Is the Himalayan plateau an integral part of China?
Kristine Kwok 10 March 2009
History is about the present and that is why every generation writes it anew, American writer Edgar Lawrence Doctorow once said. It is certainly true when it comes to Tibet, where history is never just a subject of academic interest, but a focal point of intense political debates as to whether the Himalayan plateau should be considered “an integral part of China”.
Over the past century, historians from both camps as well as those from the west have ploughed through literature and documents to support their claims.
The subject is so politicised that the answers are often far from objective and sometimes emotional.
The questions concern not only the historical territorial integrity of China - one of the core issues on which Beijing will never compromise - but also the prospect of resolving recurring conflicts over Tibet’s political status.
Many argue that these unresolved historical questions, combined with economic factors, fuelled the riots that erupted in Tibetan-populated areas last year.
Behind this question of Tibet’s history is the issue of Beijing’s future legitimacy in the predominantly Buddhist region, a key reason the ongoing negotiations were not leading anywhere, historians say.
In 1979, the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile adopted what they regard as the “middle way” approach - trading claims of independence for political autonomy for Tibetan areas.
The spiritual leader has since been telling the world that Tibet is now part of China and he does not want independence.
But Beijing is not impressed and continues to denounce him as insincere and a separatist.
What Beijing wants, Tibet expert Robert Barnett says, is for the Dalai Lama to say that Tibet has always been a part of China.
“He has said that he won’t do that, it’s not necessary. But China wants him to do that for reasons to secure claim in the future,” said Professor Barnett of Columbia University’s modern Tibetan studies programme.
“Under the international law, there is a technical way of saying, ‘We [Tibet] have a legal right to ask for independence; although we weren’t fully independent in the past, we still have what they call an independent personality’.”
According to Professor Barnett, the Dalai Lama’s refusal to change the tense of the statement was one major reason that talks between Beijing and the government-in-exile broke down last year.
Beijing has insisted that Tibet has been an integral part of Chinese civilisation since the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368) in the 13th century.
Tibet, unlike Korea or Vietnam, was not merely a vassal state of China but an integral part of it over which its rulers have exercised hands-on administration for centuries, according to Beijing.
China likes to point out that it started to garrison troops in Lhasa in the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) and the Manchu court installed imperial officials, known as amban, to Tibet to oversee the administration.
In 1792, the Manzhu court issued a written plan to reorganise the government in Tibet. The plan, titled “Twenty-Nine Regulations for Better Government in Tibet”, is seen as the most important evidence to prove China’s claim of sovereignty.
It is in this document that Beijing set the rules of selecting top incarnations, such as the Dalai and Panchen lamas, through a lottery conducted in a gold urn, the aim being to prevent the selection being manipulated, according to Tibet expert Melvyn Goldstein in his book, The Snow Lion and the Dragon.
But the government-in-exile only accepts that Tibet was annexed by China in 1951, when the Dalai Lama and Mao Zedong’s government signed the “Seventeen-point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”.
The deal, said Professor Barnett, was the first time Tibet officially acknowledged Chinese rule.
The government-in-exile has argued that Tibet was under the influence of Mongol and Manchu rulers, but not Han Chinese.
But Lian Xiangmin of the China Tibetology Research Centre says China has always been a multi-ethnic state so the two dynasties should also be considered periods of Chinese rule.
Most historians agree that Tibet was under certain levels of influence from China during the Mongol-ruled Yuan dynasty and the Manchu-ruled Qing dynasty.
But they are divided over the extent and nature of those relationships. While Tibetans describe them as “priest-patron” religious ties, Beijing says they were administrative, underpinning China’s ownership of Tibet.
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology associate professor Barry Sautman said the Qing court had considerable political influence.
“A couple of times, they had a large number of troops rescue the dalai lamas when the dalai lamas’ forces were engaged in war with neighbouring countries,” he said.
Elliot Sperling, a Central Eurasian scholar at Indiana University, said there was never a decree or affirmation making Tibet part of China.
“Tibet was administered by the Mongol, and in that century many countries were administered by the Mongol,” Professor Sperling said. “So it’s impossible to say that Tibet was made part of China during the Yuan dynasty.”
But the idea that Tibet was always independent did not hold up either, he said.
“It was a relationship of an empire to a constituent part of the empire,” Professor Sperling said.
Some historians say that after the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911, Tibet refused attempts by the Kuomintang government to exert authority, although KMT leaders such as Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek considered Tibet as part of China.
Tibet was left alone and enjoyed de facto independence during the KMT’s rule because the Chinese administration was fully occupied by the Japanese invasion and the civil war.
On the other hand, no sovereign country acknowledged Tibet as an independent country throughout the period, despite the repeated efforts by the 13th Dalai Lama to seek international support.
During the war, Britain, the US and India dealt directly with Tibet as if it were an independent state, but continued to acknowledge de jure Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and consider it a part of China, Professor Goldstein wrote in his book.
In any case, Dr Sautman said, it did not matter whether one side can show that they had a better historical argument than the other. “As long as there is some kind of historical connection, as long as a claim is not completely false, what matters is the attitude of other countries,” Dr Sautman said.
He adds that no country has ever recognised Tibet as independent.
Whatever the imperial Chinese administrations’ role was in Tibet, Professor Barnett said it was unhelpful to apply modern definitions to such a complicated relationship.
However, the debates will never end. “History is a major battlefield,” writes Professor Goldstein. “And the facts of the conflict have become obscured by an opaque veneer of political rhetoric.”
1 comment:
Historians keep Tibet debate raging
Is the Himalayan plateau an integral part of China?
Kristine Kwok
10 March 2009
History is about the present and that is why every generation writes it anew, American writer Edgar Lawrence Doctorow once said. It is certainly true when it comes to Tibet, where history is never just a subject of academic interest, but a focal point of intense political debates as to whether the Himalayan plateau should be considered “an integral part of China”.
Over the past century, historians from both camps as well as those from the west have ploughed through literature and documents to support their claims.
The subject is so politicised that the answers are often far from objective and sometimes emotional.
The questions concern not only the historical territorial integrity of China - one of the core issues on which Beijing will never compromise - but also the prospect of resolving recurring conflicts over Tibet’s political status.
Many argue that these unresolved historical questions, combined with economic factors, fuelled the riots that erupted in Tibetan-populated areas last year.
Behind this question of Tibet’s history is the issue of Beijing’s future legitimacy in the predominantly Buddhist region, a key reason the ongoing negotiations were not leading anywhere, historians say.
In 1979, the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile adopted what they regard as the “middle way” approach - trading claims of independence for political autonomy for Tibetan areas.
The spiritual leader has since been telling the world that Tibet is now part of China and he does not want independence.
But Beijing is not impressed and continues to denounce him as insincere and a separatist.
What Beijing wants, Tibet expert Robert Barnett says, is for the Dalai Lama to say that Tibet has always been a part of China.
“He has said that he won’t do that, it’s not necessary. But China wants him to do that for reasons to secure claim in the future,” said Professor Barnett of Columbia University’s modern Tibetan studies programme.
“Under the international law, there is a technical way of saying, ‘We [Tibet] have a legal right to ask for independence; although we weren’t fully independent in the past, we still have what they call an independent personality’.”
According to Professor Barnett, the Dalai Lama’s refusal to change the tense of the statement was one major reason that talks between Beijing and the government-in-exile broke down last year.
Beijing has insisted that Tibet has been an integral part of Chinese civilisation since the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368) in the 13th century.
Tibet, unlike Korea or Vietnam, was not merely a vassal state of China but an integral part of it over which its rulers have exercised hands-on administration for centuries, according to Beijing.
China likes to point out that it started to garrison troops in Lhasa in the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) and the Manchu court installed imperial officials, known as amban, to Tibet to oversee the administration.
In 1792, the Manzhu court issued a written plan to reorganise the government in Tibet. The plan, titled “Twenty-Nine Regulations for Better Government in Tibet”, is seen as the most important evidence to prove China’s claim of sovereignty.
It is in this document that Beijing set the rules of selecting top incarnations, such as the Dalai and Panchen lamas, through a lottery conducted in a gold urn, the aim being to prevent the selection being manipulated, according to Tibet expert Melvyn Goldstein in his book, The Snow Lion and the Dragon.
But the government-in-exile only accepts that Tibet was annexed by China in 1951, when the Dalai Lama and Mao Zedong’s government signed the “Seventeen-point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”.
The deal, said Professor Barnett, was the first time Tibet officially acknowledged Chinese rule.
The government-in-exile has argued that Tibet was under the influence of Mongol and Manchu rulers, but not Han Chinese.
But Lian Xiangmin of the China Tibetology Research Centre says China has always been a multi-ethnic state so the two dynasties should also be considered periods of Chinese rule.
Most historians agree that Tibet was under certain levels of influence from China during the Mongol-ruled Yuan dynasty and the Manchu-ruled Qing dynasty.
But they are divided over the extent and nature of those relationships. While Tibetans describe them as “priest-patron” religious ties, Beijing says they were administrative, underpinning China’s ownership of Tibet.
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology associate professor Barry Sautman said the Qing court had considerable political influence.
“A couple of times, they had a large number of troops rescue the dalai lamas when the dalai lamas’ forces were engaged in war with neighbouring countries,” he said.
Elliot Sperling, a Central Eurasian scholar at Indiana University, said there was never a decree or affirmation making Tibet part of China.
“Tibet was administered by the Mongol, and in that century many countries were administered by the Mongol,” Professor Sperling said. “So it’s impossible to say that Tibet was made part of China during the Yuan dynasty.”
But the idea that Tibet was always independent did not hold up either, he said.
“It was a relationship of an empire to a constituent part of the empire,” Professor Sperling said.
Some historians say that after the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911, Tibet refused attempts by the Kuomintang government to exert authority, although KMT leaders such as Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek considered Tibet as part of China.
Tibet was left alone and enjoyed de facto independence during the KMT’s rule because the Chinese administration was fully occupied by the Japanese invasion and the civil war.
On the other hand, no sovereign country acknowledged Tibet as an independent country throughout the period, despite the repeated efforts by the 13th Dalai Lama to seek international support.
During the war, Britain, the US and India dealt directly with Tibet as if it were an independent state, but continued to acknowledge de jure Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and consider it a part of China, Professor Goldstein wrote in his book.
In any case, Dr Sautman said, it did not matter whether one side can show that they had a better historical argument than the other. “As long as there is some kind of historical connection, as long as a claim is not completely false, what matters is the attitude of other countries,” Dr Sautman said.
He adds that no country has ever recognised Tibet as independent.
Whatever the imperial Chinese administrations’ role was in Tibet, Professor Barnett said it was unhelpful to apply modern definitions to such a complicated relationship.
However, the debates will never end. “History is a major battlefield,” writes Professor Goldstein. “And the facts of the conflict have become obscured by an opaque veneer of political rhetoric.”
Post a Comment