I’ve seen the occasional “Free Tibet” bumper sticker and heard about the Dalai Lama’s receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, but I was wondering why exactly Tibet is controlled by China? Is there some sort of strategic resource located only in Tibet that I don’t know about, or is it simply because of Mao and the Cultural Revolution that it was taken over?
Actually, when you get right down to it, it’s mostly a matter of nationalism and “cultural pride”. Tibet has a somewhat complex history vis-a-vis China in the last few centuries, but generally speaking it has been at the very least Tibet has been in what you could call China’s sphere of influence ( at various times it has been vassalized by forces that present-day China would regard themselves as being heir to ).
If you want I can go into excrutiating detail ( I’d give you a link to a thrad where this was discussed earlier, but I think it was lost in the Great Board Outage awhile back ). But the short of it is that China just regards Tibet as being theirs in one sense or another based on historical and cultural ties ( it was these cultural connections, having to do with the interplay between Lamaist Buddhism and the Mongols, that you could say started this historical attachement ). Tibet of course is less down with this interpretation.
- Tamerlane
Strategically, take a look at a map of China. Tibet and traditionally Tibetan areas make up over 10% of China’s land mass and provides a buffer to India. If Tibet were not part of China, then perhaps the other areas such as Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria should not be part of China either, and all of these areas make up about 50% of China’s land mass. Also Tibet does have a lot of natural resources.
Just to be factually correct, China moved to regain control of Tibet in 1950 (16 years before the beginning of the cultural revolution).
Yeah, but I’d argue it’s a pretty unnecessary buffer, strategically. It’s not like anybody is really capable of mounting a massive attack through the Himalayas in this day and age.
Well, sure. But as we’ve discussed in the past, Tibet is more equivocal historically than those other areas that were firmly incorporated into the Qing empire ( not just vassalized or weakly psuedo-annexed like Tibet ) in the 17th-18th century. Loss of Tibet might aggravate separtism a little in those regions, but not much more than there already is at this point, I’m guessing.
I still think it is mostly just stubborn nationalism 
( of the imperialistic sort ).
- Tamerlane
I think there is great fear within China of the domino effect. Tibet goes, and soon after Taiwan and Hong Kong as well as Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria.
Historically, Tibet and India never had a war yet post founding of the PRC yet India and China have had multiple skirmishes. Last I remember was in the late 1980’s but there are also some disputed territory occupied by China.
Oh, I agree. I just don’t think that was a major motivator for moving in there in the first place. Though it might have been a minor factor, considering Chinese possessivness towards Tibet.
And I do think you’re right in that there might have also been some genuine ( perhaps slightly paranoid ) worry of the spread of Anglo-Indian influence if they didn’t move in to pre-empt it. Though realistically I still think China doesn’t have much to fear from external adversaries on the Tibetan front. 'course when have the Maoists ever been entirely realistic :D?
- Tamerlane
Unless you count Gurkha raids in the 18th century. But we probably shouldn’t ;).
- Tamerlane
Tibet is pretty rich in natural resources, such as coal, chromium, lithium, uranium, gold and tin. The Chinese want it.
They want it enough to put a strain on their relations with India, which shelters the government-in-exile. Enough to make them help out Pakistan in the arms race by sending missiles.
They are also determined to make Tibet “Chinese” by shipping in as many Han Chinese as they can.
That resource is water.
Do you know that the Brits attempted to invade Tibet at least once in the 19th century, and the Indians did in 1961?
India didn’t invade Tibet, they tried to seize a slice of disputed border territory along the MacMahon line - Not quite the same thing.
The British campaign I’m aware of was actually in the 20th century ( 1904 ) and was not really an attempt at conquest, more a small punitive expedition to force recognition of pro-British treaties and was done at a time when China wasn’t in real control in Tibet - i.e. the campaign appears to have been aimed more at the 13th Dalai Lama ( the Chinese subsequently re-asserted themselves in 1906 ).
At any rate, this doesn’t really address my point. What I was saying was just that launching a large-scale invasion of China proper ( i.e. north and east of Tibet ), through Tibet ( i.e. even if someone else other than China controlled Tibet ) , is pretty unlikely to be a viable strategy for anyone. Therefore Tibet as a strategic military buffer serves only a limited purpose ( which I grant isn’t the same as no purpose ).
- Tamerlane
Hmmm…Perhaps I should further clarify my opinion ( which is only what this is ).
Do I think China wants Tibet’s mineral resources? Yes.
Do I think Tibet is interested in a buffer against India? Yes.
Do I think China may have moved out of fear that some other power would gain undue influence over Tibet? Yes.
Do I think China is concerned that releasing Tibet from their direct control ( either independant or autonomy ) will result in greater unrest in minority areas elsewhere in China? Yes.
Do I think any of the above is the biggest single reason China seized Tibet? No. I think the biggest reason China grabbed Tibet is because, rightly or wrongly, they simply regard Tibet as theirs. Part of the historic Qing empire ( in whatever respect and however intermittently and weakly ) and therefore part of China. Like I said, I think it ultimately comes down primarily to a breed of nationalism - Building the ‘Greater China’.
All of the other reasons aren’t unimportant, but IMHO they are strictly secondary.
- Tamerlane