As the fascinating rapproachment between historical frienemies the KMT and the CCP continues, The China Daily is citing Chiang Kai-shek as proof “Τibet has always been a part of China.”
The papers, co-released by the Hoover Institution, under Stanford University of the United States, and Shanghai’s Fudan University, comprise archival documents and telegrams from T. V. Soong, [And Chiang's brother-in-law] the financial minister of the Kuomintang (KMT) prior to 1949.
In a telegram to Chiang Kai-shek, then Chinese leader and KMT chairman, dated May 21, 1943, Soong wrote: “(Then British Prime Minister Winston) Churchill said that recently it has been alleged that China has concentrated troops in order to attack Tibet I replied that I have never heard of such a message.
“And meanwhile, I said that Tibet is not an independent nation, as Churchill had claimed. All previous agreements between China and Britain have recognized that China possesses sovereign rights in Tibet, and I believe this fact has already been under your careful examination.”
Chiang wrote back, saying: “By treating Τibet as an independent country, Churchill has denied the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. It’s a great insult. I did not expect Britain would make such a statement Tibet is part of China’s territory, and Tibetan affairs are China’s domestic affairs.”
Wu Jingping, professor of the department of history at Fudan University, said on Friday: “From these historical documents of 65 years ago, people can be sure that China undoubtedly possesses the sovereign rights in Tibet.”
I’ve mentioned numerous times my frustration with the use of history in this contemporary political squabble, and I love it when the word “always” is included in any historical claim, but this is really bottom of the barrel stuff. Of course Chiang Kai-shek believed Τibet was a part of China, I seem to remember he thought outer Mongolia should be too. Hell, the man claimed to rule all of China, including Τibet, while cooling his heels in Taipei for 26 years.
But on a note of–you know–actual serious historical research, the release of Chiang’s diaries is a fabulous boon for the study of Modern Chinese history, and kudos to the Hoover Institute at the Stanford Center for assisting in the compilation and cataloging of these important documents. It also sets a good example for the CCP to consider releasing the private papers of key historical figures such as Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai as well as allowing scholars greater access to archival material from the PRC era.
How about this:
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%99%82%E5%B1%80%E5%9C%96
“原版本的《時局圖》推斷約為1890年至1898年期間作品”
At least at that time, Tibet was considered as part of China.
“Tibet being part of China is the result of 50s communist invasion” is definitely a common lie of western media.
American Heritage Dictionary:
“… first flourished as an independent kingdom in the seventh century. It fell under Mongol influence from the 13th to the 18th century and later came under Chinese control (1720).”
It is not “always” part of of China, but it has been part of China since 1720.
I think the 1720 date for when Tibet came under control of the Qing Dynasty is pretty well established. At least, that’s what I use in my lectures.
Since Mongolia had control of Tibet way before 1720. Shouldn’t Mongolia have sovereignty now, if history is what we want to use as guide ?
Silly Ching Ping. Historic precedent don’t control territories. Boots on the ground does. We got our boots in Tibet, until we leave or we are dislodged, we own it. Got it?
Well said, Cao Meng De.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China_ethnolinguistic_83.jpg
From the map of China, you can see that Tibet is the “ass” of China. “China does not want to lose its ass”. Sorry about the language. I did not invent it. I gave credit of this statement to MITBBS:
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Boston/31173030.html
Sigh. Do I really have to say this?
“Under the control of” is not the same as “part of the country”. Tibet was never “part of China”, only a tributary state, a satellite of the empire. Rome/Italy would never claim any territorial rights over Turkey, Egypt, Spain – places that were part of an empire once upon a time.
‘China’ is now the People’s Republic of China, which has only existed since 1949. Tibet was not a part of that China when it was created. It had asserted itself as an independent nation since 1912 and existed as such. It only became “part of [modern] China” after the invasion in 1951. There is no “lie” in the Western media’s description of this.
Cao Meng De is entirely right. The only reason Tibet is part of China today is because the Chinese army is there. For how long? The Chinese often like to mock the Americans for the Iraq fiasco, or the Russians for Chechnya. Tibet is going to end up being the same for China unless there is some new thinking very soon. The Chinese government should really be doing a cost-benefit analysis of this situation that doesn’t just revolve entirely around ‘face’.
Simple! Just ask the Tibetans.
Tibet is no more a part of China than the Ukraine is a part of Russia. It is sad to hear 17th century feudal mentality expoused in the 21st century.
Froog, you need to be careful. Really careful in fact. As Jeremiah has said that China should just admit that the PLA invaded the territory and called it’s ours. The U.S. annexed much of its land in similar fashion in 19th century (should the Federal Gov’t “admit it and even apologize for it? And “how”?). For that, Jeremiah, history (alas, esp. history in academia!) has mostly been used for political/power legitimization. Whether in China or outside of it; contemporary as well as in antiquity. History has also been written by…, okay, I need not say more. You get the idea.
The undisputable fact is, most governments in the world DO recognize a PRC that covers the Tibet region as well as that “pesky” renegade province. Ya know, the 2 troublesome T’s. What you gonna do? Telling your own government to NOT recognize a PRC that contains Tibet region? Tell them to stand up and reproach PRC on high horse?
What I worry about is, there’s little to none covered about the injuries, deaths, and organized frustration and hatred in this ordeal. Fortunately, Chinese and non-Chinese intelligentsia didn’t all just get slant politicized and finger point. It’s easier to judge and rip into the apparent faults; yet it’s far more difficult to have a clear and consistent position and stand up to it.
Jason,
I really can’t make out what you’re saying here. Too many different points going all over the place.
I don’t dispute that Tibet is a part of China now. And I don’t believe independence for Tibet would be practicable at present.
What Jeremiah and I (and most foreign observers of the situation, I would guess) are saying that is that Tibet is de facto a part of the PRC as a result of an annexation by armed force within living memory (but, after nearly 60 years, that annexation would be enormously difficult to “undo”). Attempts to justify that annexation on the basis of “history” tend to make those who propose them look ridiculous. Attempts to do so on the basis of bad “history” look doubly ridiculous.
China doesn’t need any justification for what it did 60 years ago – it’s too long ago for anyone to care any more, it’s too long ago for it to be undone. Tibet is China’s because China says so. Tibet is China’s because China wants it. Tibet is China’s because nobody can take it away from her. Tibet is China’s because it’s been China’s for nearly 60 years. Tibet is China’s because she’s spent a shitload of money improving the infrastructure there in the last few decades.
Tibet is not China’s because Kublai Khan ruled half the known world. Tibet is not China’s because the Dalai Lama used to send the Qianlong Emperor New Year’s presents. Those arguments are utterly fatuous.
Froog,
“I don’t dispute that Tibet is a part of China now. And I don’t believe independence for Tibet would be practicable at present.”
This implies you support Tibetan independence. End of the story, yes? Of course you are offered and offended by all these Chinese excuses/explanations. Yet you can choose to
not read them or be vexed by them and maintain your belief and political agenda to separate Tibet in the future. That’s quite fine. Just be honest.
In fact, perhaps what you are worried about is Tibet might not be able to become independent beyond the present moment. It’s likely. But, it’s different to say that you demand equal human rights for Tibetan Chinese. No?
There are indeed many points that I inferred, because it’s not as simplistic as you’d like it to be. What would happen if a non-American seeks to arouse a “reconquist” of California by the Chicano populations? How unbearable would that be?
“Listen to both sides and you will be enlightened; heed only one side and you will be benighted.”
http://ourvoice.de
http://www.peaceintibet.com
http://newschecker.blogspot.com
Jason,
Your logic and your English are so all over the place that it is difficult to make out what you’re saying.
But no, it is not a fair inference from what I wrote before that I support Tibetan independence. That might be one possible solution to the present difficulties, but I think not the best one – unlikely and impractical.
Are you saying there can be no human rights for Tibetans without independence? I hope that’s not true. I support improved human rights for Tibetans, not independence.
Why do you suppose that mine – or anyone else’s – view of the problem is “simplistic”? Why do you think we would “like” it to be simplistic?? If you just go around making random and insulting remarks like that, no-one is going to pay much attention to the more serious points in your comments.
For the record, I believe the Chinese government needs to adopt some new thinking on the Tibet issue, because the current policies have been a disaster not only for Tibetans but for China as a whole. I think the way forward would involve a change in the political arrangements within Tibet, without separating it from China.
I also think independence for Tibet might become an option some way down the line, when the Chinese government can accept that it might actually be in its own best interest. I’ve said on an earlier post on here that I think it might ultimately be better for all parties if Tibet and Xinjiang (and perhaps some of the other western areas) became again what they were for much of the Imperial period, ‘satellite states’, firmly under the influence of China but not directly part of the Chinese nation. I don’t necessarily “support” that outcome, and I certainly don’t advocate it in the short term. It’s just that my instincts tell me that that is likely to be the historical trend in the longer term. China could maintain its national security interests and its access to those areas’ natural resources just as well under such an arrangement, without having to commit such massive expenditures to infrastructure improvement and policing. A smaller China would, I feel, be stronger and more stable – but it will probably take the Chinese leadership another 20 or 30 years to wake up to that possibility.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Froog. I am interested in opinions from different point of views.
But I do not agree two of your points:
(1)”Tibet is China’s because it’s been China’s for nearly 60 years”
You use China and PRC as exchangeable terms. I do think PRC is different from the general “China” term. Due to the civil war in 40s, we ended up with two separated Chinese governments: PRC in mainland China, ROC (Republic of China) in Taiwan. Both of them consider Tibet as part of China. ROC even do not officially accept the fact that Mongolia is an independent country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.jpg
Of course, due to various reasons, some people in Taiwan now want to get ride of the ROC name completely. But in my opinion, Both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same China. That is the bottom line. Taiwan is another topic that people could argue forever. So I stop here.
Your statement:
“Tibet is China’s because it’s been China’s for nearly 60 years”
Should be changed to:
“Tibet is PRC’s because it’s been PRC’s for nearly 60 years”
or
“Tibet is China’s because it’s been China’s for 250+ years”
You said “It had asserted itself as an independent nation since 1912 and existed as such.” I am not a historian so I believe you. (I do know for a short time period after Qing Dynasty, there were a lot of provinces in China announced independence.) If I deduct 1912-1949 from 1720-2008, that is about 250 years.
(2) “A smaller China would, I feel, be stronger and more stable”
I do not think that is the case. If Tibet goes independent, it will certainly become a puppet government under the control of some western country. China will expose its border of Sichuan, Gansu, Xinjiang, which will be a big security issue. Sichuan alone has more than 100 millions of people. Two mother rivers for Chinese – the Yangzi River and Yellow River, both originate from Tibet.
Also I do not think Tibet independence really benefit Tibetan people, from national security point of view or from economy point of view. As you said, Chinese government” spent a shit load of money improving the infrastructure there in the last few decades”. However its independence does benefit certain people. That is why those people advocate it. And they actually get funding by doing that. It is not a perfect word. Politics is dirty.
As a member of ethic Han and a person who lived in China for a few decades, I know the Chinese policy to minorities (Tibetan, Mongolian, Hui, Zhuang etc.) Those minorities enjoy more rights than the ethic Han people. One-child-per-family plan does not apply to them, it only applies to Han people. The ethic minorities receive extra credits for the national college entrance exam. Actually I know one person who was initially registered as Han, and later eagerly changed his ethic group to Hui because his mother is Hui. And by changing ethic group to minority Hui, he will get more opportunity for his kids’ education, his own promotion etc.
I understand terrible things happened o Tibet in 60s and 70s during the Culture Revolution. The Tibetan culture was damaged badly at that time. But the damage is not only to Tibetan people. Han and other ethic groups got the same damages.
Zhuoyi,
Yes, for convenient shorthand – as I said in an earlier comment here – I do treat ‘China’ as the PRC, the modern political entity. I do not feel that previous incarnations of ‘China’ under the various Imperial dynasties have any relevance. It is the PRC that occupies Tibet today. It is the legitimacy or otherwise of the PRC’s claim to continued possession of Tibet that we were discussing.
I commented on an earlier post here that I think the ‘national security concerns’ routinely used to justify the continued possession of Tibet and Xinjiang are woefully misguided. Incorporating those territories into China makes the Chinese border untenably long and gives it more direct exposure to its main potential ‘enemies’, India and Russia. If Tibet, Xinjiang (and possibly Qinghai, Gansu, western Szechuan, Ningxia) became independent, they would, I’m sure, do so as “puppet governments” of the PRC – or at least continue to be very firmly under its influence and bound by treaty agreements on mutual security that barred any foreign military presence on their soil.
The argument that Tibet suffered mostly during the Cultural Revolution, as did the rest of China, is always trotted out, and is, I’m afraid, very unconvincing. It’s a bit like saying “the Germans suffered a lot under Hitler too, you know”; yes, sure, many of the Germans did suffer terribly, but it hardly compares to what was done in Poland and the Ukraine. The oppression of the Tibetans was not confined to the Cultural Revolution (although, having that kind of devastation “imported” by an invading power probably does seem even worse than suffering it at the hands of your “own” government): it began in the 1950s and continues to this day; much of the Tibetans’ suffering has been and continues to be the result of policies that specifically target Tibet, and are unrelated to the wider upheavals China suffered under Mao.
Zhuoyi,
Another thing – I had skipped over your Taiwan reference. But, really?! Is it impossible to use the word ‘China’ without invoking the spectre of the ROC. That seems like a whole other level of craziness to me.
Most foreigners (and most Chinese English speakers I know) say ‘China’ when they are referring to the PRC.
Most foreigners (and most Chinese English speakers I know) say ‘Taiwan’ when they are referring to the ROC.
The official Chinese (PRC) view, of course, is that the ROC doesn’t really exist, that it has no legitimate status as a separate political entity and is in fact simply a ‘rogue’ province of the PRC. Most people I know (well, all the foreigners and quite a few of the Chinese) disagree with that position; in fact, we think it is ludicrous, and disturbingly dislocated from reality.
I have no idea what the ROC’s policy position regarding Tibet is, and I can’t see that it would be of any conceivable relevance here anyway. It is the PRC that is in occupation of Tibet, and we were considering the Beijing government’s policy in regard to that.
You are right. I think “Taiwan is a province of the PRC” view (台湾是中华人民共和国一部分) is aggressive. It is hard (if not impossible) to be accepted by Taiwanese. So Beijing stopped using that sentence since 90s (I forgot exactly when).
Beijing has switched the bottom line to “台湾和大陆同属一个中国” – Taiwan and mainland China belong to the same China. President Hu Jintao reemphasized that statement after the new president of ROC (Taiwan) was elected this March. Beijing also had lowered its position for quite a while that even country name and national flag are negotiable. That means, after Taiwan and mainland China reunify, the country name could be renamed to ROC or something else.
Tibet is different. With so much violence going on – innocent people killed, local businesses and schools buried down, Tibet independence movement will soon become terrorism and will be treated as terrorist.
Thanks, Zhuoyi. I hadn’t been following all the shifts in the official rhetoric on Taiwan. However, I have still heard the ‘province’ tag being used quite recently; even if it’s dropped from official statements, you still encounter it in daily life; and in subtle but significant ways like Taiwan always being listed among China’s ‘provinces’ (which of course includes the SARs and the ‘autonomous regions’) in maps, atlases, guidebooks, etc.
I hope we don’t see terrorist movements in Tibet. I rather think, if it were going to happen, it would have happened already. Whereas Xinjiang has ready access to Russia and central Asia and can obtain arms from established Islamic terror groups elsewhere, Tibet is extremely geographically isolated, and has no close ties (that I know of) to any other country or militant organization. Also, it has a very strong tradition of non-violence in its national religion.
Even without the development of an armed resistance movement, continuing mass discontent and occasional outbreaks of violent protest will render Tibet virtually ungovernable. Rule by military occupation is never tenable in the long-term; in the modern world, it is just too goddamned expensive. China’s policies have engendered this resistance; they have made it progressively more extreme in its demands and more violent in its expression; and they may yet lead to the emergence of terrorist movements. China needs a new approach to this problem very soon, or Tibet will become a festering sore in its side – far worse than Iraq or Chechnya.
I think calling an end to the “demonize the Dalai” strategy would be a good start.
Froog,
I think you comments are very perceptive and well balanced in the face of many different inferences and speculations on your views that didn’t match what you wrote. As a broadly focussed forever student of China since the 70′s, I really appreciate you intelligent comments.
How legal or binding regarding Tibet are the Qing monarchic entries or Communist writings as they have no Tibetan co-signatures on them? No matter what wishful thinking the Chinese leaders may have, Tibet is like a kidnapped bride, heart broken, humiliated, violated, culturally robbed….That is exactly how they feel.
Never mind some footnotes from the feudal past, one needs to look forward on how to undo the suffering of a whole people. Nothing is ever cast in stone; what it takes is imagination, wisdom, open-mindedness, humanity and sensitivity to fellow men — and fellow cultures.
I agree with BuKen. China has tried to cruelly assimilate the Tibetan peoples into a culture that was never theirs. I find it a sad realisation that such brutal controll tactics are still being used in the 21st century.
There is a serious issue surrounding human rights violations towards Tibetan people. The currant protests in china have left many Tibetans severely injured and being refused medical treatment — among other things. This is heartless discrimination at its worst.
As to the questioning of whether or not Tibet was ever an indipendent country? I find the sheer fact we even have to ask the question a plain reminder of the brainwashing of the Chinese media. Tibet was, untill the 1950′s invasion, an indipendent country in fact and in law. End of story.