New Comments on the FCO website

There is a new comment on the post "Country updates: China".

http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/human-rights-in-countries-of-concern/china/quarterly-updates-china/

Author: FCO Digital
Comment:
We remain very concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet, in particular with respect to the protection of cultural rights and religious freedoms. We raise these issues regularly with the Chinese authorities, as we did during the Universal Periodic Review of China’s human rights record at the UN on 22 October 2013.

Our position on Tibet remains unchanged since the previous Government. We recognise Tibet as part of China and do not support Tibetan independence. We believe long term stability in Tibet will be best achieved through respect for the universal human rights of Tibetans and genuine autonomy for Tibet within the framework of the Chinese constitution. Meaningful dialogue is the best way to address and resolve the underlying grievances of the Tibetan communities and we continue to urge all sides to restart talks.

We aim to strike a balance between taking a clear position on Tibet, and sustaining broad-based engagement with the Chinese government. A strong and mature relationship is one where no concern is off limits, but we talk about our differences with honesty and mutual respect, sometimes in public, sometimes in private. It is only through engaging China that we can help bring about positive change to human rights, including for Tibetan communities.

In Response
Author: paul barasi
Comment:
RESPONSE ON TIBET

“We remain very concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet”
What concern then has FCO shown for Driru where human rights for Tibetans under Chinese misrule have fallen to absolute zero? Why does Driru receive zero priority in FCO?
How many FCO tweets have there been on Syria in 2014 and how many on Tibet?
FCO policy is to learn the lessons of the holocaust yet FCO’s reply shows that the department denies the 1.2m Tibetan genocide by China and continuing atrocities.

“Universal Periodic Review of China’s human rights record at the UN”
Why does FCO cite this process when it was a farcical sham in which almost every nation praised China’s human rights?

“Our position on Tibet remains unchanged since the previous Government … We recognise Tibet as part of China and do not support Tibetan independence”
FCO continues to ignore that this policy was explicitly predicated on human rights improving and refuses to say why the Department will not undertake a policy review. We The British People are denied a democratic choice over British foreign policy on Tibet by the main parties, which all collude with China against Tibetans having the same right of self-determination that FCO recognises for the other peoples of the world. FCO can supply no information justifying why this policy is consistent, just or effective because it is none of those things.

“Sustaining broad-based engagement with the Chinese government”
FCO has been unable to produce an impact assessment of its Tibet policy or on its engagement with China about Tibet, list any achievements, provide any evidence of positive outcomes or demonstrate any productive change. This is because the policy and engagement are fruitless failures, a smokescreen for silent complicity in violations perpetrated daily by our Government's favourite trade partners, undermining British integrity, credibility and commitment to human rights.




Author: FCO Digital
Comment:

We are very concerned about restrictions on the right to freedom of religion and belief, and about reports of torture and mistreatment of detainees in China, including Falun Gong practitioners. We raise these issues regularly with the Chinese authorities, as we did during the Universal Periodic Review of China’s human rights record at the UN on 22 October 2013. During his recent visit to China, as well as raising concerns over human rights, the Prime Minister agreed with Premier Li that the next round of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue would take place in early 2014.

The Chinese government has repeatedly denied that state authorities carry out forced organ removal. We are aware that organs removed from executed prisoners are used for human transplantation purposes in China. In March 2012, the Chinese government announced it would phase out the use of organs from executed prisoners for transplant within the next five years and would create a national organ donation system. We will continue to encourage China to make further progress in this respect, including by technical cooperation where appropriate.

On the international stage, the UK strongly supports the Declaration of Istanbul, which encourages all countries to draw up proper frameworks to govern organ donation and transplantation activities. We have helped to develop the World Health Organisation Guiding Principles, to ensure that human material removed from deceased and living donors for the purpose of transplantation only takes place according to agreed principles. We are also working with international partners to agree a new draft Convention against Trafficking.

In the UK, we make constant efforts to ensure that any British citizen who needs replacement organs can do so in the UK. Indeed, the Department of Health advise that there has been a 50% improvement in donor rates in the UK since 2007/08, with donor numbers increasing consistently. However, it is not possible to prevent UK citizens travelling to less well-regulated countries to seek an organ transplant, although UK physicians always advise patients against doing so. Although numbers are not known, it is thought very few patients in the UK choose to do so.

Response
Author: Paul Barasi
Comment:CHINA - ORGAN HAVESTING

"The use of organs from executed prisoners" - this is a deliberate lie, for FCO has the evidence. Organs are taken from live prisoners. This is state murder. It has only been raised s couple of times in the UK Parliament when Ministers gave China's official line. That FCO is willing to act as a mouth piece for a foreign regime that commits this crime is unacceptable.

Our position must be:

(1) Refusal to accept China's organ harvesting is the opportunistic removal of organs from dead executed prisoners, and public condemnation of the state murder by organ removal of live prisoners, most of whom have been targeted for religious and political reasons and some not even ever having been sentenced by any law court.

(2) China must be told to stop organ harvesting immediately, rather than phasing it out or lapsing into denial that it has and is still happening.

(3) FCO, with the Department of Heath, must check and then reassure the British People that organs forcibly removed in China have not been used in Britain and it must be made illegal to do so in Britain or for a British citizen to receive one abroad – a step other countries have taken.

(4) The Chinese government must be reminded of the requirements of the rule of law and be asked to ensure that those who have perpetrated organ harvesting and also those who have profited from the sale of forcibly harvested organs are brought to justice.

(5) UK representatives in international forums (such as UN Human Rights Council, EU) must be vociferous in representing this position whenever China's organ harvesting is being or can be raised and discussed.


See all comments on this post here:

http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/human-rights-in-countries-of-concern/china/quarterly-updates-china/#comments