The UN’s Ban on Tibet

Ban Ki-moon, the new UN Secretary General, succumbed to pressure from his staff to duck the issue of Tibet, reaffirming that the UN’s lofty principles do not apply equally in all cases.  “By way of diplomatic silence,” reports Mexican news agency Notimex, “UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon did not respond to the question posed to him regarding the situation in Tibet.”   UN Watch describes Ban’s ban on Tibet:

At the press conference, Jean-Claude Buhrer, a former correspondent for Le Monde…, told UN officials he intended to ask Mr. Ban about “the UN’s inaction concerning Tibet.” The officials … refused to call on Buhrer …

Refusing to give up, Buhrer approached the Secretary General after the session, together with a group of colleagues, and posed his question.
 
“Mr. Secretary General, … one of the oldest nations of the world, Tibet, is still under foreign occupation and is one of the last countries under colonial rule since it was invaded by China in the 1950s. What about the implementation of the UN resolutions on self-determination for Tibet?  And what will you do as Secretary General to facilitate a peaceful settlement between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama? Are you ready to meet the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who advocates non-violence, or is the UN more keen to reward those resorting to violent means?”
 
According to reports, after listening attentively to Buhrer’s question, the Secretary General seemed prepared to respond, but was immediately cut off by his spokesperson, Michèle Montas, and then led out of the room by his entourage, as a bodyguard carelessly knocked into the inquisitive journalist. 

Mr. Ban should have stood his ground and at least addressed the issue.  It’s shameful that he allowed himself to be silenced by his spokesperson.  It speaks volumes about the UN’s moral bankruptcy when it comes to the issue of Tibet.  And it casts a very poor light on Mr. Ban’s moral leadership.  

The UN hasn’t always been so terrified of discussing Tibet.  As China was invading Tibet in 1950, the UN discussed a motion on “Invasion of Foreign Forces Into Tibet” (UN Doc. A/1534, 18 November 1950).  The General Assembly passed three resolutions on Tibet, including one in 1961 that explicitly supports the Tibetan people’s ”fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination.”

So despite the modern UN’s timidity, the General Assembly is on record as supporting the Tibetan people’s right to self-determination.  Theoretically the UN could take up the issue again.  (A member state could table a Tibet resolution, or Mr. Ban could even raise the issue directly with the Security Council under his Article 99 powers.)  

We aren’t holding our breath waiting for this to happen.  But the UN’s unambiguous position supporting Tibetan self-determination, and the fact that the issue could theoretically be taken up again at any time, is yet another reason China must feel its grip on Tibet is fundamentally unstable.