RESTRICTED
UK POLICY
HMG's formal position on Tibet differs from other countries in that we recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous. NO opportune moment has yet arrived for us to move from this unrealistic and archaic position; but since 1983 we have avoided mention of suzerainty in public, and use instead the following words "successive British Governments have consistently regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there". This enables us to draw attention to the Chinese own constitutional position that Tibet is an Autonomous Region (although their interpretation of autonomy is weaker than ours).
In making clear our concern about human rights abuses in Tibet, we have needed to bear in mind Chinese sensitivities. These are particulary strong in relation to the UK, partly because of our historic role, and partly in connection with their fears of the special position they believe we hope to establish for ourselves regarding Hong Kong post 1997. They are therefore suspicious about our motives in protesting about human rights issues in Tibet, which they see lending encouragement to the separatists. The Secretary of State raised Tibet with the Chinese Foreign Minister during his visit to Peking in April and again in September. stressed that the issue was not raised out of emnity to China but that it caused grave concern in the UK. He made it clear that we sought greater autonomy for Tibet, not independence. The Prime Minister also spoke of our concern to Premier Li Peng.
He
We made démarches to the Chinese, both bilaterally and with EC partners, following the events in March 1989, coupled with clear disclaimers that we did not wish to promote the independence of Tibet. Since the events of June 1989 we have framed our concern in the context of the need to encourage greater respect for human rights in China as a whole. Strong public protests about Chinese actions in Tibet, by fuelling Chinese paranoia about outside interference and lending encouragement to Tibetan separatists, might lead to an increase in the level of violence and counter violence. Specific references to Tibet were however included in the EC Presidency statements to the UN in November 1989, February 1990, and March 1991. In August a UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, composed of non-Governmental delegates, passed a resolution calling upon the Chinese Government to respect the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the Tibetan people.
GV4AGZ/3
RESTRICTED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.