Tibet: short history

Tibet: Short History

In 1951, following the military invasion of Tibet in 1949, the Tibetan government signed a ’17-Point Agreement’ with China, surrendering its independence in return for substantial autonomy in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), an area approximately half of the area historically inhabited by Tibetans and regarded by Tibetans as Tibet. When the Dalai Lama fled into exile in 1959, he repudiated the 17-Point Agreement as soon as he set foot on Indian soil, arguing the agreement had been signed under duress and that China had violated the obligations entered into under the agreement.

Prior to the signing of the ’17-Point Agreement’ Tibet functioned as a de facto independent state. Tibet had its own (religious) authority, money, passports, language as well as education and health systems. Tibet maintained trade and diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries such as British India, Nepal and Mongolia. Tibet’s relationship with subsequent Chinese dynasties was described in terms of Cho-Yon, ‘priest-patron,’ the Dalai Lama being the spiritual protector of the Chinese emperor, who was to offer protection.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, Tibet concluded a number of international treaties that exposed the myth of full Chinese authority in Tibet as well as the complex relationship between Tibet and China. Following a British military expedition into Tibet in 1904, led by Younghusband, Tibet concluded a treaty with the Government of British India granting trade concessions and far reaching preferential status to the British. China was quick to react and converted the agreement into one between Britain and China through a subsequent Adhesion Treaty in 1906. Under this agreement, China assumed the indemnity payments the Tibetans had incurred under the 1904-Treaty to compensate the British for the invasion. In subsequent trade agreements negotiated between the British, China and Tibet, Tibet had a subordinate position. Following the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911, Tibet expelled the Chinese representative in Lhasa and issued what amounted to a declaration of independence in 1912. In 1913 Mongolia and Tibet concluded a treaty of mutual recognition of their independence.

The British coined the term ‘suzerainty’ to describe the relationship between Tibet and China in this period. While being the first to admit that this term lacked precise definition, the last British representative in Lhasa, Sir Hugh Richardson, defined suzerainty as “nominal sovereignty over a semi-independent or internally autonomous state”. Tibet’s undefined status was in fact part of a careful balance of power the British tried to maintain between Russia, China and British India, having sufficient influence in Tibet without fully incorporating it while at the same time not allowing Tibetan independence nor full sovereignty of China over Tibet. The British interest in maintaining Tibet as a buffer state was most obvious in 1914 when Britain attempted, through tripartite negotiations at Simla (North India), to secure Chinese recognition of Tibetan autonomy while not allowing either Tibetan independence or full Chinese sovereignty over the whole of Tibet. At the negotiations, China claimed sovereignty over eastern Tibet (Inner Tibet) while offering a substantial measure of autonomy for the western part of Tibet (Outer Tibet, roughly equivalent to the present-day Tibet Autonomous Region TAR). In the end, the Simla Convention was not signed by China but ratified by Britain and Tibet establishing the international boundary (McMahon line) between British India and Tibet (Lamb, 1966). Large tracts of this boundary (now) between India and China remain contested until this day.

In subsequent years, with British tutelage and assistance, Tibet evolved into a de facto independent state with centralised authority under the thirteenth Dalai Lama. At the same time, British influence restrained Tibet not to claim full independence. Although China was a combatant, Tibet maintained neutrality in the Second World War. However, Tibetan attempts to achieve recognition of its independence after WW II and to become a member of the League of Nations failed.

After the formal proclamation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese army moved into Tibet in 1950. Tibetan appeals to the United Nations fell on deaf ears and consideration of Tibet in the General Assembly was shelved contingent on a peaceful resolution of the situation. Only after the flight of the Dalai Lama into exile did the United Nations General Assembly adopt three resolutions on Tibet: in 1959, 1961 and 1965 (res. 1353, 1723 and 2079). The resolutions called for respect for the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the Tibetan people, including the right to self-determination, and for respect for their distinctive cultural and religious life. The United Nations did not give any concrete follow-up to these resolutions.

Subsequently, with China’s assumption of Taiwan’s seat at the United Nations, the UN remained silent on the issue of Tibet. This situation lasted until 1988, when human rights abuses in Tibet were mentioned for the first time in official reports of the UN Special Rapporteurs on Torture, Summary Executions and Religious Intolerance. Only in 1989, more than 20 years after the last debate on Tibet, did a number of western governments issue official statements on the situation in Tibet at the UN Human Rights Commission. The following year, the UN Sub Commission on the protection of Minorities, a subsidiary body of the UN Human Rights Commission, adopted a resolution against China, demanding respect for the human rights and identity of the Tibetan people. It was the first time in its history that the UN had adopted a resolution against a permanent member of the UN Security Council.