Tibetan sovereignty debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tibet was once an independent kingdom. The government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Tibet in Exile, however, disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law.
Contents |
[edit] The view of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile
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)[1]. About 45 percent of China's ethnic Tibetans live in Tibet Autonomous Region, according to the 2000 census. Prior to 1949, much of Amdo and eastern Kham were governed by local Tibetan rulers.
"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," according to a proclamation issued by 13th Dalai Lama in 1913. 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.[1]
The view of the current Dalai Lama is as follows:
| “ | During the Vth Dalai Lama's time [1617-1682], I think it was quite evident that we were a separate sovereign nation with no problems. The VIth Dalai Lama [1683-1706] was spiritually pre-eminent, but politically, he was weak and disinterested. He could not follow the Vth 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.[2] | ” |
The International Commission of Jurists [3], a non-governmental human rights organization, concluded that Tibet in 1913-50 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.[4] [5]
The United Nations General Assembly passed resolutions urging respect for the rights of Tibetans in 1959, 1961 and 1965. The 1961 resolution, in the opinion of the Tibetan Government-in-exile, 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. Another view supported by a number of international groups including the Free Tibet Campaign is that Tibet should be granted total independence from China.
[edit] The View of the Chinese Government
The issue of whether or not Tibet forms an integral part of China did not publicly arise until the Qing era when the Chinese government acknowledged the significance of, both Chinese and foreign, territorial sovereignty. In the late 19th century, China adopted the Western model of nation-state diplomacy and a series of treaties regarding Tibet's boundaries and status were concluded.
- Historical status
- The position of the 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 [6], is that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China de jure since the Yuan Dynasty (Mongol rulers) seven hundred years ago [7], 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 and have remained in China ever since. 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.
- Unique ethnicity
- According to the current government, successive Chinese governments have recognized Tibet as having its own unique culture (despite heavy influence by that of China Proper [8]) and language; however, they believe that this situation, does not necessarily militate in favor of independence, because China itself has over fifty unique ethnic groups and is one of many multi-national states in the world. The PRC contends that the "Patron-Priest" relationship (Tibetan: chöyön; Wylie: mchod-yon) held between the Chinese central authorities and the Tibetan locality was not equal at all but rather one of superior to inferior. Furthermore, since at least the 18th century, when the Qing Government 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" [9]. 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 Lamas[10]. The Ambans, according to the Ordinance, were in absolute charge of financial, diplomatic, and trade matters.
- De facto independence
- The ROC government had indeed no effective control over Tibet in the year 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. [11]. China insists that during this period the ROC government continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet [12][13], and on other occasions Tibet even indicated its willingness to accept subordinate status as part of China provided that Tibetan internal systems were left untouched and provided China relinquished control over a number of important ethnic Tibetan groups in Kham and Amdo [14][15]. Throughout the Kuomintang years, no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition [16]. Delegates from Tibetan areas attended the Drafting Committee for a new constitution of the Republic of China in 1925, the National Assembly of the Republic of China in 1931; 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.[13][17]
- Foreign interventions
- Finally, the PRC considers all proindependence movements aimed at ending Chinese sovereignty in Tibet, including British attempts to establish control in the late 19th century and early 20th century [18], the CIA's backing of Tibetan insurgents during the 1950s and 1960s, and the Government of Tibet in Exile today, as one long campaign abetted by malicious Western imperialism aimed at destroying Chinese integrity and sovereignty, thereby weakening China's position in the world [19].
- Human Rights
- PRC argues that the Tibetan authority under successive Dalai Lamas was itself a human rights violator while the old society was basically a serfdom and, according to foreigners who witnessed it, slaves even existed [20]. 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). A Tibetologist 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 depravation 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. [21] | ” |
- Self-determination
- 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."[22] In 1931, the CCP issued a constitution for the short-lived Jiangxi Soviet which states that Tibetans and other ethnic minorities, "may either join the Union of Chinese Soviets or secede from it."[23][24] 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". [24] 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".[24] 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...."[25]
- Legitimacy
- 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 slaves[20], 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.
[edit] Third-Party views
As of 2006, no country publicly accepts Tibet as an independent state [26], in spite of several instances of government officials appealing to their superiors to do so [27]. Treaties signed by Britain and Russia in the early years of the twentieth century [28] and others signed by Nepal and India in the 1950s [29], 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. [30] | ” |
Not a single sovereign state, including India, has extended recognition to the Tibetan Government-in-exile in the more than two decades of its existence, despite obvious precedents for such an action. 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. [31] | ” |
On the other hand, the Montevideo Convention established the following four criteria for statehood in international law: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) a government, and (d) capability of entering into relations with other states. Tibet prima facie satisfies those criteria, as do many other nations.
[edit] References
- ^ Goldstein, Melvyn C., The Snow Lion and the Dragon, University of California Press, 1997, p71
- ^ Gyatso, Tenzin, Dalai Lama XIV. Tibet, China and the World: A Compilation of Interviews, Dharamsala, 1989, p. 31.
- ^ This human rights organization should not be confused with the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The International Commission of Jurists. The CIA was secretly providing funds to the ICJ, although this was not known to leaders of the group at the time. The ICJ was established by the Investigating Committee of Freedom-Minded Lawyers from the Soviet Zone and the League of Free Jurists. It was formed in honor of Dr. Walter Linse.
- ^ Legal Inquiry Committee, Tibet and Chinese People's Republic, Geneva: International Commission of Jurists, 1960, pp. 5,6
- ^ Walt Van Praag, Michael C. van, The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law, (Westview, 1987)
- ^ For PRC's position, see State Council's whitepaper Tibet - Its Ownership and Human Rights Situation, 1992 and Beijing Review's 100 Question about Tibet, 1989; for ROC's position, see Government Information Office's online publication
- ^ Such view is supported by Grunfeld, A. Tom, Reassessing Tibet Policy, 2000 (also in PDF file)
- ^ Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Arts, 1991, p454
- ^ Zahiruddin Ahmad, "China and Tibet, 1708-1959. A Resume of Facts", 1960, p7
- ^ Goldstein, 1997, p19 & p134 n15; The Ordinance was jointly drafted by General Fu Kangan, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama in 1792 and promulgated by the Qing Emperor one year later.
- ^ Grunfeld, 1996, p256
- ^ Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China, issued March, 1912; Constitution of the Republic of China, issued May, 1914; Provisional Constitution in the Political Tutelage Period of the Republic of China, issued June 1931
- ^ a b "Did Tibet Become an Independent Country after the Revolution of 1911?", China Internet Information Center
- ^ Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet: 1913-1951, 1989, pp 239-241
- ^ Grunfeld, A. Tom, The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1996, p245, regarding Kham and Amdo: "The historical reality is that the Dalai Lamas have not ruled these outer areas since the mid-eighteenth century, and during the Simla Conference of 1913, the thirteenth Dalai Lama was even willing to sign away rights to them"
- ^ For the British and U.S. positions on Tibet, see Goldstein, 1989, p 399, p386, UK Foreign Office Whitepaper: Tibet and the Question of Chinese Suzerainty(10 April 1943), Foreign Office Records: FO371/35755 and aide-mémoire sent by the US Department of States to the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.(dated 15 May 1943), Foreign Office Records: FO371/35756
- ^ Li, T.T., The Historical Status of Tibet, King's Crown Press, Columbia University, 1956
- ^ Jacques Gernet's A History of Chinese Civilization [Cambridge University Press, 1996] saying "From 1751 onwards Chinese control over Tibet became permanent and remained so more or less ever after, in spite of British efforts to seize possession of this Chinese protectorate at the beginning of the twentieth century"
- ^ Origins of So-Called "Tibetan Independence, Information Office of the State Council, 1992
- ^ a b For existence of serfdom and slaves, see Grunfeld, 1996, pp12-17 and Bell, Charles, 1927, pp78-79; for other forms of human rights violation, see Bessac, Frank, "This Was the Perilous Trek to Tragedy", Life, 13 Nov 1950, pp130-136, 198, 141; Ford, Robert W., "Wind Between The Worlds", New York, 1957, p37; MacDonald, David, "The Land of the Lamas", London, 1929, pp196-197
- ^ Grunfeld, 1996, p180
- ^ Quoted from National and Minority Policies, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Report of China 277, 1951, pp148-149
- ^ Brandt, C., Schwartz, B. and Fairbank, John K. (ed.), A Documentary History of Chinese Communism, 1960, pp223-224
- ^ a b c "Report on the International Seminar on the Nationality Question"
- ^ United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
- ^ Goldstein, 1989. The closest it has ever come to such recognition was the British formula of 1943: suzerainty under China, combined with autonomy and the right to enter into diplomatic relations.
- ^ Goldstein, 1989
- ^ Treaties of 1906, 1907 and 1914
- ^ Since then Tibet has been regarded by Nepal and the Republic of India as a Region of China
- ^ Aide-mémoire sent by the US Department of States to the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.(dated 15 May 1943), Foreign Office Records: FO371/35756, quoted from Goldstein, 1989, p386
- ^ Bradsher, Henry S., "Tibet Struggles to Survive, Foreign Affairs, July 1969
