TIBET: AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY
A Long History of Sovereignty
While China
claims that Tibet
has always been a part of China,
Tibet has a
history of at least 1300 years of independence from China.
In 821 China
and Tibet ended
almost 200 years of fighting with a treaty engraved on three stone pillars, one
of which still stands in front of the Jokhang cathedral in Lhasa.
The treaty reads in part: Both Tibet and China
shall keep the country and frontiers of which they are now possessed. The whole
region to the East of that being the country of Great China and the whole
region to the West being assuredly the country of Great Tibet, from either side
there shall be no hostile invasion, and no seizure of territory... and in order
that this agreement establishing a great era when Tibetans shall be happy in
Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China shall never be changed, the Three
Jewels, the body of Saints, the sun and the moon, planets and stars have been
invoked as witness.
The three stone pillars were erected, one outside the Chinese Emperor's
palace, one on the border between the two countries, and one in Lhasa.
During the 13th and 14th centuries both China
and Tibet came
under the influence of the Mongol empire. China
claims today that Tibet
and China
during that time became one country, by virtue of the Mongols domination of
both nations. In validating this claim, it must first be remembered that
virtually all of Asia was dominated by the Mongols under
Kublai Khan and his successors, who ruled the largest empire in human history.
Second, the respective relationships between the Mongols and the Tibetans and
between the Mongols and Chinese must be examined. These two relationships were
not only radically different in nature, but they also started and ended at
different times. Tibet
came under Mongol influence before Kublai Khan's conquest of China
and regaining complete independence from the Mongols several decades before China
regained its independence.
While China
was militarily conquered by the Mongols, the Tibetans and the Mongols
established the historically unique "priest patron" relationship,
also known as CHO-YON. The Mongol aristocracy had converted to Buddhism and
sought spiritual guidance and moral legitimacy for the rule of their vast
empire from the Tibetan theocracy. As Tibet's
patrons they pledged to protect it against foreign invasion. In return Tibetans
promised loyalty to the Mongol empire.
The Mongol-Tibetan relationship was thus based on mutual respect and dual
responsibility. In stark contrast, the Mongol-Chinese relationship was based on
military conquest and domination. The Mongols ruled China,
while the Tibetans ruled Tibet.
The Mongol empire ended in the mid-14th century.
In 1639, the Dalai Lama established another CHO-YON relationship, this time
with the Manchu Emperor, who in 1644 conquested China and established the Qing
Dynasty.
By the middle of the 19th century, the Munchu influence in Tibet
had waned considerably as the Manchu empire began to disintegrate. In 1842 and
1856 the Manchus were incapable of responding to Tibetan calls for assistance
against repeated Nepalese Gorkha invasion. The Tibetans drove back the Gorkhas
with no assistance and concluded bilateral treaties.
In 1911 the CHO-YON relationship came to its final end with the fall of the
Manchu Dynasty. Tibet
formally declared its Independence
in 1912 and continued to conduct itself as a fully sovereign nation until its
invasion by Communist China an 1949.
1. Tibet
governed itself without foreign influence, conducted its own Foreign affairs,
had its own army and operated its own postal system. Tibet
sovereignty was recognised by its neighbours as well as by Britain,
with whom Tibet
entered into a series of treaties regarding travels and trade.
2. 1904 Britain
invaded Tibet
and subsequently Convention agreed between Tibet
and Britain.
3. 1912 The last of the Chinese troops expelled from Tibet
and Dalai Lama proclaims Tibet Independence.
4. During the Second World War Tibet remained neutral, despite strong
pressure from the USA,
Britain and China
to allow the passage of raw materials through Tibet.
5. Tibet
conducted its international relations primarily by dealing with British,
Chinese, Nepalese and Bhutanese diplomatic missions in Lhasa,
but also through government delegations traveling abroad. When India
became independent, the British Mission in Lhasa
was replaced by an Indian one.
6. When Nepal
applied for membership of the United Nations in 1949, it cited its treaty and
diplomatic relations with Tibet
to demonstrate its full international personality.
7. If Tibet was part of China, then there was no need for the 17 point
agreement which was forced upon the Tibetan delegation to sign in China in 1951
and then China announced to the world that Tibet was liberated (from whom?).
8. From 1951 to 1959 China
broke every promise that she made towards Tibet,
resulting in the Tibetan uprising against China
in March 1959. His Holiness the Dalai Lama and 100,000 Tibetans escaped into
exile. From that day onwards Tibet
affectively became an occupied country.
9. Today from the legal standpoint, Tibet
to this day has not lost its statehood. It is an independent state under
illegal occupation. Neither China's
military invasion nor the continuing occupation by PLA has transferred the
sovereignty of Tibet
to China.
As pointed out earlier, the Chinese government has not claimed to have
acquired sovereignty over Tibet
by conquest. Indeed, China
recognises that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional
circumstances provided for in the UN charter), the imposition of an unequal
treaty or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an
invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged
subjection of Tibet
to a few of China's
strongest foreign rulers in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries.
How can China - one of the most ardent opponent of imperialism and
colonialism - excuse its continued presence in Tibet, against the wishes of
Tibetan people, by citing as justification Mongols and Manchu imperialism and its
own colonial policies?
