UNPO - Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
Office of the General Secretary
STATEMENT by Dr. Michael van Walt van Praag, General Secretary of the UNREPRESENTED NATIONS AND PEOPLES ORGANIZATION
before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany
June 19th, 1995
Tibet is fast disappearing. Things are happening rapidly on the roof of the world, in a way that could bring about major changes, not only for Tibetans and Chinese, but for the entire region and the world balance of power.
Tibet is not a romantic 'land of Lamas', a Shangri-La. It never was. Tibet is a very large country that covers one quarter of the surface area of today's People's Republic of China. It is similar in size to India, Saudi Arabia, or continental Western Europe without Scandinavia. Tibet is a highly strategic area in the very heart of Asia, where the continent's giants meet. What happens in Tibet is therefore of much greater importance than is usually acknowledged.
Today, I will briefly talk about the status of Tibet. The issue is important for it enables us to determine the basis of China's presence in Tibet, and therefore to answer certain questions. Is what happens in Tibet a purely domestic matter for China to deal with internally? Is it then no one else's business? Or is what happens in Tibet or to Tibetans an international issue that should be the object of legitimate international concern?
The question of China's alleged sovereignty over Tibet lies at the core of the 'question of Tibet.' That 'question' is not an issue of human rights, nor of religious or minority rights, as is sometimes assumed. Human rights abuses in Tibet and the cultural destruction taking place in the country, however serious and important they may be, are only symptoms of the deeper problem. The real issue, as both China and Tibet view it, is the (lack of) legitimacy of China's presence in Tibet. Without addressing this issue, attempts to find solutions to the tragic situation in Tibet will remain elusive.
The key issue to examine, therefore, is by what right, if any, China can make a legal claim to sovereignty over Tibet.
China bases its presence in Tibet on two grounds: One is that Tibet has always been an integral part of China. Another is that Tibet was backward, economically and socially.
A determination of Tibet's legal status on the eve of the Chinese Communist invasion in 1950 requires careful factual research and legal analysis of the facts. A summary is contained in Part I of this Statement. The conclusion from such a study becomes obvious: Prior to China's occupation of Tibet, largely completed in 1951, Tibet was an independent state in fact and law; and, further, the status of Tibet today is that of a state under illegal occupation. A traveller to Tibet would instinctively reach the same conclusion.
Nevertheless it is useful to review the main points in Tibetan history and the Chinese arguments put forth to substantiate the claim that Tibet has for centuries been an integral part of China.
PART I: The status of Tibet
The Tibetan Government in exile, headed by his Holiness the Dalai Lama, has consistently held that Tibet has been under illegal Chinese occupation since China invaded the independent state in 1949/50. The People's Republic of China (PRC) insists that its relation with Tibet is a purely internal affair, because Tibet is and has for centuries been an integral part of China. The question of Tibet's status is essentially a legal question, but it is one of immediate political relevance.
The PRC makes no claim to sovereign rights over Tibet as a result of its military subjugation and occupation of Tibet following its armed invasion in 1949/50. Indeed, the PRC could hardly make that claim, since it categorically rejects as illegal claims to sovereignty put forward by other states based on conquest, occupation or the imposition of unequal treaties. Instead, the PRC bases its claim to Tibet solely on the theory that Tibet became an integral part of China seven hundred years ago and has remained a part of China since then.
Early History
Although the recorded history of the Tibetan state is traced back to 127 BC with the establishment of the Yarlung Dynasty, the country as we now know it was first unified in the 7th century AD under King Song-tsen Gampo and his successors. Tibet was one of the mightiest powers of Asia for the three centuries that followed, as a pillar inscription at the foot of the Potala Palace in Lhasa and Chinese Tang histories of the period confirm. A formal peace treaty concluded between China and Tibet in 821/823 demarcated the borders between the two countries and ensured that, "between the two countries, no smoke or dust shall appear." The two sides solemnly pledged that the "great era when Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China shall never be changed."
Mongol Influence
As Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire expanded towards Europe in the West and China in the East in the thirteenth century, Tibetan leaders of the powerful Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism concluded an agreement with the Mongol Khan, Goden, in order to avoid the conquest of Tibet. The Tibetan Lama promised political loyalty and religious blessings and teachings in exchange for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when decades later, Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368), he invited the Sakya Lama to become the Imperial Preceptor and supreme pontiff of his empire.
The relationship that developed and continued to exist into the twentieth century between the Mongols and the Tibetans was a reflection of the close racial, cultural and especially religious affinity between the two Central Asian peoples.
The Mongol Empire was a world empire and, whatever the relationship between its rulers and the Tibetans, the Mongols never integrated the administration of Tibet and China or appended Tibet to China in any manner. In fact, the newest research of Chinese historical sources shows that the Mongol Yuan Emperors did not, contrary to today's Chinese propaganda claims, consider Tibet to be an integral part of their empire.
Tibet broke political ties with the Yuan Emperor in 1350, before China regained its independence from the Mongols. Not until the eighteenth century did Tibet again come under a degree of foreign influence.
Relations with Manchu, Gorkha, and British neighbours
Tibet developed no political ties with the Chinese Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). The official Ming dynastic history, the Ming Shi, in fact acknowledges the Dalai Lama's authority over the "foreigners of the western countries." On the other hand, the Dalai Lama, who established his full sovereign rule over Tibet with the help of a Mongol patron, Gushri Khan in 1642, continued to maintain very close ties with various Mongol princes. He also developed close religious ties with the Manchu Emperor in 1639, and his successor, Shunzhi, who conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). The Dalai Lama agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu Emperor, and accepted patronage and protection in exchange. This 'priest-patron' relationship (known in Tibetan as Choe-Yoen), which the Dalai Lama also maintained with some Mongol princes and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal tie that existed between the Tibetans and the Manchus during the Qing Dynasty. It did not, in itself, affect Tibet's independenc
e.
On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of influence over Tibet. Thus, between 1720 and 1792, Emperors Kangxi, Yong Zhen and Qianlong sent imperial troops to Tibet four times to protect the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people from foreign invasions by Mongols and Gorkhas or from internal unrest. These expeditions provided the Emperor with the means for establishing influence in Tibet. He 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 influence in Tibet, the situation was not unlike that which can exist between a superpower and a satellite or protectorate, and therefore one which, though politically significant, does not extinguish the independent existence of the weaker state.
This situation lasted for a few decades. Tibet was never fully incorporated into the Manchu empire, much less China, and it continued to conduct its relations with neighbouring states largely on its own. This is not to say that Manchu Emperors did not exert considerable influence in Tibet. Depending on the personality and abilities of his representatives in Lhasa (Ambans), he did for short periods of time exert decisive influence on the composition and decisions of the Tibetan government.
Manchu influence, although at times very significant, did not last long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British briefly invaded Lhasa and concluded a bilateral treaty with Tibet, the Lhasa Convention, in 1904. Despite this loss of influence, the imperial government in Peking continued to claim some authority over Tibet, particularly with respect to its international relations, an authority which the British imperial government termed 'suzerainty' in its dealings with Peking and St. Petersburg.
Imperial armies tried to reassume actual influence in 1910 by invading the country and occupying Lhasa. The Dalai Lama fled to British India, returning to Lhasa only once the troops had been expelled from Tibet. Following the 1911 revolution in China and the overthrow of the Manchu emperor, the Imperial troops surrendered to the Tibetan army and were repatriated under two Sino-Tibetan peace accords signed in August and December 1912, respectively. The Dalai Lama reasserted Tibet's full independence internally, by issuing a proclamation (1913), and externally, in communications to foreign rulers, including the British, Russian and Chinese governments, and in a treaty with Mongolia.
Tibet in the twentieth century
Tibet's status following the expulsion of Manchu troops is not subject to serious dispute. Whatever ties existed between the Dalai Lamas and the Manchu emperors of the Qing Dynasty were extinguished with the fall of the empire and dynasty. From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. On the eve of the Chinese invasion, which started in 1949, Tibet possessed all the attributes of statehood recognised under international law: a territory; a people inhabiting that territory; and a government capable of maintaining international relations. Tibet had its own head of state and system of government, judicial system, taxation, currency, postage system (and stamps), a Foreign Office, and armed forces.
Tibet maintained diplomatic relations with Nepal and Bhutan, to a very limited extent with Mongolia and Russia, and extensive relations with Britain and later with independent India. Relations with China remained strained. The Chinese waged a border war with Tibet while China's President repeatedly and formally urged Tibet (and Nepal) to 'join' the Chinese Republic, thus admitting that Tibet was not, at the time, a component part of China. Yet, at the same time, China claimed all along to the rest of the world that Tibet was already one of China's 'five-races'.
In an effort to reduce Sino-Tibetan tensions, at the initiative of the Dalai Lama the British Government convened a tripartite conference in Simla in 1913 where the three states met on equal terms. As the British delegate reminded his Chinese counterpart, Tibet entered the conference as "an independent nation recognizing no allegiance to China." The conference was unsuccessful in that it did not resolve the differences between Tibet and China. It was nevertheless significant in that the Anglo-Tibetan friendship was reaffirmed with the conclusion of bilateral trade and border agreements. In a Joint Declaration, Great Britain and Tibet bound themselves not to recognise Chinese suzerainty or other special rights in Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention which would have guaranteed Tibet's greater borders, its territorial integrity and full autonomy. China never signed the Convention, however, leaving the terms of the Joint Declaration in full force. The Simla Conference constituted a recognition
by both Britain and China of Tibet's sovereignty and of its capacity to negotiate and independently enter into treaties on an equal basis with other states.
Tibet conducted its international relations primarily by dealing with the British, Chinese, Nepalese and Bhutanese diplomatic missions in Lhasa, but also through government delegations travelling abroad. When India became independent, the British Mission in Lhasa was replaced by an Indian one. The Indian Government sent the following communication to the Government of Tibet: "The Government of India would be glad to have an assurance that it is the intention of the Tibetan Government to continue relations on the existing basis until new agreements are reached on matters that either party may wish to take up. This is the procedure adopted by all other countries with which India has inherited treaty relations from His Majesty's Government."
During World War II Tibet remained neutral, despite strong pressure from the United States, Britain and China to allow the passage of military equipment through Tibet. Had Tibet been a part of China, as China claims today, Tibet could not have declared neutrality in a war in which China was a belligerent, nor would its neutrality have been respected, as it was, by other powers.
Tibet never maintained extensive international relations, but those countries with whom it did maintain relations treated Tibet as they would any sovereign state. Its international status was in fact no different say, from that of Nepal. Thus, when Nepal applied for membership to the UN in 1949, it cited its treaties and diplomatic relations with Tibet to demonstrate its full international personality. Even the last official Chinese Head of Mission in Lhasa, Shen Zonglian, who was asked by the Tibetan Government to leave the country when China turned Communist and Mao Tse-tung declared his intention to 'liberate' Tibet, conceded that "since 1911 Lhasa [i.e. Tibet] has to all practical purposes enjoyed full independence."
The invasion of Tibet
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 and occupying half the country, 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 invasion of Tibet had started, the Tibetan army was defeated, and China threatened to advance onto Lhasa if its terms were not agreed upon), the agreement lacked any validity under international law, it was void ab initio. The presence of 40,000 troops in Tibet and the prospect of the total obliteration of the Tibetan state, left Tibetans little choice. At his first opportunity to do so in freedom, the Dalai Lama repudiated the agreement, when he set foot in India following his escape in 1959.
CONCLUSION
Tibet, on the eve of the Chinese invasion was a fully independent country. In the course of Tibet's 2,000-years history, the country came under a degree of foreign influence only for short periods of time in the 13th and 18th centuries. Few independent countries today can claim as impressive a record. As the Ambassador of Ireland to the UN, and later Irish Foreign Minister, Frank Aiken remarked during the General Assembly's debates on the question of Tibet (1961), "for thousands of years, or for a couple of thousand years at any rate, [Tibet] was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here."
Numerous other countries made statements in the course of the UN debates (in 1959, '60, '61 and '65) that reflected similar recognition of Tibet's independent status. Thus, for example, the delegate from the Philippines stated: "It is clear that on the eve of the invasion in 1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country". The delegate from Thailand reminded the General Assembly that the majority of states "refute the contention that Tibet is part of China". The United States joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese 'aggression' and 'invasion' of Tibet. In 1959, 1961 and again in 1965, the UN General Assembly passed resolutions (1353 (XIV), 1723 (XVI), and 2079 (XX)) condemning Chinese human right abuses in Tibet and calling on that country to respect and implement the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Tibetan people, including their right to self-determination.
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 by the PLA 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 recognises 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 13th and 18th centuries. Such assertions, based solely on re-interpretations and distortions of past imperialist or colonialist claims, would never stand in a court of law.
PART II: Validity of principal Chinese arguments
As stated at the start of this statement, China bases its presence in Tibet on two grounds: One is that Tibet has always been an integral part of China. Another is that Tibet was backward, economically and socially, and therefore had to be "liberated."
From the review of Tibet's status contained in Part I, it emerges that Tibet's recorded history goes back 2,000 years and that Tibet has existed as a state for well over 1,000 years. During this period, from time to time Tibet has come under varying degrees of influence from the surrounding powers. The Mongols in the 13th century, the Manchus in the 18th and 19th century and the British in the 20th century all claimed certain rights in Tibet for short periods of time. In total, foreign powers exercised considerable influence in Tibet for a little over 200 years.
If you look at the arguments China has advanced to prove that Tibet has always been an integral part of China, all that China can find in its favour are historical events of limited validity in the face of the principal currents of Tibetan history. In the 7th and 8th century, there were two weddings of Tibetan Emperors to Chinese imperial princesses. In advancing this argument the Chinese carefully ignore the Tibetan emperor's many other wives, including a Nepalese princess, given to him in marriage by neighbouring rulers, and the fact that the Chinese wives were reluctantly given under threat of invasion. China also argues that in this early period of Tibetan history it had a great cultural influence in Tibet. But what country has not been influenced culturally by its neighbours? The extent of cultural influence has no bearing on the political or legal status of states. In fact, Tibet was influenced much more by its southern neighbours, India and Nepal.
China also justifies its position on the basis of the Mongol domination of Tibet in the 13th century. How does the fact that the great Mongol Khans, Kublai and his successors exerted a dominant influence over Tibet and conquered China, which they ruled for 100 years, make Tibet part of China? Most of Asia and large parts of Europe came under Mongol domination. Are those territories today also part of China or could China claim them? Under such reasoning, Britain should be part of France, for both were under Roman domination.
China today also claims that relations between the Qing Dynasty and Tibet unmistakably show that Tibet was, at that time, an integral part of China.
The Manchus had influence over Tibet in the 18th and 19th century. The Manchu emperors established spiritual and undoubtedly political links with the Dalai Lamas who ruled Tibet. These links were similar to those established between Mongol rulers and princes, though perhaps not so close. At the height of the Manchu power, after they had conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty, Manchu emperors exerted considerable influence in Tibet. They had a Resident with a small escort. They sent troops to help Tibet against invaders. At times they even interfered in internal affairs of Tibet.
At the height of Manchu power, therefore, the relationship could best be compared to that of a protectorate. In that situation, a country may offer protection to another state in exchange for influence or even control over foreign affairs. A country may station troops or a 'resident' in a protected state to safeguard its interests and conclude treaties on behalf of a protected state. A protected state, or satellite, may be controlled by the protector in several ways, such as influence in foreign affairs and internal affairs, presence of troops, sphere of influence, and by the exclusion of others dealing with the protected country. Neither protectorates, nor satellites, however, lose their independence. If the presence of foreign troops, influence, interference, or military or even political alliances mean a loss of independent statehood, what states today would be independent?
Even if, for the sake of the argument, we were to assume some greater form of dependency or even a loss of independence under the Manchu Empire, that would still leave the conclusion unchanged. With the fall of the Manchu Empire in 1911, all Tibet's relations with its eastern neighbour were cut off. Whatever ties existed between the Dalai Lamas and the Manchu emperors of the Qing Dynasty were extinguished. From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state.
Tibet never maintained extensive international relations, but those countries with whom it did maintain relations treated Tibet as they would any sovereign state. In fact, as I stated earlier, Tibet has in its history been freer than most states. It was never colonised, that is until 1950, when most colonised nations were in the process of gaining or regaining independence. Tibet was, as I have said, a sovereign state in 1950. Since then, nothing has occurred to transfer sovereignty to China. Therefore today, Tibet is a state under illegal occupation.
China entered and occupied Tibet by force. Sovereignty cannot be acquired or transferred by the threat or use of force, at least since the Charter of the UN came into effect. China is one of the world's strongest proponents of this rule. China imposed a treaty on Tibet, by the threat and use of force. Such treaties are invalid ab initio, under international law. This means that whether or not they are repudiated, which the Dalai Lama did at the first opportunity, such treaties have never had any validity.
China has maintained its control over Tibet by continued threat and use of force. If one cannot acquire sovereignty by the illegal use of force, one cannot acquire it by simply continuing to use force long enough. It might be different if the continued occupation was peaceable, with a sufficient degree of acquiescence and there were no challenges to the claims.
In Tibet, the Chinese require hundreds of thousands of troops to control a population of 6 million people. Tibetans have revolted on numerous occasions. During the best known revolt in 1959, over 100,000 Tibetans were killed. In 1972, 12,000 Tibetan people were killed. There was a guerrilla war until 1974. Underground resistance is growing.
The exile government and exile community, pose a constant challenge to Chinese claims. The Tibetan Government in exile, which is the continuation of the legitimate government of independent Tibet in Lhasa, functions as a true government (with an executive, legislative and judicial branch), despite the difficult circumstances. As the authoritative international jurist and judge P. Jessup noted: "nothing illustrates [the] dynamic aspect of the continuity of the occupied State better than the existence and activity of exiled governments or, as is sometimes more radically said, States in exile."
Tibet is the largest territory to have been robbed of its sovereignty since World War II, and the Tibetan government in exile is the only functioning government in exile in the world. Even with respect to smaller areas, such illegal annexations have not been recognised. Once again, China is one of the world's greatest proponents of the rule that territory cannot be acquired by force, by unequal or coerced treaties, nor by a prolonged maintenance of control. Thus, by China's own admission, Tibet today should not be recognised to be part of China.
It should again be stressed that China has never claimed to have annexed Tibet in 1950 or since 1950. China claims that its right to possess Tibet is based only on ancient history, that is, the three arguments mentioned earlier. None of them have been found to demonstrate that Tibet was annexed to China and became an integral part of that country. Therefore, Tibet today is still legally an independent state. Its continued occupation by China is a serious violation of international law. That is the correct way to view the situation and to judge China's behaviour in Tibet and its handling of the Tibetan issue internationally.
China has also argued that Tibet was backward and that Tibetans needed China's help to develop. An article in the Beijing Review, representative of this widely held view among Chinese, expressed a typical colonialist view that "we have come to civilise the poor backward natives." Tibet was backward economically, technologically and socially. So was most of Asia in 1950, including most of China. It is true that some countries in Asia were considerably more advanced in these fields. But certainly compared to countries such as Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, to mention a few Central Asian countries, Tibet was not very different. Even if Tibet was especially backward, could such an argument provide sufficient reason to invade and occupy a country?
I might add, that perhaps what struck me most on my recent visit to Tibet, is that China has little to show for over four decades of occupation in terms of improving the Tibetan people's standard of living. Of course the infrastructure has been improved and today many new buildings have gone up, greatly expanding most cities. But most material improvements do not benefit the ordinary Tibetans much. On balance, the years of occupation have brought unprecedented suffering and hardship to the Tibetan people, in no conceivable way proportional to any benefits the Chinese might claim to have brought to Tibet. Never before have the Tibetans suffered such political, religious and physical oppression nor such economic deprivation, including famines. There is probably no Tibetan family that has not had some loss through death, imprisonment or injury to its members. Alexander Solzhenitsyn once described the Chinese regime in Tibet as "more brutal and inhumane than any communist regime in the world."
CONCLUSION
As a consequence of China's continued occupation Tibetans are being reduced to an insignificant minority in their own country. Tibet, as a state, nation, people, is scheduled to disappear. After years of oppression, systematic destruction on an unprecedented scale, Peking is today transferring millions of Chinese into Tibet as part of the final solution to the question of Tibet, in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits population transfer.
At this time, two separate communities are made to exist side by side throughout Tibet. The Tibetan communities live mainly in small villages and towns, devoid of any modern amenities, or in what have become the ghettos of former Tibetan, now Chinese cities, such as Lhasa, Gyantse, and Shigatse. They have little education, low income, and deplorable sanitary and medical conditions. The Chinese communities live in no luxury either. But they and their children have a far superior education in Chinese schools, they have better medical facilities, higher income than Tibetans, and numerous perks from the Chinese government. Perhaps most important, the Chinese own and run the controlling means of production and economic advancement and run the administration. The two communities do not mix, for there exists pronounced mutual dislike.
What are the alternatives for the future of Tibet? A buffer state demilitarised, de-nuclearized, run by Tibetans, under some firm agreement that satisfies China's security needs and Tibet's rights to self-determination? Or is the disappearance of Tibet, and regional instability this may bring with it, inevitable? It is not inevitable if we recognise and treat the issue for what it is: China has been permitted to expand its empire and effectively to turn Tibet into a colony, when other powers have been forced to give up their colonies and dismantle their empires. China's policies in Tibet are typical of the more oppressive forms of colonialism. China openly practices racial discrimination in Tibet, while China and everyone else condemns racism when it rears its ugly head elsewhere. Colonialism is out. China should be told it must shed its colonies as others have had to do.
