Tibetan Parlimentary & Policy Research Centre

Dr. Michael van Walt, Secretary General, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO): First, I would like to thank both Dr. Landsbergis and Dr. Laima Andrikiene for honorary chairing and chairing the parliamentary support group and for inviting me, both as an individual and as a representative of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, to this conference.

It is good to be back in Lithuania. I have been here several times. Whenever I come back to a country where I have been to for a while, and where I have enjoyed and made friends, it is little bit like coming home. And this time, I am so happy to be here for the second time since Lithuanian independence, although I was here also in the less pleasant days when Lithuania was struggling hard to regain its independence.

I am also glad to see many friends, people I have known for some time, both here in Lithuania and people who have come from abroad.

As many people have said, the history of Lithuania, and in fact of the Baltic States, bears many, many similarities to that of Tibet. So, I think nobody can understand better not only the plight, but also the reasons why there is a problem in Tibet, as the people in the Baltic States. And that is why I think it is going to be much easier for me to talk about the whole question of the status of Tibet, and why it is that Tibet is independent and why it is that the Tibetan people have the right to self-determination, and what the consequences of that is than it would be if I were to address people who do not have a similar type of experiences.

I think we are in a very important time in history, as some of the earlier speakers alluded to a kind of crossroads after a fairly clear situation, internationally, when there was the Cold War. Although people did not like the Cold War, many governments and many countries felt they knew the situation and they knew how to act or react. We are now in a situation where States, individuals and political leaders are trying to assess and are trying to develop a new way of dealing with international political problems and with international relations.

So, today, the policies of the future and, as many people call it, the new world order of the future are being decided, are being prepared. This is particularly true in relations between nations and people and rulers. It is crucial and what will happen on the international level globally is going to influence what happens in Tibet. What happens in Tibet and the way Tibet regains independence is going to affect what happens elsewhere internationally as well. That is why this conference is important not only to the people of Tibet, it also has global and international importance.

When I say we are at a crossroads, we are at a time when a number of issues are being polarized. The right and the principle of territorial integrity is being opposed to the right and principle of self-determination. And at this particular time, it is very clear that according to the main powers that be, governments in power, territorial integrity is winning the day. The situation in Chechnya, the awful war in Chechnya, has been a manifestation of the support if not only the western powers, including the United States, but also of China, many Asian powers, and even the Muslim world, through their silence, that the principle of territorial integrity should be regarded as the absolute principle, for which the government has the right even to destroy a people.

This is in contrast to the way the international law was meant to be, which is a balance between the principle or right of self-determination, a balance, which can bring peace and stability. The other opposition is that of violence and non-violence, where again violence seems to be gaining an acceptance as a method to resolve political conflicts as opposed to non-violence, including negotiations and other methods. The war in Chechnya is again an example of that.

The fact that so many countries and international organisations have not questioned the right of the Russian government to use force in order to resolve the political issue is in itself a very dangerous development. The fact that concern has been expressed about human rights violations and so on is a different issue. But very few governments have questioned the right of Russians to use force, certainly at the beginning of the conflict. Now it is changing somewhat. The same is true of the Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq. The United States, in fact, reaffirmed that Turkey has the right to use force in Northern Iraq in order to resolve that problem. And I think these are both dangerous tendencies.

On the other hand, efforts by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, efforts by others to use non-violent means to resolve the conflict are not getting the support they deserve. Both these tendencies put together, if they are allowed to continue — and I think the gathering of parliamentarians here can make a difference in that direction — is going to impact and influence relations, both international relations and State-people's relations in future.

So the question of Tibet is important not only from that perspective, it is also important for regional peace and stability in Asia. I understand the speakers from India will elaborate on this. But, of course, it is of vital importance to the survival of the Tibetan people. So one can talk about it in a global, political and legal sense. But simply the human survival of the people is at stake. Lots of efforts are being made to save species of animals and plants. But I believe not enough attention is being paid to secure the survival of people.

I will discuss the status of Tibet, not only because it is of interest in itself, but also because it forms the basis for almost all the other discussions which we are going to have in the course of the conference. It is the basis for discussion on self-determination of the Tibetan people; also its impact on the discussion on population transfer which we are going to have, and on the question of human rights. It is also that human rights, population and cultural alienation, for example, environmental destruction as well, are only symptoms of a much deeper problem, and that deeper problem is a status of Tibet. It is the question of why China is ruling Tibet in the first place. It is also the question of why Tibetans are consistently resisting Chinese rule in Tibet.

And finally, it is important, because it determines in this particular gathering and in relation to governments that it is the status of Tibet which helps in determining whether the issue at hand is one of domestic, internal jurisdiction of China or whether it is of international concern. This besides the point that, of course, anything that touches on human rights and rights of peoples is by definition an issue of international concern and cannot, by definition, ever be part of the domestic affairs of a State.

Despite what many countries say, and what the United Nations says, that when there is an issue involving human rights and self-determination of people it is an internal matter of a State, by definition it is not. Because human rights are part of international law, a very essential part of international law, and international law would not be called international law if it was not international. It is the States, governments and international organisations who have the duty and responsibility to maintain international law and it is not the domestic jurisdiction of States only.

So the question of the status of Tibet can be boiled down to what right does China have to be in Tibet? China claims that it has a right to be in Tibet on two grounds, and two grounds only. One, Tibet has always been a part of China. Two, Tibet was backward, economically and socially. And, therefore, China has the right to intervene to help the Tibetan people to liberate themselves.

The first issue, namely that Tibet has always been a part of China, is based on a number of periods in Tibetan history. Although if one were to study in detail the history of Tibet-China relations, and also take a short cut and simply visit Tibet, one would be overwhelmed by the sensation that Tibet is obviously not a part of China. Because it is so different and the Chinese don't view it as being part of China, although officially, according to their propaganda, it is supposed to be.

It is also necessary to look at the arguments put forward by the Chinese and see whether they make any sense or not.

So the first argument is that during the very early period of Tibetan history Tibetans has ties with China in the form of weddings between the Tibetan emperors and the Chinese princesses in the seventh and eighth century. If a wedding of royal families should be determinative of whether a country becomes a part of another country, then most European countries would be part of each other at this point. Holland, from where I come, would certainly be part of both Germany and Spain, if not some other countries as well. But anyway, it also ignores the fact that the same emperors wedded many other princesses of surrounding States and therefore should also become part of those other countries, including Nepal.

But what is more important is the argument the Chinese put forward that the Mongol domination in the 13th century was the time when Tibet really became politically part of China. Because the Great Mongol Khans established strong links with Tibetan lamas and later conquered China - and as you know, conquered most of Asia and large parts of Europe, all the way into Eastern Europe — the claim in made that Tibet is, therefore, a part of China. This is not logical. If anything, this argument should mean that Tibet is part of Mongolia. But to say that because the Mongols has an authority in Tibet, and because the Mongols conquered China, Tibet became part of China does not by any stretch of imagination make sense.

In fact, as I mentioned, since most of Asia and most of Europe were under Mongol influence or Mongol rule, this could be applied to any part. Hungary would be part of China. By this argument also, I think Britain and France today should be part of Italy since both came under Roman influence.

The next argument that China uses is the Manchu influence in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The situation is a fairly complex one in that the Manchu emperors established relationships with Tibetan spiritual leaders, with the Tibetan Dalai Lamas. This was a unique type of relationship in Central Asia, and therefore must be seen in that context. That relationship, as our colleague from Tuva would know more about, was one between the patron and priest, where the priest was a spiritual master and gave blessings and performed prayers and protection in the spiritual sense to the lay person, usually a prince or a ruler, and the prince or the ruler, in exchange, protected the priest and his church.

The Dalai Lamas had this relationship with a number of rulers, particularly the Mongol princes, and the Manchu emperor was but one of the late patrons. And, of course, once the Manchu took power in China, they used this relationship for political gains and to develop political influence. But never did the Manchu emperor and never did China at that time consider Tibet as part of China. But in the historical records of that time, Tibet was never described as a part of China.

In fact, at the height of Manchu power, the relationship could be best described, if one were to use western terms of international law, as some kind of protectorate relationship between the Manchu emperor and Tibet, not between China and Tibet. In fact, a very clear distinction was made throughout that time between the Chinese and the Manchus — the Chinese were the subjects of Manchus and not vice-versa. For example, there was a rule or edict from the emperor that Manchus were not allowed to marry Chinese, because it was below them to do so. But the Manchu could marry Tibetans, because the two were considered to be kindred peoples.

As we know, neither the protectorates nor the modern version of protectorate satellites lose their independence. And so, if one were to look at Tibetan history, up to and including the Manchu period — and the Manchu period really stretches until 1911 when the revolution in China brought the Nationalist government - throughout this period Tibet came under the influence both the Mongols and the Manchus, and in the later part of the last century and the beginning this period, under British influence. But Tibet never lost its independence during that period. The reason being that under international law, statehood is not easily lost. Once a State has been established and created — the Tibetan State has been established over a thousand years ago - it takes a tremendous amout for that State to cease to exist. Why? Because international law is a system created by States to protect their own interests. So the system is created in such a way that it is almost impossible to lose your statehood unless you want to do so yourself.

This is why, although the Baltic States were occupied and ruled by the Soviet Union for so long, they never lost their independent statehood. In law, they remained independent States that only waited for the moment to regain effective independence, which they had not been able to exercise for all those years.

In the same way, although Tibet came under the influence of different foreign powers, it was for a very short periods of its history. Because in two thousand years of history of statehood, Tibetans can under some form of foreign influence or other for perhaps a total of only two hundred years. There are very few countries who can claim such a long period of full independence and freedom. In fact, to quote Aitken, the great man from Ireland, who as an ambassador of Ireland in the United Nations, stated during a debate on Tibet in the United Nations that Tibet was for two thousand years free and in full control of its own affairs and a thousand times more free and in full controls of its own affairs and a thousand times more free than many members of the United Nations.

And this is true. If you were to look at the history of many members of the United Nations today, you will find that Tibet has a better claim to independence from the historical context than the majority of the States at the United Nations.

From 1911 to the invasion of 1949, Tibet was in fact entirely independent, which was also recognized by the Chinese representative in Lhasa, who after he left that post as an ambassador, wrote, a book in which he fully admitted that Tibet was independent at that time. Sadly, even though Tibet was then independent, the Tibetan government never made an assertion of that independence and that was a great mistake for which the Tibetan government should be criticized. Because Nationalist China, for the first time in Chinese history, claimed Tibet to be a province of China, an integral part of China. Rather than very assertively and openly rejecting that claim of China, the Tibetan government of that period chose isolationism as a policy to protect their interests. Although isolationism has worked for China for a long time, in the long run it turned against Tibet.

Despite the fact that the Chinese government was issuing maps showing Tibet as part of China, the Tibetan government did not issue and widely circulate internationally its own maps in which the contrary was shown.

And so the impression was created, at least among some people in the world, that there was some relationship there which the British described as suzerainty and the others described as sovereignty, which entitled China to have a special relationship with Tibet. Even though it may have been true in the past with respect to some of the Manchu emperors, it was not true between 1911 to 1950.

You may then ask why the British, who had the most influence and most importance in the region in that period, since they ruled the Indian sub-continent, did recognize that China was a suzerain of Tibet? When Tibet was invaded and this issue was brought before the United Nations in 1949, an advice was asked both from the Indian and British governments as to whether the issue should be put on the agenda of the General Assembly. And both countries advised that Tibet should not be put on the agenda of the General Assembly, because, in their views, Tibet did have a suzerainty relationship with China, and that therefore it has best be dealt with between those two parties, not by the international community

So, in fact, the recognition by Britain of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet had an impact which was partly determinative of today's situation in Tibet. Britain recognized the suzerainty as a fiction. It was something that served British interests at that time as part of the Great Game. In other words, it was called a struggle between British and Russian imperialism at the time, and to some extent, Chinese imperialism.

Since Britain, at the beginning of this century, was particularly concerned with Russian expansionism into Central Asia, and was determined to stop it, but not willing to take control of Tibet and colonize it, it developed the fiction that China had a suzerain right of some sort and that Britain has rights as a sphere of influence over Tibet inorder to exclude Russia from that part of the world. It had nothing to do with the reality of the situation in Tibet. And so you can see how a fiction develops into reality, simply because it was not effectively challenged at that time, and was not effectively challenged by the international community even in 1949 when China invaded Tibet.

Finally, Tibet was invaded in 1949/1950 by the armies of the People's Republic of China. It is important to remember that China did not and does not today claim that it obtained sovereign rights over Tibet or title over Tibet as a result if its invasion of Tibet in 1949 or 1950. In other words, according to the Chinese it is not the military occupation of Tibet that gives China the right to own or govern Tibet. They could not claim that. Because the Chinese, under their political doctrine and their interpretation of international law, rejects in the strongest terms any right to annex territory by the use of force. In fact, this is the part of international law - certainly, after the Second World War, since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations — which outlawed the annexation of territory by use of force. China supports this, and therefore cannot claim that it annexed Tibet by the use of force.

Secondly, China forced the Tibetan government, after sending troops and defeating the Tibetan army to sign what is called the Seventeen-point Agreement or Treaty, [PDF 73K] whereby Tibet agreed to be a part of China with a certain degree of autonomy within China. But that agreement was forced upon the Tibetan government and was a form of coercion - a physical coercion in terms of relationship between the negotiators, but this is not so important. What is more important is a form of coercion in terms of the relationship between China and Tibet at that time. China had defeated the Tibetan army, the Chinese armies were in Tibet and ready to move into the capital city of Lhasa. The Chinese simply stated to the negotiators that unless they signed this document, the armies would move further into Tibet.

So the Tibetans had two alternatives, either agree to the military invasion which they could not under any possibility prevent — because the Tibetans had only 8,000 troops who were ill-equipped, ill-armed and ill-trained and China has a huge People's Liberation Army which had just won victory over the whole of China after the Long March — or agree to what is called the peaceful liberation of Tibet, which meant the armies could move into Lhasa without resistance.

Had the Dalai Lama been consulted about this 17-point Agreement, he may have agreed to it simply in order to save his people from total destruction. The fact is that he was not consulted, and the Chinese did not allow the Tibetan negotiators to make contact with their government and forged the seal and forced them to sign the treaty. So the treaty had no legal validity to start with. It makes no sense today to be debating whether that treaty acquired or ceased to acquire any validity. Because it has no validity in the first place.

According to its own interpretation of international law, China is very strongly against any form of coerced treaties. As you may know, if you follow the developments in Hong Kong and Macau, China has taken the position that Hong Kong was actually never transferred to Britain, because the treaty by which transfer was effected was done under coercion and intimidation.

Any treaty concluded under the conditions as China did in Tibet is invalid and illegal.

So, here you have two possible reasons why Tibet would have become part of China, namely the military occupation, and secondly, the signing of the treaty which even by China's own standards is void and illegal.

The last possible reason why Tibet could be a part of China is a theory that exists in international law, although it is somewhat questionable; that if something, whether legitimate or not, last long enough, it gains some legality at some point.

From a practical perspective, there could be reasons to accept it, but only under certain conditions. One condition is that at some point, the people concerned, and in this case Tibetans, accept the situation. In other words if after 40 years the Tibetans no longer challenge Chinese claim that Tibet is part of China, then China's rule over Tibet would become legal. But on the strength of Tibet's acceptance of that situation, both in terms of the Tibetan population inside Tibet, which have until now shown rejection of China's rule over Tibet, and the acceptance by the legitimate government and representative of the Tibetan people, namely, the Dalai Lama and Government-in-Exile.

Now the very existence of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile, which functions entirely as a government and is a legitimate continuation of the government which existed for centuries in Tibet, and its continuing challenge to Chinese rule over Tibet takes away any possibility for China or others to claim that under international law Tibet has in fact become a part of China.

China always claims that because no country recognizes the independence of Tibet, it is part of China. Recognition, under international law, has only evidentiary values, declaratory values. In other words, it can help to indicate what does and what does not exist as a fact.

But in itself, recognition can neither create a State nor destroy it. How else can you explain that 50 percent of countries recognize a particular country and others don't. Obviously, we cannot say this or that country exists or doesn't exist, on the basis of recognition. It is true of the Palestinian state, which is recognized by some and not by others. It is true of the Western Sahara. The Sahara Democratic Republic is recognized by 70 countries of the world and not recognized by about the same number of countries. Does it mean that the Sahara Democratic Republic exists or it does not?

So, the existence of a State is not determined by recognition. But, of course, its international ability to deal as an independent State is affected by recognition and non-recognition. The very fact that China maintains a heavy concentration of troops in Tibet, between 200,000 and 500,000 for a population of about six million, is in itself a sign that the Tibetans reject the annexation and occupation of their country.

As I said, the second argument put forward by China that Tibet should be part of China is not a legal one, but is simply the argument that Tibetans were backward, culturally, economically, socially, and needed to be civilized and developed by China. Therefore, they liberated Tibetans from themselves essentially. This argument can be dealt with very easily, because it is the typical argument that any colonial and imperialist power uses for its actions in any of the areas it conquered.

I come from the Netherlands, and as you know, it used to be a colonial power. It had exactly the same argument with respect to Indonesia. We brought toilets to Indonesia and the Dutch are extremely proud of it. And that was one of the reasons why it was so important for Holland to rule Indonesia. The Indonesians couldn't rule themselves, and we really had to lift them up and civilize them, I suppose, to bring them to a point where they can suppress and colonize other people. But it is a typical and classical notion of any imperial or colonial power that they are there in the interests of the people they are colonizing.

One must look at the ground reality in Tibet. I had been fortunate enough to be in Tibet twice. I would have liked to be there more but it is not easy to travel to Tibet. My last visit was in September. If one visits Tibet, I think one is left with very little illusion of what China has brought to Tibet in terms of either civilization or in terms of economic development or in terms of social development.

You have heard a lot about the Panchen Lama. Three days before he died, the Panchen Rinpoche made a final public statement in which he stated very unambiguously that the Tibetan people suffered greatly more than they could ever have gained from the Chiense rule over their country. This statement was made despite the fact that the Chinese have always tried to use the Panchen Lama to put their arguments forward and as an alternative leader to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. And three days later, under suspicious circumstances, he died.

So the consequence of China's claim to rule Tibet and treat Tibet as part of China, has been the gradual disappearance of the Tibetan nation and the Tibetan people. I say gradual because it has taken several decades for the international community to wake up to what is happening in Tibet. This is not simply a case of military occupation and it is not simply a question of trying to establish power or rule over any strategically located area in Asia. But what is increasingly happening in Tibet is the systematic transfer of Chinese colonists into Tibet. Other small nations, especially here in the Baltic region, have had a similar experience. If this is allowed to continue, it can lead to the ultimate destruction of the nation or people concerned.

As I have stated earlier, Tibet is an independent State under illegal occupation. Therefore, the transfer or civilian population into an occupied territory is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention of 1959.

Even if Tibet were to be considered a part of China, for those governments who do consider Tibet to be part of China, this is a violation of human rights, not only of the people being transferred voluntarily — but also of the people into whose territory an alien group is being transferred. This is a notion which is being transferred. This is notion which is being increasingly accepted at the United Nations by the Commission and Sub-commission on Human Rights.

This is new development in international law. Although its essence is clear, it is new in terms of its expression. This is very much the result of lobbying that is done, particularly on behalf of the Tibetan people. So, here again, you can see that the work which is being done for Tibetans has an impact also on the overall perception of international law, and can have influence on other peoples in a similar situation.

So, in conclusion, what I am suggesting is that results and consequences should be in terms of action. Obviously, I am not suggesting international military and other types of interference inside Tibet. But if one were to suggest a realistic approach, there are a number of things that need to be done in the interest of Tibetans and, as I said, in the interest of regional stability, and in the interest of simply developing international law and practice which is based on principles and on laws to protect all peoples.

In the first place the Tibetan question cannot and should not be considered an internal affair of China. A statement of this sort runs entirely contrary to international law. It makes a mockery of international law.

So, the existence of a State is not determined by recognition. But, of course, its international ability to deal as an independent State is affected by recognition and non-recognition. The very fact that China maintains a heavy concentration of troops in Tibet, between 200,000 and 500,000 for a population of about six million, is in itself a sign that the Tibetans reject the annexation and occupation of their country.

But if you work from a position of strength, and if you have something which the Chinese want, it puts the Chinese on the defensive. And those few governments that have tried it have achieved other aims which they want to achieve simply by raising the Tibetan question as the question they want solved.

China today needs the west much more than the west needs China. Contrary to expectations, this is certainly true at a economic level because every country that trades with China has a negative trade deficit. And the volume of trade with China is not the big volume that people think it is. It is only the idea of a future Eldorado, of being able to sell toothbrushes to a billion people, that makes people put up with the type of problems they have when they try to do trade with China. And, believe me, by the time you think you can sell a billion toothbrushes to China, they will be making better toothbrushes than us, and they will be selling them in Europe and elsewhere.

So, all we are doing now, in fact, is to assist China in developing its economy to such an extent that they can compete with us more effectively later. So the economic argument does not work. Therefore, work from a position of strength and tell China what it is you want, as opposed to being told by China what it is that you should be doing.

The west, in particular, has been kowtowing to China far too long. It has taken abuse and disregard of international law in return.

Finally, I believe small countries, in particular, have a very special responsibility. Let us forget Russia, the United States and other big powers for the time being. They have their own political situations to deal with. They have their own interests to deal with. But small nations are in a better position than big ones to develop a principled foreign policy, a foreign policy in relation with each other that is based on the fundamental principles of mutual respect, equality, mutual benefit and international law, including the right to self-determination of peoples.

Small States are in a better position to do this, as they have shown in the past. I would particularly like to point to Ireland, which has always been championing the Tibetan cause at the United Nations. A number of other small States, like Costa Rica and El Salvador, have also supported the Tibetan cause. And Lithuania received His Holiness the Dalai Lama four years ago with all the honour given to a head of state. It was one of the most emotional moments in my career of supporting the Tibetan cause. When we arrived at the Parliament building here, there were the Tibetan and Lithuanian flags on the building next to each other. And this was the first time it had happened in an official visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to a foreign country.

So, it is the small countries that are capable and have the guts to stand for principles. Not only are they more capable in this. Ultimately it is in their own enlightened self interest. Because if the small nations cannot stand by each other, then, believe me, big countries are not going to do it.

Therefore, it is a question of supporting issues that may ultimately affect your own existence as a small nation. You need to plant the seeds from right now so that in future you are going to be protected. This is also the basis for the initiatives taken by Liechtenstein and other small nations at the United Nations to promote, strengthen and engrave in international law the principle of self-determination. Liechtenstein says that a State's life itself is dependent on respect of that principle, and that if this principle disappears from international law in favour of might is right, then small nations everywhere are under threat.

Dr. Andrikiene: Before ending this session, I would like to read another telegram from medical doctors who sincerely welcome the convention and wish it fruitful work and good results. They hope that the President and the Government of Lithuania will support the Tibetan people in their relations with China. This telegram is signed by the chairman of the medical club.

Ms. Kara-Kys Arakshaa, M.P., Tuva, Republic of Russia: The world is on the threshold of the 21st century and the main issue on the agenda is the sustainable development of the world. Sustainable economic development cannot be achieved without solving a number of important ecological issues. This is one of the key points in the development of mankind.

Our country has been marked by the disintegration of major colonial empires and many new nations have emerged, while some nations are still fighting for their sovereignty. At the same time, our century has been marked by a spiraling arms race. All these developments have shown that without taking the ethnic factor into consideration, mankind cannot achieve any progress.

The progressive forces of the world community are well aware that they cannot ignore the fact that the world does not so much consist of big States as it consists of peoples or nations. Freedoms and rights of all nations must become the determining factor in defining the relationship between the governments and large and small nations, especially the nations under occupation.

The end of the 20th century, especially the year 1995 and the year 2004, have been declared by the United Nations as the decade of the indigenous peoples of the world. During this decade, a new relationship or partnership will be developed between the indigenous peoples and the governments of big nations. The right to existence and development, the right to sovereignty, the right to existence and development, the right to sovereignty, the right to possession of one's natural resources and riches, and also the right to be different from other nations are the inalienable rights of all peoples.

The term indigenous people has not been fully interpreted yet. Nevertheless, Article 4 of the ILO Convention on indigenous people and ethnic groups in independent countries, says that this convention embraces all indigenous peoples who have been living on a certain territory or geographical area during the period of their colonization or seizure by another, and who, irrespective of the changes brought about by this colonization, have managed to maintain their ethnic identities, cultural heritages and languages.

This principle has also been written into the Charter of the United Nations. On the basis of this convention, new documents were adopted in the 1950s and 1960s. The rights of nations under colonial rule are defined in these documents. The declaration of the principle of international law in 1970 is also included here.

According to this principle, every nation is obliged to ensure self-determination to another nation. The disintegration of the colonial system in the middle of our century, and the emergence of independent nations have borne witness to the impact and strength of the principle that has been outlined in the above convention. Inviolability and integrity of a country's border is perhaps opposed to some of the ideas that are outlined in the principle of self-determination for indigenous peoples or nations. But the contradiction between these two principles is only formal. The subject of law under international law is State and this state is usually the result of the development of some nations.

We know that the rise of new Germany and various other countries is the proof of the vitality of self-determination of nations. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the leader of Tibet. This nation has preserved its national identity, culture and language for four hundred years. The political structure of Tibet is also the proof of Tibet's status as an independent country. Tibet has the Parliament and Government-in-Exile.

For many decades, the people of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Parliament and Government-in-Exile have been struggling peacefully for the independence of its nation. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to His Holiness The Dalai Lama is a gesture of appreciation for his service to his nation and mankind in general. This is also the symbol of the global recognition of the problem of Tibet.

The world is subject to change and its priorities change. Relations between nations and governments and various ethnic groups also undergo numerous changes. The present gathering in Vilnius is also a recognition of the rights of the Tibetan people.

Dr. Michael van Walt: Both in legal and political circles, a distinction is being made between certain different categories of peoples. Many lawyers and governments admit that peoples within a federation — because of the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia — have the right to self-determination, but only if the constitution of that federation allows it. There is an increasing feeling that other peoples' right to self-determination should not be recognized.

This type of distinction is not valid from the perspective of international law. Either there is such a thing which can be defined as a people or there is not. If there is, then it makes no difference whether that people is under a certain type of colonial domination or a different type of colonial domination, imperialism or occupation.

It also cannot make a difference whether that people is within a federation, of which the constitution grants the right to self-determination. Because that is a domestic law issue. An international law cannot be dependent on national law. Therefore, from the international legal point of view, the right to self-determination is a fundamental right of all peoples.

So, the issue is what is a people and what is not a people. Two years ago, in London, there was a conference of international lawyers on the question of self-determination for the Tibetan people. One of the leading speakers in that conference was Justice Michael Kirby. He was part of the UNESCO group of experts on rights of peoples, which developed a workable definition of a people with the right to self-determination. This is contained in a book called Tibet: the Position of International Law, and also in the UNESCO document.

For a long time, the Tibetan people clearly fall within any definition that one might use to describe what a people or a nation is. Therefore, their right to self-determination is beyond doubt.

There is again a confusion as to what is the right to self-determination. Today it is often equated with separatism. The people, press, lawyers, and politicians would say that group does not have the right to self-determination, meaning that group cannot seceded from the State.

The right to self-determination is defined by the United Nations and others as the right of all peoples to determine their own political status and their economic, social and cultural development without external interference. This is the accepted definition of right to self-determination. I think one should add, especially after the last speaker, the right to manage one's own environmental policies. But this was not very much in the minds of people when the definition was created.

In other words, the right to self-determination is a process right. It is not the outcome which is determined by that right. This means the right to self-determination is not the right to secede, or the right to be autonomous or the right to anything else. It is the right to decide for oneself what that status is going to be. If people want independence, it is integration. If people want autonomy, it is autonomy. So, the right to self-determination should be associated with secession as it is done today.

Finally, what that means in practice is that the right to self-determination is a fundamental right. Just like all the other fundamental rights, it cannot be absolute. The right to free speech is also not absolute, not even in the United States, where you cannot say certain things for which you can be sued for libel. In European countries, racist remarks or other utterances which can create hatred are not permitted. So the right to free speech ends where another right clashes with it.

The same applies to the right to self-determination. It is not an absolute right. It has to be weighed with other rights and principles of international law, including territorial integrity and the right of other peoples. But that does not take away the fact that it is a fundamental right. The only question is how, in its expression and implementation, is this right weighed with the rights of other peoples and States.

Kalon Tashi Wangdi: After Dr. Michael van Walt's presentation on the status of Tibet yesterday, I felt that at this point it may be necessary to say a few words on the position of the Tibetan government. Because in the course of my discussions after yesterday's presentation, questions were asked as to what is the position of the Tibetan government on the issue of independence and self-determination. Apparently, there is some confusion on this. So, I felt that before going into the discussion, it may be helpful to say a few words.

I will try to be brief to explain a very complex issue. I don't know whether I will be able to state my points very clearly. But I will try my best.

The basic problem between the Chinese government and us is that China claims Tibet to be an integral part of China by stating that Tibet has always been part of China. Our position is that Tibet was a sovereign nation, which was forcibly annexed and is now under illegal occupation.

The reasons for our claim to sovereign rights was stated very clearly by Dr. Michael van Walt yesterday. So there is no need to dwell on this further.

It is precisely this contention which forms the stumbling block on the path to negotiations between the Chinese government and us. The Chinese government repeatedly says that they will start negotiations as soon as the Dalai Lama declares Tibet to be part of China. And this is a public statement. I am sure many parliamentarians and others who engage in discussions with the Chinese representatives will be faced with this argument.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has very clearly stated over the years that he cannot distort history. He also said that even as a Buddhist monk, it will go against his vows. But he has taken the next important step and said that whatever may be the historical arguments, it is important to see the possibility of finding a solution to the present problem and to develop a relationship for the future. Towards this end, he said that as far as he is concerned he is willing to negotiate a settlement based on what he calls a middle path approach.

The middle path approach is very clearly described in his Strasbourg Proposal, which was presented to the Chinese government officially, through the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, and subsequently made public at the European Parliament in 1988.

As far as the future relationship between Tibet and China is concerned, His Holiness expressed willingness to see the possibility of looking at various options, whereby Tibet and China would have relationship of what he calls association. In other words, not separation.

This position, as I said, was elaborated in the Strasbourg Proposal. His Holiness continues to adhere to this position. His Holiness waited for the Chinese response for three years, after which he said he is no longer bound by the concessions he had made in that proposal. However, His Holiness said that he is willing to find a solution in the spirit of the Strasbourg Proposal.

Therefore, our present position is that historically and legally, Tibet is a sovereign State under illegal occupation. But so far as the future relationship between Tibet and China is concerned, we are willing to look at any number of options: proposals put forward by His Holiness the Dalai Lama as well as any proposal the Chinese government may like to put forward.

Since the issue of independence and the Chinese claim of Tibet being an integral part of China seems to be the main stumbling block for any kind of dialogue and negotiations, His Holiness went one step ahead and suggested negotiations without any preconditions. In other words, to go for negotiations with an open agenda. This is again an attempt on the part of His Holiness to open up possibilities for negotiations.

In this context, the position of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile reflects the resolution passed by our Parliament in exile about a year ago. This resolution stated very clearly that Tibet is a sovereign nation under occupation and that the Tibetan people's struggle is aimed at regaining this right. At the same time, the resolution gives authority to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the executive branch of the government to enter into negotiations with China without making the issue of independence part of the agenda.

So, our position at the moment is that we are ready to enter into negotiations without preconditions. We are willing to look at any number of options: a) options formulated by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his Strasbourg Proposal, b) options the Chinese government may suggest, and c) options some Chinese scholars have suggested.

As you may know, about a year and a half ago, a number of Chinese intellectuals, professors of political science and international law, etc. met together on their own and wrote a future constitution for China. This constitution envisages federalism for China. But within that they suggested a confederal status for Tibet as a special case and then allowing the Tibetan people to decide after twenty years whether they want to remain within the confederal framework or secede completely to reassert their sovereign rights.

All these options are open for negotiations. But this has to be based on the firm conviction that Tibet is historically an independent State.

Now the right of self-determination, as Dr. Michael van Walt suggested, is not the end solution, but means to achieving a solution. It is a determining factor. On the question of self-determination, I may briefly mention here that before coming to power, the Chinese Communist Party, in successive resolutions, very firmly supported the right to self-determination of what they term minorities. And they have very specifically mentioned Tibetans.

President Chiang Kai-shek issued a public statement in 1959, soon after the Tibetans came into exile, in which he stated his government will respect the right to self-determination of the Tibetan people as soon as it regained control of China.

Then, of course, we have the three resolutions of the UN General Assembly which among other things very clearly supported the right to self-determination of the Tibetan people. At that time, when these resolutions were passed, the Government of the Republic of China, or Taiwan, was a member of the United Nations and also of the Security Council. It fully endorsed these resolutions.

We raised this issue with the present Chinese government in Beijing when our delegation went to Beijing in the early 1980s for exploratory talks. When we drew their attention to the resolutions of the Communist Party in the 1930s and 1940s, they replied that in those years they were like small babies learning to walk and that now that they are fully grown they have changed self-determination to the status of autonomy.

Now the question is if the Tibetan people, or any other people, do not want to be an autonomous region of China, then they must have the right to determine this. This question was put to the Chinese and they had no answer to this. So the right to self-determination is accepted by the Chinese government at various stages.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we would like to see a very clear statement from this convention. I think the New Delhi declaration and resolution clearly states that Tibet was and is an independent, sovereign State under occupation, and that the people have the right to self-determination. The New Delhi convention also urges the Chinese government to enter into negotiations with His Holiness the Dalai Lama for a solution to the Tibetan problem.

As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of options and we are willing to explore all these options to find a solution. It is between the Chinese and us. But there must be a very clear message to the Chinese government that their claim on Tibet is not acceptable to the international community. This message is very important and must be sent to the Chinese government.

Dr. Povilas Jakucionis, M.P., Lithuania: I would like to address the issue of Tibet through the statements of three very important international documents. These are: a) The Statute of the United Nations, b) The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms and c) the Athens' Declaration on Minority Rights.

These documents were adopted by the international community over a period of fifty years. This means they were adopted by different generations of politicians and the concern for human rights is strong in all of them.

Although the world has celebrated the 2,500th anniversary of the introduction of democracy in Athens, we can still see how difficult it is to eradicate conflicts. We also see how much loss conflict brings. We need only to look at Bosnia, Chechenya, etc.

I hope this convention on Tibet will contribute to the consolidation of democracy in general and assist the Tibetan people in concrete ways. I hope the awareness created of the suffering of the Tibetan people and danger to their nation will encourage people to make concrete efforts.

First of all, we would like to draw the attention of the Chinese government to the fact that they are responsible for the genocide in Tibet and that the survival of Tibet depends on their goodwill. The Chinese Ambassador in Lithuania said about this convention that all that is happening in China is an internal affair of China. The Russian government says the same thing about the war in Chechenya. The Russian government annihilates people with fire arms. The Chinese government behaves differently. But their result will be the same: very tragic.

China is not only a member of the United Nations; it is also a permanent member of the Security Council. Therefore, her responsibilities are even greater. She cannot ignore the Charter of the United Nations. The very first article of the Charter says nations must develop friendly relations on the principle of equality and respect for self-determination. It also urges the nations to desist from using threat and force against the independence of another nation.

We know that Tibet was conquered after the revolution in China. Therefore, this government is particularly responsible for what is happening in Tibet. We ask China to adhere to articles 11 and 12 of this Charter and to respect the right of indigenous peoples to develop free political institutions, to support progressive political developments with the aim of establishing local governments and independence.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms declare that freedom is the basis of justice. Wars and conflicts are the result of injustice. They are caused because the interests of nations are ignored. Just as each person has to be protected from unlawful violence, nations too have to be protected. No one can be tortured, humiliated, or debased. But the torturers deliberately humiliate peoples and nations to break their spirit of resistance. No one can be kept in slavery or prison. Everybody has the right to express his views freely. No one can be deported from his country.

A nation is a people's community. This means human rights are also people's rights. The occupiers who annihilate the historical heritage, culture and traditions are violating the Charter of the United Nations. The UN Charter also speaks about minority rights and says that the protection of minority rights is also part of human rights. Human rights are the fundamental rights of minorities. Minorities have the right to be respected and they have the right to develop their culture, language and tradition, be free from assimilation, and I emphasize this word.

Efforts should be made to protect people just as historical monuments and the cultural heritage are protected by UNESCO. A lot of attention is given to political conflicts between States, and recently to human rights. But too little attention is given to inter-ethic conflicts within a State. This is the syndrome of so-called internal affairs. As a result smaller nations suffer violence from bigger nations.

The Chinese government carries out passive cultural, social economic assimilation in Tibet. This passive subjugation causes hostility which grows into uprisings and local warfare goes on and on. We can mention Afghanistan and Bosnia. And local conflicts demoralize all the belligerent parties. This is extremely dangerous.

There should be a prevention of such conflicts, and this must be done by international organizations. Under the disguise of so-called humanitarian purposes and economic developments, huge enterprises, which the indigenous nations do not need, are being built on the territory of enslaved nations. Alien infrastructure are created in these territories and waves of colonizers follow such constructions.

Then the composition of the indigenous population changes and they become a minority in their own territory. When they are in a minority they can no longer resort to democratic means to evict the occupants. Sometimes they resort to violence and force which the occupiers term as rebellions and separatist banditry. The international community keeps quiet because it cannot side with so-called bandits. These examples abound in Lithuania and its close neighbours.

When flora and fauna become rare and valuable, they are included in the red book, and the community takes care of them and huge penalties are imposed if they are destroyed. But what about nations? Each person, according to national and international law, has the right to establish himself materially and spiritually. A nation loses its rights when it falls under the rule of a more powerful nation. But no one says anything about it since big powers do not want to interfere in the so-called internal affairs of other big nations. This situation cannot be allowed to continue.

When big powers, due to their self-interests, do not give attention to small nations, the small nations have to unite their efforts and help each other I believe that Lithuania, by helping Tibet and Chechenya, helps itself as well as other nations. The resolution of this convention should invite the Chinese Government to stop the colonization process of the Tibetan territory and to withdraw from Tibet quietly, just as the Russian armies withdrew from Lithuania. I endorse the proposal of Mr. Romualda to initiate an international action which will guarantee the rights enslaved nations.

Hans Goran Franck, Former M.P., Sweden: This is the decade of international law, as proclaimed by the United Nations. This has to be taken into account and used in connection with Tibet.

We have experienced during recent times many violations of international law. These violations were more widespread during the Second World War than now.

The right to self-determination is a fundamental principle in international law and must be defended more strongly. This principle is being violated by the Chinese Government in Tibet. Tibet has the right to self-determination. I want to underline this fact, considering the different aspects of the problem.

In accordance with the Chinese constitution itself, Tibet has the right to certain self-determination as the so-called Autonomous Region in China. But this right is only or mainly on paper.

The international community has the duty to act, through political and economic means, to ensure the realization of self-determination by the autonomy of Tibet. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile has agreed to negotiate with the Chinese Government without any pre-conditions. The starting line for peace means accepting that China has the right to decide Tibetan foreign and defense policy, and as far as the interal matter is concerned it will be left to the Tibetan people to decide. In the present situation, this is a reasonable base for a peaceful solution.

Many governments, as well as international bodies, for instance, the European Union, have called for dialogues and negotiations between the Chinese and Tibetan leaders. The Chinese government has, however, refused to respond, more because of its own strength. They have also taken a negative attitude to a recent initiative by the Swedish government. The most important need now is to work to the full capacity at our disposal to put pressure upon the Chinese leaders to accept dialogues and negotiations with the Dalai Lama and his Government-in-Exile. A Draft Resolution, signed by many nations, should be presented in the UN General Assembly as soon as possible. When I get back home, I will work for such an initiative from the Swedish government.

The UN Secretary General can also be requested to act and at a certain point to take part in the negotiations in the same way he is doing in the case of other conflicts, like in East Timor. The issue of gross violations of human rights in China, including in Tibet, has to be on the agenda of UN Commission on Human Rights and there will be a good chance of a majority of nations endorsing it. Last time it was rejected by a single vote.

The release of political detainees and other political prisoners and restoration of human rights in Tibet is an urgent matter, and an international campaign to attain that goal is very essential. This is an important matter not only from the human rights angle but also from the viewpoint of international law.

It is necessary to send a new mission from this body to Tibet in order to increase the pressure on the Chinese authorities who are occupying Tibet with a heavy military presence. Early this month, the Swedish Foreign Affairs Committee stated that the Swedish government has to observe and take into consideration views and proposals of non-governmental organizations. Among these organizations, a particular mention was made of the World Parliamentarians Convention on Tibet.

Therefore, what this body is doing is important and I hope that this will spread widely to different parliaments and governments who are in solidarity with the people of Tibet. I hope we can, in the near future, achieve the goal of getting the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile accepted all over the world as the representatives of the Tibetan people.

Juris Sinka: First, I must say that Dr. van Walt's paper gave us some very simple truths of which some of us had not been aware, the truth that seems to have been forgotten by our friends, like the United States, Britain, and France, Germany and other important democratic States. They remember human rights, which actually also embraces a nation's rights and right to self-determination.

When it comes to two totalitarian States, Russia and China — now one of them has become democratic while the other, China, still remains totalitarian — one wonders whether at the end of this century, they still lack the moral fibre to realize that big nations, either because of their numerical strength or because of their economic importance or whatever, should not be allowed to get away with it. There doesn't have to be a military action. Nobody is suggesting that.

Our Tibetan friend referred to how His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people, in a gesture of goodwill, are prepared to give some concessions to China. But our Swedish friend has too hastily embraced this, I must say. It should be left to the Tibetan people to decide what concessions they want to give to China.

But one point that seems to have been forgotten so far, and I should be glad if it is included in the final resolution, is that before any negotiations begin, the Chinese settlers who have been artificially relocated in Tibet should be withdrawn. They have almost turned Tibetans into a minority.

If the transfer of the Chinese population to Tibet is allowed to continue, then in twenty years' time or so, when the Tibetan people are finally allowed to decide whether they want to be completely independent or part of the federation, the majority will be against them because the original Tibetan population will have been far outnumbered by the new inhabitants.

The flooding of Tibet with the people from the occupying power is a crucial point. We Latvians and Estonians, and Lithuanians to some extent, have suffered from this angle. Now, we are reminded of the territorial integrity of Russia, which forces us to ignore the annexation of parts of our territories by the Soviet Russia.

But why? Why at the end of this century should there be double moral standards and morals? I wonder if our main speaker can reflect on these purely moral questions.

Rita Tveiten, M.P., Norway: I would like to draw your attention to some of the issues raised by Dr. Michael van Walt yesterday. Particularly, I would like to focus on two issues.

One is the question of human rights. We must see that it becomes part of the international law. I mention this because I was on of the delegates to the UN session last year. On several occasions, at that time, this issue of human rights was looked upon as an internal matter of the national concerned. I think it is very important to underline that human rights cannot be left to each country's own interpretations.

Another issue that needs rethinking is the agreements effected by use of force. Such agreements are not valid. This should also be considered as an international matter. At the moment, what stops international society from acting when a small nation is attacked is the notion that it is an internal matter.

I hope these two issues will become a part of the conclusions of this Convention.

Finally, I would like to say that environmental issues should be part of self-determination. But I would like to sound a note of caution here, because this issue can be used both ways. Environmental matters, pollution for instance, know no border. Therefore, this should absolutely be part of international law.

Prof. Algirdas Tomas Genuisas, President, United Nations Association of Lithuania: I would like to briefly take up two points that figured prominently in yesterdays' deliberations.

One was put forward by Mr. Michael van Walt. He said that small nations should act in solidarity with each other and urge adherence by both small and big nations to international standards set by international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, Council of Europe, etc.

The other point was stressed by Professor Ozolas. He said that the United Nations documents turn nations into objects. This is a controversial point and very difficult to agree with. I am very glad to say we have this convention being held in Lithuania, one of the small nations, which understands the importance of solidarity and not seclusion. Because small nations, by themselves, can stand by the strength of spirit, but they lack the political and military force to gain and maintain their independence and statehood. To do so they need the solidarity and support of international and world community.

The same holds good in the case of restoration of the time-honoured Statehood of Tibet and the current struggle in the Chechen nation for its self-determination and Statehood.

In this connection, I would touch upon one more aspect, namely the principles enshrined in the United Nations' instruments must be the basis for human and international relations. All nations should strive and insist that all powers — especially the big ones, members of the Security Council, with their right of veto and other privileges — should abide by the moral principles of these documents and not go by interests of economic, political, and military domination.

As has been pointed out, a security council of small and vulnerable nations should be established to protect them and to coordinate their activities. Perhaps, such a council could question the authority of the big powers when the principles of human rights enshrined in the United Nations Charter are flagrantly violated.