Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 117: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on recent talks between the Dalai Lama and the Government of China; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7166/10]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As stated on many previous occasions in this House, I am firmly of the view that dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama is the best way to address differences and tensions in Tibet over issues of culture, language, religion and identity. While our Government firmly adheres to the 'One China' policy, I believe that dialogue on Tibet is as much in the interests of China, its stability and its harmony, as it is of Tibetans. Consequently, we avail of every appropriate opportunity to convey these views to the Chinese authorities, along with our concerns about aspects of the situation in Tibet.

I therefore welcome the fact that a ninth round of dialogue took place recently between representatives of the Dalai Lama, and the Chinese Communist Party's United Front Work Department, which handles Tibet issues. This dialogue began in 2002 and the last round, prior to the recent one, took place in November 2008. That round had ended in acrimony after proposals presented by the representatives of the Dalai Lama, including a proposal for greater autonomy for Tibet, were rejected on grounds that the Dalai Lama continued to be a 'splittist', threatening the unity and territorial integrity of China.

At a press conference on 2 February, after the round of dialogue had concluded, Vice Minister Zhu Weiqun of the Chinese United Front Work Department expressed similar sentiments to those indicated after the previous round – essentially that the Dalai Lama's call for greater autonomy for his homeland was in reality a call for Tibetan independence; that it represented a threat to China's territorial integrity and national dignity; that the Chinese government sees no room for negotiation or concession on this issue; and that the Dalai Lama must 'redress his mistakes' and renounce his calls for 'independence'. In addition, Minister Zhu warned the United States that there would be negative repercussions if President Obama proceeded with his plans to meet the Dalai Lama, when the latter visits Washington in mid-February. The representatives of the Dalai Lama did not comment immediately on the discussions but early reports indicated that they felt that the dialogue had produced no results.

I have on many previous occasions expressed concern about the pace, seriousness and lack of results of the Tibet dialogue, and the initial feedback from the latest round provides little in the way of assurances that very much has changed in this regard.

However, there were a few positive dimensions to the most recent round of talks. Firstly, the Chinese took the Dalai Lama's envoys on some field trips - to two minority areas to demonstrate aspects of the government's regional ethnic autonomy policies, and to the birthplace of Mao Zedong in Hunan province. Secondly, Minister Zhu, in his press conference, while heavily critical of the Dalai Lama in many respects, nevertheless addressed some words of goodwill to him, wishing him a long life, and indicating that China does not want him to be on foreign soil at the end of his life. And thirdly, there was the formal Chinese press conference itself, very much in contrast to the complete silence and secrecy which has surrounded the previous rounds of dialogue, the existence of which had largely been denied.

It would be unwise to rush into speculation that these departures from standard practice represent a likely change of direction on the part of the Chinese authorities towards the Dalai Lama and Tibet, but they are worthy of follow-up monitoring.

For their part, the Tibetan envoys, while insisting that the 'baseless accusations' against the Dalai Lama must cease, have reiterated the Tibetan commitment to continuing the dialogue with the Chinese government, while making clear that it must begin to produce some results. I very much hope that this will be the case and that the dialogue will serve to address the issues of serious concern in Tibet.