50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising and dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government

28.1.2009

ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0011/09
pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Procedure
by Marco Cappato, Marco Pannella and Janusz Onyszkiewicz, on behalf of the ALDE Group, Monica Frassoni and Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
to the Council

–  Considering that 10 March this year is the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan national uprising against the Chinese administration;

 

–  considering the breakdown of the negotiations between the Chinese authorities and His Holiness the Dalai Lama;

 

–  having regard to the EP resolution (P6_TA(2008)0119) of 10 April 2008 on Tibet, in  which the European Parliament:

 

–  called for an open and independent inquiry, under the auspices of the United Nations, into the recent riots and repression in Tibet (...);

 

–  called on the Council (...) closely to monitor developments, and to ensure that the EU adopts a consistent common position and that decisions taken on the basis thereof are duly implemented (...);

 

–  reiterated its call on the Council to appoint a special envoy for Tibetan issues in order to facilitate the dialogue between the parties (...);

 

–  (...) called for a constructive dialogue to be opened without preconditions, with a view to reaching a comprehensive political agreement, including a sustainable solution with regard to the cultural and political autonomy of Tibet and religious freedom and true minority rights for the Tibetan people in other neighbouring Chinese provinces;

 

What actions will the Council take in order to resume negotiations between the Chinese Government and His Holiness the Dalai Lama?

 

In which ways did the Council follow up on the resolution by the European Parliament?

 

What actions did the Council take to ascertain responsibility for the breakdown of the negotiations? In particular does it consider that the Tibetan ‘Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People’ is a proposal for genuine autonomy (as asserted by the Tibetan Government in Exile) or for ‘disguised independence’ (as asserted by the Chinese Government)?

 

 

Tabled: 28.01.2009

Forwarded: 29.01.2009

Deadline for reply: 19.02.2009