Hanky Panky at UN
April - 1992
This month, after a gap of a quarter century, the Tibet question was once again brought before the United Nations at full commission level. The resolution tabled at the Human Rights Commission of the world body, of course, did not talk about restoration of Tibetan independence. However, it was a big, necessary step toward that eventual destination. If one is inclined to be charitable, one cay say that even getting to that stage was something of an achievement, as evidenced by the frantic lobbying by China to get the resolution blocked. And of course it has taken several years of hard work to get to that stage. In the light of all that has been happening in the Tibet from over the past few years, it seemed quite likely that the resolution would get through.
That it did not was not the fault of the Tibetans or the host of non-governmental organization working for it. Nor was it of the various governments who sponsored and supported it. It was just that the political climate was not yet quite conducive to us. TO be more precise, the Bush administration still believes the American interest lies in not displeasing the Chinese.
The original resolution, drafted by the European Community, Scandinavian and three Latin American countries, was quite bold and ambitious. Although couched in the context of human rights, it provided sufficient leaways for questions like self-determination and separate identity. The Chinese, naturally, saw that as yet another ‘disguised form of independence.’ What seems to have happened, judging from hindsight, that when Premier Li Peng was in USA in February he told president Bush that the resolution was not in the interests of the USA- or words to that effect. So the US rep at UN would not join the EC countries in co-sponsoring the resolution. Not only that, he would not support it unless it was amended to refer to the whole of China and not Tibet exclusively which, quite rightly, was deemed to treat Tibet as a separate country in which China, another country, was violating human rights.
The reason for the Chinese apprehension is easy to see. The UN Human Rights Commission has 53 members. No less than 21 of them were sponsoring the original resoltuion. A number of other members, particularly those from Africa, were waiting to see which way the US would go. Understandably, they were wary of supporting a fully anti-China resolution without the American shield in front of them. The United States presed for and got the resolution suitably amended. And the African countries backed off.
Next the China got it’s trusted ally, Pakistan, to do what it obviously is very good at doing. The Human Rights Commission was persuaded to stop debate even on the new resolution on the gournds that it seeks the independence of Tibet from China and hence does not come within the purview of that particular commission. After all, Pakistan, and many other Third World members of the commission, were due for questioning on their own human rights records at the same session. So when a vote was taken as to decide whether the debate should be continued, even a number of countries who had drafted the original resolution voted against it or abstained. With a mere 15 countries voting for continuation of the debate and 27 against China won a clear victory.
Yet we need not lose heart entirely. Here is what Jeane Kirpatrick said in a column syndicated by the Los Angeles Times: “The United Nations Human Rights Commission is a seriously flawed institution whose members include the world’s greatest human rights offenders—Iraq, Iraq and Cuba, among others. Its powers to investigate are very limited, and its powers to deter abuse are almost non-existent.” Which means, even if the resolution was passed perhaps nothing concrete would come out of it. But then again the former US ambassador to the UN continued: ‘But from time to time, when a majority can be mustered to authorize an investigation and the investigator turns out to be energetic and courageous, an important report emerges.’
She was talking about Iraq but we can still hope that such a time will come for Tibet too in the not-too-distant future. By which time perhaps George Bush, or whoever happens to be in the White House then, will cease to believe that Peking must be kept happy at all cost.
April - 1992
This month, after a gap of a quarter century, the Tibet question was once again brought before the United Nations at full commission level. The resolution tabled at the Human Rights Commission of the world body, of course, did not talk about restoration of Tibetan independence. However, it was a big, necessary step toward that eventual destination. If one is inclined to be charitable, one cay say that even getting to that stage was something of an achievement, as evidenced by the frantic lobbying by China to get the resolution blocked. And of course it has taken several years of hard work to get to that stage. In the light of all that has been happening in the Tibet from over the past few years, it seemed quite likely that the resolution would get through.
That it did not was not the fault of the Tibetans or the host of non-governmental organization working for it. Nor was it of the various governments who sponsored and supported it. It was just that the political climate was not yet quite conducive to us. TO be more precise, the Bush administration still believes the American interest lies in not displeasing the Chinese.
The original resolution, drafted by the European Community, Scandinavian and three Latin American countries, was quite bold and ambitious. Although couched in the context of human rights, it provided sufficient leaways for questions like self-determination and separate identity. The Chinese, naturally, saw that as yet another ‘disguised form of independence.’ What seems to have happened, judging from hindsight, that when Premier Li Peng was in USA in February he told president Bush that the resolution was not in the interests of the USA- or words to that effect. So the US rep at UN would not join the EC countries in co-sponsoring the resolution. Not only that, he would not support it unless it was amended to refer to the whole of China and not Tibet exclusively which, quite rightly, was deemed to treat Tibet as a separate country in which China, another country, was violating human rights.
The reason for the Chinese apprehension is easy to see. The UN Human Rights Commission has 53 members. No less than 21 of them were sponsoring the original resoltuion. A number of other members, particularly those from Africa, were waiting to see which way the US would go. Understandably, they were wary of supporting a fully anti-China resolution without the American shield in front of them. The United States presed for and got the resolution suitably amended. And the African countries backed off.
Next the China got it’s trusted ally, Pakistan, to do what it obviously is very good at doing. The Human Rights Commission was persuaded to stop debate even on the new resolution on the gournds that it seeks the independence of Tibet from China and hence does not come within the purview of that particular commission. After all, Pakistan, and many other Third World members of the commission, were due for questioning on their own human rights records at the same session. So when a vote was taken as to decide whether the debate should be continued, even a number of countries who had drafted the original resolution voted against it or abstained. With a mere 15 countries voting for continuation of the debate and 27 against China won a clear victory.
Yet we need not lose heart entirely. Here is what Jeane Kirpatrick said in a column syndicated by the Los Angeles Times: “The United Nations Human Rights Commission is a seriously flawed institution whose members include the world’s greatest human rights offenders—Iraq, Iraq and Cuba, among others. Its powers to investigate are very limited, and its powers to deter abuse are almost non-existent.” Which means, even if the resolution was passed perhaps nothing concrete would come out of it. But then again the former US ambassador to the UN continued: ‘But from time to time, when a majority can be mustered to authorize an investigation and the investigator turns out to be energetic and courageous, an important report emerges.’
She was talking about Iraq but we can still hope that such a time will come for Tibet too in the not-too-distant future. By which time perhaps George Bush, or whoever happens to be in the White House then, will cease to believe that Peking must be kept happy at all cost.
posted by editorla at
8:58 PM
<< Home