当前位置:中国和平统一促进会  >  2012年第三期  > 正文

TIBETAN INDEPENDENCE IS HARMFUL TO THE NATION AND A MENACE TO THE STATE

日期:2012-06-23 10:27 来源:《统一论坛》 作者:Wang Ren and Xu Zhuo

字号:  [小]  [中]  [大] 打印本页 关闭窗口

  

  Tibet has been an inalienable part of China’s sacred territory. No country has ever given formal diplomatic recognition to Tibet as an independent country, and Tibet has never broken away from the sovereign jurisdiction of the Chinese central government to become independent. The Chinese government’s sovereignty over Tibet is beyond all doubt. Nevertheless, in recent years, led by the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, and with the support of outside powers, Tibetan separatists, under the guises of “human rights” and “religious freedom,” have repeatedly organized and incited various “Tibetan independence” activities that employ violent and covertly violent measures to publicize the theory of Tibetan independence and mislead public opinion. This affects not only the harmony and stability of China, and the favorable international image China has established over many years, but severely tramples on the Chinese people’s national dignity and feelings. The incidents of March 14, 2008, shocked the world and revealed the separatist nature and violent tendencies of Tibetan independence activities. Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama is still playing the role of the exiled monk and spinning egregious lies in the West in his affected tone of compassion and humility. We must, therefore, utterly expose the source and true nature of Tibetan independence, refute the lies coming from the Dalai Lama’s separatist clique and more effectively fight back against the forces fighting for Tibetan independence.

   

  The Historical Relationship between Tibet and

  the Chinese Central Government

   

  China is a unified multi-ethnic country. The Tibetan people are an ethnic group within China with a long history. Like other ethnic groups, Tibet played a glorious part in the process of the founding and development of the great motherland and has made valuable contributions in the struggle to safeguard national unity. Tibetans and the Han Chinese are closely linked in terms of their language, kinship and cultural roots. 

  During the Eastern Han Dynasty, the Bailang and Panmu Kingdoms in Tibet were influenced by the political power of the Eastern Han, and their attempts to outdo each other in the tributes they sent to the Eastern Han illustrate their feelings of allegiance at that time. During the Sui and Tang dynasties, building on the large military conquests in the Qinghai and Tibetan plateau of the Sui Dynasty, the Tang sought political marriages with the Tubo (later Tibet) as well as military and cultural exchanges, which laid a solid foundation for Tibet to later come under the administrative jurisdiction of China’s central government. The most famous example is undoubtedly the niece of Emperor Taizong, Princes Wencheng, who was sent to Tibet in 640 A.D. to marry Songtsan Gampo, the thirty-third king of the Yarlung Dynasty. Later, during the second year of the reign of Emperor Muzong of Tang, the “Changqing Alliance” led to even closer relations between the Tang and Tubo.

  By the Song Dynasty, the Tubo regime had collapsed, but the central government continued its uncle-nephew relationship with the Tibetan regional authority. In 1247, the Mongol prince Godan Khan and Sagya Pandit met in Liangzhou, which brought an end to the state disunity that had existed in Tibet since the collapse of the Tubo Dynasty 400 years previous, and gradually brought the region of Tibet under the administrative oversight of the Yuan Dynasty.

  In the middle of the 13th century, following the formal establishment of the Yuan Dynasty, Tibet officially became part of its territory. Kublai Khan and the leader of the Sakya School of Tibetan Buddhism, Drogon Chogyal Phagpa, established an effective administrative system in Tibet, the Xuanzheng Yuan (Ministry for the Spread of Governance), and set up a number of government bodies and posts responsible for Tibet’s military and political affairs. Between 1268 and 1334, the Yuan central government sent officials to Tibet to record the number of registered households and local population, set up courier stations, open up lines of communication and implement a tax system. Since then, despite the rise and fall of successive dynasties and the repeated replacement of central governments, Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of China’s central government.

  During the Ming and Qing dynasties, the political, economic and religious links between Tibet and the central government grew stronger. During the Ming Dynasty, the central government used religious forces to implement administrative governance over Tibet, which was once again in a state of disunity, including bestowing titles on eight political and religious leaders who were to act as officials for the Ming Dynasty. Economically, the trading of tea for horses led to stronger ties. The Qing central government established further institutional management over Tibet. In the political arena, during the reign of Emperor Yongzheng, the Qing government established the post of High Commissioner to Tibet to oversee local administration for the central government and oversee political and military affairs in the region. Later, Emperor Qianlong instructed the Seventh Dalai Lama to establish a governing council (the Kashag), and in 1793 formulated the “Twenty-Nine Article Imperial Ordinance for Better Governing Tibet.” The ordinance clearly stated that the High Commissioner was to handle Tibetan affairs, enjoy equal status to that of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama, and hold ultimate authority over Tibet’s military, financial and diplomatic affairs. The ordinance also introduced the drawing of lots from a golden urn to standardize the system of selecting the reincarnations of tulkus. In terms of religion, the Fifth Dalai Lama and Fifth Panchen Lama, both of whom were from the Gelug School, had their titles bestowed by Emperor Shunzhi in 1653 and Emperor Kangxi in 1713 respectively, which solidified the titles of “Dalai Lama” and “Panchen Erdeni” and their respective political and religious duties. Subsequent Dalai Lamas and Panchen Erdenis also had their titles bestowed by the central government, a practice which gradually became institutionalized. In addition, a number of local Tibetan leaders requested audiences with Qing emperors, including the Fifth Dalai Lama who had an audience with Emperor Shunzhi, the Sixth Panchen Lama who had an audience with Emperor Qianlong and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama who had an audience with Emperor Guangxu. All of this adequately demonstrates that Tibet recognized and valued the jurisdiction China held over the region.

  The Dalai Lama clique has claimed that, “During the time of the Republic of China, Tibet had ‘de facto independence.’” But despite the frequent wars and infighting, which affected the central government’s control and influence over Tibet, the Nationalist government’s jurisdiction over the region was never in doubt. In 1927, when the Nationalist government was established in Nanjing, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama sent a delegation to establish contact and swear allegiance to China’s central government. Tibet’s governing council, the Kashag, together with the Panchen Lama, established a representative office in Nanjing. In 1931, members of the Kashag and the Ninth Dalai Lama also attended the National Congress in Nanjing. Following the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, the search, confirmation and enthronement of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama were all reported to the Nationalist government for its approval, and the Nationalist government provided the necessary financial and material support. This all clearly shows that Tibet was legally under the jurisdiction of the Chinese central government.

  From a historical perspective, the relationship between Tibet and the Chinese central government has always been close. The two have shared kinship and are obviously closely affiliated. As such, the “historical basis” for Tibetan independence put forward by the Dalai Lama clique does not hold up when confronted with cold historical facts.

   

  The Story behind Tibetan Independence

   

  For the past 700 years the Chinese central government has exercised sovereignty over Tibet, and at no point during this period has Tibet been an independent country. Prior to the early 20th century, the word “independent” did not even exist in Tibetan. The Dalai Lama clique and international anti-China forces have claimed that from the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, until the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Tibet was a “fully autonomous” country. Historical facts refute this fallacy. The fact that the Fourteenth Dalai Lama’s appointment required the approval of the Nationalist government sufficiently proves that Tibet was not an independent power at that time. The root cause of the Dalai Lama clique and international anti-China forces fervently advocating so-called Tibetan independence is colonialism. Forces in favor of Tibetan independence first emerged as a result of imperialist aggression and developed with the support of foreign forces.

  1. Origins: British Support

  Tibet is strategically located at the heart of the Asian continent. As a natural barrier due to its high altitude, and with its excellent geo-strategic position, it was highly coveted by the British. In order to protect British colonial interests in India and to overrun China’s relatively weakly defended western region, the British deliberately invaded Tibet under the guise of assisting Tibetan independence.

  Militarily, Britain’s invasion of Tibet and its armed support for Tibetan efforts to expel the Han Chinese, achieved the aim of driving a wedge between Tibet and the central government. In 1888 and 1904, Britain launched wars of aggression in Tibet, and used bombs and nefarious tricks to blow open the doors to Tibet, enslaving the local population and plundering the region. In 1904, following the second such invasion, the British took advantage of friction between the Kashag and the Qing government to seek cooperation with those in positions of power in Tibet in fighting the central government. The British began stationing large numbers of troops around Tibet’s border, to threaten the Qing army and in preparation for a future invasion. After the Xinhai Revolution erupted, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama took advantage of the disarray of Chinese troops in Tibet and Sichuan, and with British support, managed to drive the Chinese army and Han Chinese out of Tibet. In February 1913, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama returned to Lhasa and proclaimed Tibet’s independence. Although the countries of the world, including Britain, did not recognize his declaration of independence, the British nevertheless reached a compromise and consensus with Tibet’s elite, and began using the discord between Tibetans and the central government to aggressively pursue its own agenda.

  Diplomatically, by making secret agreements and signing unfair treaties, Britain violated China’s sovereignty. On January 1, 1912, following the establishment of the Provisional Government of the Republic of China, Sun Yat-sen dispatched troops to Tibet under the banner of “the Republic of Five Nationalities” to protect China’s sovereignty. British diplomat Sir John Newell Jordan communicated to the Chinese that “China must not interfere in the internal affairs of Tibet” and that “the Chinese government must promise to maintain Tibet's autonomy under China's suzerainty in return for British recognition of the government of the Republic of China.” The use of the word “suzerainty” avoided recognition of the Chinese government’s sovereignty over Tibet and angered the central government. But China’s ruler at the time, Yuan Shikai, was desperate for British recognition and loans, and was therefore forced to agree to take part in tripartite negotiations between Britain, Tibet and China—the infamous Simla Conference. The Simla Accord signed at the Simla Conference divided Tibet into “Outer Tibet” and “Inner Tibet.” In essence, the accord nominally made Tibet a part of China, but in reality made it an autonomous entity under British influence. At the conference, the British used attachments to the accord as bait in an attempt to cheat the Chinese representative into signing the accord. After this failed, the British attached a note denying China any privileges under the agreement and signed it as a bilateral accord with Tibet. Even more shamefully, at the meeting the British representative, Sir Henry McMahon, signed two secret agreements with a representative from the Tibetan local government: a “Britain-Tibet Trade Agreement” and the “Notes on Memoranda and Letters Exchanged Regarding the McMahon Line.” The former stipulated that British and Indian merchants would be granted extraterritorial jurisdiction, which in practice made Tibet a British semi-colony. The latter, which was a border agreement, ceded 90,000 square kilometers of Tibetan territory to British India. Despite the fact no Chinese government has ever signed the Simla Accord and successive governments have denied its legitimacy, it served to plant the seed of Tibetan independence. (To be continued)

   

   

相关新闻

友情链接

中国日报英文版两岸频道 | 中国日报中文版两岸频道 | 湖南中国和平统一促进会 | 广西中国和平统一促进会 | 贵州中国和平统一促进会 | 江西中国和平统一促进会 | 浙江中国和平统一促进会 | 中国政府网 | 中共中央统一战线工作部 | 国务院台湾事务办公室 | 外交部 | 人民政协网 | 黄埔军校同学会 | 全国台联 | 中国侨联 | 台盟 | 新华网 | 人民网 | 中新网 | 中央电视台 | 

统一之声二维码 请关注微信公众号