek a solution. The continual threat to Tibet and its population from Chinese emigrants must not be understated. Developments in the country over the next few years will finally determine whether Tibet will lapse further into a state of apartheid or whether it will return to the sort of country the people of Tibet wish it to be. We speak very loudly about apartheid in countries on whom the media may be focused but there is also a very serious problem of apartheid in Tibet and we do not even give it a mention. The form of apartheid being experienced by the Tibetan people is very serious and must be addressed.

I think Senator O'Toole spoke on this issue and spoke of the total lack of education and health care facilities available to those people. We have to recognise that people who live under conditions such as those do not have any future and we must insist on action being taken to counteract this. The failings in regard to human rights in that country at present, and indeed over the past 30 to 40 years, must be noted and we must seek to redress them. They are as severe as those in any country in eastern Europe or in South America but, again, they do not get the media attention those other countries get. I suppose it illustrates the power of the press that even primary school children in our country can talk about South Africa, Poland and East Berlin while at the same time very few people in this country know anything at all about the problem being faced by the people of Tibet. On that basis I believe the more media attention given to this problem the better chance we will have of getting a response from the Chinese authorities.

With regard to the specific question of what we as a nation can do to redress the situation, we may not have the wealth, the armaments or the economic voice to make a huge difference but we must try to ensure that the forum of the United Nations is used by us to the maximum extent possible to raise the plight of these unfortunate people. I hope that the kernel of the motion, paragraph 4 (c), which calls on the Irish Government to instigate a motion at the United Nations in support of the Tibetan people, will be seriously considered by the Government. Not only do we have a right to do this but we have a duty to do so because when we can see a small country like Tibet being almost removed from existence by a new superpower, nineties-style colonisation, we cannot stand idly by.

I hope for a positive response from the Minister when he replies to this motion. As Senator Ferris said, I hope we do not have a division on this motion because it would be in the interests of the House and of democracy for a forum such as Seanad Éireann to throw its full weight behind the people of Tibet and initiate a public debate on the issue. The more mention we make of this problem, the more speedy will be the response of the people who will decide the future of Tibet, namely, the Chinese authorities.

Minister for State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

First, I want to thank Senator Robinson in particular for putting down the motion because it gives us the opportunity to discuss human rights in Tibet. However, the Government could not endorse a motion phrased in the terms of the one that is before this House.

Ireland has taken a position on human rights in Tibet and elsewhere in the world. Together with our partners in the European Community we have a deep commitment to the respect, protection and further promotion of human rights which we consider a cornerstone of European co-operation and security and an essential element in our relations with third countries. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent human rights treaties, the protection of human rights has become an essential duty of the international community as well as of each of its members. Neither the need to respect national boundaries nor the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs lessen this obligation of the members of the international community.

Ireland has sought also to be helpful in integrating the People's Republic of China into the UN and for that reason, as was mentioned by Senator Ferris, voted in the UN in favour of discussion of Chinese membership. We did not establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China until 1979. At that time we recognised the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. At the time we established diplomatic relations, Tibet was part of the territory of the People's Republic of China and is part of that territory today.

The question of Tibet is a long-standing and complex one. Its status has historically been the subject of some debate. As Senator Robinson outlined very explicitly in her contribution the extent of the geographical area of Tibet is a matter of some dispute between different parties based on the historical interpretation of each. I can see no point in focusing on the historical origins of Tibet or what may constitute its boundaries because this motion addresses the issue of human rights. Ireland has been encouraged by positive developments in Chinese policy towards Tibet in recent years. The shift in that policy has been recognised in the Council of Europe and I would also refer Senators and, in particular, Senator O'Toole, to the publication Asia Watch report of February 1988 which outlines the progress that has been made in recent times.

In the last decade there has been a conscious and demonstrable effort by the Chinese Government to ease tensions and to implement economic and other reforms in Tibet. In 1987 the Chinese authorities stressed a continued commitment to liberalisation and autonomy in Tibet which has been an autonomous region of the People's Republic of China since 1965. This policy has benefited the Tibetan people especially in the economic field. Developments in other fields include the reopening of monasteries and the increasing percentage of Tibetans in local government. This conciliatory approach was reflected in the amnesty announced by the Chinese authorities for most of those arrested for taking part in the disturbances in autumn 1987. It is suggested from reports and documentation submitted by the Tibetan support group that of the numbers who were arrested in 1987 approximately 100 are still in prison.

Senators have referred to resolutions on the question of Tibet adopted by the United Nations in the past. Ireland supported these because of a concern for the necessity to protect human rights which is not confined to Tibet. These resolutions essentially dealt with the need for respect for the human rights of the people of Tibet. As mentioned by Senator O'Toole it is clear that the Tibetans, like other nationalities within the territory of the People's Republic of China, have their own language, religious beliefs, customs and habits. We continue to attach great importance to respect for human rights, not only in Tibet but elsewhere in the world also. The Chinese authorities are well aware of the importance which Ireland and its partners in the European Community attach to human rights being scrupulously observed.

In many of the debates I have taken part in there seemed to be almost a condemnation that quite often we as a Government talk about what we do in relation to human rights by referring to "our concern, with that of our European partners" but so long as our principles and philosophies are accepted by our European partners we will continue to use them. We have adopted clear and unequivocal moral stances on many issues and we will continue to maintain them regardless of what our European partners accept. In this respect I want to refer in particular to Senator Bulbulia's contribution. On one occasion in the not too distant past when the Government deviated from what our European partners did, her party were not very happy about that.

I have no direct reports of what happened in Tibet during incidents reported to have taken place on 10 December 1988. However, reports we have seen indicate that further efforts are necessary to ensure that the human rights of Tibetans are fully respected. Ireland considers that a dialogue between Tibetans and the central authorities in the People's Republic of China can promote the necessary respect for Tibetan human rights. Irish policy is directed towards encouraging such a dialogue. As mentioned by Senator O'Toole, both the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities have expressed a willingness to hold talks. China has stated that it respects the religious beliefs, customs and habits of the Tibetan people.

The Dalai Lama is the respected religious leader of Tibetans and it is understood that his staff are in contact with the Chinese authorities about arranging such a meeting. Ireland believes that such a dialogue deserves the full support of the international community with a view to resolving the grievances of Tibetans. As was mentioned by some Senators, the past year has seen a remarkable blossoming in dialogue worldwide to resolve disputes peacefully and we hope that the difficulties and problems in Tibet can be addressed in a similar manner. Senator O'Toole spoke about the forthcoming 30th anniversary. Our Ambassador in Beijing will clearly monitor developments in Tibet and other parts of the territory of the People's Republic of China and report fully to us on them.

We are also convinced that it is by promoting such a dialogue that an acceptable solution can be found to the problems which Tibet faces. Ireland is determined to do everything it can to promote this dialogue with a view to ensuring full respect for the human rights of the people of Tibet in circumstances which are acceptable to all. However, as I said at the beginning, the Government could not endorse a motion phrased in the terms of the one before this House.

Mr. Ross

I had intended to speak on this motion until I heard what the Minister had to say. It is the most disappointing reply in a series of disappointing and disastrous replies on foreign policy from the Minister given in this House over the past few months. It is the worst cop-out that he has produced here after producing a number of copouts on foreign policy. I would fault him on several things but in particular I would fault him on what I have faulted him on before, that is, his speech continually referred to "our attitudes, together with our European partners". This is simply not good enough from a country which trumpets its neutrality so loudly and which make such a fuss about its neutrality in the internal affairs of the EC. When it comes to having some moral courage on an issue of human rights which should be non-negotiable the Government fail abysmally.

Mr. Calleary

Obviously the Senator was not listening.

Mr. Ross

I read the Minister's speech.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Ross

On page 1 of his speech the Minister said: "Together with our partners in the European Community ... "

Mr. Calleary

You should also have listened to what I said but which was not in my script.

Mr. Ross

I listened to what you said about the one occasion you referred to when you deviated from the European Community in the recent past——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cregan)

Through the Chair, Senator.

Mr. Ross

It is very disappointing to hear the Minister admit — something which I did not know — that there was one occasion only in the recent past when we deviated from the European Community.

Mr. Calleary

I said in the recent past and the Senator did not agree with that deviation either.

Mr. Ross

I am not on the record as agreeing or disagreeing with it.

Mr. S. Haughey

We can check that.

Mr. J. O'Toole

On a point of order, is it only Independent and non-Government Members who are asked to intervene through the Chair? I note that in the past five minutes one person has been asked to speak through the Chair but there have been three or four interruptions. I ask the Chair to note that fact.

Mr. Calleary

My apologies.

Acting Chairman

I do not think that is a point of order.

Mr. J. O'Toole

It is fine so long as it is on the record.

Mr. Ross

May I continue without interruption?

Mr. Calleary

Certainly.

Mr. Ross

Thank you. I find it very difficult, having listened to the Minister speaking on foreign policy here coincidentally on quite a number of occasions in the past few months, to take this type of standard foreign affairs reply to sensitive, prickly questions. It seems to me that our neutrality means this: we are frightened of offending the United States on Nicaragua; we are frightened of offending Russia on persecution of the Jews; we are frightened of offending Libya and Iran because of trade; and now we are frightened of saying anything about the Chinese suppression of human rights in Tibet.

Our foreign policy and our moral standing in the world are, I put to the House, a complete shambles if we have to put up with a speech like this which is full of platitudes, which says nothing about condemning the Chinese. I do not understand why the Minister is frightened of condemning Chinese violations of human rights in Tibet. Perhaps the Minister is right and it is very difficult to obtain information on what happens in Tibet. I do not know very much about Tibet and I am quite happy to admit it, but I do not see very much admission in the Minister's speech that he does not know very much about Tibet, or he chooses not to know very much about Tibet. To a Government like this, human rights should not be negotiable. It seems to me that to say that the Chinese authorities are doing X, Y, and Z which are direct quotes from Chinese Government statements is not good enough. It ought to be——

Mr. Calleary

I did not quote Chinese Government statements.

Mr. Ross

I will find it in a moment. I will come back to it. Basically what the Minister said was what the Chinese Government were maintaining and he was respecting that right. It should be the business of the Government to find out and verify whether these atrocities which are referred to in the motion are true and, if they are, not to hedge their bets on them but simply to condemn them. I congratulate the Tibetan Action Group who are here this evening on raising public awareness on an issue like this. It is a great shame that we as a country who fought for self-determination over many years and achieved it are not prepared to stand behind the people of Tibet when they are trying to do this and are not prepared to condemn those who are oppressing them.

I will come back to where the Minister quoted Chinese Government policy. In the middle of page 2 he says: "Ireland has been encouraged by positive developments in Chinese policy towards Tibet in recent years". He goes on to say: "In 1987 the Chinese authorities stressed a continued commitment to liberalisation and autonomy in Tibet". That is an unquestioning acceptance of what the Chinese have said. It is an acceptance which I do not go along with.

Finally, as Senator Ferris and other Senators said, it is a great disappointment to those of us in this House who have tried to get involved in a foreign affairs committee that we cannot have a foreign affairs committee which could discuss matters of this sort and make recommendations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is a great disappointment that the Government not only will not agree or support this but that the contribution of the Government side to this debate has come exclusively from the Minister.

Acting Chairman

Senator Robinson.

Mrs. Robinson rose.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry, Senator. I understand another Senator has requested time to speak. Will Senator Robinson give him some of her time?

Mr. Connor

Like Senator Ross, I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. I find it quite inadequate. We are taking propaganda statements issued by the Chinese Government about events in Tibet, putting them on the record of the House and expressing them as part of the foreign policy of this country. I do not think that is good enough. We have all read and seen objective media reports of serious acts of violence committed against the Tibetan people in the very recent past.

There used to be a view in the West until pretty recent times that China was to be seen as a delinquent nation who preyed somewhat on her neighbours. That, of course, is not part of Chinese history but, strangely, in terms of its relations towards Tibet it has been. The irony of it all is that the Chinese-Tibetan claims and the vice versa Tibetan-Chinese claims started hundreds or perhaps 1,000 years ago when a Tibetan leader laid claim to a part of China but there is no recorded historical claim right through the various dynasties in China of a Chinese Emperor laying a particular historical claim upon Tibet. That was a phenomenon which appeared after the Chinese Communists took control in China in 1949 when China moved, as large powers are inclined to do, to secure its borders and set up buffer states along its border. It looked towards Tibet because Tibet was caught there. It is called the roof of the world. She moved very quickly. The Tibetan people were the most peace-loving people in the world. Their culture was totally anti-violence and they were easy prey for the Chinese. They might, indeed, have looked north to Mongolia where there is a traditional Chinese claim upon what nowadays we call Outer Mongolia but at that stage Outer Mongolia had become a client State of the Soviet Union and the Chinese did not move in that direction where they would have a far greater historical territorial claim than they ever had in Tibet.

This motion calls upon the Government here to stand up for the principles that this country has always espoused and abided by down through our history. We should not forget that this country above all in this part of the world has had a nightmare colonial past of oppression. We should be easily able to find common cause with the people of Tibet who have a religious, cultural, ethnic identity of their own oppressed and suppressed by a much larger neighbour.

I remember not so many years ago when the Dalai Lama, the religious and civil leader in Tibet, was accepted in this country. He was received by the then President of this country, the late Erskine Childers. He was given to all intents and purposes the reception and the welcome of a head of State. There has been a noticeable movement in foreign policy and in the attitude of the Department of Foreign Affairs towards Tibet in recent years. If a matter of this kind was raised in this House or in the other House a decade ago, the response coming from the Minister would be quite different. It would, indeed, I suppose, have a lot of the rhetoric of the cold war in it but nevertheless it would be quite different, a lot more friendly and would give a lot more recognition to the self-determination rights of the Tibetan people.

I know Senator Robinson is waiting to wind up. I am grateful that I was given a few moments to express these views. I support the motion and commend it to the House.

Mrs. Robinson

I would like to begin my reply to this debate by referring to a letter which I received just as I was coming into the Chamber for the debate this evening. It is a letter from the Dalia Lama on his official notepaper dated: 17 January 1989. The letter is in the following terms:

Dear Senator Robinson,

I am glad to learn that with your support a motion condemning the Chinese abuse of human rights in Tibet is to be debated in the Irish Senate on 18 January 1989.

On behalf of the Tibetan people and on my own behalf, I write to express my deep sense of appreciation for your support to the motion. I am sure the people of Ireland will be more aware of the true situation in Tibet through such debates in the Irish Senate.

World-wide interest and support for the state of affairs in Tibet is not only a source of inspiration to us but also one of the most effective ways of drawing the attention of the Chinese authorities to the Tibetan situation which they have been ignoring for so long.

Thanking you and with good wishes,

Yours sincerely,

The letter is signed by the Dalai Lama.

I wanted to begin by putting that letter on the record because it is important that we recognise, and indeed recognise I hope with a sense that we are doing something useful, that this debate is creating some ripples, that it is having an effect, indeed was having an effect before it began last week and has continued today.

I would like to begin by thanking the nine Senators, apart from myself, who spoke. Ten of us spoke from the floor of the House and the Minister also contributed as the 11th speaker. On a motion of this kind that is a very good and broad-based contribution. However, I was disappointed that the contributions, although representative of Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Independent Group and indeed Senator Robb, an Independent from the other side of the House, did not contain individual contributions from members of the Fianna Fáil Party. That is disappointing because this is an issue of human rights. It is an issue in which I am sure individual members of Fianna Fáil have a considerable interest and concern and it is regrettable that we do not have that voice expressly on the record. Nonetheless I am very grateful to those Senators who have contributed and who have added their voices very strongly to the thrust of the motion.

Understandably when I am replying I am principally responding to the contribution by the Minister who speaks on behalf of the Government on this occasion. Although I do not have the same approach on a number of fundnamental issues as the Minister — I will come to that — I was heartened by the emphasis which the Minister placed on the importance of both reinforcing the protection of human rights in Tibet and also the necessity for constructive dialogue between the Dalai Lama and his representative and the Chinese authorities. Furthermore, I was encouraged by his response to the practical suggestion which Senator O'Toole put forward. Senator O'Toole canvassed the idea of the Irish Ambassador either in China or India leading a fact-finding mission to Tibet and being in a position to report at first-hand on the situation so that there could be a more structured Irish concern expressed.

The Minister in his speech referred to the role of the Irish Ambassador in Beijing in monitoring and reporting on the situation in Tibet. That is important particularly in the coming months for the reason that has been given, during the month of March 1989 and perhaps for several months after that. It would be something that this House would greatly appreciate if the Minister could undertake to have any reports from the Ambassador conveyed to this House, and indeed placed in the Library of this House so that they can be available to Senators. In having a debate on issues it is extremely important that we also try to advance the cause somewhat, that we try to be practical and constructive in seeking to advance it.

I appreciate the extent to which the Minister emphasised the concern which Ireland has had and continues to have for the protection of human rights in Tibet and the active concern to ensure the furtherance of reconciliation between the Tibetan people through their representatives, and particularly through the Dalai Lama and his staff, and the Chinese Government.

I would now like to tease out some of the areas. Like the two Senators who spoke after the Minister I was disappointed at the thrust and emphasis which he placed on the issues raised in this motion. The Minister said that it was not possible to endorse the precise wording of the motion while appreciating the thrust of it.

The first thing to which the motion refers is the incident arising from the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The Minister indicated that it was not quite clear to him or to the Government what had transpired. It is clear now to the world from independent reports, from the manner in which the events have been described, what took place and indeed it is an issue on which Governments have been prepared to come out quite strongly and to condemn what happened. For example, the United States State Department, not always known for being a State Department which will condemn violation of human rights in various parts of the world, have strongly deplored the shooting of unarmed demonstrators and bystanders in Lhasa on 10 December 1988. Therefore, there is no need for any reserve on the part of the Irish Government in relation to the recognition which is very widely shared at the moment that that was a particularly notorious occasion and incident in violation of the individual human rights.

The second point in the motion was to note the Irish Government's support for the fundamental rights and the very existence of the Tibetan nation and it refers to the particular resolutions which Ireland had supported under the leadership given in that regard by our representative at the time, Frank Aiken.

In my contribution to this debate last Wednesday I referred to a specific question which had been put by the Tibet Support Group to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Lenihan, in a letter written in early January as to whether Ireland supports the language used by Frank Aiken. I had hoped that the Minister in his contribution would address that question in the manner in which it was posed and reaffirm Ireland's commitment to the resolutions which we have supported down the years at the United Nations, that he would do it unequivocally and that he would use the opportunity to place that on the record. The Minister has not precisely referred to the reasons for reserve with the wording of the motion but the purpose of having a debate of this kind is to have an opportunity to tease out these issues and to clarify the position.

When I was opening this debate I referred to something which has been a popular theme in a number of the contributions made by other Senators. That was my regret that we did not have a committee on foreign affairs where we could deal in a much more structured and developed way with these issues, not just a once-off debate where there is a very little opportunity for dialogue, where the Minister makes a contribution and the mover of the motion can reply to it but there is no further opportunity for dialogue and for exploring further these issues.

I think it is becoming increasingly important that we should have a committee on foreign affairs. It is becoming increasingly important for another reason that has surfaced during this debate. We have in Ireland, for better or worse — I personally believe for better — stated that we have a particular position within the European Community. We are not part of a military alliance, we have negotiated a particular wording of the Single European Act, of Title III to the Single European Act, to accommodate a difference which we say is important and which the Irish people quite clearly believe is important. It is, therefore, absolutely vital that we have a parliamentary committee which can examine in depth, which can monitor how we reflect this in our international affairs, and indeed in our relationships with our partners in the European Community. That is an important broader theme that has come out in this debate but it should not take from the real thrust of the wording of this debate.

The third issue that is raised is to note the very significant estimates of the number of Tibetans who have been killed since the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1949. Again, this is a matter which has been the subject of very considerable international analysis and is likely to be adverted to again next month when the 30th anniversary of the uprising against that Chinese invasion will be celebrated.

I was pleased and encouraged to receive a letter from Mary Lawlor, Director of the Irish section of Amnesty International, welcoming this debate in the Seanad. She said that Amnesty International was very interested in the recent Seanad initiative concerning Tibet, reinforcing a point which has been made by some Senators that Amnesty has been monitoring very carefully what is happening in Tibet and is very concerned about it. The motion addresses an issue which has been the subject of independent reports, including indeed the type of report which the Minister himself quoted from the official report of February 1988 of Asia Watch. At the moment these types of reports are the best evidence we can get out of Tibet of the very difficult situation for the people there. The motion in adverting to an existing situation has done so in a responsible way, in a way that is in line with independent, well-informed world opinion on this issue.

The positive end of the motion — what we ask to be done — is a condemnation of the Chinese regime for its grave violation of human rights in Tibet. Every Senator who spoke addressed this question of violation of human rights. The only question I suppose we can pose is whether it is more constructive when you are seeking dialogue and reconciliation to condemn or to use more conciliatory language. That is a question worth addressing. Certainly when it comes to a concern about human rights it is necessary at times to call a spade a spade. It is necessary to face up to difficult issues. It is probably particularly necessary when you are dealing with people such as the Chinese people who respect those who, in fact, take positions of integrity and stand by them and are not swayed by other considerations.

I come then to the last two paragraphs of the motion in the brief time left to me. We urge the Government to support all international measures for establishing peace and respect for human rights in Tibet. I have no doubt from his contribution to this debate that the Minister would unequivocally support that part of the motion.

Finally, we call on the Government to instigate a motion at the United Nations in support of the Tibetan people. The Minister has come a considerable way in a practical sense by referring to the fact that the Irish Ambassador in Beijing will be and is monitoring closely the situation in Tibet. I would certainly hope that should there be occasion to do so, Ireland will either initiate or support any action which may be taken at the level of the United Nations to draw attention to the situation and in particular to focus on the need for constructive dialogue between the Dalai Lama and other representatives of the Tibetan people and the Chinese Government.

The debate has raised an issue of very real importance and obviously one of very real concern to a large number of Members of this House. It is noted already in the country that we are concerned about this. For that reason I am very grateful indeed to those who participated and I hope that the ripples will continue in a constructive way.

Mr. Ferris

On a point of order, before you actually put the motion or not in view of the Minister's coming part of the way with us on the sentiments expressed, in view of his comments that he could not endorse this motion as it is worded, I would suggest, if the Government side would agree, that we would allow a sos so that we could have an acceptable compromise wording. If this motion is voted down, it will be misrepresented that this Government are in favour of what the Chinese are doing. I know they are not and I know that the Standing Orders might not allow this kind of procedure——

Acting Chairman

You have made your point, Senator, and I can——

Mr. Ferris

I am surprised that the Minister did not amend the motion in a structured way. Is it possible for us to arrive at a situation——

Acting Chairman

It is a good point. May I ask if it is agreed?

Mrs. Robinson

I felt that there was a very important area of common ground in the approach——

Acting Chairman

I am sorry. I have to put the question on the motion.

Mr. J. O'Toole

On a point of order, is it possible under the changes in the Standing Orders which I have not got in front of me to be registered as being in support of the motion without pushing it to a vote? Can you indicate to me the new position under the Standing Orders?

Acting Chairman

If it is agreed on the ministerial side and if it is agreed on all sides of the House, that can be done. You can record your dissent.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Can one record one's assent?

Acting Chairman

No, only dissent. The question is: "That the motion be agreed to". Those in favour say Tá and those against say Níl. The question is defeated.

Senators

Vótáil.

Mrs. Robinson

There was a certain decision in relation to the taking of a vote in this matter and the confusion may, in fact, reflect the reality of the situation which is that there is a lot of common ground and there is a reluctance to have the matter, which is a very sensitive international issue, voted upon in this manner, In the particular circumstances, if the House would allow me, I would like, as the mover of this motion, to seek the leave of the House to withdraw it at this stage. That would be a conclusion on the motion which would best reflect the real issues which have been debated.

Let the debate speak for itself. Since there was confusion, and still is confusion, in the minds of most of us as to what exactly happened at the end perhaps the House would allow me to withdraw the motion at this stage and not have the matter voted upon. Had I fully understood the situation that is what I would have put to the House at an earlier stage.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 1 Feb 1989