Should Miliband Resign Over Tibet?

Last year the Foreign Secretary David Miliband removed the suzerainty status afforded to Tibet a country the size of Europe that has been illegally occupied by China since 1959. This status of autonomy was one of the main claims Tibetans had to their nation; internationally, diplomatically and legally.

Over 1.4 million Tibetan people have died and 6000 monasteries have been destroyed. Over 75% of Tibetans are illiterate in their own homeland and find it hard to practice their religion freely. Now apart from having to deal with genocide they are now confronting ecocide.

In light of what has been revealed during Magrahi-Lybia affair will Mr Miliband now state publicly the deal that was done with China to sell out the Tibetan struggle for independence and survival of its profound culture both religious and medical?

How has this benefited the UK and its stance on human rights globally? If anything it’s now done so much damage to the British government’s reputation and credibility it cannot be repaired. This diplomatic and legal status bothered nobody but the Chinese government. So it should have been kept to protect the human rights of Tibetans. To have given something so important for nothing to the Chinese Mr Miliband would have lost face mian tse to China for all of the UK. What exactly was the deal – oil, arms, planes, casinos or trade? Will he for the sake of true democracy now tell us? Tibet is no longer a minority issue Tibetan human rights are our human rights - we share the same rights. So why undermine them?

When China invaded Tibet in the late 1950's illegally, one of the greatest Irish politicians Minister Aiken who was by then representing Ireland at the UN as Ambassador stated at the debate on the whole Tibet issue," “Looking around this assembly, I think how many benches would be empty in this hall if it had always been agreed that when a small nation or a small people fall in the grip of a major power no one could ever raise their voice here; that once there was a subject nation, then must always remain a subject nation. Tibet has fallen into the hands of the Chinese People’s Republic for the last few years. For thousands of years, it was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here.”

In addition, I find it deeply insulting to myself and all my Tibetan friends that he tried to pass suzerainty off as an outdated position publicly and through his press office inferred that other EU states did the same. They never had a suzerainty position on Tibet. A foreign office spokesperson told me that their view was that the status was ‘anachronistic’- something small and insignificant. When anyone remotely familiar with the situation will know that this is a lie. Not to mention the damage it does to the whole struggle Tibetans have for their country and human rights.

In addition, Mr Miliband also did this in advance of Tibetan officials, representatives of The Dalai Lama, meeting the Chinese after years of being locked out and ignored. Why remove one of the cores of their negotiating position at that time? Why remove this status, one that remained happily in place for the past 100 years? Why when more pressure than ever was on China to do a deal and when whole world was watching, did he choose to do so much damage to the window of opportunity of Tibetans returning home? Obviously China was very sacred to have influenced him to do such a thing. The world was watching and still is.

The Oxford Dictionary defines- suzerain - as, "in part a sovereign or nation having some control over another national that is internally autonomous." This special status that Britain afforded Tibet was according to Sir Algemon Rumbold, President of the Tibet Society of the United Kingdom from 1977-1988, because Britain treated Tibet as an independent state from 1910, but stated in 1912 and again 1943 that it acknowledged the suzertainty of China in Tibet, but on the condition that Tibet's autonomy was respected.

At the 1914 Simla Convention between Great Britain and Tibet established or purported to establish internationally-recognized boundaries, the McMahon Line, for an independent Tibet. China refused that Convention, and Sir Rumbold writes that it was a that point that Tibet repudiated China's suzertainty. So as anyone can see there was a good reason for this being in place. Saying that the clause is outdated is humbug and misleading. Sovereign nations like Tibet have particular legal status for a reason in international law. This was more than just tidying up British diplomacy. 1.

Doing so, he has not just sold out Tibetan autonomy and threatened their human rights but also the stability of the whole geopolitical area. Tibet is the source of many of the rivers in this geographic region that China occupies illegally and uses to bully other nations including India. Not to mention the human rights of Chinese people themselves, nearly one million of which commit suicide every three years and the Chinese prisoners executed to have their organs harvested by medical companies for transplants exposed by the BBC.www.youtube.com/watch

I would also like you and your readership to write to him and ask him why during this change, his press office stated publicly that they were totally in support of Tibetan Human Rights. I can confirm that the government has given not a penny to Tibetans under their own Human Rights & Democracy Program. In fact under this program I don’t believe they ever have. During a ministerial statement on this subject Mr Miliband stated, “We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation there.” However I can show he has funded nothing in terms of Tibetan Human Rights one year after under the British government’s specific Human Rights program such is his duplicitous concern. FCO Human Rights & Democracy Funding Programmes

The Foreign Secretary Mr David Miliband can now cut a check to support the Human Rights of Tibetans that is long, long overdue. This may appease his conscience but not his karma for the damage that he has done to the lives of so many people. The UK has also a responsibility to Tibet in that in 1904 Major Younghusband invaded Tibet and Lhasa - a massacre of over 2000 Tibetans - the result of which was an exclusive trade agreement. Mr Miliband failed to mention this connection in all the press statements.

The last thing the Bristish public needs is a foreign secretary who has a "paws up" mentality with the Chinese nation. China needs a big brother to show it how to behave not a nation that colludes in its games and enables its human rights abuses to go unchallanged. Many Tibetans have dissapeared since the world was watching last year and many have died in custody.

Now. How much is the government going to fund Tibetan Human Rights? Time to put your money where your mouth is Mr Miliband.

1. tradelawyersblog.com/blog/archive/2008/april/article/what-is-suzerainty-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-tibet/