Tibetan Parlimentary & Policy Research Centre

Here you do not resolve the issue by applying the principle of democracy in terms of the majority making the decision. Obviously because 99 percent of the population is Chinese, they will decide that Tibet is part of China and it will be a fully democratic decision.

So democracy in that context must clearly mean a participatory form of democracy where each unit, and each nation, has an equal voice in the collective destiny of the nation.

A reference was made to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It was asked whether the same problem applies there as well. Unfortunately, since China has a very strong position as a permanent member of the Security Council, it has made it very difficult to raise the question of Tibet at the United Nations.

The last attempt at the Commission on Human Rights, as you mentioned, was defeated by one vote. Actually, it was by two votes. Interestingly, the votes that made it fail were those of Russia and Peru. Peru was not quite clear why. Russia’s vote may have had something to do with Chechnya. And also because Russia is inclined more and more to side with China on this type of issue rather than with Western Europe as it had in the past three years or so. But I would encourage parliamentarians in every country to urge their governments to raise the question at the United Nations and would very strongly endorse this as one of the very important approaches that needs to be made.

I was urged to reflect on the double standards between large and small countries, etc., and the question of moral values. And it refers to the last speaker as well. I did not want to be misunderstood yesterday when I talked about small nations and the need for both small and large States to abide by international standards and so on. I actually did not use the words international standards yesterday. And that was purposefully so. Because if one interprets international standards as being purely international treaties that have been adopted, then again may of them are biased in favour of the maintenance of status quo and in favour of the rights of governments as opposed to the rights of peoples.

But what I was really referring to, and I understand the last speaker to be saying the same thing, is the fundamental principles on which conventions and the Charter of the U.N. are based. And the essential principles are reflect in those charters, rather than the interpretations given to those fundamental principles by a number of states and by a number of international instruments. What I have noted down as some of the issues that need to be included in the resolution are:

There should be a clear statement on the question of the status of Tibet as an independent country under illegal occupation. There should be a clear recognition of Tibet’s rights to self-determination. There should be also an unambiguous call to the Chinese government to enter into negotiations with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile without preconditions. The world’s attention should be drawn to the responsibility of China for the genocide in Tibet. In this context and in any other context, particularly in the context of human rights, there should be a clear statement that it is not the internal affair of any state. If you like, there should be some reference to China’s special responsibilities or increased responsibilities, because of its status as a permanent member of the Security Council, to uphold the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. There should be a call for an end to the colonization of Tibet through population transfer and for the withdrawal of armed forces.

The duty of the international community to act for the realization of the self-determination of Tibet was highlighted at the conference and should be mentioned in the resolution. Action to be taken with respect to the United Nation’s General Assembly. In other words the participants of this conference should call on governments to raise the question of Tibet at the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights as soon as possible. Perhaps they should also request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to play an active role, and the example was mentioned of East Timor as the type of ways in which the General Secretary can proactively work towards involvement in negotiations or in promoting negotiations. There was also a mention that perhaps out of this body of members of parliament, a mission should be sent to Tibet. At least, that was the implication I understood.

Besides the notion that human rights is part of international law, and therefore, not an internal affair, there should be some reference to the fact that an agreement entered into under coercion should not be considered as valid or is not valid under international law and is, therefore, also not a matter of internal concern.