Council: SPECPOL Agenda: The Issue of Tibet

Tibet's history

Tibet has a history dating back over 2,000 years. A good starting point in analysing the

country's status is the period referred to as Tibet's "imperial age", when the entire country

was first united under one ruler. There is no serious dispute over the existence of Tibet as

an independent state during this period.

Even China's own historical records and treaties Tibet and China concluded during that

period refer to Tibet as a strong state with whom China was forced to deal on a footing of

equality.

International law protects the independence of states from attempts to destroy it and,

therefore, the presumption is in favour of the continuation of statehood. This means that,

whereas an independent state that has existed for centuries, such as Tibet, does not need to

prove its continued independence when challenged, a foreign state claiming sovereign

rights over it needs to prove those rights by showing at what precise moment and by what

legal means they were acquired.

China's present claim to Tibet is based entirely on the influence the Mongol and Manchu

emperors exercised over Tibet in the 13th and 18th centuries, respectively. As Genghis

Khan's Mongol Empire expanded toward Europe in the west and China in the east in the

thirteenth century, the Tibetan leaders of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism concluded

an agreement with the Mongol rulers in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable conquest of

Tibet. They promised political allegiance and religious blessings and teachings in exchange

for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when

Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan dynasty, he invited the Sakya Lama

to become the Imperial Preceptor and supreme pontiff of his empire.

The relationship that developed and still exists today between the Mongols and Tibetans is a

reflection of the close racial, cultural and especially religious affinity between the two

Central Asian peoples. The Mongol Empire was a world empire; no evidence exists to

indicate that the Mongols integrated the administration of China and Tibet or appended

Tibet to China in any manner. To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both

countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the

People’s Republic of China does, is absurd. It is like claiming that France should belong to

England because both came under Roman domination, or that Burma became a part of India

when the British Empire extended its authority over both territories.

This relatively brief period of foreign domination over Tibet occurred 700 years ago. Tibet

broke away from the Yuan emperor before China regained its independence from the

Mongols with the establishment of the native Ming Dynasty. Not until the 18th century did

Tibet once again come under a degree of foreign influence. The Ming Dynasty, which ruled

China from 1368 to 1644, had few ties to and no authority over Tibet. On the other hand,

the Manchus, who conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty in the 17th century,

embraced Tibetan Buddhism as the Mongols had and developed close ties with the

Tibetans. The Dalai Lama, who had by then become the spiritual and temporal ruler of

Tibet, agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor. He accepted patronage

and protection in exchange. This "priest-patron" relationship, which the Dalai Lama also

maintained with numerous Mongol Khans and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal tie that

existed between the Tibetans and Manchus during the Qing dynasty. If did not, in itself,

affect Tibet's independence.

On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of

influence over Tibet. Thus, between 1720 and 1792 the Manchu emperors Kangxi, Yong

Zhen and Qianlong sent imperial troops into Tibet four times to protect the Dalai Lama and

the Tibetan people from foreign invasion or internal unrest. It was these expeditions that

provided them with influence in Tibet. The emperor sent representatives to the Tibetan

capital, Lhasa, some of whom successfully exercised their influence, in his name, over the

Tibetan government, particularly with respect to the conduct of foreign relations. At the

height of Manchu power, which lasted a few decades, the situation was not unlike that

which can exist between a superpower and a neighbouring satellite or protectorate. The

subjection of a state to foreign influence and even intervention in foreign or domestic

affairs, however significant this may be politically, does not in itself entail the legal

extinction of that state. Consequently, although some Manchu emperors exerted

considerable influence over Tibet, they did not thereby incorporate Tibet into their empire,

much less China.

Manchu influence did not last for very long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British

briefly invaded Tibet in 1904, and ceased entirely with the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in

1911, and its replacement in China by a native republican government. Whatever ties

existed between the Dalai Lama and the Qing emperor were extinguished with the

dissolution of the Manchu Empire.

From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in

every respect, as a fully independent state. The 13th Dalai Lama emphasized his country's

independent status externally, in formal communications to foreign rulers, and internally, by

issuing a proclamation reaffirming Tibet's independence and by strengthening the country's

defenses. Tibet remained neutral during the Second World War, despite strong pressure

from China and its allies, Britain and the US. The Tibetan government maintained

independent international relations with all neighboring countries, most of whom had

diplomatic representatives in Lhasa.

The attitude of most foreign governments with whom Tibet maintained relations implied

their recognition of Tibet's independent status. The British government bound itself not to

recognize Chinese suzerainty or any other rights over Tibet unless China signed the draft

Simla Convention of 1914 with Britain and Tibet, which China never did. Nepal's recognition

was confirmed by the Nepalese government in 1949, in documents presented to the United

Nations in support of that government's application for membership.

The turning point in Tibet's history came in 1949, when the People's Liberation Army of the

PRC first crossed into Tibet. After defeating the small Tibetan army, the Chinese government

imposed the so-called "17-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" on the

Tibetan government in May 1951. Because it was signed under duress, the agreement was

void under international law. The presence of 40,000 troops in Tibet, the threat of an

immediate occupation of Lhasa and the prospect of the total obliteration of the Tibetan

state left Tibetans little choice.

In the course of Tibet's 2000-year history, the country came under a degree of foreign

influence only for short periods of time in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries.

From a legal standpoint, Tibet has to this day not lost its statehood. It is an independent

state under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing

occupation has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China. As pointed out earlier, the

Chinese government has never claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by

conquest. Indeed, China recognizes 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.

Unresolved Political status of Tibet

The contemporary dispute over Tibet is rooted in religious and political disputes starting in

the thirteenth century. China claims that Tibet has been an inalienable part of China since

the thirteenth century under the Yuan dynasty. Tibetan nationalists and their supporters

counter that the Chinese Empire at that time was either a Mongol (in Chinese, Yuan) empire

or a Manchu (Qing) one, which happened to include China too, and that Tibet was a

protectorate, wherein Tibetans offered spiritual guidance to emperors in return for political

protection. When British attempts to open relations with Tibet culminated in the 1903-04

invasion and conquest of Lhasa, Qing-ruled China, which considered Tibet politically

subordinate, countered with attempts to increase control over Tibet’s administration. But in

1913, a year after the Qing dynasty collapsed, Tibet declared independence and all Chinese

officials and residents in Lhasa were expelled by the Tibetan government. Tibet thenceforth

functioned as a de facto independent nation until the Chinese army invaded its eastern

borders in 1950.

But even during this period, Tibet’s international status remained unsettled. China

continued to claim it as sovereign territory. Western countries, including Britain and the

United States, did not recognize Tibet as fully independent. After founding the People’s

Republic of China in 1949, the new communist government in China sought reunification

with Tibet and decided to invade it in 1950. A year later, in 1951, the Dalai Lama’s

representatives signed a seventeen-point agreement with Beijing, granting China

sovereignty over Tibet for the first time. The agreement stated that the central authorities

“will not alter the existing political system in Tibet” or “the established status, functions and

powers of the Dalai Lama.” While the Chinese government points to this document to prove

Tibet is part of Chinese territory, proponents of Tibetan independence say Tibet was

coerced into signing this document and surrendering its sovereignty.

Experts also point to the years from 1913 to 1950, a time when Tibet behaved like a de facto

independent state, to argue that Tibet was not always part of China. But China blames the

British influence at the time for provoking the idea of Tibetan independence and refuses to

be bound by any treaties signed between Tibet and Britain during that period. This includes

the 1914 Simla convention where the British recognized Tibet as an autonomous area under

the suzerainty of China.

The political status question is also complicated by uncertainty about what constitutes

Tibet’s borders. The Chinese only accept the term Tibet for the western and central areas,

the area which is now called the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). This area was directly

ruled by the Lhasa government when the Chinese invaded in 1950. But Tibetan exiles have

been demanding a Greater Tibet which includes political Tibet in modern times (TAR) as well

as ethnic Tibetan areas east of TAR, most of which Tibet had lost in the eighteenth century.

These areas, earlier known as Amdo and Kham, are now scattered among parts of Chinese

provinces of Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan and Gansu. The March 2008 anti-government

protests, which started in Lhasa, soon spread among the ethnic Tibetan areas in these

provinces.

Conflict with China

China’s policies towards the Tibetans can perhaps best be described as a mix of brutality

and concession. The first Tibetan uprising of 1959 resulted in the flight of the Dalai Lama

and about 80,000 Tibetans. During these years thousands of Tibetans were allegedly

executed, imprisoned, or starved to death in prison camps. So far no Chinese official has

publicly acknowledged these atrocities. This period also included a policy of induced

national famines that resulted from tenets of the so-called Great Leap Forward, when

Beijing set up communes in agricultural and pastoral areas. The Cultural Revolution, the

next phase of Mao’s revolutionary politics, followed in 1966 and continued in effect until

1979 in Tibet. During these years, all religious activities were prohibited and the monastic

system in Tibet was dismantled. The campaign included an attempt to eradicate the ethnic

minority’s culture and distinctive identity as a people.

Deng Xiaoping’s rise to power in China in 1978 brought forth a new initiative to resolve the

Tibet question. Besides reaching out to the Dalai Lama in exile in India, the Chinese

authorities also initiated a more conciliatory ethnic and economic development policy.

Tibetans were encouraged to revitalize their culture and religion. Infrastructure was

developed to help Tibet grow. But pro-independence protests in Tibet that started in 1987

led to the declaration of martial law in the region in 1989. After martial law was lifted in

May 1990, Chinese authorities adopted a more hard-line policy with stricter security

measures, curtailing religious and cultural freedoms. At the same time, a program of rapid

economic development was adopted which included much resented incentives encouraging

an influx of non-Tibetans, mostly Han Chinese, into Tibet. This, Beijing hopes, will result in a

new generation of Tibetans who will be less influenced by religion and consider being part

of China in their interest.

China's claims

The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims that Tibet is an integral part of China. The

Tibetan Government-in-Exile maintains that Tibet is an independent state under unlawful

occupation. If Tibet is under unlawful Chinese occupation, Beijing's large-scale transfer of

Chinese settlers into Tibet is a serious violation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,

which prohibits the transfer of civilian population into occupied territory.

If Tibet is under unlawful Chinese occupation, China's illegal presence in the country is a

legitimate object of international concern. The question of Tibet's status is essentially a

legal question, albeit one of immediate political relevance. The international status of a

country must be determined by objective legal criteria rather than subjective political ones.

Thus, whether a particular entity is a state in international law depends on whether it

possesses the necessary criteria for statehood (territory, population, independent

government, ability to conduct international relations), not whether governments of other

states recognize its independent status. Recognition can provide evidence that foreign

governments are willing to treat an entity as an independent state, but cannot create or

extinguish a state. If, on the other hand, Tibet is an integral part of China, then these

questions fall, as China claims, within its own domestic jurisdiction.

The issue of human rights, including the right of self-determination and the right of the

Tibetan people to maintain their own identity and autonomy are, of course, legitimate

objects of international concern regardless of Tibet's legal status.

China makes no claim to sovereign rights over Tibet as a result of its military subjugation

and occupation of Tibet following the country's invasion in 1949-1950. Instead, it bases its

claim to Tibet solely on its theory that Tibet has been an integral part of China for many

centuries. China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet is based almost exclusively on self-serving

Chinese official histories.

International law is a system of law created by states primarily for their own protection. As a

result, international law protects the independence of states from attempts to destroy it

and, therefore, the presumption is in favor of the continuation of statehood. This means

that, whereas an independent state that has existed for centuries, such as Tibet, does not

need to prove its continued independence when challenged, a foreign state claiming

sovereign rights over it needs to prove those rights by showing at what precise moment and

by what legal means they were acquired.

Neutral & independent status

From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in

every respect, as a fully independent state. The 13th Dalai Lama emphasised his country's

independent status externally, in formal communications to foreign rulers, and internally, by

issuing a proclamation reaffirming Tibet's independence and by strengthening the country's

defences.

Tibet remained neutral during the Second World War, despite strong pressure from China

and its allies, Britain and the USA. The Tibetan Government maintained independent

international relations with all neighbouring countries, most of whom had diplomatic

representatives in Lhasa.

The attitude of most foreign governments with whom Tibet maintained relations implied

their recognition of Tibet's independent status. The British Government bound itself not to

recognise Chinese sovereignty or any other rights over Tibet unless China signed the draft

Simla Convention of 1914 with Britain and Tibet, which China never did.

Human Rights violations in Tibet

Torture and Abuse in Prison

In addition to the fact that arrest and imprisonment in Tibet are frequently carried out as a

result of peaceful dissident activity--in violation of international human rights law--there are

serious abuses following detention. Incidents of severe beatings at the time of arrest,

torture during incarceration, and severe beatings of inmates already sentenced have been

reported with sufficient frequency and from a number of credible sources as to put the issue

beyond doubt and, moreover, to demonstrate that these abuses are not isolated incidents

but rather the product of a policy for dealing with political dissidents. Such reports continue

to emerge.

To date, the Chinese government has been evasive in responding to European Union and

NGO questions about the Drapchi protests, but it is clear that the imposition of arbitrary

extensions to their sentences is a further abuse affecting Tibetan political prisoners. Only

last week in fact, nine Tibetan prisoners in Kandze, an important town in the eastern

reaches of the Tibetan Plateau, were reported to have had their five-year prison sentences

for participating in a peaceful protest in October 1999, increased to ten-year terms.

The Chinese authorities have also been unresponsive to concerns expressed by the United

Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention about the cases of three Tibetans who had

their sentences extended for staging a peaceful political protest during the Working Group's

visit to Drapchi in October 1997. To date, Chinese authorities have refused to adequately

explain their actions. Nor have they explained their failure to release Ngawang Choephel,

the well-known Tibetan musicologist who was arrested while doing research in Tibet in

1995, and whose detention the Working Group has formally declared to be in contravention

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Making Religion Serve Politics

The issues of the Panchen Lama and "patriotic education" are closely bound up with each

other, since it was the Dalai Lama's announcement of the recognition of the incarnation of

the 11th Panchen Lama that precipitated the campaign of "patriotic education." When the

Dalai Lama formally recognized the Panchen Lama in May 1995, the Chinese authorities

reacted by virulently denouncing him and by taking harsh measures against the child whom

he had recognized. The boy and his family have been kept in effective isolation from the

outside world, and government representatives and human rights monitors have not been

allowed independently to verify their conditions, in spite of many attempts to do so.

The Panchen Lama is generally considered to be just below the Dalai Lama in stature within

their particular sect of Tibetan Buddhism and as such has great prestige within Tibet. China's

actions are designed to exert unquestioned state control over religion, to the point, in this

case, of dictating whom Tibetans may revere as a religious hierarch. In other instances the

state has assumed a visible presence in certifying certain incarnations and in harshly

suppressing those who dissent. In the case of the Karmapa Lama, the head of the Karma

Kagyupa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, the restrictions on his movement made it impossible for

him to receive proper teachings from his traditional mentor; as a result he had no choice but

to flee Tibet. He arrived in India at the beginning of this year.

More recently, the Chinese government alone managed the search for another important

incarnation within the Dalai Lama's sect, Reting Rinpoche. By all appearances, this is part of

a continuing effort to control such searches in order ultimately to stage manage the

discovery and enthronement of the next Dalai Lama.

No right to protest

Tibetans are not free to protest or openly speak about their situation. Even peaceful

demonstrations are met with heavy handed, military crackdowns. n 2008, thousands of

Tibetans staged the largest protests in Tibet for over 50 years. Demonstrations swept across

the entire Tibetan plateau. Chinese authorities arrested an estimated 6,000 protestors, of

which the fate of about 1,000 still remains unknown. The upsurge in self-immolations and

other protests since 2011 has led the Chinese authorities to step up security and attempt to

impose even tighter control over Tibet.

Political prisoners tortured and killed

Prisons in Tibet are full of people detained for simply expressing their desire for freedom.

People have been arrested and sentenced to prison for peaceful acts, such as:

a. waving the Tibetan flag

b. distributing leaflets

c. sending information about events in Tibet abroad

The Chinese deem these acts as ‘splittist’ or ‘subversive’. Many Tibetans are imprisoned on

unclear or unspecified charges, their families not informed of their whereabouts. Released

prisoners report of having been subjected to beatings, electric shocks, and being deprived of

food and drink. A 2008 UN report found that the use of torture in Tibet was ‘widespread’

and ‘routine’.

Restricting information

China attempts to control all information in and out of Tibet. TV, radio, printed media and

the internet are subjected to strict monitoring and censorship. Access is blocked to TV and

radio broadcasters based outside China, which provide news services in Tibetan languages.

Foreign journalists are rarely allowed entry into Tibet, and when they are, they are closely

chaperoned by Chinese officials. Reporters Without Borders ranked China 175 out of the

180 countries on its Press Freedom Index 2014. Professor Carole McGranahan has also

stated that there are more foreign journalists in North Korea than Tibet.

Lack of Religious freedom

Buddhism is central to Tibetan life and monasteries and nunneries are kept under tight

surveillance. Police stations are often situated nearby (or inside). Monks and nuns have

been beaten, jailed and tortured. They are regularly subjected to ‘patriotic re-education

programmes’, for weeks at a time. During these programmes, they are forced to read

‘patriotic’ literature denouncing the Dalai Lama. Those who refuse to take part, or fail the

programme, often have their rights to practice as monks and nuns taken away.