The contributions of Senators should not exceed ten minutes.
Human Rights in Tibet: Statements.
These statements were sought by an Independent Senator this morning and he is not present in the House. I am not too sure what statements we can make on Tibet. It is extraordinary that a Member would seek to have statements in the House, yet he is not here to contribute. I seek the Acting Chairman's guidance on this matter. Should I make a statement on Tibet, or wait for the person who sought the statements this morning to arrive? It is an insult to the House to seek statements yet not be present in the House when they are taken. I am in your hands, Sir.
Acting Chairman
The Senator in question may not have envisaged that the business of the House would be dealt with so quickly.
This morning, the Leader of the House went to great lengths to arrange this debate. The matter even went to a vote of the House, yet Senator Norris is not here to contribute.
Acting Chairman
I understand that Senator Norris is on his way to the House.
Is it appropriate for us to wait or should we just leave it?
Acting Chairman
The Senator can make a contribution.
If I make a second contribution will we leave it there?
Acting Chairman
All I can tell you is that the Senator has informed the Seanad Office that he is on his way.
I am not too sure exactly what Senator Norris wanted to say about Tibet this morning. It is an area of the world that I have an interest in, but I feel the Dalai Lama has been deified by various people. The Chinese Government has been totally and utterly condemned because of the situation in Tibet. Before the Chinese went in, however, the situation in Tibet was atrocious. It was a feudal system in which certain members of a particular religious society dictated who would become the leader and they brought in these people at three or four years of age.
I would prefer that this debate would not take place because the Senator who called for it was not in the House when it began.
Acting Chairman
Senator Norris has arrived. There was a problem because, as the mover of the request for statements, the Senator was not here. We heard that you were on the way. Does Senator Norris wish to speak?
I apologise to the House. I was in my office and I rang several times. The understanding my secretary was given was that the statements would be at 5.10 p.m. I was watching the monitor and when I saw the matter coming up I ran over as quickly as I could.
There was a shortage of speakers on the Opposition side. We could not do anything about it.
I am glad that at least we have an opportunity to say something about Tibet. However, this is the second time that reference has been made to the absence of Members of the House, but that is an infringement of the rules of the House. It occurred blatantly yesterday with the Minister who spent quite a long time on it.
Acting Chairman
No Member of the House was mentioned by name.
It does not matter. A reference to the absence of Members is not contemplated under Standing Orders.
I am very disappointed that the statements are being taken in this manner. There was confusion about it and to a certain extent it is almost redundant having the matter on the Order Paper in this manner at this time. I was given repeated assurances that No. 23, motions 18 and 19, would be taken, yet they are not being taken. That is a pity because it neutralises what we were trying to do. It is important for us to regard ourselves as a Parliament. We may take decisions here that may advance things slightly beyond what Iveagh House might be comfortable with, but that is the way politics should work and it is certainly the way a parliament should work. I would remind the House that precisely the same situation obtained with regard to East Timor when a similar motion was put through without—
Could we have the statements on Tibet?
I am sorry, I do not want to be interrupted.
Acting Chairman
Senator Norris without interruption.
I will say precisely what I want to say without any help from Senator Lanigan.
The two motions concerned are very important. The first one was passed by the French Government. It states:
That Seanad Éireann notes:
Whereas governmental and non-government organisations have reported an increase in political repression and restrictions on religious freedoms in Chinese occupied Tibet in 1999;
Recognising that bilateral dialogues on human rights with the Government of the People's Republic of China have failed to produce meaningful improvements in the human rights of the Chinese and Tibetan peoples;
Commending the Government of the United States for introducing a resolution on China at the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights;
Calls on the European Union to co-sponsor a resolution on China at the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights;
Expresses strong support for His Holiness the Dalai Lama's Five Point Peace Plan containing the following components: (1) transformation of the whole of Tibet into a zone of peace; (2) abandonment of China's population transfer policy; (3) respect for the Tibetan people's fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms; (4) restoration and protection of Tibet's natural environment; and (5) commencement of earnest negotiations between the Chinese leadership and the Dalai Lama or his representatives on the future status on Tibet.
I took part in the composition of this motion at a meeting in Brussels and it was also a little difficult. However, we managed to get it through unanimously. It was subsequently passed by the European Parliament and the French Parliament. The House should not be too timorous in passing this resolution. We owe it to a figure such as the Dalai Lama who has struggled peacefully over so many years in an appalling situation for his people for whom the only alternative is violence. We often prate in the House about peace, but we sometimes do little to encourage the most prominent campaigners for peace on the world stage.
However, there is something we could note and we could send a request that something practical be done for the people of Tibet. Some months ago members of the Sub-committee on Human Rights of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs had an opportunity to meet people from the IMF and the World Bank. We expressed our concerns to them about the developments in Tibet under the Chinese regime and particularly the construction of a large dam project and the resultant movement of substantial sections of the Tibetan and Mongolian populations.
A critical point is approaching because a decision will be made shortly. Ireland has a representative, Ms Terrie O'Leary, at the World Bank and I ask the House to recommend to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, that she be instructed to urge the cancellation of the project. The independent World Bank inspection panel in its report accused the bank of flagrant policy violations in Tibet. The report cites a climate of fear that was inspired among local Tibetan and Mongolian populations, the blatant disregard for minority issues and the inadequate environmental assessment that was carried out.
The independent inspection panel found that the World Bank violated seven out of ten of its policies in planning the China western poverty reduction project – CWPRP – a controversial proposal which would resettle 58,000 Chinese farmers on Tibetan and Mongol herding lands. The report, which was commissioned by the World Bank in response to international controversy about the project, including the meeting that took place in Kildare House, finds that the bank violated its policies on indigenous peoples, information disclosure, environmental assessment, involuntary resettlement, confidentiality, dam safety and pest management. This means that 70% of the cardinal points underlying the World Bank's policy were violated by itself. It is outrageous to permit this project to continue in light of the assessment by the independent group charged with reviewing it by the bank itself.
The report vindicates the claims of Tibetans and activists who have maintained that the CWPRP will have a negative impact on the local populations and that conducting an adequate social assessment in such a repressive area is impossible. According to the report, the bank failed to take into account minority concerns and when conducting social assessment surveys, blatantly ignored the Tibetan and Mongol populations who would be affected by the project the most. The report states:
Most striking is the fact that in the entire move-in-area only three Tibetan households were included in the survey. This is in spite of the fact that the project occurs in a Tibetan and Mongolian Autonomous region, and the physical infrastructure for the Project (its supply-canals) passes through Tibetan villages.
None of the 2,411 Tibetan nomads, whose seasonal migrations will be disrupted by the project, was consulted. The people who were interviewed were required to give their names, a violation of bank policy on confidentiality. The report also detailed numerous environmental violations, including an inadequate assessment of the ramifications of doubling the local population and forcibly converting the land to agriculture. This would be highly dangerous in that area because it could lead to desertification.
The report was delivered to the board of executive directors along with a recommendation from bank staff and a personal letter from bank president, James Wolfensohn. In the letter, Mr. Wolfensohn assured the directors that the project, despite its policy violations, could be fixed. An action plan has been submitted and the board is set to vote on the plan on 6 July 2000. This is why it is so important that the message goes out.
Mr. Andrew Bryson, director of the Milarepa fund, a non-profit human rights organisation that has lobbied extensively against this project, said: "The bank has violated nearly every policy it has in planning this project and now they're trying to tell us that it can be fixed." He continued: "But the project itself is fundamentally flawed. Tibetans and Mongols have made it expressly clear that they view this project as a death sentence. The only logical plan of action, with a report such as this, is to cancel the project outright." Attempts to fix up the plan behind the scenes will be a continuing disaster.
The second motion that should have been discussed today, in light of the undertaking so clearly and repeatedly given to me by the Government side that has been broken, states:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs:
(1) to seek to persuade his EU colleagues to co-sponsor the US resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission currently under way in Geneva; and
(2) to raise with the Chinese authorities the detention of Mr. Zhao Ming: Trinity College (Changchun City, Jilin Province); Ms. Yan Fang: Dun Laoghaire Senior College (Shenyang City, Liaoning Province); and Mr. Liu Feng, Dun Laoghaire College of Further Education (Dalian City, Liaoning Province), all formerly resident in Ireland, who were arrested merely for engaging in Falun Gong meditation practices.
It says much if a political authority can be threatened by the practice of Falun Gong whose principles are peace, harmony and meditation. It is a matter of shame for me that, although Trinity College employed one of those persons and was written to, it appears to have done nothing whatsoever about it. A fear of China's economic might is probably the reason.
Anybody who takes that line should look at the analysis produced by the London School of Economics and two of its senior professors concerning the current financial situation of China. It is in this respect, as in so many other respects, merely a paper tiger. For example, in Taiwan, it threatened all types of war, murder and bloodshed if the Taiwanese elected a particular person president. However, when he was elected, it entered negotiations immediately.
We should stand up on a matter of principle. Ireland in particular should do this because it supported Tibet honourably in its darkest days in the 1950s. It also even handedly sponsored the inclusion of what was then known as Red China in the United Nations. Ireland has a certain moral authority in this area and I hope the House will take a strong line on this issue.
I hope we will return to this matter properly and in an orderly manner, not during a maelstrom of business being rushed through the House on the last day. I would have been grateful if the original undertaking to take motions 18 and 19 instead of statements had been honoured. This was done successfully in the past and it helped to push out the borders with regard to East Timor. In the meantime, we should act on the requests from within the funding agencies as well as from Tibet support groups, etc. We should try to insist that the current project regarding Tibet and China is withdrawn and cancelled in its entirety. The board of the bank should not allow management to try to fix the problems with the project but should cancel it outright. No amount of tinkering around the edges will fix the fundamental flaws in the project design, nor can it adequately address the climate of fear that pervades the project region and will continue to undermine the principle of full and informed consultation.
If this project were to go forward it would demonstrate to the international community that the bank lacks the commitment to enforce its own policies and standards. It would result in increased public and governmental scrutiny of other bank projects in China and elsewhere, particularly those that involve resettlement, and it would put an international stamp of approval on China's policy of population transfer into occupied Tibet.
I took three words from Senator Norris' remarks, peace, harmony and meditation. We should go away in peace and harmony and meditate on the situation in Tibet. He has a biased view of the situation. I have read a great deal about Tibet and I do not agree with the Dalai Lama being selected at four years of age. Its society is more feudal than the one in China.
That is rubbish. What about the election of the Pope?
Acting Chairman
Senator Lanigan, without interruption.
We are entitled to have a Pope.
People who do not agree with Senator Norris are denigrated. He thinks he is the Dalai Lama of the Seanad, but he is not. He does not have all the powers.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator to speak to the issue.
The Senator is the Mikado.
You are my Iolanthe.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator to direct his remarks through the Chair.
The Committee on Foreign Affairs has decided that a delegation will visit Tibet on 14 September for five days. I am not a member of that delegation but, perhaps, we should wait until after that visit to reassess the situation there. We should ask for meetings with the Dalai Lama. He said four days ago he would begin consultations with the Chinese Government on the situation in Tibet. Perhaps he is doing so because he has two possible successors, although I do not know the politics of that area. Perhaps we can discuss this subject as early as we can once we have the report of the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I have no sympathy for the Dalai Lama or his sponsors. As regards China and its human rights violations, it is not too long since we were involved in human rights violations. It is not too long since Europe, which is criticising the Chinese for what happens in Tibet, was the biggest abuser of human rights in the world. We created the problems in Africa.
That is not true.
It is true. We should address this matter after the report is given to us by the people who will visit Tibet on 14 September. The delegation will include members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, although I am not sure about the Independents.
I have been to Tibet and I know what I am talking about.
So have I.
This is a serious issue which has been discussed in the House on a previous occasion and in international fora, including the United Nations and the EU. We should not take it lightly. We are talking about a group of people in Tibet who are part of a nation. A nation is made up of people with a similar language, religion, culture and tradition.
The question arises as to whether this is a legally recognised state. It was an independent entity until 1949 or 1950. However, it lost that status when the Chinese invaded it and suppressed its people. The recognition of a country as a state should not be based on subjective but on legal criteria. That depends on whether the state has a government which people can recognise and whether it can conduct foreign relations with other international countries.
We must examine the situation in Tibet. What has happened in Tibet since the Chinese occupation in 1949 or 1950 has not been pleasant. Religious practice has been suppressed by the Chinese and more than 6,000 monasteries have been destroyed. Strict laws have been implemented in relation to rebuilding those monasteries. Limits have also been set in terms of the number of monks and nuns who can live in them.
There is a history of suppression which could be equated with what happened in this country many years ago. As a small nation, we should use our position in the EU and the United Nations to ensure this situation is examined with a view to stopping what is happening there at present.
Senator Lanigan said Tibet is a feudal society. It may not be our preferred system but we have no right to impose that on anyone. If it is the wish of the people of Tibet to return to the type of system they had prior to 1950, they should be allowed to do so under international law.
There is a case to be answered. Although we are only a small member state of the European Union, we are in a position to raise this issue within the EU and to insist that it brings influence to bear on the international community. The Government should urge the EU to co-sponsor the United Nations resolution with the American Government. I commend the American Government for taking this action. There is an onus on us to ensure the EU follows suit.
We should not be quick to jump to conclusions about the Dalai Lama and his system in Tibet. The invasion and suppression to which the people have been subjected by the Chinese over the years should be condemned. We should not support the Chinese Government's policy of settling Chinese people in Tibet with the long-term objective of diluting the influence of the Tibetan culture because it is contrary to international agreements, protocols and United Nations conventions.
A delegation from the Committee on Foreign Affairs will shortly visit China at the invitation of the Chinese Ambassador. It should raise this issue with the Chinese authorities. The delegation should also visit Tibet to see at first hand what is happening there. It is a remote and, perhaps, inaccessible area but, as part of an international community we have a moral responsibility towards it. We have as much right and responsibility as anyone else to exercise that moral authority. I hope the Irish Government will take that on board at the earliest opportunity.
It is appropriate, in finishing the business of the House this session, that we have ranged over such a wide variety of subjects today and that we should travel as far away as Tibet to conclude our proceedings. It indicates the extent of the interest of this House in internal and external matters.
The two resolutions proposed by Senators Norris and Ross in relation to China and Tibet are appropriate and necessary in that they are at the cutting edge of fundamental human rights. We must remember that the People's Republic of China does not have a desirable reputation on human rights, either in respect of its own citizens or other nationals. In demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, a large number of students were viciously trampled, killed and injured in the pursuit of liberty and basic rights for the Chinese people, and many other Chinese people have been involved in that pursuit. We have seen the arrest and suppression of members of Falun Gong, which has members here in Ireland, throughout Europe and in China itself. China has used a great degree of suppression against its own citizens.
It is a simple fact that Tibet was occupied by the Chinese half a century ago. Those of us in this country have a memory of the reality of occupation by a foreign power, and it behoves us to be particularly sensitive to the suffering of a small nation in very similar circumstances. The proposals made by the Dalai Lama on political and religious reform are excellent in attempting to bring about a resolution to the problem. Tibet would be made a peace zone and the disgraceful population transfer policy would be ended.
I was disappointed by Senator Lanigan's remarks to the effect that the authorities in the People's Republic of China are operating in a reasonable fashion, particularly in relation to the shift of population to a much smaller country. It will be only a short time until the Tibetan population has been disproportionately diminished and the Chinese population increased. As a result of that, the Chinese authorities will say that Tibet is largely Chinese. That is an artificial way of dealing with the question of sovereignty. Senator Lanigan would have taken the position of the Palestinians to heart in relation to the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory which was seen, and which he would see, as occupied Palestinian territory. On many occasions in this House he staunchly protested against that very undesirable policy perpetrated by the Israelis in relation to another oppressed people.
The whole area of human rights has been to the fore in terms of the operation of the Chinese authorities. When our former President, Mary Robinson, sought the position of United Nations High Commissioner, the Chinese authorities, through their representative on the Security Council of the United Nations, opposed it simply because Mary Robinson had espoused, when she was President and a Senator, the cause of Tibet. They opposed her nomination to that very important human rights position in the United Nations.
We need a fresh approach. The Chinese authorities must negotiate directly with the Dalai Lama and establish a situation whereby Tibet could get its own sovereignty. The Chinese authorities should respect both the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people and their sovereignty.
I will be brief because my colleagues have made all the important points. Some years ago I attended a meeting in Beijing with an interparliamentary union group. As Senators know, the Panchen Lama is a very important person in Tibet. When he was recognised years ago by the Buddhist community in Tibet, he was a small child, only three years old. He and his family were taken by the Chinese authorities to China. Some years later, the Chinese authorities decided that another child was in fact the new Panchen Lama. When I was in Beijing I asked about the whereabouts and the circumstances of both Panchen Lamas, and I did not get a satisfactory answer. I was told that both they and their families were well but when I asked if it would be possible to see them, I was told that was not possible.
In concluding these statements today, I hope that this country, whose Constitution cherishes the children of the nation, will cherish the children of the Tibetan nation who need to be cher ished too. I ask that we try to discover better particulars on the Chinese Panchen Lama and the original Panchen Lama, who was chosen by his own people, in terms of where they are living and the circumstances under which their families are being enabled to bring them up.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
Before moving the Adjournment, it is my normal duty at this time of the year to thank everyone including the staff of the Seanad, Deirdre Lane, Jody Blake, the staff of the office, the Cathaoirleach, Senator Brian Mullooly, the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator Liam Cosgrave, and all the people who acted as vice-chairmen throughout the session.
I would like to make one comment on reflection. The Seanad has changed. When I came into this House a long time ago, many Bills were rubber-stamped and went through the House without an amendment or anything else.
Not now.
In this session, and especially in the last year, the number of Bills initiated in the Seanad and the amendments that were accepted from the Opposition are an indication that we are going on the right road.
I thank the Acting Chairman, Senator Farrell, in his position assisting me as Chief Whip, and Senator Pat Moylan, our partners in Government, and Senator Dardis, the Deputy Leader. There is one person I always forget to thank and that is the secretary in my own office, Ellen Byrne. I sincerely thank Ellen on behalf of all of us here for keeping the show on the road.
Guím rath Dé oraibh go léir agus táim chun an Seanad a chur ar athló anois sine die.I propose that at the conclusion of business the Seanad adjourn sine die.