Respecting and protecting citizens’ freedom of religious belief is a basic policy of the Chinese government. At present, there are 1,780 Tibetan Buddhist temples in Tibet, roughly one temple for every 1,600 people; and there are 46,000 Tibetan monks and nuns, about 1.5% of the population. I don’t know how many Europeans there are for every church in Europe, or what percentage of the population are members of the clergy, but I’m sure the percentages are much lower than when the Dalai Lama ruled Tibet. At that time, there were 100,000 monks and nuns in Tibet out of a population of only one million. You can easily imagine how difficult it would be for such a society to develop and progress.

At present China has excellent relations with the European Union; both sides have already established comprehensive partnerships; and there are multi-level dialogue and partnership mechanisms in place in the areas of economics, science and technology, and culture. Cooperation between China and Europe is very beneficial for both sides as well as for the whole world. Particularly now against the backdrop of the international financial crisis and the European debt crisis, it is especially necessary for China and Europe to strengthen ties, support each other, overcome difficulties together, and create a win-win situation.

Just when cooperation between China and Europe is becoming increasingly important, I am puzzled to frequently hear baseless censure of China within the European Union, but I have never heard Chinese censure the European Union for its handling of its internal affairs. The most recent example is that of a small number of members of the European Parliament who, in utter disregard to China’s interests, insisted on inviting the new head of the Dalai Lama clique’s “government-in-exile” to visit Brussels, made a show of meeting with him, and invited him to speak in the capacity of “prime minister of the Central Tibetan Administration” at a meeting of the Foreign Relations Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, where he spread nonsense about “Tibet independence.” The actions of this small number of members of the European Parliament are extremely irresponsible and violate its promise to China, and also violate prevailing norms of international relations. When the European Union recognized that Tibet is a part of Chinese territory, it no longer had the right to invite the head of a rebel group that advocates splitting China to speak at the European Parliament. I hope that those of you here, in light of the importance you place on friendly relations between China and Europe, exercise your influence to make sure that a terrible incident like this doesn’t occur again.

I was once a reporter on the People’s Daily. At that time I enjoyed asking people tough questions. So today, I welcome you to make your questions to me as tough as you like. And I hope that my comments about the new head of the government-in-exile don’t spoil anyone’s appetite.

Question: I am a member of the European External Action Service. Your visit to Brussels and your raising the questions you just raised are very important. You state that Tibet has achieved momentous development, and we are very glad to hear that. What I want to ask is: You clearly understand the great emphasis that the European Union places on human rights, and also on the preservation of traditional culture. This is why we are deeply concerned with issues concerning the preservation of human rights and culture not only within the European Union but also beyond its borders.

We are deeply concerned about the recent spate of self-immolations by Tibetan monks. In the eyes of many Europeans, this indicates that many Tibetans are in utter despair concerning the preservation of their culture. I want to emphasize that the European Union does not recognize the legitimacy of the “government-in-exile” led by its Chief Kalon. Furthermore, the European Union did not extend him an invitation; he was invited as the result of a free choice on the part of the European Parliament, which has the power to act completely independently.

Zhu Weiqun: We need to make a great effort to develop the cause of human rights in China, and we also hope our friends will give us their help. However, I must say that the Chinese government more than any other government in the world is concerned about the human rights of our own people, including Tibetans. Why did the Communist Party of China start a revolution those many years ago? One of the tasks of the revolution was to resist the invasion by imperialist countries, including some European ones. Not so long ago, some European countries twice launched wars of invasion in Tibet. In the 1904 war, the invading army used a “civilized” modern cannon in a ravine to massacre 600 of our Tibetan compatriots. At that time who among you spoke on behalf of the human rights of the Tibetan people? In 1951, some Western countries used cannons to support the Tibetan local government’s resistance to the peaceful liberation of Tibet, and in 1959 they directly encouraged and supported the Dalai Lama clique’s reactionary armed rebellion. This wasn’t just moral support but involved the airlifting of weapons and the training of special agents to oppose democratic reforms in Tibet. At that time who among you spoke on behalf of the human rights of the Tibetan people? Everything we’ve done in Tibet – including liberating the people from centuries of serfdom, raising the living standards of the people, ensuring the freedom of religious belief, and protecting and developing Tibetan culture – has been for the human rights of the Tibetan people. How much have you Westerners done in Tibet to advance human rights there? Let’s see. As I see it, many Westerners are more concerned about the privileges a small handful of feudal serf owners such as the Dalai Lama have lost than with the human rights of three million Tibetan people, and with the absolute political, economic and religious power the Dalai Lama has lost. I’m very sorry, but I don’t have the time to enumerate the human rights records of Western countries, but here we are discussing your concerns over the issue of self-immolation xx.