Back نقاش سيادة التبت Arabic Débat sur la souveraineté du Tibet French הריבונות בטיבט HE Perdebatan kedaulatan Tibet ID チベット問題 Japanese Debat over de status van Tibet Dutch Debate sobre a soberania do Tibete Portuguese Статус Тибета Russian การโต้แย้งเรื่องอธิปไตยของทิเบต Thai 西藏问题 Chinese
 |
The Tibetan sovereignty debate refers to two political debates. The first political debate is about whether or not the various territories which are within the People's Republic of China (PRC) that are claimed as political Tibet should separate themselves from China and become a new sovereign state. Many of the points in this political debate rest on the points which are within the second historical debate, about whether Tibet was independent or subordinate to China during certain periods of its recent history.
It is generally believed that China and Tibet were independent[1] prior to the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368),[2] and Tibet has been governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 1959.[3]
The nature of Tibet's relationship with China in the intervening period is a matter of debate:
- The PRC asserts that Tibet has been a part of China since the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty.[4]
- The Republic of China (ROC) asserted that "Tibet was then definitely placed under the sovereignty of China" when the Qing dynasty (1644–1912) ended the brief Nepalese invasion (1788–1792) of parts of Tibet in c. 1793.[5]
- The Tibetan Government in Exile asserts that Tibet was an independent state until the PRC invaded Tibet in 1949/1950.[6][7]
- A number of outside scholars maintain that Tibet and China were ruled by the Mongols during the Yuan dynasty, treating Tibet and China as separate realms under a common rule.[8] Some other regard Tibet as "part of a Mongol-ruled Chinese state".[9] Many scholars maintain that Ming China (1364-1644) possessed no administrative control in Tibet,[10] while some scholars indicated that Imperial Chinese superiority continued after Yuan and lasted until Qing.[11] Tibet was part of the Chinese Empire,[12] or at the very least subordinate to the Manchu-ruled China[13] during much of the Qing dynasty.[14]
- Many scholars maintain that Tibet, from 1912 to 1951, enjoyed de facto independence[15] with no formal international recognition.[16][17] Some other indicate that Tibet was lack of independence during and after the 1914 Simla Conference.[18][19]
- ^ "China was only a part of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, it was neither the authority nor the inheritor of the dynasty". Central Tibetan Administration. November 8, 2019. Archived from the original on December 4, 2019. Retrieved January 29, 2020.
- ^ Wang & Nyima 1997, p. 20; Sperling 2004, p. 21
- ^ Sperling 2004, p. 17; Shakya 1999, p. 90; Latourette 1964, p. 419; Spence 1999, p. 500
- ^ Wang & Nyima 1997, p. 20; Grunfeld 1996, p. 256; Sperling 2004, p. 10
- ^ Sperling 2004, pp. 6, 7; Goldstein 1989, p. 72. Both cite the ROC's position paper at the 1914 Simla Conference.
- ^ Sperling 2004, p. 21
- ^ "Five Point Peace Plan". The Dalai Lama. 21 September 1987. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
- ^ Feigon 1996, p. 58; Gernet 1972, pp. 369, 384; Goldstein 1997, pp. 3, 4
- ^ Grunfeld. A.T., Reassessing Tibet policy, Foreign Policy in Focus, 2005
- ^ Goldstein 1997, pp. 4, 5; Feigon 1996, pp. 63–64
- ^ Petech, Luciano, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century, 1950, p250
- ^ Latourette 1964, p. 253 "an appendage of". Gernet 1972, p. 481 "part of". Goldstein 1989, p. 44 "subordination of Tibet to China".
- ^ Sperling 2004, pp. 27–29
- ^ Feigon 1996, pp. 86, 88, 90 in contrast, claims that the Qing had little control over Tibet and compares Tibet with the Vatican.
- ^ Shakya 1999, p. 4 "independent state", Shakya 1999, p. 90 "international legal status" was "independent state". Feigon 1996, p. 119 "border between the two countries" of China and Tibet in 1917. Goldstein 1997, pp. 30-37, Chapter titled "Interlude: De Facto Independence"; Latourette 1964, p. 333 "practically independent" from 1912, 419 "accepted the suzerainty of the Communists" in 1951.
- ^ Clark, Gregory, In Fear of China, Cresett Press, 1968, p38
- ^ Bajoria, Jayshree. "The Question of Tibet". www.cfr.org. Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on 31 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
- ^ Grunfeld, A. Tom, The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1996 p67, "[In Simla] Tibet gave up territory and switched suzerains from China to Britain. It certainly did not achieve "independence" - unless the state of independence is judged solely by the right to sign treaties with other nations. Moreover, the treaty...put Lhasa on record as being willing to admit to de jure Chinese suzerainty."
- ^ Grunfeld, A. Tom, The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1996, p275, n53, "Tibet's independence was so lacking that during one session of the conference, when the Tibetan delegate was ill, Sir Charles Bell represented Tibet."