Tibetan sovereignty debate edit
extracted from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
(using Wikipedia Reflection Script)
|
Tibetan sovereignty debate edit
|
|
Tibet was once an independent kingdom, which later became a part of China. The government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Government of Tibet in Exile, however, disagree over the definition of Tibet, when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law.
Contents |
The government of the PRC contends that China has had control over Tibet since the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368).1
The government of Republic of China (ROC), which ruled mainland China from 1912 until 1949 and now controls Taiwan, has had cabinet level Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission in charge of administration of Tibet and Mongolia regions since 1912. The Commission retained its cabinet level status after 1949, but no longer executes that function. On 10 May 1943, Chiang Kai-shek asserted that "Tibet is part of Chinese territory... No foreign nation is allowed to interfere in our domestic affairs".2 He again declared in 1946 that the Tibetans were Chinese.3 ROC still claims sovereignty over Tibet and Mongolia in its constitution.
In the late 19th century, China adopted the Western model of nation-state diplomacy and concluded a series of treaties regarding Tibet's boundaries and status.4 Chinese government sources consider this a sign of sovereignty rather than suzerainty.
The position of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which has ruled mainland China since 1949, as well as the official position of the Republic of China, which ruled mainland China before 1949 and currently controls Taiwan 5, is that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China de jure since the Yuan Dynasty of Mongol-ruled China in the 13th century. 6, comparable to other states such as the Kingdom of Dali and the Tangut Empire that were also incorporated into the Middle Kingdom at the time. The PRC contends that according to the Succession of states theory in international law all subsequent Chinese governments (Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, ROC and PRC) have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty and de facto power over Tibet.
According to the current government, successive Chinese governments have recognized Tibet as having its own unique culture and language; however, they believe that this situation does not necessarily argue in favor of independence, because China has over 56 unique ethnic groups and is one of many multi-national states in the world.
The ROC government had no effective control over Tibet from 1912 to 1951; however, in the opinion of the Chinese government, this condition does not represent Tibet's complete independence as many other parts of China also enjoyed de facto independence when the Chinese nation was torn by warlordism, Japanese invasion, and civil war.7 Goldstein explains what is meant by de facto independence in the following statement:
| “ | ...[Britain] instead adopted a policy based on the idea of autonomy for Tibet within the context of Chinese suzerainty, that is to say, de facto independence for Tibet in the context of token subordination to China. Britain articulated this policy in the Simla Convention of 1914.8 | ” |
While at times the Tibetans were fiercely independent-minded, at other times, Tibet indicated its willingness to accept subordinate status as part of China provided that Tibetan internal systems were left untouched and China relinquished control over a number of important ethnic Tibetan groups in Kham and Amdo 910. China insists that during this period the ROC government continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet. The Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China (1912) stipulated that Tibet was a province of the Republic of China. Provisions concerning Tibet in the Constitution of the Republic of China promulgated later all stress the inseparability of Tibet from Chinese territory, and the Central Government of China exercise of sovereignty in Tibet. 11121314 In 1927, the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs15 of the Chinese Government contained members of great influence in the Mongolian and Tibetan areas, such as the 13th Dalai Lama, the 9th Panchen Lama and other Tibetan government representatives.11 In 1934, on his condolence mission for the demise of the Dalai Lama, the Chinese General Huang Musong posted notices in Chinese and Tibetan throughout Lhasa that alluded to Tibet as an integral part of China while expressing the utmost reverence for the Dalai Lama and religion.16
The 13th Dalai Lama's attitude towards the Central Government vacillated but had been gradually improving. He began to see the possibility of unceasing wars between Tibet and contiguous provinces (Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan) under the control of various warlords, and Tibet would benefit if there was effective intervention by the Central Government. These territorial disputes became for him local disputes instead of China-Tibet disputes. When wars of warlords were about to come to end, a unified Central Government would also be detrimental to the Dalai Lama - if the Panchen Lama were to oppose him with Chinese support. So in 1931, he sent delegates to attend the National Assembly. After his death, the Tibetan Kashag Government continued the policy of sending delegates to the National Assembly of 1936. 171819Also, delegates from Tibetan areas attended the Drafting Committee for a new constitution of the Republic of China in 1925, the fourth National Congress of the Kuomintang in 1931, and a National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1946. A "Trade Mission" sent by the Tibetan government attended another National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1948.1420
The 9th Panchen Lama traditionally ruled over one-third of Tibet.21 On 1 February 1925, the Panchen Lama attended the preparatory session of the "National Reconstruction Meeting" (Shanhou huiyi) meant to identify ways and means of unifying the Chinese nation, and gave a speech about achieving the unification of five nationalities, including Tibetans, Mongolians and Han Chinese. In 1933, he called upon the Mongols to national unity and to obey the Chinese Government to resist Japanese invasion. In February 1935 the Chinese government appointed Panchen Lama "Special Cultural Commissioner for the Western Regions" and assigned him 500 Chinese troops.22 He spent much of his time teaching and preaching Buddhist doctrines - including the principles of unity and pacification for the border regions - extensively in inland China, outside of Tibet, from 1924 until 1 December 1937, when he died on his way back to Tibet under the protection of Chinese troops.23
The approval of the Kuomintang government was needed to validate the choice of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama. When the current (14th) Dalai Lama was installed in Lhasa, it was with an armed escort of Chinese troops and an attending Chinese minister, in accordance with centuries-old tradition.24 Alastair Lamb comments on contemporary news reports of the installation ceremony,
| “ | the impression conveyed to the world at large, duly reported in the Calcutta Statesman and The Times of London, for example, was that the Chinese were somehow essential to the recognition of the legitimate Dalai Lama. The Calcutta Statesman...declared...that Mr. Wu had conducted the Dalai Lama to his throne, and read out a proclamation, and that the Dalai Lama had made obeisance towards Peking.2526271121 | ” |
According to Yu Shiyu, during China's resistance war against Japanese invasion, Chiang Kai-shek ordered Ma Bufang, Governor of Qinghai (1937–1949), to repair the Yushu airport at Qinghai Province to deter Tibetan independence.28 In May 1943, Chiang warned that Tibet must accept and follow the instructions and orders of the Central Government, that they must agree and help to build the Chinese-India [war-supply] road, and that they must maintain direct communications with the Office of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission in Lhasa and not through the newly established "Foreign Office" of Tibet. He sternly warned that he would "send an air force to bomb Tibet immediately" should Tibet be found to be collaborating with Japan.29
Throughout the Kuomintang years, no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition.30
Regarding Tibet’s assertion of its independence status before its "invasion" by People's Liberation Army, Goldstein documents the response of the India Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Nehru, 8 September 1950:
| “ | Nehru responded bluntly: "The Government of India will continue the policy of the British period in considering Tibet outwardly a part of China but internally independent... ["Shakabpa wrote 'internally independent' but Nehru certainly said 'internally autonomous'," according to Goldstein in footnote 86, and the Tibetans' response following]." The Tibetans replied: "Because Tibet is independent please do not talk about 'internal autonomy' under China..." Nehru was a bit irritated by this and reply sharply to the Tibetans that it was not enough to speak about Tibet independence: such status had to be proved according to the law. [And Nehru rejected the Tibetan’s legal reasoning based on alleged "separate treaty" between Britain and Tibet in the Simla Convention of 1904. Nehru then replied to the Tibetans]: "There is no separate treaty like this and China never accepted the Simla Convention. The Chinese believe that Tibet is a part of China. Tibet thinks that because China didn’t accept Simla, it is independent but at that time Tibet did not make any clear decision. That was a mistake. And later when you had the time and the opportunity to do something [about "independence"] you did nothing and this was a mistake. During this period China has been very clever and have proclaimed widely in the internationally community that Tibet is part of China...31 | ” |
| “ | Nehru advised the [Tibetan Yatung delegation who were about to negotiate with Beijing in April 1951] to admit that Tibet was a part of China, since it was seen as such in the eyes of the world. He also told them they would probably have to agree to Chinese control over Tibet's foreign relations...32 | ” |
More recently the position of the ROC with regard to Tibet has changed as was stated in the following opening speech to the International Symposium on Human Rights in Tibet on 8 September 2007 through the Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian:33
| “ | The relationship between Taiwan and Tibet is a delicate one. Historically speaking, there had been little contact between the two sides until the Kuomintang (KMT) government moved to Taiwan. As the KMT viewed Tibet as a part of the Republic of China, Taiwan was thereby indirectly linked to Tibet. However, such a relationship has never received wide acknowledgement among Taiwanese or Tibetans. As more and more Taiwanese people now recognize that the territory of this country covers only such islands as Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, they also are increasingly aware that Tibet has never been a part of their country. | ” |
| “ | During the inauguration conference of the Taiwan-Tibet Exchange Foundation in 2003, I announced our new policy and emphasized that the Taiwan government will no longer treat people of the Tibetan government-in-exile as Chinese people. Instead, we will handle our relations with Tibet and China separately under this fresh perspective on our relations with Tibet. Our new policy has helped resolve many problems troubling the exchanges between the peoples of Taiwan and Tibet over the years. | ” |
| “ | Today, Tibet and Taiwan share a common plight due to intimidation from a hegemonic China. That is why Taiwan's 23 million people can empathize with the suffering Tibetan people. It is because we understand the feelings of the Tibetans that we firmly support them and wish them the best in their pursuit of self-determination. We also unreservedly respect any decision the Dalai Lama makes on the future of Tibet. I sincerely hope that closer cooperation can be fostered between Taiwan and the Tibetan government-in-exile, and that we can support and encourage each other's quest for freedom, peace, and human rights. | ” |
Finally, the PRC considers all pro-independence movements aimed at ending Chinese sovereignty in Tibet, including British attempts to establish control in the late 19th century and early 20th century 34, the CIA's backing of Tibetan insurgents during the 1950s and 1960s, 3536 and the Government of Tibet in Exile today, 24 as one long campaign abetted by Western imperialism aimed at destroying Chinese territorial integrity and sovereignty, or destabilizing China. 37
Shen Jirao writes on China Tibet Information Center website:
| “ | From 1913 to 1914, China was forced to send delegates to attend the tripartite conference at Simla...the British attempted to divide the areas inhabited by the Tibetans into "outer Tibet" which was Tibet, and "inner Tibet" which was composed of areas inhabited by the Tibetans in the four provinces neighboring Tibet. China would administer "inner Tibet" for the time being, but refrain from meddling with the affairs of "outer Tibet" which would follow the system of autonomy. The British controlled "outer Tibet" in a short period of time, and those who stood for "Tibetan independence" lauded the British occupation as "Tibetan autonomy" and even a period of "Tibetan independence"...
A British Foreign Office's report titled Tibet and the Issue on China's "Suzerainty", issued in March 1943, proposed depriving China of its suzerainty over Tibet. Fearing that China would resort to force, the British Foreign Office consulted with the Indian Affairs Office and backed out of the plan.38 |
” |
Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view which it revised on 29 October 2008, when the British Foreign Office recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by issuing a statement on its website. The Economist stated that although the Foreign Office's website does not use the word sovereignty, officials at the Foreign Office said "it means that, as far as Britain is concerned, 'Tibet is part of China. Full stop.' "39
Tibetologist Melvyn C. Goldstein writes about CIA involvement in Tibet leading up to the uprising against Chinese rule in the 1950s:
| “ | Moreover, by 1956 the U.S. was encouraging the anti-Chinese faction, and in 1957, actually started to train and arm Tibetan guerrillas. Mao... reduced the number of Han cadre and troops in Tibet...the [1959] Tibetan rebellion also failed dismally...The CIA subsequently assisted the guerrillas in establishing a safe-haven base of operations in northern Nepal...40 | ” |
| “ | A case can be made that U.S. active involvement in the 1950s, particularly from 1956, played a significantly role in destabilizing Tibet and inadvertently fostering the uprising in 1959...41 | ” |
The New York Times commented on the American policy during the 1960s:
| “ | The decade-long covert program to support the Tibetan independence movement was part of the C.I.A.'s worldwide effort to undermine Communist governments, particularly in the Soviet Union and China.35 | ” |
The American Tibetologist Tom Grunfeld writes that during The Cold War:
| “ | From exile, the Dalai Lama oversaw refugee resettlement and guerrilla warfare—although he officially renounced all violence. CIA support encouraged insurgent Tibetans to continue their war for independence, but the CIA was more interested in harassing communist China than in promoting Tibetan independence.42 | ” |
And after the Cold War:
| “ | While officially recognizing Tibet as part of China, the U.S. Congress and White House unofficially encourage the campaign for independence.42 | ” |
According to Michael Parenti, the US continues its policy of interference in Tibetan affairs today:
| “ | Throughout the 1960s, the Tibetan exile community was secretly pocketing $1.7 million a year from the CIA...Into the twenty-first century, via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other conduits that are more respectable sounding than the CIA, the U.S. Congress continued to allocate an annual $2 million to Tibetans in India, with additional millions for “democracy activities” within the Tibetan exile community.24 | ” |
Much of the NED's fund goes to Tibet independence support groups. This democracy promotion invites suspicion. According to Michael Barker:
| “ | the NEDs first acting president, observed that in fact “A lot of what we [the NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”...it appears that the NED was envisaged by US foreign policy elites to be a more suitable way to provide strategic funding to nongovernmental organizations than via covert CIA funding...Barker (2006) has illustrated the NED’s anti-democratic involvement in facilitating and manipulating the ‘colour revolutions’ which recently swept across Eastern Europe...the NED’s activities are intimately linked with those of the CIA. This article has demonstrated the close ties that exist between the Dalai Lama’s non-violent campaign for Tibetan independence and U.S. foreign policy elites who are actively supporting Tibetan causes through the NED...the overwhelmingly anti-democratic nature of the NED can only weaken the legitimacy of the claims of any group associated with the NED.43 | ” |
F. William Engdahl44 writes:
| “ | Washington has obviously decided on an ultra-high risk geopolitical game with Beijing's by fanning the flames of violence in Tibet just at this sensitive time in their relations and on the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. It's part of an escalating strategy of destabilization of China which has been initiated by the Bush Administration over the past months, and which includes the attempt to ignite an anti-China Saffron Revolution in the neighboring Myanmar region...The background actors in the Tibet actions confirm that Washington has been working overtime in recent months to prepare another of its infamous Color Revolutions...As in the other recent Color Revolutions... the US Government is fanning the flames of destabilization against China by funding opposition protest organizations inside and outside Tibet through its arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)...In short, US State Department and US intelligence community finger prints are all over the upsurge around the Free Tibet movement and the attacks of March...and NED operations embodied a series of 'democratic' or soft coup projects as part of a larger strategy which would strategically cut China off from access to its vital external oil and gas reserves.45 | ” |
Tom Grunfeld also writes:
| “ | U.S. public diplomacy skirts the independence issue, focusing on criticism of human rights abuses. Yet recent concessions and overtures to the Tibet Lobby are seen as evidence by CCP hard-line factions that Washington’s ultimate goal is to fracture China.42 | ” |
The German-Foreign-Policy.com writes:
| “ | Berlin is using the upheaval in the western region of the People's Republic of China to pursue its campaign of attrition against Beijing...Supporting extensive autonomy rights for Tibet and even its secession is in line with the traditional German East Asia policy. Already in the 1930s and 1940s, Berlin considered this region to be an important base for expanding its influence toward China. Since the mid 1980s, Germany has been reviving this strategy, and organizations of German "Volksgruppen" (ethnic group) policy are among those actively promoting a "free Tibet". The secessionist policy is also aimed at other vast regions of China (Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang). Fearing its future power, Berlin is seeking to weaken its ascending East Asian rival. Last fall, german-foreign-policy.com published a series of special reports on the history and presence of German Tibet policy. Because of the current events we are providing free access to those analyses over the next few weeks. Click here to find Strategies of Attrition...46 | ” |
Some pro-Tibet groups claim the death toll in Tibet since the 1950 People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet to be 1,200,000 and have filed official charges of genocide against prominent Chinese leaders and officials.47 This figure has been disputed by Patrick French, a supporter of the Tibetan cause who was able to view the data and calculations:
| “ | Some [pro-Tibet groups] use questionable information. For example, the Free Tibet Campaign in London (of which I am a former director) and other groups have long claimed that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese since they invaded in 1950. However, after scouring the archives in Dharamsala while researching my book on Tibet, I found that there was no evidence to support that figure.4849 | ” |
PRC argues that the Tibetan authority under successive Dalai Lamas was itself a human rights violator. The old society was a serfdom and, according to foreigners who witnessed it, had slavery. 50
Michael Parenti describes the human rights condition in old Tibet:
| “ | The majority of the rural population were serfs...the serfs went without schooling or medical care...under a lifetime bond to work...without pay...torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs.24 | ” |
The Tibetologist Robert Barnett wrote about the violent tendencies of powerful monks against the introduction of anything un-Buddhist that might diminish their hold to power:
| “ | The clergy who destroyed the attempts of the Tibetan government and the previous Dalai Lama to enlarge and modernize the Tibetan army in the 1920s...were not motivated in the slightest by objections to violence, but by the fear that modernization might, by increasing links with the un-Buddhist British, lead to the diminution of the monasteries' power; indeed there were several insurgencies against the previous Dalai Lama or his regents this century led by monks in defense of that belief.51 | ” |
Regarding the repressive and violent tendencies of the exile Tibetan community,
| “ | Within the exile community itself there is a continuing streak of political intolerance, especially towards those who have made the slightest perceived criticism of the Dalai Lama, who risk beatings or threats of assassination. Neither is religion by any means above conflict: at least two of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism are at present wracked by disputes; both cases have led to murders or threats of murder.51 | ” |
Old Tibet also had a long history of persecuting non-Buddhist Christians. In the years 1630 and 1742, Tibetan Christian communities were suppressed by the lamas of the Gelugpa Sect, whose chief lama was the Dalai Lama. Jesuit priests were made prisoners in 1630, or attacked before they reached Tsaparang. Between 1850 and 1880 eleven fathers of the Paris Foreign Mission Society were murdered in Tibet, or killed or injured during their journeys to other missionary outposts in the Sino-Tibetan borderlands. In 1881 Father Brieux was reported to have been murdered on his way to Lhasa. Qing officials later discovered that the murder cases were in fact covertly supported and even orchestrated by local lamaseries and their patrons -- the native chieftains. In 1904, Qing official Feng Quan sought to curtail the influence of the Gelugpa Sect and ordered the protection of Western missionaries and their churches. Indignation over Feng Quan and the Christian presence escalated to a climax in March 1905, when thousands of the Batang lamas revolted, killing Feng, his entourage, local Manchu and Han Chinese officials, and the local French Catholic priests. The revolt soon spread to other cities in eastern Tibet, such as Chamdo, Litang and Nyarong, and at one point almost spilled over into neighboring Sichuan Province. The missionary stations and churches in these areas were burned and destroyed by the angry Gelugpa monks and local chieftains. Dozens of local Westerners, including at least four priests, were killed or fatally wounded. The scale of the rebellion was so tremendous that only when panicked Qing authorities hurriedly sent 2,000 troops from Sichuan to pacify the mobs did the revolt gradually came to an end. The lamasery authorities and local native chieftains' hostility towards the Western missionaries in Tibet lingered through the last throes of the Manchu dynasty and into the Republican period.52453
The Dalai Lama himself was accused by a followers of another Tibetan sect for religious intolerance when he banned the worship of Dorje Shugden in 1996.54
The three UN resolutions of 1959, 1961, and 1965 condemned human rights violation in Tibet; however, these resolutions were passed at a time when the PRC was not permitted to become a member and of course was not allowed to present its version of events in the region (however, the Republic of China on Taiwan was a member of the UN at the time, and it equally claimed sovereignty over Tibet and opposed Tibetan self-determination). The Tibetologist Grunfeld further notes that:
| “ | These resolutions served no practical purpose. None even mentioned China by name, nor did they question the legitimacy of Chinese rule in Tibet (the 1961 resolution did regret, in passing, the deprivation of the right to self-determination)—worded, as they were, solely to express regrets over the alleged abuse of "human rights" in Tibet. The UN's denunciation of those who did not act "reasonably" and "fairly" flew in the face of its own actions of denying the PRC membership during this period. It is hardly surprising that the Chinese government regarded these resolutions with little more than contempt.55 | ” |
Grunfeld comments in another article about Human Rights Watch focusing attention on the individuals who are indeed victims of human rights abuses:
| “ | ...since this repression is highly selective and not universal, their reports distort the overall picture of what is going on inside Tibet.42 | ” |
Grunfeld also notes that (for 15 years in the 1960s and 1970s):
| “ | From exile, the Dalai Lama oversaw refugee resettlement and guerrilla warfare—although he officially renounced all violence.42 | ” |
The Tibetologist Robert Barnett sums up the "human rights" agenda as perceived by China and the developing world and the United Nations unwillingness to condemn China:
| “ | The unfortunate history of the Tibet issue, used by the Western powers, and by the United States in particular, in the 1950s and 1960s as part of their cold war strategy to destabilize China, has fueled the perception that criticism of Beijing's role in Tibet is a device raised by westerners to attack China in particular and developing countries in general. This has enabled Beijing to rally support from the developing world and led to the collapse of the last nine attempts at the United Nations to criticize China's human rights practices.56 | ” |
The Chinese government insists that the Tibet question is not about human rights, but about territorial integrity and unity of the State. On 12 April 2008, the Chinese President Hu Jintao told Australia's Prime Minister Mr Kevin Rudd:
| “ | Our conflict with the Dalai clique is not an ethnic problem, not a religious problem, nor a human rights problem. It is a problem either to safeguard national unification or to split the motherland.57 | ” |
Robert Barnett described:
| “ | The Tibetan activists inside Tibet have rarely (until recently) incorporated the issue of human rights in their protests or slogans—the language of human rights is largely a facet of exile rhetoric and Western simplification of the issue. Inside Tibet, the demands raised in wall posters have focused more on independence: rightly or wrongly, that has been to them the central issue.58 | ” |
It is about restraining the "splitist" or separatist activities of the Tibet independence forces from within and without China, many of them -- especially leaders of the Tibetan Youth Congress which claims 30,000 over members 59-- advocating violence.
Robert Barnett wrote about this danger in 1998:
| “ | Today some ten thousand Tibetans are members of India's military forces, soldiers with a special aptitude for high-altitude warfare, posing a threat that China views with some seriousness. Neither is the level of political violence among Tibetans as low as some Western reports would suggest: at least seven bombs exploded in Tibet between 1995 and 1997, one of them laid by a monk, and a significant number of individual Tibetans are known to be actively seeking the taking up of arms; hundreds of Chinese soldiers and police have been beaten during demonstrations in Tibet, and at least one killed in cold blood, probably several more.51 | ” |
Chinadaily.com reported on the discovery of weapons subsequent to the riots on March 14, 2008:
| “ | Police in Lhasa seized more than 100 guns, tens of thousands of bullets, several thousand kilograms of explosives and tens of thousands of detonators, acting on reports from lamas and ordinary people.59 | ” |
And on 23 March, 2008, there was a bombing incident in the Qambo prefecture.60
While the earliest ROC constitutional documents already claim Tibet as part of China, Chinese political leaders also acknowledged the principle of self-determination. For example, at a party conference in 1924, Kuomintang leader Sun Yat-sen issued a statement calling for the right of self-determination of all Chinese ethnic groups: "The Kuomintang can state with solemnity that it recognizes the right of self-determination of all national minorities in China and it will organize a free and united Chinese republic."61 In 1931, the CCP issued a constitution for the short-lived Chinese Soviet Republic which states that Tibetans and other ethnic minorities, "may either join the Union of Chinese Soviets or secede from it."6263 It is notable that China was in a state of civil war at the time and that the "Chinese Soviets" only represents a faction. Saying that Tibet may secede from the "Chinese Soviets" does not mean that it can secede from China. The quote above is merely a statement of Tibetans' freedom to choose their political orientation. The possibility of complete secession was denied by Communist leader Mao Zedong in 1938: "They must have the right to self-determination and at the same time they should continue to unite with the Chinese people to form one nation". 63 This policy was codified in PRC's first constitution which, in Article 3, reaffirmed China as a "single multi-national state," while the "national autonomous areas are inalienable parts".63 The Chinese government insists that the United Nations documents, which codifies the principle of self-determination, provides that the principle shall not be abused in disrupting territorial integrity: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations...."64
The PRC also points to what it claims are the autocratic, oppressive and theocratic policies of the government of Tibet before 1959, its toleration of existence of serfdom and slaves5024, its renunciation of Arunachal Pradesh which China regards as a part of Tibet occupied by India, and its association with India and other foreign countries, and as such claims the Government of Tibet in Exile has no legitimacy to govern Tibet and no credibility or justification in criticizing PRC's policies.
The People's Liberation Army's march into Tibet in 1951 was not without the support of Tibetan people, including the 10th Panchen Lama. Ian Buruma writes:
| “ | ...It is often forgotten that many Tibetans, especially educated people in the larger towns, were so keen to modernize their society in the mid-20th century that they saw the Chinese communists as allies against rule by monks and serf-owning landlords. The Dalai Lama himself, in the early 1950s, was impressed by Chinese reforms and wrote poems praising Chairman Mao.3 | ” |
Instances have been documented when the PRC government gained support from a portion of the Tibetan population, including monastic leaders65, monks66, nobility6768 and ordinary Tibetans67 prior to the crackdown in the 1959 uprising. The PRC government and some Tibetan leaders65 characterize PLA's operation as a peaceful liberation of Tibetans from a "feudal serfdom system."(和平解放西藏).6970
When Tibet complained to the United Nations through El Salvador about Chinese "invasion" in November 1950 -- after China captured Chamdo (or Qamdo) when Tibet failed to respond by the deadline to China's demand for negotiation--71 members debated about it but refused to admit the "Tibet Question" into the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. Key stakeholder India told the General Assembly that "the Peking Government had declared that it had not abandoned its intention to settle the difficulties by peaceful means", and that "the Indian Government was certain that the Tibet Question could still be settled by peaceful means". The Russian delegate said that "China's sovereignty over Tibet had been recognized for a long time by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the U.S.S.R." The United Nations postponed this matter on the pretext Tibet was officially an "autonomous nationality region belonging to territorial China", and because the outlook of peaceful settlement seemed good. 7273
Subsequently, The Agreement Between the Central Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Method for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, also known as Seventeen-Point Agreement, was signed between delegates of China and Tibet on 23 May 1951. The Dalai Lama had ample time and opportunity to repudiate and denounce the Seventeen-Point Agreement. He was encouraged and instigated to do so with promise of public support by the US, which by now had become hostile to Communist-ruled China.74
On May 29, the 10th Panchen Erdeni (i.e. 10th Panchen Lama) and the Panchen Kampus Assembly made a formal statement, expressing their heartfelt support for the agreement. The statement indicated their resolution to guarantee the correct implementation of the agreement and to realize solidarity between the different ethnic groups of China and ethnic solidarity among the Tibetans; and on May 30, the 10th Panchen Erdeni telegrammed the 14th Dalai Lama, expressing his hope for unity and his vow to support the 14th Dalai Lana and the government of Tibet with the implementation of the agreement under the guidance of the Central Government and Chairman Mao.75
The Agreement was finally accepted by Tibet's National Assembly, which then advised the Dalai Lama to accept it. Finally, on 24 October 1951, the Dalai Lama dispatched a telegram to Mao Zedong:
| “ | The Tibet Local Government as well as the ecclesiastic and secular People unanimously support this agreement, and under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the Central People's Government, will actively support the People's Liberation Army in Tibet to consolidate defence, drive out imperialist influences from Tibet and safeguard the unification of the territory and sovereignty of the Motherland.76 | ” |
On 28 October 1951, the Panchen Rinpoche [i.e. Panchen Lama made a similar public statement accepting the agreement. He urged the "people of Shigatse to give active support" to carrying out the agreement.77
Tsering Shakya writes about the general acceptance of the Tibetans toward the Seventeen-Point Agreement, and its legal significance:
| “ | The most vocal supporters of the agreement came from the monastic community...As a result many Tibetans were willing to accept the agreement....Finally there were strong factions in Tibet who felt that the agreement was acceptable...this section was led by the religious community...In the Tibetans' view their independence was not a question of international legal status, but as Dawa Norbu writes, "Our sense of independence was based on the independence of our way of life and culture, which was more real to the unlettered masses than law or history, canons by which the non-Tibetans decide the fate of Tibet...This was the first formal agreement between Tibet and Communist China and it established the legal basis for Chinese rule in Tibet." 78 | ” |
Thus, the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet peacefully following the signing of the Seventeen Point Agreement.
In 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama fled Tibet and established a government in exile at Dharamsala in northern India. This group claims sovereignty over various ethnically or historically Tibetan areas now governed by China. Aside from the Tibet Autonomous Region, an area that was administered directly by the Dalai Lama's government until 1951, the group also claims Amdo (Qinghai) and eastern Kham (western Sichuan)80. About 45 percent of China's ethnic Tibetans live in the Tibet Autonomous Region, according to the 2000 census. Prior to 1949, much of Amdo and eastern Kham were governed by local rulers and even warlords.citation needed
A proclamation issued by 13th Dalai Lama in 1913 states, "During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship." The relationship did not imply "subordination of one to the other." He condemned the Chinese authorities for attempting to colonize Tibetan territory in 1910–12. "We are a small, religious, and independent nation," the proclamation states.81
The view of the current Dalai Lama is as follows:
| “ | During the 5th Dalai Lama's time [1617–1682], I think it was quite evident that we were a separate sovereign nation with no problems. The 6th Dalai Lama [1683–1706] was spiritually pre-eminent, but politically, he was weak and disinterested. He could not follow the 5th Dalai Lama's path. This was a great failure. So, then the Chinese influence increased. During this time, the Tibetans showed quite a deal of respect to the Chinese. But even during these times, the Tibetans never regarded Tibet as a part of China. All the documents were very clear that China, Mongolia and Tibet were all separate countries. Because the Chinese emperor was powerful and influential, the small nations accepted the Chinese power or influence. You cannot use the previous invasion as evidence that Tibet belongs to China. In the Tibetan mind, regardless of who was in power, whether it was the Manchus, the Mongols or the Chinese, the east of Tibet was simply referred to as China. In the Tibetan mind, India and China were treated the same; two separate countries.82 | ” |
The International Commission of Jurists concluded that from 1913 to 1950 Tibet demonstrated the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law. In the opinion of the commission, the government of Tibet conducted its own domestic and foreign affairs free from any outside authority, and countries with whom Tibet had foreign relations are shown by official documents to have treated Tibet in practice as an independent State.83 84
The United Nations General Assembly passed resolutions urging respect for the rights of Tibetans in 195985, 196186 and 1965.87 The 1961 resolution asserts that "principle of self-determination of peoples and nations" applies to the Tibetan people.
The Tibetan Government in Exile views current PRC rule in Tibet as colonial and illegitimate, motivated solely by the natural resources and strategic value of Tibet, and in gross violation of both Tibet's historical status as an independent country and the right of Tibetan people to self-determination. It also points to PRC's autocratic policies, divide-and-rule policies, and what it contends are assimilationist policies, and regard those as an example of ongoing Chinese imperialism aimed at destroying Tibet's distinct ethnic makeup, culture, and identity, thereby cementing it as an indivisible part of China. That said, the Dalai Lama has recently stated that he wishes only for Tibetan autonomy, and not separation from China, under certain democratic conditions, like freedom of speech and expression and genuine self-rule.
Among the historical claims to Tibetan sovereignty, supporters note that during the Yuan Dynasty, it was the Mongols who conquered Tibet, not the Chinese, and that the Mongols administered Tibet and China separately and very differently, allowing the Tibetans much greater autonomy.88
Furthermore, Tibet was independent for almost 300 years after the fall of the Mongol Empire, from 1349 to 1642, during which time Ming Dynasty nominally granted titles to certain Tibetan officials but effectively exercised no control over Tibetan affairs or over the composition of the Tibetan government.
Although supporters concede Chinese influence increased during the Qing dynasty, they point out that Tibet waged war against Jammu in 1841–1842 and with Nepal in 1854–55 without Chinese assistance, an indication of effective sovereignty.
Origins of Tibetan National Identity Few people in the world are so distinctly defined by the kind of land they live in as the Tibetans. Tibetan national identity has not just been created by history, nor only by religion, but has its roots deep in the Tibetan land. Tibetans are people who live, and have always lived, on the great Tibetan plateau, high above and apart from the rest of the world. The passage to Tibetan-inhabited areas from the surrounding lowlands of Nepal, India and China is not only unmistakable and dramatic but clearly a transition to a unique world.
Tibetan identity is so rooted in the land that Tibetans of the past regarded the major mountains of their own specific regions, Yarla Shampo of Yarlung, Amnye (grandfather) Machen of Amdo, Nyenchenthangla of the Northern Plains, Khawa Loring and Minyak Ghangkar of Kham, and many others, as their ancestors or ancestral deities. This belief far predates the legend of the compassionate monkey ancestor of the Tibetans, which is probably a later Buddhist innovation. The worship of these mountains, which Tibetans still faithfully, but somewhat unconsciously, perform in their routine sangsol and lungta ceremonies, is the original expression of Tibetan nationalist identity, according to the distinguished Tibetan scholar, Samten Karmay.
Few other people are so specifically identified by geography or climate except perhaps for Eskimos, Bedouins, Polynesian Islanders and the Bushmen of the Kalahari. But very early in their history Tibetans managed to transcend this merely environmentally-defined existance to create a powerful national identity through the unification of the various kingdoms and tribes throughout the plateau. The sense of wonder and pride that these first inhabitants of a united Tibet felt for their new nation and empire is evident in this ancient song on the manifestation of Tibet’s first emperor:
This centre of heaven, This core of the earth, This heart of the world, Fenced round by snow-mountains, The headland of all rivers, Where the peaks are high and the land is pure, A country so good, Where men are born as sages and heroes, And act according to good laws A land of horses ever more speedy…
Though the imperial period of Tibetan history ended around the tenth century, its legacy of nationhood was permanent. Later monarchs consciously drew inspiration from the imperial age in their efforts to create a united and free Tibet. Jangchub Gyaltsen (1302-1364) of the Phamodruba dynasty overthrew Mongol rule in Tibet (a decade before the Mongol Yuan dyasty ended in China) and ushered in a golden age that Tibetans call “Gamu Ser Khor”, since the land was so safe and peaceful it was said that an old woman carrying a sack of gold could pass without fear from one end of Tibet to the other.
The Great 5th Dalai Lama (1617-1682) reunited Tibet, from the regions of Ngari in the west, to Dhartsedo in the southeast and Kokonor to the northeast, for the first time since the collapse of the Tibetan Empire in the 9th century. More recently, the Great 13th Dalai Lama’s (1876-1933) untiring and monumental struggle to regain and later defend Tibetan independence was no less an expression of this heritage of national freedom that Tibetans have maintained throughout their history.
Legitimacy of Tibetan Independence Many nations in this world are, in a sense, largely products of history. The United States, Canada, and Australia do not, in a true sense, derive their national origins from the land, as Tibet does. Other countries such as Kuwait, Jordan, Singapore, and some African states are creations of Western colonial policy, or the debris of colonial rule. More recently, out of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, countries like Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc. — which never existed as nations before, have come into being.
In light of international attention to that part of the world, one might add that there had never been a Palestinian nation. What you had, historically, was a sub-province (vilayet) of the Ottoman Empire that later became a British protectorate. Iraq too is a nation cobbled together by Britain after World War I out of three vilayets of the defeated Ottoman Empire: Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. The intractable and violent divisions in that country today: sectarian (Shia v Sunni), ethnic (Kurd v Arab) and tribal, reveal the tenuous nature of the union.
This is not to argue that Tibet has any more right to exist as a nation than these states and territories just mentioned — after all, it is the natural and fundamental right of all peoples to determine their own way of life — but to underline the fact that Tibet’s status as a nation is as legitimate, if not more, than that of any other country in the world. That we did not join the League of Nations or the United Nations, or that some big powers did not recognize Tibet as a nation, because they did not want to jeopardize their trade links with China, does not detract from this legitimacy.
Trade with China is in fact the overarching reason why Britain and the United States have in the last two centuries refused to support, even acknowledge, the fact of an independent Tibet. No less an authority than Sir Charles Bell “the architect of British policy in Tibet” affirmed this in the 1930s:
Britain and the United States, and probably most of the European nations, regard Tibet as being under Chinese rule … besides, we are always being told about the vast potentialities of trade with China. To my recollection we were told this fifty years ago, but during those fifty years no such vast potentialities has materialized; the potentialities are still no more than potentialities. However, the foreign nations wish to gain a good share of this trade, and to that end try to please China. But it is an outrage that they should sell Tibet in order to increase their own commercial profits in China.
The fact that Tibet has, for periods of its history, been conquered by foreign powers or that some Tibetan ruler used foreign military backing to gain political control of the country makes no difference to its rightful status as a free nation. Even when Tibet’s political and military power had declined considerably in the 18th and 19th centuries and a degree of Manchu rule was exercised over the country, the uniqueness of Tibet’s civilization and its racial and national identity was recognized by people all over Asia, not least by the Manchus themselves, who only appointed Manchus and Mongols of high birth as their commissioners in Tibet, never a Chinese. In fact, Manchu relations with Tibet were handled by the Li Fan Yuan (one of the two “departments” of the Manchu “Foreign Office”), which also handled relations between the Manchu court and Mongol princes, Tibet, East Turkistan (Xinjiang) and Russia.
Tibet and especially its capital, Lhasa, were regarded by Buriats and Kalmucks in Russia, and millions of Mongols as the centre of their culture and faith. The Russian explorer Prejevalsky in 1878 sent a memorandum to the Geographic Society and the War Ministry in which “… he drew a picture of Lhasa as the Rome of Asia with spiritual power stretching from Ceylon to Japan over 250 million people: the most important target for Russian diplomacy.”
There is probably no country in the world that has not at one time or another been under the rule of another. Few, if any, of the UN member states could claim independent statehood if they had to demonstrate a history of continuous and uncompromised independence. As the Irish delegate pointed out in the 1960 UN debate on Tibet, most of the countries in the General Assembly would not be there if they had to prove that they had never in the past been dominated by another country.
Britain was for nearly four hundred years a part of the Roman Empire. Russia was under the Mongols for well over two centuries, and of course the United States started off as a British colony. China itself was ruled both by the Mongols and Manchus, and repeatedly defeated in war by the Tibetans, who even captured and briefly held the Chinese capital of Chang An in 763 A.D. And lest we forget, a large part of China was under Japanese occupation earlier last century.
The 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia states that
| “ | During the eighteenth century the Chinese Emperor, K'ien-lung [i.e.Qianlong, began to establish his supremacy over Tibet; already in 1725 two high Chinese commissioners had been appointed to control the temporal affairs of the country, and in 1793 an imperial edict ordered that future Dalai Lamas were to be chosen from the names of children drawn from a "golden urn". | ” |
| “ | The secular administration of Tibet includes a council (ka hia) of four ministers (kalon or kablon) of the third rank of Chinese officials, elected as a rule by the Peking government, on presentation by the Chinese amban...there are six military commanders (taipêng), with the fourth degree of Chinese rank. | ” |
| “ | The Chinese administration of Tibet includes an imperial resident (chu tsang ta ch'ên) or amban (ngang pai) with an assistant resident (pang pan ta ch'ên)...The imperial resident is Chao Ehr-fung (appointed March, 1908)4 | ” |
The same Catholic Encyclopedia under the subheading "Relations with China, Russia, and England" surveys a list of treaties China signed on matters regarding Tibet.
The September 1903 issue of National Geographic described it thus:
| “ | Since the fifteenth century all power, civil and spiritual, has been nominally in the hands of the Dalai Lama, but China maintains a Manchu resident and an army. Until the Dalai Lama’s 22 year, the government is in the hands of a regent appointed by the Emperor of China. In order to avoid strife in selecting a Dalai Lama, the electoral council places three strips of paper with the names of three boys in an urn, and the Manchu resident removes one with a small staff. The dalai lama’s council, in whose hands is the actual power, embraces four so-called “Galons” appointed by the Emperor of China. The administration is in the hands of a closed aristocracy, and bribery and corruption are nearly universal.89 | ” |
The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica traces Chinese dominion over Tibet to Mongol-ruled China i.e. the Yuan Dynasty, continuing to the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty:
| “ | Kublai Khan conquered all the east of Tibet...Kublai invested Phagspa with sovereign power over (1) Tibet proper, comprising the thirteen districts of U and Tsang, (2) Khalil and (3) Amdo. From this time the Sakya-pa lamas became the universal rulers of Tibet...[Later, Chyang Chub Gyaltshan] subdued Tibet proper and Kham… and with the approval of the court of Peking established a dynasty...When the Mongol dynasty of China passed away, the Mings confirmed and enlarged the dominion of the Tibetan rulers, recognizing at the same time the chief lamas of the eight principal monasteries of the country…During the minority of the fifth (really the third) Dalai Lama, when the Mongol king Tengir To… intervened in the affairs of the country, the Pan-ch'en Lo-sang Ch'o-kyi Gyal-ts'ang lama ... then applied for help to the first Qing Dynasty Manchu emperor of China, who had just ascended the throne...The Chinese government in 1653 confirmed the Dalai Lama in his authority, and he paid a visit to the emperor at Peking. The Mongol Khoshotes in 1706 and the Sungars in 1717 interfered again in the succession of the Dalai lama, but the Chinese army finally conquered the country in 1720, and the present system of government was established...90 | ” |
The Qing Dynasty Chinese rule over the Tibet was uninterrupted in the next centuries:
| “ | In 1872–1873 some attempt was made by Indian officials to open up trade with Tibet…in 1886 a mission was organized to proceed to Lhasa. The Chinese… granted a passport to this mission...In 1890 a treaty was concluded, and trade regulations under this treaty in 1893; but the negotiations were carried on with the Chinese authorities...
[In 1908] The Dalai Lama was now summoned to Peking, where he obtained the imperial authority to resume his administration…the Chinese amban in Lhasa …summoned the Chinese troops to enter the city. They did so, and the Dalai Lama fled to India in February 1910…and he was deposed by imperial decree.90 |
” |
According to historian Zahiruddin Ahmad, since at least the 18th century, when the Qing Government was setting up its local government structure and promulgated laws for the governing, Beijing has, in the words of a foreign missionary who witnessed, had "absolute dominion over Tibet"91.
The Chinese Resident Ministers in Tibet, namely Ambans, were bestowed power which, according to the Imperial Ordinance promulgated in 1793, was on a par with the local spiritual leaders of Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas92. According to the Ordinance, the Ambans were in absolute charge of financial, diplomatic, and trade matters.
According to an article by the Tibetologist Melvyn C. Goldstein: 93
| “ | The 1906 Anglo-Chinese Convention reaffirmed the Chinese overlord position in Tibet. In 1907, an Anglo-Russian treaty internationalized this treaty. | ” |
| “ | The [British] invasion of Tibet and the Lhasa Convention of 1904 dramatically altered Chinese policy toward Tibet. Until then, the Qing Dynasty had evinced no interest in directly administering or Sinicizing Tibet...Beijing got the British troops to leave Tibetan...Britain's casual invasion of Tibet, therefore, stimulated China to protect what it felt were its national interests in Tibet by beginning a program to integrate Tibet culturally, economically, and politically more closely with the rest of China. | ” |
| “ | [The Dalai Lama] had been "deposed" by the Chinese Government in 1904...In 1908, he went to Beijing to visit the Emperor and Court. Arguing that the amban did not faithfully transmit his views to Beijing, the Dalai Lama requested permission to petition the throne directly (i.e., to bypass the amban)...[In 1910] China again deposed the Dalai Lama and expanded its efforts to expand its real control in Tibet... | ” |
The "Patron-Priest" relationship (Tibetan: chöyön; Wylie: mchod-yon) held between the Chinese central authorities and the Tibetan local governments was one of superior to inferior. The 13th Dalai Lama, for example, knelt before the Empress Dowager and the young Emperor while he delivered his petition in Beijing. He was awarded the humiliating title of "Loyally Submissive Vice-Regent", and ordered to follow China's commands and communicate with the Emperor only through the Chinese Amban in Lhasa.9495The kneeling before the Emperor followed the 17th-century precedent in the case of the 6th Dalai Lama.96
Thomas Heberer, a leading China expert in Germany, declared in an article published on April 16, 2008 in the German daily Die Tageszeitung.
| “ | No country in the world has ever recognized the independence of Tibet or declared that Tibet is an 'occupied country'. For all countries in the world, Tibet is Chinese territory.97 | ” |
Other Tibetologists write that no country publicly accepts Tibet as an independent state,9899100101 despite several instances of government officials appealing to their superiors to do so.102103 Treaties signed by Britain and Russia in the early years of the twentieth century,1044 and others signed by Nepal and India in the 1950s,105 recognized Tibet's political subordination to China. The Americans presented their view on 15 May 1943:
| “ | For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that...the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims.10642 | ” |
The 1994 U.S. State Department report to Congress declares:
| “ | Historically the U.S. has acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Since at least 1966, U.S. policy has explicitly recognized the Tibet Autonomous Region...as part of the People’s Republic of China. This long-standing policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China’s neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Because we do not recognize Tibet as an independent state, the U.S. does not conduct diplomatic relations with the self-styled 'Tibetan government-in-exile'.107 | ” |
The US government recognizes Tibet as part of China, but the US Congress has at times expressed a different perspective, claiming Tibet as "occupied countries"108
In 2008, European Union leader Jose Manuel Barroso stated that the EU recognized Tibet as integral part of China:109110
| “ | I have confirmed that the EU is attached to the territorial integrity and unity of China, and that naturally applies to Tibet 111 | ” |
In October, 2008, the British government clarified their official position on Tibet's status:
| “ | Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geopolitics of the time. Our recognition of China’s “special position” in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China. 112 | ” |
This lack of legal recognition of independence has forced even some strong supporters of the refugees to admit that:
| “ | ...even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican.113 | ” |
Another view supported by a number of international groups, including the Free Tibet Campaign, is that Tibet should be granted total independence from China.