Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to the Sydney Morning Herald today, Australian officials were stunned by a presentation from a senior Chinese policymaker who was talking about the situation in Tibet. This senior Chinese official admitted that Tibetan economic development was causing a problem between ethnic Han Chinese immigrants and an angry class of unemployed Tibetans. Huge infrastructure investment by the Chinese had not been matched by education spending, leaving migrants from elsewhere in China in a better position to snaffle the jobs and business opportunities. While Chinese government subsidies account for 75 per cent of Tibet’s GDP, the Chinese official said that the region’s ethnic and rural-urban inequalities were getting worse and the challenge of multiculturalism had not been effectively addressed.

The conflict between China and the Tibetan subjects has over the last two months drawn the public’s imagination especially during the ill-fated journey of the torch. The Prime Minister performed very well on behalf of Australia in Beijing, striking the right note of proudly representing the different view of human rights in this country and at the same time seeking to preserve good relations with China.

I believe that if China implemented only its existing laws on cultural autonomy they would be able to reach a more equitable arrangement with the native Tibetans. Indeed, article 4 of China’s constitution affirms the equality of the country’s 55 ethnic groups and requires the state to adopt policies advancing their ‘special characteristics and needs’. Not only does the constitution prohibit discrimination; it also guarantees minorities the same freedom of thought, expression, assembly and religion as the majority Han Chinese enjoy.

Chinese laws and regulations go even further than that. In Tibet these regulations require the hiring of ethnic Tibetans in security roles. They provide for the use of the Tibetan language in education and local government. Regarding education and language, authorities are mandated to provide curriculum in both Chinese and Tibetan and to provide textbooks on the Tibetan language. Signage, street names and judicial proceedings must also be posted in Tibetan. The problem is that these laws and regulations are not put into full effect.

Particularly in the area of religion, there are great problems. The Chinese government has interfered with the process of selecting the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama by arresting the Tibetan boy identified by the bona fide research committee and anointing their own choice. It has certainly denigrated the Dalai Lama. As the Chinese intellectual Wang Lixiong said in a statement on the Tibetan crisis by 30 Chinese intellectuals, ‘It is unrealistic for China to demand renunciation of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has lofty status amongst people in Tibet particularly amongst Tibetan monks. To demand that monks denounce him is about as practical as asking people to vilify their own parents.’

David L Phillips, a visiting scholar at Columbia University Center for the Study of Human Rights, has argued:

Beijing fears that implementing China’s autonomy laws would compromise national sovereignty. But genuine autonomy need not be a half-step towards independence. On the contrary, meaningful autonomy would enhance, not impair, China’s sovereignty. For example, the Hong Kong Basic Law affirmed Beijing’s willingness to come up with a formula that allows a degree of self-rule while asserting the central government’s control over defense and foreign affairs.

In my view, the negotiations that are taking place between Tibet and China now after the failed talks that took place between 2002 and 2007 should have two short-term points: first of all, the release of monks as well as other political prisoners; and, secondly, rescinding of the declaration of martial law and the withdrawal of soldiers back to their barracks.

The first day of talks that took place recently in Shenzen will lead to further positive developments only if the Chinese government negotiates in good faith with the Dalai Lama. The representatives of the Tibetan government support Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. They support in fact Beijing holding the Olympics and certainly do not oppose it. But they want autonomy for the Tibetan religion within a Chinese framework. Certainly releasing the Panchen Lama would be a great step towards showing China’s sincerity in this area, and I know that Australian parliamentarians will look forward to meeting the Dalai Lama when he comes to Sydney. (Time expired)