- Introduction
Since nearly three generations ago, China has occupied Tibet against the aspirations of the Tibetan people. Its proclamation of Tibet’s sovereignty lacks any legitimate justification and is based exclusively on a self-serving historical account. This story is mainly misinformed, erroneous, and Sino-centric. Nevertheless, Beijing has repeatedly pushed it so hard that the rest of the world has progressively accepted it and now mainly views Tibet as a Chinese domestic matter outside its jurisdiction. Due to the appeasement of Tibet by our leaders, we have devolved into mute spectators to a tragedy in progress, and China has aggressively pursued strategic and geographical expansion as an entitled bully.
Regarding Tibet, the world has fallen chiefly mute. Governments are engaging in self-censorship to appease Beijing’s self-declared “sensitivities” and further their objectives. However, it is past time we examined the ramifications of our silence over China’s illegal presence in Tibet and of not aggressively challenging Beijing’s historical account of Tibet.
- Tibet in the History
Tibet has been a component of the Chinese multinational state “since antiquity,” according to Beijing’s mythology. The government essentially projects the present Chinese state, with all its current enormous territories, into the past and contemporary concepts of territorial statehood and sovereignty that were not relevant in Asia to justify the PRC’s existing borders. Alluding to them as “Chinese” and “China,” it retrospectively appropriates foreign empires, most notably the Mongol and Manchu Qing royal families. It was not China that ruled the Mongol and Qing empires. They were both Inner Asian and, more specifically, Mongol and Manchu. For centuries, their emperors subjugated, occupied, and governed China and the Chinese as part of their extensive domains. Both had power beyond the areas where Chinese people lived.
Both have been Inner Asian and, more specifically, Mongol and Manchu. For centuries, their emperors subjugated, occupied, and governed China and the Chinese as part of their extensive domains. Both wielded power beyond the boundaries of China’s populous areas, all the way to the Tibetan plateau. The PRC has built the case for its claim that it just inherited authority over Tibet from its forebears by retrospectively adopting these foreign empires and their territorial extent and reach as Chinese.
- Annexation Ploy
Sadly, this story is not only for textbooks of history. Beijing aggressively takes advantage of this story. First, it has made the Dalai Lama’s public acceptance of it a condition of any engagement with the Tibetans. Second, it exerts significant pressure on all other countries to avoid it.
Acquiescence, or subscribing to Beijing’s narrative, will eventually result from silence and the lack of meaningful pushback to this narrative. Any efforts to end the Sino-Tibetan war will be futile as a result. Our principal worry is this. The world must be informed of the actual nature of the conflict if discussions are to have a chance. And whether Tibet was historically a part of China or not has much to do with the sort of historical interactions, Tibet had with its Asian neighbours.
- Historica Facts
The Chinese Ming dynasty did not reign over Tibet and was definitely not part of the Ming Empire. The Dalai Lamas’ and Tibet’s interactions with the Manchu Qing emperor prevented Tibet from joining China. The religious and political ties that did exist between them. Referred to in Tibetan as chö-yön relations—need to be understood in the context of the Tibetan Buddhist legal system that was in effect at the time and does not correspond to contemporary territorial sovereignty. Contemporaneous sources from Mongolia, Manchuria, Tibet, and China support these results. Last but not least, the Republic of China, which from the outset unilaterally claimed Tibet as a part of that republic, was absolutely unable to establish any power in or over Tibet, leaving its claim wholly hollow.
Being silent regarding China’s unlawful occupation of Tibet. Taking actions that support its claims to sovereignty gives both claims and the PRC’s presence there the semblance of legitimacy. This has contemporary, tangible deleterious repercussions.
