text: that the language used was not the proper language in which to address a committee of experts. Many Committee members had experienced riots in their own countries and knew that they were highly complex phenomena. There were small groups of separatists in many countries, but the question was why such people received the support of substantial sectors of the population, as there was reason to believe was the case in the Autonomous Region of Tibet. The Committee was aware of the dispute over the history of the region and of what was perceived by the Tibetan people as cultural oppression, racial discrimination in official and social services and the depletion of their natural resources. From the Chinese Government's point of view, Tibet was dependent economically and socially on China, but the way in which the Government's policies were perceived by the local population was not reflected in the reports. With reference to Mrs. Sadiq Ali's statement, he said that the Beijing Government's "one country, two systems" approach to Tibet in 1951 had been abandoned by the end of that decade. The latest periodic reports were not encouraging, and it was to be hoped that some of the ideas put forward in 1951 might be revived in order to improve the situation. Mr. VIDAS expressed appreciation of the co-operative attitude shown by China. With regard to paragraph 59 of the third periodic report (CERD/C/153/Add.2), he would like to know how many monasteries and places for religious activities were still closed and how many had been opened since December 1987 when the report in question had been submitted for consideration. CERD/C/SR.869 page 16 Mr, ABOUL-NASR said he wished to assure Mr. de Gouttes that he was not opposed to extending the sources of information available to the Committee. Mr, FERRERO COSTA, speaking on a point of order, said he wished to 
analysis: The text appears to be a discussion on the human rights situation in Tibet, specifically addressing the treatment of the Tibetan people by the Chinese government. The language used suggests a focus on political and social issues, rather than economic or environmental concerns. The mention of cultural oppression, racial discrimination, and the depletion of natural resources also points towards a category that encompasses cultural and social issues.