Beijing's claims on Tibet reflect a desire to preserve the integrity o China's territorial borders that were established through historical pacts.
If this were not enough justification, China also pretends its invasion of Tibet in the early 1950s was an act of humanity. Tibetans were portrayed as oppressed victims of a medieval and feudal order who needed to be liberated by the healing hand of the Chinese Red Army.
Tibet, now known as Tibet Autonomous Region, was forcibly annexed and occupied in 1951 soon after Communist forces ousted the Kuomintang government from its rule over China. Then, in 1959, thousands of Tibetans were forced into exile after brutal suppression of a national uprising against the occupation.
Upon close inspection, both assertions of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet fail to convince either as a matter of history or logic. In the first instance,China is staking its claims based upon dubious treaties or contacts between imperial powers.
On the other hand, most Tibetans no longer feel the need to be "liberated" by an alien outside power. They are now engaged in a struggle to preserve the dignity of the indigenous people who seek the freedom to choose their own destiny within their own culture. As it is, Chinese policy in Tibet ignores local realities whereby Tibetans care more about their own distinctive culture, history and identity than they care about expressing loyalty to Beijing. Perhaps this is what is most galling to China's leaders.
Concerning Beijing's insistence upon its beneficence in dealing with the local people, this is no more convincing than was Japan's rationale for "liberating" the rest of Asia from European domination during the 1930s and 1940s. In all events, the fact remains that Tibet is perhaps the poorest and most oppressed area of China.
Much of this might not matter if Beijing would adhere to a 17-point agreement reached in 1951 between the Tibetans and the Chinese. This represented the first experiment with the "one country; two systems" arrangement that dictates Beijing's relationship with Hong Kong. But successive leaders have failed to deliver on their promises to allow Lhasa to exercise greater autonomy.
Reaching back into history, China's claims over Tibet are based upon imperial treaties or conquests. These include the Manchu Annexation of 1720 and the marriage of Tang Princess Wencheng (
In this century, there were several pacts relating to Tibet signed by European imperial powers, some of which were also overseen by the Chinese imperial court. Great Britain acknowledged Chinese suzerainty in Tibet with the 1904 Lhasa Treaty (Anglo-Tibetan Convention) whereby it exacted financial indemnity and trade concessions while also dividing Tibet and Sikkim.
In 1906, an Anglo-Chinese Convention was signed in Beijing that reversed the right of Britain and Tibet to conduct direct negotiations as conducted earlier in Lhasa. Here again, two outside imperial powers determined that the Chinese government was the administrative master of Tibet.
Later, the imperial powers of Britain and Russia signed the Anglo-Russian Convention (1907) in St. Petersburg whereupon they agreed that future negotiations over Tibet would be conducted through the Chinese government.
For those who are devoid of a sense of history (or communist ideology, for that matter), it bears recalling that one of the greatest triumphs of the 20th century was ending the imperial dominance of unwilling populations. It is fatuous and disingenuous to make territorial claims and insist upon adherence to treaties that were drawn upon between defunct imperialists.
RSS