Part of the misinformation we receive comes from the self proclaimed government in exile of Tibet. They talk of a genocide of 1.3 million Tibetans that clearly never occurred. The government of the Dalai Lama seeks to garner support and discredit the Chinese they “..continue to attack Chinese policies and human rights violations in Tibet, often going beyond what the actual situation warranted; for example, with charges of Chinese genocide.” (Goldstein, 73)
Most of the information that we receive comes from the government in exile, and therefore is very slanted against the Chinese.
The Chinese defense for their military takeover of Tibet is that it is historically a part of the Chinese nation. They point out that other powers, such as the US, have used military force to keep a part of their country from seceding. To determine the validity of this argument one must examine the history. China did rule Tibet under the Yuan Dynasty, nominally under the Ming Dynasty, and again under the Qing sporadically,
The Yuan Dynasty was created by Kublai Kahn, a Mongol, and ruled by the Mongols until the Ming Dynasty. The Mongols conquered Tibet as well as China and much of Europe and Asia at this time. “Contemporary Chinese scholars and officials consider this the period when Tibet first became part of China.” (Goldstein, 4)
During the Ming dynasty Tibet paid tribute to China, and received titles as a vassal. However, the actual administration was done by the Tibetans. “By conferring titles on Tibetans already in power, the Ming emperors merely recognized political reality.” (Goldstein, 5) This setup would remain until the Qing came to power in 1644.
“In October 1720 the Qing army entered Lhasa with the new seventh Dalai Lama. Qing troops now controlled Lhasa and Tibet.” (Goldstein, 14) While the Qing allowed the Tibetans some self government, the Qing could and did intervene whenever they felt it necessary. Tibet was for this entire period part of the Chinese state.
Two justifications were used during the invasion of Tibet in 1949. The first was to modernize the peoples of Tibet, and the second was to expel foreign influences. Modernization is certainly something Tibet could use, but foreign influence at this time was virtually non-existent. China argued that they could bring in education, health care, infrastructure and technology that would improve the lives of the Tibetans. This they eventually did following the end of the Cultural Revolution. Another justification for invading Tibet was to protect it from foreign powers. Although few foreign powers were interested in Tibet, if any had attempted an invasion it would not have been difficult. Tibet was extraordinarily primitive militarily. The British managed to defeat them with an expeditionary force earlier in the century. “In the battle of Guru alone, between six hundred and seven hundred Tibetan troops were killed in a matter of minutes. No match for the invaders, the British force entered Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, on August 3, 1904.” (Goldstein, 23)
In defending their claim to being independent the Tibetans cite history the same as the Chinese. They don’t consider their subjugation under the Yuan to be an example of being part of the Chinese state. “Tibetans accept only that they, like China, were subjugated by the Mongols and incorporated into a Mongol empire centered in China.” (Goldstein, 4) Under the Ming they had a completely independent administration of Tibet for virtually the entire period, so they don’t consider themselves to have been a part of China during that period either. Even during the Qing period Tibet was almost totally autonomous of the rest of China. They had their own independent administration of government, and eventually their own military force.
When the Qing government fell in 1911 the Tibetans quickly saw the opportunity to be truly independent. “The fall of the Qing dynasty was a stroke of good fortune that the thirteenth Dalai Lama immediately capitalized on. …he organized a military force to regain his power.. (he) triumphantly returned to Lhasa in 1913.” (Goldstein, 30) From 1913 until 1950 the Dalai Lama and the government of Tibet independently governed Tibet effectively. They existed as a separate cohesive whole without the Chinese. So while Tibet might once have been a part of China, it is perfectly capable of being outside of China.
Two other areas were Tibet gets support for its claims are in terms of ethnicity and culture. Tibet was an entirely homogenous country until the Chinese invasion, and its heterogeneous nature now is upsetting to many Tibetans. “Because there were no Han Chinese in Tibet in 1950, all adult Tibetans vividly remember a completely Tibetan Tibet. They felt that the Chinese had taken their country and were transforming it into just another part of China.” (Goldstein, 85-86) Also Tibet as a unique religion and culture; Tibetan Buddhism, cuisine, language, dress, customs are all different from the rest of China. Culturally and ethnically Tibet is separate from mainland China.
The government in exile claims that if Tibet does not become independent, Tibetan culture will be destroyed, and oppression will only increase. The influx of Han Chinese in recent years is diluting the native population and culture. The strict restrictions on religion are also having a negative effect on the people of Tibet. Many claim that oppression runs rampant in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Recently a Tibetan was executed for terrorism with what appears to be a complete lack of proper trial.
Chinese officials report execution of Lobsang Dondrub, ethnic Tibetan accused of plotting bomb attacks, soon after appeals court upholds his conviction; he was arrested near scene of bombing in Sichuan's capital city of Chengdu last spring; police say he confessed to involvement in string of other bombings in mainly Tibetan region of western Sichuan; Tibetan advocates in China and abroad say his trial was sham and that police did not make public any purported evidence. (Eckholm, NYT)
This type of oppression has occurred in Tibet since the beginning of the occupation in 1950.
In determining what the US and UN policy toward Tibet should be there are many factors to consider. First of all supporting an independent Tibet including the ethnographic region is impossible. A large percentage of the people living in those areas are not Chinese, and historically Tibet has had little control over them.
In “political” Tibet the Tibetan government have ruled continuously from the earliest times down to 1951. The region beyond that to the north and east (Amdo and Kham in Tibetan)… is its “ethnographic” extension which people of Tibetan race once inhabited exclusively and where they are still in the majority. In that wider area, “political Tibet exercised jurisdiction only in certain places and at irregular intervals’ for the most part, local lay or monastic chiefs were in control of districts of varying size. From the 18th century onwards the region was subject to sporadic Chinese infiltration. (Goldstein, xi)
China would never give up so much of its territory. Political Tibet is still a possibility though.
China and Tibet are going to have to determine the “Tibet Question” on their own. Both groups have valid claims, and for the outside world to side with one group would not be equitable. The only possible justification for intervention would be in the area of human rights. The European Parliament recently released a statement holding the Chinese accountable for certain things in Tibet. “Article 6. Calls on the Government of China to continue to ensure dialogue between the government and the representatives of the Dalai Lama; Article 7. Calls on the EU to make its financial aid available in the light of progress with the human rights situation of Tibetans in China, especially in Tibet region.” (Santora, NYT) Steps such as these are appropriate in helping to ease the suffering of the Tibetans. The Chinese should not be allowed to continue persecuting the religious practices of the Tibetans, and not following proper procedures of law (such as with Lobsang Dondrub).
The US has set a precedent of military intervention to aid repressed ethnic groups, such as the Albanians and recently the Iraqis and Kurds. Intervention in Tibet however is not nearly as clear cut. First of all from a pragmatic view a war with China would be extraordinarily costly and bloody, and possibly trigger another World War. Ethically Tibetans in a few years might no longer want independence. The efforts of the Chinese to modernize and educate Tibetans may very well result in a new acceptance of Chinese rule, and in that case cutting of Tibet from China would be detrimental.
The one question that is difficult to comprehend is: Why does China want to hold Tibet if the people there truly do not want to belong to a greater China? If the people resist of what benefit can China get out of the occupation? No one in history has been able to subjugate a resisting people forever, and China will certainly not be able to achieve it with the Tibetans. If the Tibetans truly want to be free then China ought to let them go for their own benefit. Occupying a hostile country is expensive, draining and a poor investment. Perhaps the Chinese will on day realize the futility of their efforts and let Tibet go.
