Toward the end of the 10th century the kingdom began to disintegrate, eventually splitting into a number of small principalities. Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan incorporated the area into his empire in 1206. In the 15th century the Mongols named the head of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism the Dalai Lama (monk with an ocean of wisdom) and in the 1640s they granted him political power in Tibet.
In the 18th century Tibet came under the control of China. However, in the course of the following century, Chinese authority diminished steadily. Meanwhile, British colonial officials in India, including administrator Warren Hastings, attempted to secure a foothold in the region. These efforts proved unsuccessful, mainly because of Tibetan resentment of an unsuccessful Nepalese invasion of Tibet in the 1790s, which the British had supported.
In 1904 the British, who were alarmed over purported Russian influence in Tibet, invaded the region. At that time, Tibet had considerable autonomy under Chinese authority. In 1906 the British and Chinese governments established an agreement by which Britain recognized the Chinese Empire as Tibet’s suzerain power (state that controls another state’s international affairs). The agreement also provided for the Chinese government’s payment of a large indemnity to the British, who subsequently withdrew their troops. In 1907 the British and Russian governments concluded an agreement pledging noninterference in Tibetan affairs and acknowledging Chinese suzerainty.
Following the revolutionary overthrow of China’s Qing dynasty in 1911, Tibetans reasserted their independence and began expelling all Chinese officials and troops from the region, which they accomplished by 1913. That year representatives of Britain, China, and Tibet met in Simla, India, to discuss Tibet’s status and borders. The representatives reached a tentative agreement that provided for a region known as Inner Tibet to become part of China proper and for Chinese suzerainty over an autonomous Outer Tibet, located further west. Despite British and Tibetan acceptance, the Simla agreement was never ratified by the Chinese government, and China later repudiated the convention, refusing to abandon its claim to all of Tibet. Relations between China and Tibet grew increasingly strained, culminating in 1918 in an armed conflict in eastern Tibet. Later that year, the British helped negotiate a truce between Tibet and China. Subsequent efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful.
Why would the British need to help negotiate a truce between Tibet and China if Tibet was in fact part of China?
As discussed many times on this board, from 1911 (or more accurately 1913 when the Ambans were kicked out of Tibet) overthrow of the Qing dynasty, Tibet enjoyed *de facto * independance up until the 1950-1959 period when the PLA invaded and subjugated that area.
The key question is whether Tibet enjoyed * de jeure* independance after 1913. And this question has never been clearly proven one way or the other as far as I know. You can search for The Status of Tibet: History, Rights, and Prospects in International Law by Michael C. Van Walt Van Praag, who exhaustively covers this issue. His conclusion is for de jeure independance.
I have doubts in my mind about the legitimacy of China’s rule over Tibet. But seeing that China has done a good job improving the living standards of the Tibetans and modernizing Tibet, they should have a right to continue to rule Tibet.
Anything I do not refute can be taken as truth. If I have I refutation, I will post it.
China Guy: Are you really in China? If so, why are you bashing it?
Soooooo…Jiang has had two threads closed by now. 27 posts in his first day. Quoting verbatim from websites without citing them…hmmmmmmmmm.
But to the point…
If China claims Tibet, it has Tibet. Nobody’s challenging it. Heck, if nobody had challenged Iraq when Kuwait became it’s 19th province, then Kuwait would no longer exist. Nation-states exist because other nations recognize soveriegnty of nations over their territory.
Hypothetically, does increasing the standard of living in a country justify its military takeover? Even if the OP was 100 percent corrrect, would it have excused the taking of a country by force? I feel it wouldn’t.
tsk Sloppy. Encarta needs to do some revising. Genghis ( Chingiz ) acheived control of Mongolia in 1206 and the mongol campaign against the outside world wasn’t launched until 1209 ( against His-Hsia state ). China wasn’t invaded until 1211.
Again an error. The Dalai Lama was appointed ( or rather given the title and retroactively declared the third reincarnation ) in the 16th century. 1578 to be exact. Also the assumption of authority in Tibet of the Dalai Lama wasn’t so simple an affair as him being “granted” political control. Rather it was a religious and political alliance of military force ( the Mongol khanate of Koko Nor, a very regional power ) and administrative acumen ( the Lamas ) and involved a prolonged conflict with a rival sect ( backed by a rival faction of Mongols striving for local supremacy in Koko Nor ). Technically, Tibet was the suzerain. However the relationship is hopelessly complex and who ran what varied.
First was actually in 1788, second ( better remembered ) was in 1791. British support was assumed in Nepal based on promises of friendship made by British emissaries, but was never explicit ( or necessarily even real ) and when the Nepalese requested actual support from Lord Cornwallis, they got zilch.
Campaign extended into 1904.
Eh, I’ll stop there ( the rest might be perfectly correct, I’m just getting tired of checking ).
Moral - Never put 100% faith in encyclopedia entries. They get the broad picture, but often flub the details.
This is unpleasantly close to arguments produced in favor of slavery in the old South, in the USA. The idea was that slaveholders were doing slaves a favor by getting out of Africa, to the better living conditions of the cotton plantations.
I have little doubt that if the West conquered Red China, we could do a good deal to raise the living standards of the peasants there. I have just as little doubt that you would consider this a good idea.
You are new around here, aren’t you? That isn’t how it works.
Interesting. Do you feel that ChinaGuy might be in some danger for disagreeing with the party line if he lives in the PRC? This does not bode well for your ideas on how grateful the Tibetans ought to be to the Chicoms for invading.