As we come to the end of 2024, one interesting political development on Tibet was that on October 22, 2024 a “Joint statement on the human rights situation in Xinjiang and Tibet” by 15 countries was made at United Nations Third Committee session in New York evokes interest in quite a few ways. Here, I will only touch on the Tibet part of the statement as I am sure our Uyghur friends are themselves studying the more substantive East Turkestan (as Xinjiang is known to them) reference. The Third Committee is one of the committees of the UN General Assembly, the Social, Humanitarian & Cultural Issues overseeing human rights matters.
The statement, read by Ambassador James Larsen of Australia, was on behalf of the following countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
The joint statement recalled reference by UN specialized agencies to “detention of Tibetans for the peaceful expression of political views; restrictions on travel; coercive labour arrangements; separation of children from families in boarding schools; and erosion of linguistic, cultural, educational and religious rights and freedoms in Tibet.” It asked China “to fully implement all UN recommendations including from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ assessment, Treaty Bodies and other United Nations human rights mechanisms,” including release of detained Tibetans.
This statement is noteworthy as it is the first time in many years that such a reference to the Tibetan situation at the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee is being made. Over the years, we have seen regular attention to Tibet at the United Nations in Geneva where its Human Rights Council is located. There have been statements by independent UN Human Rights Special Procedures, experts, countries, but hardly anything in the sessions in New York.
I have attended sessions of UN, both in New York and Geneva, including during the time of the then UN Human Rights Commission (now renamed Human Rights Council) and its Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in the 1990s. In fact, I was in the conference hall in Geneva when a resolution on “Situation in Tibet” was passed on August 23, 1991 by the sub-commission. The sub-commission, which was renamed in 1999 and eventually done away with in 2006, composed of human rights experts from different parts of the world.
At that time, it was a Tibet-specific sub-commission resolution and was seen as a significant political message by a United Nations agency to China. As an aside, there was virtual silence in the room as the results of the voting (by secret ballot) on this resolution was announced. It was adopted with nine members in favor, seven against and four abstentions.
The sub-commission resolution on Tibet had mandated that the Secretary-General submit a report on the situation in Tibet to the main Commission on Human Rights, which was duly done during the Commission session in January 1992.
The 1991 resolution was the first on Tibet by a UN agency since the General Assembly passed its third resolution on Tibet in 1965. Since then, there have not been any Tibet-specific resolutions at the UN even though Tibet was included among issues regularly.
Thus, as welcome as the joint statement by 15 countries is, I cannot help but feel that over the years there has been a disconcerting development with governments either not able to or hesitating to raise issues like that of the Tibetan people substantively at the UN. This joint statement is a case in point; compared with the overall conditions in Tibet today, the statement is a generalized presentation of an aspect of the situation.
One reason for this development is the change in the political climate manipulated by China’s shrewd strategy. While the free and democratic countries were unable to adopt a cohesive strategy to deal with China’s human rights abuses, the Chinese government has, on the other hand, been able to alter the situation, internationally and within the UN system. China has been able to change the goal post by accusing the West of using Tibet, projecting itself as the leader of the developing world, and making governments believe that talking about Tibet is “sensitive topic”. Sinologists are directly and indirectly coopted to amplify the Chinese narrative by appearing to provide “balanced” analysis, emphasizing the need to consider “sensitive issues”. Even officials in the governments fall a prey to this Chinese government manipulation and latch on to the idea of needing to consider China’s sensitivity for almost any and everything. Therefore, we see governments feeling the need to unnecessarily preface any of their statements on Tibet with it being “part of the People’s Republic of China.” Despite the fact that the central work of the United Nations is in reality interference in the internal affairs of countries, albeit for the collective good, China uses the pretext of interference of domestic affairs to reduce the space for discussions on Tibet in platforms like that of the United Nations.
China is also able to bend the rules through different pretext to silence civil society groups by objecting to their accreditation on flimsy grounds. In January 2024, China objected to one NGO (whose focus was not human rights) as it was not using “UN terminology in referring to Tibet as the autonomous region of China”. “Correct terminology” was a repeated charge used by China for the past some years. In fact, in January 2020 at the meeting where accreditation of NGOs were being discussed, the United States reacted to this Chinese excuse. The UN report for the day says, “The representative of the United States said her delegation has serious concerns with any Committee member that insists that NGOs use so-called correct United Nations terminology as a condition for receiving consultative status. NGOs should be free to refer to “Taiwan” or to special administrative or autonomous regions such as “Hong Kong”, “Macau” and “Tibet”. Insisting on the use of alternative terminology would have the effect of censoring NGOs and stifling civil society voices at the United Nations.”
I have no doubt that it took lots of diplomatic discussions among the 15 countries to even come up with such a comparatively general joint statement. But have these countries thought of a collective strategy that is all encompassing when it comes to human rights abuses by China. On the part of China, the diplomatic strategy it has adopted included instigating smaller countries, particularly those whose own human rights situation is deplorable, to lead in combating efforts against China in the UN. This could be seen with the joint statement. After Australia spoke on behalf of the 15 countries in the Third Committee session, Pakistan had been lined up to speak on behalf of 80 countries that China had brought together and criticize the 15 countries. More than 40 of the countries were from Africa, while over 21 were from Asia, including the State of Palestine, which itself is ironically dependent on international support in its struggle against Israel. China herself, although joining the 80 countries, spoke separately to convey the impression that the 80 countries were doing this on their own initiative.
As governments thus decreased their role, a resultant factor has been the unintentional lowering of the collective expectations by the Tibet movement from the United Nations and the international community. Today, even the mere mention of “Tibet” is seen as significant.
Governments in the free world, particularly democratic countries in the West, have repeatedly been expressing their commitment to fundamental values like human rights, democracy and rule of law. In the case of the United States, these values are also connected to its national interest. Therefore, whether it is a reference in a statement or a more substantive initiative on Tibet, the United States and other like-minded governments need to see it as part of protecting national interest and less about protecting victims.
On the contrary, given current United Nations system, issues like Tibet become a part of international politicking rather than looking at it from its own merit. For example, the fate of Palestinians in Gaza and in general is garnering much international sympathy. Nevertheless, the State of Palestine cannot help but be part of UN politicking by China and is among those 80 countries that came in support of China during the Third Committee session, despite the fact that their own fellow Muslims, the Uyghurs, are the ones the 15-country joint statement was highlighting. Does this mean the Palestinians do not support the Uyghur people in their quest for human rights?
This can be seen from the remarks by General Assembly President Philémon Yang (from Cameroon) when the Third Committee saw the remarks on August 22, 2024. The official UN report for the day began with a quote from him saying, “Amid multiple global crises, the Committee’s work is vital in promoting human rights, shaping international norms, influencing national policies… From Gaza and Lebanon to Sudan, Ukraine and beyond, we see the devastating results of increasing violence, conflict and persecution…We cannot remain silent amid these and so many other crises.” Yang calls for doing away with silence, but ironically his own country was part of the 80 trying to silence the joint statement.
This also highlights the limitations of the United Nations. British-Nepali jurist Surya Prasad Subedi, who had also served as UN’s Special Rapporteur for human rights in Cambodia, succinctly puts it in his book, The Effectiveness of the UN Human Rights System, “The scorecard of the UN human rights mechanisms appears impressive in terms of the promotion, spreading of education and engaging States in a dialogue to promote human rights, but when it comes to holding governments to account for violations of these rights, the picture is much more dismal.” I would not even go that far. Governments have been unable to engage with each other, whether bilaterally or under the United Nations framework on issues like that of human rights.
Subedi argues most of the UN human rights mechanisms have remained toothless entities and proposes measures to reform and strengthen it by depoliticizing the workings of UN human rights mechanisms and judicializing human rights at the international level.
Although Tibetans console ourselves about the “justness of our cause” and hoping for support based on this merit, the international community has considerations other than that in deciding to raise, support or oppose human rights issues in international fora.
When governments and the United Nations fail to address contemporary critical situation they should ponder on why this might be happening. I would recall to them the statement made by His Holiness the Dalai Lama on March 10, 2002, on the anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising, in which he said, “Internationally, the majority of the governments are in agreement that there is an urgent need for joint efforts to combat terrorism and a series of measures have been adopted. Unfortunately, the present measures lack a long-term and comprehensive approach to deal with the root causes of terrorism. What is required is a well-thought-out, long-term strategy to promote globally a political culture of non-violence and dialogue. The international community must assume a responsibility to give strong and effective support to non-violent movements committed to peaceful changes. Otherwise, it will be seen as hypocrisy to condemn and combat those who have risen in anger and despair but to continue to ignore those who have consistently espoused restraint and dialogue as a constructive alternative to violence.”
