Published by World Tibet Network News - Thursday, January 04, 1996

From: M.Sisani@agora.stm.it

[Mlada Fronta DNES, the most spread and prominent daily newspaper in the Czech Republic, has published today the following article by Olga Cechurova. The article has been published on the 11th page of Mlada Fronta DNES, the page usually devoted to articles written by ministers, MPs, politicians.

Next to the article, there is a big picture of the Dalai lama, with the following note, under it: "The Dalai Lama is starting to be considered by the world as a legitimate representative of Tibet, but the attitude of most our politicians towards him remains controversial." MS]

First Deputy Foreign Minister Alexandr Vondra stated recently about Czech relation to China: "We do not support separatist tendencies in Tibet, but we cannot agree with continuing violations of human rights on this territory" (MF DNES, December 5). Is it correct, however, to call the Tibetan struggle for re-gaining freedom "separatism"?

People's Republic of China, which annexed Tibet in 1949-50 by a military occupation and which has been organizing massive transfers of Chinese population into Tibet in last decade, justifies its claims by saying that Tibet allegedly became an integral part of China seven hundred years ago. Let's not discuss the argument that for a major part of its history Tibet existed as an independent entity and even in the times of closer relations with China it maintained a high degree of autonomy. Even being part of a certain state in the past, however, would not mean in itself that it would be possible to occupy such a territory at any time and to deny its right for self-determination. We take for granted, after all, that Austria cannot arbitrarily annex the Czech Republic, although its territory belonged to it for centuries. And when for instance Saddam Hussein used such an argument for his invasion into Kuwait, the civilized world strongly rejected it. In the case of Tibet it is essential that Tibet was in time of i

nvasion not only de facto, but also de iure an independent state, which maintained close diplomatic relations with other countries. Moreover, the inhabitants of Tibet - an ethnically and culturally distinct nation - have never agreed to become part of China; however, they have never had any chance to express this disagreement in a democratic way.

If some diplomats of democratic states recognize the Chinese occupation of Tibet, which they do entirely for economic reasons, while bashfully protesting against violations of human rights in China, it must be considered as hypocrisy. By recognizing the status quo they enable the Chinese regime to successfully export - thanks to its economical potential - also its approach to human rights.

The Czech Republic with its historical experience from 1938 and 1968 should not accept such a deal, though. However, while the attitude of President Havel towards Tibet and China is very principled, the policy of the Government is highly inconsistent, as testified by the aforementioned statement of A.Vondra on one hand, and the protest against the sentence for Wei Jingsheng on the other. The attitude which political representation will assume towards the nonviolent fight of Tibetans for freedom (under the leadership of the Dalai Lama, Nobel Peace Prize winner), is a matter of conscience as well as self-confidence of Czech foreign policy. Up to now it seems that Czech diplomacy acts with self-confidence rather towards democratic states of Europe than towards dictatorial regimes.

Even if Havel's support of Tibet is more open than it is usual in the democratic world today, one cannot say any more that the world is turning its back on this cause. The American Congress recognized in 1991 the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile as the legitimate representatives of Tibet and the Chinese occupation as illegal. Also the resolutions of the European Parliament from July and December of last year are similar in content. For this year, Satyagraha 1996 - a worldwide nonviolent initiative of politicians and citizens for the freedom of Tibet - is being prepared. As part of it, the March 10 anniversary of the Lhasa uprising in 1959 will be the day of expressing the concrete solidarity with this suffering nation.

Over forty european Mayors have already declared to fly the Tibetan national flag from their city halls on this day; among the Czech statutory cities only Hradec Kralove has joined so far. It should not remain alone.

* OLGA CECHUROVA

The author is member of the General Council of the Transnational Radical Party