Image:churchtimes
David Steel was previously a UK Member of Parliament, leader of UK Liberal Party and Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. He has just lead a so-called fact-finding visit to Tibet, an ambitious objective under the draconian grip and totalitarian supervision imposed upon any such delegations. In a Scottish newspaper he reflected on his trip and made some interesting remarks, which unsurprisingly, given his long standing admiration for the Dalai Lama, (whom he assiduously refers to strictly as a spiritual leader) articulates unreserved support, for what effectively would prove the surrender of Tibetan national identity. For the purposes of this article we have concentrated upon key comments, Mr Steel’s full statement may be seen here http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=25581
He refers to what he descibes as “the British government’s unambiguous acceptance (emphasis added). This assertion calls-to-mind the contrived and appeasing comments made by UK Minister David Miliband, in an address given to Parliament in October 29, 2008. These were explored in some depth on this Blog of the status of Tibet as an autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China”
http://tibettruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/britain-has-not-changed-its-policy-on-tibets-status/
Suffice to repeat that Miliband’s statement was not a formal repudiation of any previous policy Britain may have held, it was more a re-assemblage of its former position on Tibet. The United Kingdom’s dust-coated treaties recognizing China’s suzerainty (an almost impossible archaic phrase, beyond reasonable intepretation and definition), although in an obtuse legal sense could be debated to have implied some form of ’sovereignty’ for Tibet, never in any genuine political context was considered by successive British governments to confer meaningful independent status to Tibet (notwithstanding the important assertions made by the great Hugh Richardson). In addition it should be noted that the UK Foreign Office has never implied or asserted that the United Kingdom supports Tibetan independence. It remains implacably opposed to that. Furthermore, in not declaring that Tibet enjoyed any political or territorial rights Britain has long regarded Tibet as “part of the People’s Republic of China”. Nor has the UK formally denied “..Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory” (David Miliband October 29, 2008).
Miliband’s comments appear to have been a written Ministerial statement on Tibet, presented to the House of Commons that addressed (then recent) discussions between representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. Not as an announcement to the House of any formal changes of policy with respect to Britain’s position on Tibet‘s status. It would be of great help if David Steel could make public, evidence of an official policy statement, published by the Foreign Office, that clearly documents a formal change-of -policy in relation to Tibet’s status. Furthermore Miliband’s statement was also placed carefully within a European Union context: “Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China” (David Miliband British Foreign Secretary October 29, 2008) Such comments are far from unambiguous or a definitively formal shift-of-policy towards Tibet, they simply reassert the UK position in a disguised form and within a collective European framework. Even then Miliband employs a term (‘regard‘) no doubt chosen with minute attention to diplomatic meaning by his Foreign Office advisers, that implies a previously held position, whilst leaving space for interpretation and manoeuvre, as opposed to ‘recognize’ which defines a more legal and final acceptance.
On the subject of what was talked about during this trip, which many would have hoped would concentrate upon human rights violations, such as communist China’s policy of forcible sterilizations, slave-labor camps, forced relocation of Tibetan nomads , and the killing of untold numbers of peaceful Tibetan protesters David Steel has little to report in his article (one hopes the UK Parliamentary report itself wiill be packed-full of such enquires, don’t hold your breath though!), The focus appears to be the usual one of suppression within Tibetan religion, with the regular highly-managed tour of a local Monastery, an ‘interview’ with some monks, who surprisingly can offer no details on fellow monks who are missing. It would seem however that the increasing concern of the delegation was not to demand answers to why Tibetan women are dragged from their homes, tied onto a medical slab, and forcibly sterilized, but to act as advocates for the Dalai Lama’s MWA strategy, and to impress upon their communist Chinese hosts the sincerity of the Tibetan leader’s willingness to accept communist Chinese rule.
“At our final meeting back in Beijing, I summarised what I took to be the three stated aims of these discussions: Acceptance of the status of Tibet as an autonomous region of the PRC; An end to tensions between the ethnic communities in Tibet and the need to avoid destructive protest demonstrations; The return of the Dalai Lama to Lhasa”
David Steel pressed this doomed and dangerous course, wholly it would seem, unaware that the Tibetan people inside Tibet are resisting Chinese domination for their nation’s freedom and independence, not the enslaving autonomy craved for by the Tibetan Adminstration. Such ‘discussions’, should as previously supported and acknowledged by the Tibetan political leader, have the political aspirations of the six million Tibetan people at the center. Yet, the Tibetan Administration supported by the self-serving political interests of foreign governments, is blindly committed to an unholy declension, that will result in the final execution of a distinct Tibetan national identity, a goal which communist China considers a prime objective in its merciless efforts to assimilate Tibet once-and-for-all.
It is difficult to believe that such a prospect does not concern David Steel, yet his comments appear more concerned with enhancing China’s international image (since when did Beijing give a hoot about that?) than Tibetans remaining under the violent grip of communist China, as long as the Dalai Lama can enjoy some Pope-like status in Tibet.
“…if we saw a rejoicing Tibetan people welcoming back the Dalai Lama to Potala Palace with a non-political status similar to that enjoyed in Italy by the Pope in the Vatican”
With all his experience and political understanding of Tibet he should know that Tibetans will not be satisfied with such a development while the chains-of-oppression remain firmly in place. Yes, all Tibetans would rejoice upon the return of His Holiness, but within every Tibetan heart is an equal hope and demand for a free and united nation. There can be no doubt that David Steel is sincerely supportive of Tibet, however peddling messages of appeasement, and promoting so-called autonomy will offer no protection or survial of Tibetan culture. As he should have realized by the firm rejection of his overtures, communist China considers Tibet an internal matter and will not tolerate any condition which will maintain or encourage a seperate Tibetan identity. Meanwhile, we await the final report of this trip and hope, that along with his party colleague David Alton, he took the opportunity to raise the subject of China’s coercive birth-control program and the medical atrocities it inflicts upon Tibetan women.
