Tibetan sovereignty debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia© GFDL
Tibet was once an independent kingdom, which later became a part of China. The government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of Tibet in Exile, however, disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law.
Extracts from:
- 1 The view of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile
- 2 The view of the Chinese Government
- 3 Third-Party views
1. ... Dalai Lama has recently stated that he wishes only for Tibetan autonomy, and not separation from China, under certain democratic conditions, like freedom of speech and expression and genuine self-rule.
Another view supported by a number of international groups including the Free Tibet Campaign is that Tibet should be granted total independence from China.
Question: Why does the Free Tibet Campaign call for total independence from P.R.China when the Dalai Lama calls for partial autonomy, not full independence?
2. ... Historical status
The position of the PRC, which has ruled mainland China since 1949, as well as the official position of the Republic of China, which ruled mainland China before 1949 and currently controls Taiwan [6], is that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China de jure since the Yuan Dynasty (Mongol rulers) seven hundred years ago [7], comparable to other states such as the Kingdom of Dali and the Tangut Empire that were also incorporated into the Middle Kingdom at the time and have remained in China ever since. The PRC contends that according to the Succession of states theory in international law all subsequent Chinese governments (Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, ROC and PRC) have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty and de facto power over Tibet.
3. Third-Party views
No country publicly accepts Tibet as an independent state [27], in spite of several instances of government officials appealing to their superiors to do so [28]. Treaties signed by Britain and Russia in the early years of the twentieth century [29] and others signed by Nepal and India in the 1950s [30], recognized Tibet’s political subordination to China. The Americans presented their view on 15 May 1943:
For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that…the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims.
Not a single sovereign state, including India, has extended recognition to the Tibetan Government-in-exile in the more than two decades of its existence, despite obvious precedents for such an action. This lack of legal recognition of independence has forced even some strong supporters of the refugees to admit that:
...even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama’s cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican.