Tibetan Independence Movement - Positions On The Status of Tibet

Positions On The Status of Tibet

The status of Tibet before 1950, especially in the period between 1912 and 1950, is largely in dispute between supporters and opponents of Tibetan independence.

According to supporters of Tibetan independence, Tibet was a distinct nation and state independent between the fall of the Mongol Empire in 1368 and subjugation by the Qing Dynasty in 1720; and again between the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1912 and its incorporation into the PRC in 1951. Moreover, even during the periods of nominal subjugation to the Yuan and Qing, Tibet was largely self-governing. As such, the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) views current PRC rule in Tibet as illegitimate, motivated solely by the natural resources and strategic value of Tibet, and in violation of both Tibet's historical status as an independent country and the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination. It also points to PRC's autocratic and divide-and-rule policies, and assimilationist policies, regarding those as an example of imperialism bent on destroying Tibet's distinct ethnic makeup, culture, and identity, thereby cementing it as an indivisible part of China. After the fall of the Qing Dynasty, both Mongolia and TIbet declared independence and recognized each other as such.

On the other hand, opponents assert that the PRC rules Tibet legitimately, by saying that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China de jure since Mongol (Yuan) conquest 700 years ago, and that all subsequent Chinese governments (Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Republic of China, and People's Republic of China) have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty and de facto power over Tibet. In addition, as this position argues that no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition between 1912 and 1950, they say that China, under the Republic of China government, continued to maintain sovereignty over the region, and the leaders of Tibet themselves acknowledged Chinese sovereignty by sending delegates to the following: the Drafting Committee for a new constitution of the Republic of China in 1925, the National Assembly of the Republic of China in 1931, the fourth National Congress of the Kuomintang in 1931, a National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1946, and finally to another National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1948. Finally, some within the PRC considers all movements aimed at ending Chinese sovereignty in Tibet, starting with British attempts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to the CTA today, as one long campaign abetted by malicious Western imperialism aimed at destroying Chinese integrity and sovereignty, thereby weakening China's position in the world. The PRC also points to what it calls the autocratic and theocratic policies of the government of Tibet before 1959, as well as its renunciation of South Tibet, claimed by China as a part of historical Tibet occupied by India, as well as the Dalai Lama's association with India, and as such claims the CTA has no moral legitimacy to govern Tibet.