Shame! Shame! Shame on China! -- Tibet has stronger self-rule case than
Kosovo / FT
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2db5ed0c-1cff-11dd-82ae-000077b07658.html
Tibet has stronger self-rule case than Kosovo
By Paul Harris
Published: May 8 2008 17:53 | Last updated: May 8 2008 17:53
Does Tibet have a right to self-determination under international law?
There are strong legal grounds to show that it does and that this right
is being denied by China. As the recent protests in Tibet and the
disruptions to the Olympic torch relay have demonstrated, Tibet is an
international problem crying out for a solution.
The official position of the Chinese government is that Tibet is an
inalien?able part of the People¡¯s Republic of China (just as France once
claimed that Algeria was an inalienable part of metropolitan France).
Those who question this are regularly attacked in the official Chinese
media in vitriolic terms as ¡°splittists¡±, and anti-China. If they are
themselves Chinese and live in China they are liable to be imprisoned.
Most countries recognise China¡¯s sovereignty over Tibet. The one notable
exception is the UK, which recognises ¡°suzerainty¡± of China with
autonomy for Tibet, a subtle evasion which happens to be fairly close to
the actual situation of Tibet in relation to China during the last years
of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911).
China¡¯s present control dates from 1950 when it invaded. China claims
that Tibet was already part of China when it did so. There are
significant historical problems with this claim, but even if it were a
strong one it would not justify an invasion. Most countries were at one
time under alien rule. In 1911 Ireland was under British rule, as it had
been for centuries, Finland was ruled by Russia, and Korea by Japan. The
UN was intended to prevent aggressive wars based on spurious claims to
historical rule or cultural identity, which had been the practice of
Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.
The key issue is not sovereignty but self-determination. By the time the
UN was created it was generally recognised that peoples had the right of
self-determination. All states that have become members of the UN by
ratifying the UN Charter ¨C including China ¨C have accepted the principle
of respect for the self-determination of peoples.
In 1951 China and representatives of the Dalai Lama signed the ¡°17-point
agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet¡±. The phraseology of this
do***ent shows that someone was looking at it when drafting Hong Kong¡¯s
Basic Law. It provides that ¡°the Tibetan people have the right of
exercising national regional autonomy under the unified leader****p of
the Central People¡¯s Government¡± (Article 3); that ¡°the Central
People¡¯s
Government will not alter the existing political system in Tibet¡±
(Article 4), and ¡°will not alter the established status, functions and
powers of the Dalai Lama¡± (Article 4).
These autonomy provisions were never observed. In response to the
harshness of Chinese rule, the Tibetans rose in revolt in 1958. It was
easily crushed by China, and in 1959 the 14th Dalai Lama and 80,000
other Tibetans fled into exile in India. The severity of repression in
Tibet since then is well-do***ented. Tibetan Buddhism was in 1997
labelled a ¡°foreign culture¡±. Torture and ill-treatment in detention are
widespread. Tibet¡¯s natural resources are ruthlessly exploited. Overall
the situation bears similarities to Algeria under the French or
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan under Soviet Russian rule.
Tibet¡¯s status has been given renewed topicality by the recent
independence of Kosovo which has so far been recognised by 40 countries,
including all of the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations. If
Kosovo has a right to self-determination, the right of Tibet is
infinitely stronger. The catalogue of gross oppression, the second-class
citizen status of Tibetans under Chinese rule and identity of Tibet as a
country are all much clearer than in Kosovo¡¯s case.
Self-determination need not mean independence. The Dalai Lama has said
that he favours autonomy for Tibet within China, provided that it is
meaningful autonomy. Real autonomy, however, does not seem on offer.
This is shown by the continuing aggressive denunciation and
misrepresentation of the Dalai Lama by Chinese officials. Unless real
autonomy is offered, self-determination in Tibet is bound to mean
independence. China may hold down the Tibetans by force for a long time,
but, as the example of Ukraine and Russia shows, even hundreds of years
of repression is unlikely to extinguish the longing for
self-determination among what are, incontrovertibly, a people.
The writer is a barrister and was founding chairman of Hong Kong Human
Rights Monitor. This is a condensed version of an article commissioned
and accepted by the magazine of the Hong Kong Law Society but then
rejected as politically too sensitive
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2db5ed0c-1cff-11dd-82ae-000077b07658.html
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
|
