Since 1987, the Chinese occupation of Tibet has received increasing international and governmental attention. Although it has been discussed in the UK Parliament on a number of occasions, the Government has managed to avoid serious consideration of the Tibetan issue. A selection of some of the major statements and resolutions is given below.

4 March 1988

Robert Adley of the British-Chinese Parliamentary Group stated: "The Dalai Lama is about as innocent a persecuted non-violent politician as the Ayatollah Khomeini when he was engaged in his round-the-world campaign exercise before he returned to Iran. Let us not forget that the much-publicised Dalai Lama was the head of a serf state where the main freedom under his rule was the freedom to starve. It is not for Britain to provide a platform for overseas politicians to conduct their internal political campaigns on our soil."

13 July 1988

A motion was proposed regretting that no government minister could find time to meet the Dalai Lama during his recent visit to the United Kingdom, and calling on the Chinese Government to use the Dalai Lama's proposals as a basis for negotiating a lasting settlement in Tibet and to end its brutal suppression of the Tibetan people.

December 1989

During a debate in the House of Lords, Lord Reay stated that the Government would not be holding meetings with the Dalai Lama.

11 January 1990

In a letter to Cecil Franks MP, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said she had "no plans for a meeting" with the Dalai Lama, stating that there were wider considerations to be taken into account, and in particular the interests of Hong Kong.

July 1990

In a debate in the House of Commons, Tim Sainsbury MP, replying for the Government, said "it would be of no service to the Tibetans to encourage them to seek independence. The Government do not believe that Tibet's claim to independence is a realistic proposition."

March 1991

The Dalai Lama met with the Lord Chancellor, Lord McKay (who had no authority to discuss foreign affairs). He also met with the leader of the opposition, Neil Kinnock, who described the Prime Minister's decision not to meet the Dalai Lama as "one of weakness, not of wisdom," and stated that it was "the duty of democrats everywhere to support the Tibetans."

17 May 1991

In a debate in the House of Lords, the Earl of Caithness said that Her Majesty's Government would not be represented at any celebration of the anniversary of the signing of the Seventeen-Point Agreement between China and Tibet.

5 November 1991

An early day motion on Tibet in the House of Commons was signed by 147 MPs. It called on the Government to give their support to the US Congress Act which stated that Tibet was an occupied country whose true representatives were the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile.

2 December 1991

The Dalai Lama met Prime Minister John Major and the Archbishop of Canterbury at 10 Downing Street. The Government referred to it as a spiritual rather than political meeting, although John Major told the Dalai Lama that he had discussed human rights in Tibet with Li Peng, the Chinese prime minister.

5 May 1993

A motion entitled 'The Chinese Occupation of Tibet' was signed by 133 MPs. It called on Her Majesty's Government to use its influence in the United Nations to start the process of negotiation towards self-determination, which is the right of the Tibetan people under international law.

12 May 1993

The Dalai Lama met with the foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd. The UK Government stated that "these contacts were in the Dalai Lama's private and religious capacity and did not alter the view of the Government as to the political status of Tibet," and that "no government recognises the Government-in-Exile and we have no dealings with it."

7 July 1993

In a submission to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet criticised the Foreign Office for its conciliatory stance towards the Tibetan issue: "We believe this has certainly not been in the national interest, as it has set a double standard in our attitude to human rights and has consolidated the Chinese authorities' view of the success of their aggressive style of diplomacy." It stated that Britain had accepted Tibet's de facto independence in 1943, and listed statements by parliaments and international organisations which supported Tibetan self-determination, before calling on the UK Government to follow suit.

23 March 1994

A report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, 'Relations Between the United Kingdom and China in the Period Up To and Beyond 1997,' made the following recommendations: "We recommend that the UK Government pursues its dialogue with the PRC on the matter of particular human rights abuses in Tibet and opens a discussion on the subject of Tibet's right to self-determination. We conclude that a satisfactory conclusion to the former concern may only by achieved by progress on the latter. Furthermore we conclude that China's attitude to Tibet may contain a warning for the future of Hong Kong. The world will not allow the issue of Tibet to be ignored. The Chinese Government may find that the advantages to China of their policies in Tibet may be outweighed by the trouble those policies cause to China's international relations generally. China may find too, that other countries, particularly on her northern and western borders, will take an increasing interest in the treatment of other minority communities within the PRC." The Government made the following response.

"The Government remain concerned about the situation in Tibet and will continue to pursue their dialogue with the Chinese Government about human rights abuses there." (Paragraph 258, Recommendation xxviii).

Particular matters of concern include reports of increased migration to the region by Han Chinese, repressive actions by the authorities and the suppression of traditional Tibetan culture. The Government believe that a lasting solution can be found only through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans without preconditions. They urge all parties to begin such a process without delay. They do not, however, believe that it would benefit the Tibetans for the UK Government to try to open a discussion of Tibet's right to self-determination. Such a policy would be likely to achieve little except a further hardening of the attitude of the Chinese authorities. Moreover, it would not be consistent with the long-held position of the UK Government on the status of Tibet.

The Government do not agree that 'China's attitude to Tibet may contain a warning for the future of Hong Kong' The situation in Hong Kong in the 1990s - legal, political, social, economic and even geographical - is entirely different from that of Tibet in the 1950s."

October 1995

The Government periodically issues statements of its policy on Tibet. The most recent of these reiterates that: "Successive British Governments have consistently regarded Tibet as autonomous, although we recognise the special position of the Chinese there...We have stressed to the Chinese authorities the need for fuller autonomy in Tibet. "However, we do not regard independence for Tibet as a realistic option as Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independent State, and no member of the UN regards Tibet as independent.

"HMG believes that a solution to the problem of Tibet can best be found through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama... [We] continue to believe that a dialogue without preconditions offers the best chance of progress [...] Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have put our position on this matter to the Chinese Foreign Minister and we continue to remind the Chinese authorities of our views at every suitable opportunity."

"Successive British Governments have recognised the Dalai Lama's role as a distinguished spiritual leader who has won widespread international respect...We have no formal dealings with the Dalai Lama's self-proclaimed government in exile, which is not recognised by any Government." His Holiness' visits to Britain are held to have been purely of a "private and religious" nature.

"We are deeply concerned about reports of human rights abuses in Tibet and throughout China. We deplore such abuses and have repeatedly told the Chinese so... The Chinese authorities should be in no doubt about the strength of our views. We will continue to press them. [...] The Dalai Lama has said that Britain should continue to have friendly relations with China, while speaking out about wrongdoings when necessary. This remains the basis of our policy. "It is difficult, if not impossible, to confirm the accuracy of reports on the numbers of Han Chinese in Tibet... [We] are concerned by all reports of threats to the Tibetans' ethnic and cultural identity and shall continue to urge the Chinese authorities to respect, and protect, traditional Tibetan values, culture, and way of life."
 

29 October 2008

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband states that "we (The British Government) regard Tibet as a part of the People's Republic of China'; effectively rewriting history and gifting the Chinese government an opportunity to dismantle the Sino-Tibetan talks. 
Click here to read more