POLICY STATEMENT AND
SPEECH FROM UNDECIDED COUNTRY
RESOLVED: Tibet shall
be granted sovereign statehood, completely independent from China.
Norway’s Policy Statement
How far does the United Nations go in respecting, preserving and protecting Indigenous ethnic rights?
Norway, with its own fiercely independent Laplander indigenous population, respectfully abstains from taking a position on granting sovereign statehood to Tibet at this time. We hope to become more fully informed regarding the legality of such an action within the confines of the United Nations Charter.
To help us gain the answers to our questions, we are submitting them in written form to our fellow member countries in hopes that some of these questions will be addressed in the debate.
Norway sees three problems
presented from the speeches here so far.
(Present
overhead)
One: What is the truth and is it attainable?
Two: What is UN Charter specification related to
Tibet’s request?
Three: Would supporting this resolution cause most
countries, including the US who sponsored it, to be hypocritical?
We asked for information on
historically certified borders.
We asked for clarification
on charter rules for indigenous populations.
We asked for a legality
ruling on the Dalai Lama’s wish to overturn previous recognition of China’s
sovereignty.
Our
questions are an effort to gain perspective on:
How
far does the United Nations go in respecting, preserving and protecting
Indigenous ethnic rights?
This
leads from the seemingly impossible trick of trying to fathom historical truths
to trying to make a decision that may even be hypocritical for us even to
discuss.
TURTH OR HYPOCRISY?
We
are concerned about the many indigenous populations who are currently under the
sovereign governance of one government but who would prefer self- rule.
We
include Norway among the countries who have indigenous populations. Our Laplanders, in the northern section of
our country, are fiercely independent, speak Lapp, not Norwegian, and have a distinctly
unique culture. Would we be
hypocritical if we supported Tibetan desires for sovereignty and not our
Laplanders?
Upon
renewed study of our Charter we fear the vast majority us are in clear
violation of most of the determinations, ends and aims we claim as charter
members of the UN.
So.... Truth and Hypocrisy appears to be our norm.
Listen.
How
many of us here today, have not entered into any armed conflict within the last
50 years?
Show
your hands.
Yeah,
but we pledged in our UN preamble “to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war,”
Now,
think honestly, to yourselves...
how
many of our represented countries here today have not guaranteed or enforced the fundamental human rights we
reaffirmed in our charter, the equal rights of men and women ...
whether
they be rich or poor, black or white, homosexual, mentally retarded, or sick
with AIDS?
Truth? Hypocrisy... to expect something we don’t
deliver ourselves?
And
how many of us have ignored our determination “to promote social progress and
better standards of life” through not keeping up with self-determined UN dues?
Indigenous
rights? Is this even an appropriate
forum to bring this issue to?
What
about the Indian nation within America?
What
about the French in Canada?
The
aboriginal in Australia?
The
Hutu and Tutsi tribes in Rwanda and Burundi?
The
Taiwanese in the PRC?
The
Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo?
The
Kurds in Turkey and Iraq?
The
Catholics in Ireland?
The
Laplanders in Norway?
Indigenous
rights to self-determination. That’s
what this discussion here the last few days has come down to. Indigenous rights.
Now,
NATO interfered in Kosovo to prevent the genocide of the Albanians. The UN interfered in Rwanda to prevent the
genocide of Tutsis.
But,
in 1948 the UN allowed one indigenous claim, the claim of the ancestors of
Abraham, to form an independent state in Palestine.
The
question is, at what point is it appropriate for the UN to intervene and
support the creation of a separate state?
And
at what point would it be not only
hypocritical but against the primary standard of China’s internal sovereignty
as guaranteed in our charter?
The
decision on this issue may have serious future ramifications and Norway is
intent on listening carefully to the commitment we made in our charter and the
interpretation our fellow nations have made of our commitments.
But
we warn our fellow delegates that we may
Never
find the truth
And
we may always by hypocritical.
But
we must at least try to be true to our Charter and never hypocritical in
implementing its mandates.
We
understand that few UN nations are currently unaligned at this time and that
the vote will be close.
To
help you formulate your arguments of debate, Norway has prepared the following
questions we hope will be answered with credible substantiation to influence
our vote.
1.
What
were the certified borders of China, as recognized by the international and UN
community at the time of China’s admission into the UN?
2.
The
PRC was established in 1948. Is there a
difference in the political and/or geographical identity of the PRC from China and territory claimed by China?
3.
If
the UN decided to support a sovereign Tibet would this be a powerful precedent
allowing other indigenous ethnic populations to petition the UN for return of
lost territory? Is there a slippery
slope here that could possibly disassemble the UN itself?
4.
Can
the Dalai Lama’s signature on the 1951 17-Point Agreement recognizing China’s
sovereignty be over-turned at his request by any legal basis within our
charter?
5.
Are
there any chapters and sections of the UN Charter that give conditions where a
region, under sovereign rule of one country, may protest and seek partition
from said governing country?
6.
Are
there any precedents related to regional succession without the mutual consent
of both parties?
The
U.N. Charter, for example, states that the purpose of the world
body
is to ensure friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle
of equal rights and self-determination, but it also states that nothing
contained
in the charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters
that
are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.
The
ambiguity
about
when entities have the right to seek self-determination has made
international
opinion an important dimension of such disputes, and the struggle
to
control representations of history and current events is often as intense as
the
struggle
to control territory. In the case of Tibet, both sides have selectively
patched
bits and pieces of the historical record together to support their
viewpoints.
The ensuing avalanche of charges and counter-charges is difficult to
assess,
even for specialists.