Policy Resources from the international campaign for tibet

• Home
• News & Opinions
  • International Political News
  • Tibet & China News
• Resource Center
  • Publications & Research
    • ICT Reports
    • ICT Tibet Brief
    • External Research
  • Official Documents
    • UN
    • Government
      • EU
      • US & International
      • China & Tibet
  • Multi-Media
• Tibet Overview
• Policy Recommendations
  • General Recommendations
  • Specific Recommendations
• About ICT

Policy recommendations for the EU and EU Presidency

A new policy paper by the International Campaign for Tibet calls upon the European Union, including the Swedish EU Presidency, to adopt a consistent new position on Tibet to reflect the importance of Tibet in EU-China relations.

The cancellation of the EU-China Summit by Beijing during the French EU Presidency raised the diplomatic stakes, pointing both to the importance China attaches to the Tibet issue and the need for a unified EU response. To equivocate on Tibet as a result of Chinese interference would be a strategic mis-step in EU-China relations. The EU should intensify its support for a resolution and assist both sides, after 50 years of failed efforts, to remove obstacles and move forward.

ICT calls upon the EU to:
 

• Coordinate national positions and define a clear EU line in support of Tibet
• Adopt a common position on future visits of the Dalai Lama in Europe
• Actively and concretely promote China-Tibetan negotiations
• Utilize all appropriate UN forums to press the government of China on the situation in Tibet and increase international coordination and cooperation

Click here to download the full report.


Why Europe needs to do more on Tibet

1. The lack of cohesion among European member states on the issue of Tibet and conflicting national approaches, especially on protocols for meeting with the Dalai Lama, is not in EU interests because it weakens EU leverage and has left some countries vulnerable as targets for Chinese government pressure.
    
2. By threatening reprisals against EU countries whose leaders welcome or meet with the Dalai Lama, the Chinese government undermines its own position against interference in the “internal affairs” of another country, and contravenes European values.
    
3. The EU’s approach to China assumes that under the influence of positive engagement, the Chinese government will liberalise its economy and move towards democratization. But as the European Parliament has noted, Europe’s deepened economic and trade relations with China have not been accompanied by any progress on human rights. The EU’s position under-estimates China’s ability to use its engagement with the EU to its own ends and its determination to block criticism of its policies in Tibet and human rights. Countries within the EU have consistently miscalculated in making concessions to China that are not reciprocated, such as the decision by the UK to redefine its historic relationship with Tibet last year.
    
4. The EU-China relationship is critical; it has replaced the US as China’s largest trading partner, and its voice is increasingly important as a catalyst for encouraging China to become a better global citizen.
    
5. Beijing has subverted and politicized international forums where its human rights record has been challenged and refused to answer legitimate questions from European governments about the use of lethal force against unarmed protestors or the welfare of individual detainees. The Chinese government has also sought to contain all discussion on Tibet to the official human rights dialogue and behind closed doors diplomacy. But without adequate benchmarks for progress, the dialogue is an inconclusive talking shop, and privately expressed concern by EU member states is more effective when accompanied by clear public statements.
    
6. The reality on the ground is that for more than a year, the Chinese government has engaged in a comprehensive cover-up of torture, disappearances and killings that have taken place across Tibet in response to a series of overwhelmingly peaceful protests against Chinese rule. This is combined with a virulent propaganda offensive against the exiled Tibetan leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner the Dalai Lama.
    
7. The Dalai Lama has demonstrated a consistent position and a good faith approach to dialogue with Beijing, which has now ground to a halt. The Tibetan side has shown a rigor in addressing key issues and in framing its position in terms of the Chinese Constitution and Chinese laws. Various major governments and parliaments have shown an interest in moving the dialogue forward to a mutually acceptable conclusion. But the efforts undertaken so far by the EU Council and its 27 member states and by the European Commission are insufficient to address the situation in Tibet, despite the range of policy options at their disposal. The EU’s position on Tibet has generally been one of ambiguity and accommodation, even in the face of gross human rights violations.
    
8. On support for Tibet in Europe, the Chinese government is taking an approach that exposes mismatched values, rather than elevating the relationship. The EU approach should be unified, advanced multilaterally, and framed in the context of common interests. To continue to equivocate on Tibet, after so many years of support to the Dalai Lama, would be a significant historic and moral mis-step, and against European interests.