---

East Asia

I wish to tell the House that I undertook a visit to the Republic of Korea, funded by the Korean National Assembly and the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as recorded in the Register of Members’ Interests. It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). I congratulate him on his effective leadership of the Committee through what was a complex and demanding inquiry and, most particularly, on standing up firmly, when we were in China, against the deplorable attempt by the Chinese authorities to intimidate the Committee out of proceeding as it was planning to do, and did, from China to Taiwan. China, as we all know, is the most populous country in the world. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a country that is still deplorably deficient in many aspects of human rights. I wish to devote most of my remarks to that issue. I am very glad that this Minister will reply to the debate, because he has a long-standing and most creditable record in the human rights area. Indeed, that is a particular area of his ministerial responsibility. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, a group of us visited Tibet. That was certainly the first time since I have been on the Foreign Affairs Committee that we have been allowed into Tibet. I do not know whether any previous departmental Select Committee has been to that part of China. From years of looking at media reports and pictures, I was prepared to see a very sadly transformed Lhasa, but the Lhasa that we found in reality was sadder than my worst expectations. The bulldozers have been rampant in Lhasa for many years and, sadly, a very great deal of the historic Tibetan part of Lhasa has now disappeared, with, of course, the conspicuous exception of the Potala palace. That reflects what has been going on in Tibet over many years. A striking illustration of the relationship between the state, Tibetan culture and the Tibetan Buddhist religion awaited us when we went to the Sera monastery in Lhasa. The abbot beckoned me to sit next to him on the sofa. I sat down and looked up, and there, staring down at me, was the portrait of Chairman Mao. That spoke volumes for where we are today in Tibet. There is no doubt that Tibetan culture, Tibetan religion and Tibetan language are all under sustained threat. That is clearly a serious and very worrying human rights dimension. I want to put to the Minister what I think is the key area of policy, both for the British Government and, indeed, for the wider free world—what position do the Governments in the free world take towards the Dalai Lama and towards the authenticity of the Dalai Lama’s statement that he is not seeking to secede as far as Tibet is concerned? We quote in the Select Committee report, at paragraph 367, one of the latest statements from the Dalai Lama on that issue. It is taken from the statement that he made on 10 March last year. He said:"““I do not wish to seek Tibet’s separation from China””." Nothing could be clearer or more unqualified than that. We made it clear in our report that that was the evidence that we had taken. We say in our conclusion that"““the Chinese assertion that the Dalai Lama advocates Tibetan independence flies in the face of public statements made by the Dalai Lama.””" Unhappily, the British Government are silent on that absolutely key point. I hope that the Minister will tell us in his reply whether the British Government accept that that is the position of the Dalai Lama, because if the British Government and, indeed, Governments around the world can give us that acceptance, the entire argument and supposed justification that the Chinese authorities advance in Tibet for violating human rights—that every Tibetan is a potential subversive and the Tibetan people are universally bent on separation, independence and secession—clearly goes overboard. That is a crucial public platform issue for the British Government and for other Governments around the world, and it would be helpful if the Minister said in his reply whether the British Government accept that what I have set out is the genuinely held, sincere position of the Dalai Lama—that he is not seeking the independence of Tibet. I come now to human rights elsewhere in China—in mainland China. Just as some 500 years ago the arrival of the printing press had a volcanic impact on freedom of thought in Europe, so undoubtedly the arrival of electronic communications is having an equally volcanic impact on expression and freedom of communication in China now. The hon. Member for Ilford, South alluded to that. As far as the Chinese authorities are concerned, electronic communications is probably the biggest single fear factor that they have in trying to preserve their one-party regime as it is and to continue to conduct the political repression in their country that they do. I have read that they have some 40,000 people engaged simply in trying to police the internet. The Chairman of the Select Committee referred to the activities of Google. I am sure that the Minister will have seen the report produced last year by Amnesty International. It is entitled ““Undermining Freedom of Expression in China: The Role of Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google”” and it contains searing criticisms of those three companies. I shall quote just a few sentences:"““All three companies have, in one way or another, facilitated or colluded in the practice of censorship in China. Yahoo! has provided the Chinese authorities with private and confidential information about its users. This included personal data that has been used to convict at least two journalists, considered by Amnesty International to be prisoners of conscience. Microsoft has admitted to shutting down a blog on the basis of a government request. Google has launched a censored version of its international search engine in China. All three companies have demonstrated a disregard for their own internally driven and proclaimed policies. They have made promises to themselves, their employees, their customers and their investors which they failed to uphold in the face of business opportunities and pressure from the Chinese government.””" I would like to follow the request from the hon. Member for Ilford, South by putting two more in that area to the Minister. First, does he have any evidence as to whether any British companies have been involved in any way in facilitating Chinese suppression of human rights through censorship of the internet? Secondly, with regard to the television arena, does he have any evidence that Sky has, as part of its deal with the Chinese authorities, undertaken any self-censorship in terms of the news reporting that it carries out in that country? Let me turn now to the written media. Those of us who went to Beijing were shocked by the first-hand accounts that we received from the British journalists we met, who told us how extraordinarily difficult it was for them to carry out their proper journalistic responsibilities in China. They told us of the intense degree of control over their travel, the restrictions over how freely they could report, the clearances that they were supposed to get and, indeed, of the possible risk of arrest that they faced. That is all wholly unacceptable, particularly in a country that will shortly host the Olympic games. As we said in the report:"““We further conclude that the Regulations Concerning Foreign Journalists and Permanent Offices of Foreign News Agencies are not acceptable in a modern state, particularly in a state that will be hosting the Olympic Games in 2008.””" In that respect, I was somewhat disappointed by the Government’s response, which refers to the Prime Minister’s meeting with Premier Wen in London on 13 September 2006. The Government quote two sentences from Premier Wen’s statement, the first of which reads:"““The open policy adopted by the Chinese government regarding foreign news media and financial information agencies remains unchanged.””" Open policy? What open policy? It does not exist. That is a ludicrous description of the repression and control exercised over foreign news agencies. The second sentence quoted by the Foreign Office reads:"““Information in the areas of commerce, finance and the economy will flow freely without any obstructions.””" Of course it will flow freely. Western companies’ financial information and details of their trading will be eagerly hoovered up by their Chinese competitors, but that is not the issue. The issue is what is happening as regards the free flow of information about the nascent free trade union movement and non-state-controlled Churches in China? What about information that represents legitimate and proper freedom of expression? What about the ability to talk about Taiwan? Those are the issues on which we want a dramatic change in policy from the Chinese Government.