COURTESY OF KERRY BROWN

The first-ever visit by a British minister to the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) this September raised little comment in the UK. Neither The Guardian, nor the BBC, both of which have extensive coverage of issues in China, mentioned the visit in any detail. There was no coverage on the television news in the UK, nor did it seem any reporters were present during the actual visit to TAR itself from the UK.

This is a pity. Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ivan Lewis' visit to TAR from September 7 to 10 was historic. It was the most senior level visit by a British politician to this area since the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) 60 years ago. While British diplomats, members of parliament, and other figures have all had visits over the decades, from the first in the 1980s during the early part of the reform and opening-up period, Lewis is the official in the British Government with lead responsibility for the relationship with China. That he was willing, and allowed to visit TAR, is politically, and symbolically, important. He is also one of the few politicians from this level, from either the United States or the European Union (EU), to request, and get granted such a visit.

Perhaps the British Government felt it better to have a low-key event. Lewis did not give a press conference while in TAR. His main meetings there were with the chairman of TAR. He also visited Drepung Monastery. And while in Beijing he discussed the situation there with the vice minister of the United Front Work Department. But as his visit occurred at almost precisely the same time as that of another key British politician, and member of the cabinet, Lord Mandelson, it received little attention.

Britain has always had an interest in Tibet. This was most tangibly shown in the particular policy that Britain had on Tibet until only last November, by which the British Government recognized the suzerainty (special interest) of the Government of the PRC toward TAR, but not sovereignty. It seemed an incongruous policy, and very few in the UK were aware of it, or the reasons why it arose in the first place. It was also unique. Britain alone maintained this policy, on the grounds of a specific interpretation of international law, and history. Only specialists now really understand why this position was adopted, and what the purpose behind it was.

In November last year, in a reply to a parliamentary question in the British House of Commons, Foreign Secretary David Milliband, finally, and very quietly, revised Britain's position, scrapping commitment to recognition of "suzerainty," and pulling the UK's position into line with that of other countries. Once again, the change attracted little comment in the UK. In fact, most people who noticed it were surprised that the old policy was still in place. The UK's official position was that the change made no material difference to the UK's overall policy toward China, or TAR, and in any case, at least brought consistency to the position of all the EU states.

Viewing policy toward Tibet as part of the larger picture of relations with the PRC generally was made clearer when the UK Government issued a specific government paper on relations with China in January this year, just before the visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to the UK. Just as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had said to reporters before her visit to China in March, the UK was aiming to see economic, political, cultural and social issues all in one coherent, all embracing framework.

At a time when the world was fighting an enormous economic threat, along with terrorist and environmental challenges, all of which were only properly solvable with the involvement and full participation of China, trying to pick out particular parts of policy, saying where we were able to work together, and where we were doomed to be in conflict, seemed a tactic that belonged to a more straightforward past. In many ways, the old policy on TAR held by the UK till November was best understood as a small legacy of the Cold War, and of the massive divisions of territory during the colonial era up to the 1960s. It was interpreted by many as a historic hangover. Now it has gone, for good, along with the world that created it in the first place.

Lewis' visit was, if anything, a sign of commitment to dialogue on TAR, and about the broader issues that TAR raises in the relationship between China and the rest of the world in general, and the UK in particular. For the Chinese Government to invite Lewis to go is at least maintaining the commitment to allow access to TAR, and being more transparent. This is very welcome. For Lewis and the UK, it is a clear sign that, despite the change in policy, the UK has not "walked" away from their interest in this area.