Tibetan Parlimentary & Policy Research Centre

Moderator: Hon. Ian Revell

Hon. T. C. Tethong: As a student in Europe and a teacher in Canada, I used to talk about Tibet. The area of the Tibetan territory is about 600,000 sq. miles. Tibet lies in a strategic area. To the north is Mongolia and former Soviet States, to the east is China, to the South, India and Burma, and to the West, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Eastern Turkestan. The political character of each of these countries reflects the importance of Tibet's geographical location. Historically the representation of Tibet is one of a Shangri-la. When the Russians began their imperial expansion in the late 1800s, the British realized the threat posed by Russia. To overcome this emerging Russian threat via Mongolia, the British set their eyes on Tibet. In 1904 they sent an expedition to Tibet which was military in intent. It marched directly into Lhasa.

After 1949, when Chinese forces had marched into Tibet the development posed a serious and direct threat to Tibet's immediate neighbours. The then Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, however, did not take this threat seriously and instead believed that Tibet could engage in a dialogue with China. India believed that the old concept of a buffer state was imperial and colonial. In 1954, India signed a trade agreement with China on Tibet but without the participation of Tibetan representatives. China insisted that it would endorse the agreement for only eight years while India pressed for 15 years. In 1962, China attacked India leading to a bloody war, the first in the two country's history. India's experience with China confirms the belief that China says one thing in dialogue and another thing in action.

The military build-up in Tibet is a major threat to India as China is using Tibet as a conduit for its arms trade to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

China's occupation of Tibet was a part of an ideological Marxist ambition to world revolution.

These are few indicators showing the geopolitical importance of Tibet and why it is necessary to transform Tibet into a buffer zone, a zone managed by Tibetans.

Hon. George Fernandes: I will start by endorsing Kalon Tethong's points. He has pointed to the political significance of Tibet. I will supplement his comments. While China has ideological aspirations to spread Communism through Asia, its ambition to be an imperial power got the better of China. The invasion of Tibet is related to the export of the revolution to Tibet and India. Tibet is the springboard to attack India (as in 1962,) and at present, more than 119,000 sq. km. of Indian territory is held by China.

There are parts of India in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim which China does not recognize as Indian territory. Earlier this month, there was an incident. At the insistence of the McArthur Institute, China invited the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh to Kunming, Yunnan Province, to participate in a discussion on biodiversity at the Kunming Institute of Biodiversity. The Chief Minister went to New Delhi to get his Chinese visa. The next day the Chinese Embassy responded saying there were unsettled political issues concerning Arunachal Pradesh, but that the Chief Minister was welcome to visit China without a Chinese visa. This is effect makes him a Chinese citizen. Like Tibet, Arunachal Pradesh is very rich in minerals.

China has similar intent in Burma. I want to congratulate the members of Congress and others who are responsible for sanctioning Burma. The junta in Burma is but an extension of the Chinese military apparatus. China needs Tibet to control Burma. The Chinese are building military bases in Burma as well as naval bases on islands (Burmese territory) which are just 40 kms from Indian islands of Andaman and Nicobar in the Indian Ocean.

There has been a transfer of Chinese population into Mongolia (Inner) and Eastern Turkestan on a massive scale. In 1942, the Uighurs made up over 70 percent of the population of Eastern Turkestan, but today they have been reduced to just over 50 percent with the other half being Chinese immigrants. In inner Mongolia, there has been such a massive population transfer that the Chinese are in a majority there. So there is a design on the part of the Chinese to get leverage through population transfer, military action, and access to minerals, oil and markets.

Last week, China set its oil rigs in the South China Seas in Vietnam's economic zone. The Vietnamese are engaged in huge diplomatic endeavours to confront this Chinese onslaught. We need to remember that China had similarly probed into Tibet in 1949 and encouraged by the results of that probe subsequently attacked and conquered Tibet between 1950 and 1959. India failed to come to Tibet's aid then. Now, India is celebrating its 50th anniversary of freedom, but Tibet's freedom is vital for India. It is one thing to say that India is powerful because it has 960 million people compared to 1.2 billion in China. But China controls the Himalayas. Chinese troops are literally staring down into Indian territory. A month ago, there was a Chinese incursion into Indian territory in Himachal Pradesh state. Only one newspaper reported the incident because the Indian government hushed it up. So, China is having its way. Our (India's) failure in 1950 and 1959 has led to this situation.

When discussing the geopolitical importance of Tibet it is clear that India and China must talk. But without Tibet as the central theme to any such talks they will be meaningless.

Question and Answer Session

Question by Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Could it be that Communist ideology and economic value are concurrent motives for China's occupation of Tibet?

Hon. Tethong: Initially, the motive was Communist revolution and the spread of its ideology. Subsequently, there were military reasons. The economic reasons came later.

Hon. Fernandes: China's expansionary designs have been there throughout history. Ideology became a handy tool to justify its intent globally. When China attacked India, the Russian leader Krushchev said, "India is a friend, but China is a brother." Thus, for China, its ideology has been a powerful political tool.

Question by Hon. Harald Ellefsen: Governments predisposed to side with Tibet may be worried that if the human rights situation flares up, the situation could end up like the former Soviet Union and could signal, from the Chinese point of view, the end of China?

Also, if these issues are closely linked isn't this a major obstacle for freedom of Tibet? If so, is there any way to separate Tibet from the other issues.

Hon. Tethong: We need to look at the situation all together. The fact that Tibet is so linked to these other areas shows just how important Tibet is to the world and that it should therefore show more determination on the issue of Tibet.

Question from Hon. Hans Pavia Rosing: What impact do you think has resolutions, like the one Denmark sponsored at the UN Commission on Human Rights this year, on the issue of China?

Hon.Tethong: It has shown that human rights are human rights, whether concerning a small country or a large country. The fact that Denmark has no personal stake in Tibet shows other countries the importance of standing up to China.

Question from Hon. Henryk Wujec: Do you think it possible to study the Tibetan issue in terms of how Poland got free after 30 years? Do you think a new Gorbachev, Glastnost and Perestroika could emerge in China?

Hon. Tethong: Economic liberalization has started in China and is going full-speed. All the benefits go to China right now. None of it goes to Tibet or Eastern Turkestan which, in fact, pays for it, through population transfer. There is a big boom in industrialization, but the Tibetans are sacrificing their language, etc. because the Chinese are moving in.

The session adjourned for lunch