This is G o o
g l
e's cache of http://www.freetibet.org/info/fact15.htm.
G o
o g
l e's
cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may
have changed since that time. Click here for the current page
without highlighting.
To link to or
bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:x8FW5NPKdXIC:www.freetibet.org/info/fact15.htm+treaty+between+tibet+china+tang+dynasty&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor
responsible for its content.
These search
terms have been highlighted: treaty between tibet china tang dynasty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back |
Tibet Facts No.15:
Tibet and China - Historical Relations
The
distortion of history for political ends is a feature common to almost all
international disputes. This is especially true in the case of relations between China and Tibet. Modern Chinese historians have regularly tried to prove that Tibet has historically been a part of China. The following examination of a
selection of historical periods and incidents is an attempt to explode some of
the myths surrounding this issue.
Relations between the Tibetan Kings and the
Chinese Tang Dynasty (7th-9th Centuries)
The first
recorded contacts between Tibetans and Chinese took place in
the 7th century, following the unification of Tibet under King
Songtsen Gampo and the
establishment of the Chinese Tang Dynasty. Two incidents are regularly
mentioned during discussion of this period: the marriage of a Chinese princess
to Songtsen Gampo in 641, and a peace pledge signed between the two countries in 821.
The Chinese
claim that through this marriage and a series of meetings and alliances, the
Tibetans and Chinese "cemented political and kinship ties of unity and
formed close economic and cultural relations, laying a solid foundation for the
ultimate founding of a unified nation" (Tibet: Its Ownership and Human Rights
Situation, China White Paper, 1992, p.3).
In fact,
these incidents show that at this time Tibet
and China were independent states of equal
strength. The marriage alliance of 641 was sought by the Chinese after Tibetan
armies had captured towns in Sichuan province (Tibet: A Political History, Tsepon
W.D. Shakabpa, 1967, p.26). The treaty of 821, despite its familial
language (the so-called "uncle-nephew" relationship), actually
defined relations between two "fully sovereign
states" (Tibet and Imperial China, Josef Kolmas, 1967, p.11).
Tibet and China under the Mongols: The Yuan Dynasty (13th-14th
Centuries)
During the
early 13th century, Genghis
Khan united the nomadic tribes of north Asia into a powerful Mongol
confederation, which soon grew into a continent-spanning empire. Both Tibet and China fell under the control of this
empire: the Tibetans after peaceful submission in 1244-47, and the Chinese
following the defeat of the Jin Dynasty in northern China (1234) and the subsequent Mongol conquest of the southern Song Dynasty (1235-79). Chinese historians
now claim that Tibet was thus "officially
incorporated into the territory of China's Yuan Dynasty
" (China White Paper, p.3). They then go on to argue, somewhat
inexplicably, that "this unification of the whole nation conformed to the
advance of history and the desire of all nationalities" (Highlights of
Tibetan History, Wang Furen & Suo Wenqing, 1984, p.57).
That Tibet and China both came under the political influence of the Mongols far from
indicates unification of the two countries, though. Northern Burma, North
Vietnam, Korea and large areas of Siberia were likewise all part of the vast
Mongol Empire, yet none are claimed by Beijing today. Tibetan monks in fact
enjoyed some dominance in religious affairs, after "Lamaist" Buddhism
was made the official religion of the Mongol Empire.
The Emergence of the Dalai Lamas and the Chinese Ming Dynasty (15th-17th
Centuries)
By the 15th
century, political authority in Tibet
had passed into the hands of contending religious hegemonies, which were
eventually replaced by a system of rule under the Dalai Lamas. In China, the native Ming Dynasty overthrew the Mongols, and then
concentrated much of its attention on economic expansion and maritime
exploration.
One of the
most incredible arguments from the Chinese side is that the Ming Dynasty somehow inherited a territorial
claim to Tibet from the Mongols. But there is no
evidence whatsoever to suggest that Tibet
was subordinate to China at this stage. Communication did
continue between the Ming emperors and Tibetan
lamas, but there is some contention about its level and significance. Again,
during this period both Tibet and China existed as separate and fully sovereign states.
Tibet under the Influence of the Manchus: The Qing Dynasty (18th-19th
Centuries)
In 1644,
Manchu armies captured Beijing and established the Qing Dynasty. During their expansion into
southern China, local resistance was crushed with
brutal violence. In Tibet, the 5th Dalai Lama therefore
sought to establish peaceful relations with this emerging Manchu power, and was
subsequently invited to Beijing in 1652.
Over the
course of the next 50 years, the Manchus were able to exploit differences between rival groups within the Tibetan
Government, and so established some degree of influence in Lhasa: Manchu
officials called 'ambans' were stationed there from 1728 until the fall of the dynasty in 1911. There is, however, much
disagreement over the actual extent of their power. Chinese claims that the
ambans enjoyed "equal standing with the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Erdeni
(Panchen Lama)" (China White Paper, p.8) seem somewhat exaggerated, and even during a period of Manchu
expansion under the Qianlong Emperor (1736-95), they were instructed "not
to interfere in the internal policies of Tibet
and to refrain from exploitation" (Tibet: A Political History, p.148).
Tibet did fall under some form of Manchu
"protection" at this time - subordinate in name to a government in
Beijing; and the region of Amdo was placed under direct military control after
an anti-Manchu uprising in 1724. But this government and occupation, just like
that of the Mongols, was not an ethnic Chinese one, and suggestions that Tibet became an integral part of a
"Chinese" empire during this period are wholly indefensible.
Tibet Subject to 'Western Aggression': The Simla Convention (1914)
By the end
of the 19th century Tibet had acquired massive strategic
importance for Britain and Russia, as both were in the process of expanding
their imperial "spheres of influence" in Central Asia. After a series
of trade missions and then military expeditions (such as the Younghusband
expedition of 1904, which exposed the weakness of the Manchu hold over Tibet), the British were able to gain an
advantage, and so convened a tripartite conference to discuss Tibet's status at Simla in 1914.
The
Tibetans arrived at the conference with written evidence proving the historical
independence of Tibet. The Chinese delegation simply
argued that Tibet's subjugation by the Mongols and the
Manchus proved it had become an integral part of China, and should therefore now be ruled as part of the new Republic
of China from Beijing. Negotiations were
difficult, and the solution eventually put forward recognised Chinese
"suzerainty" over Tibet,
but guaranteed the autonomy of western Tibet,
and provided for complete Tibetan control over internal affairs. The Chinese
representative at the conference initialled the agreement, but did not proceed to
a full signature under pressure from Beijing. Britain and Tibet then declared that they would abide
by the provisions of the agreement, while China
would be unable to enjoy any of the privileges contained within.
The Chinese
now claim that their failure to sign the agreement left it "null and
void", and argue that "the Simla Conference has gone down in the
annals as an ignominious deed by British imperialism" (Highlights of
Tibetan History, p.153). The legal status of the Simla Convention is still open to
debate, but its true significance lies in its recognition of Tibet as an independent nation with which
binding agreements could be negotiated (eg: the Lhasa Treaty of 1904). Throughout the
Nationalist (Guomindang) period, no Chinese government was able to exert any
influence over Tibet.
Communist Invasion (1949-59)
The
invasion of Tibet by troops from the People's
Liberation Army in 1949-50 is described in official Chinese histories as a
"peaceful liberation". A 17 Point Agreement was signed between the Communist Govern-ment and
Tibetan officials in May 1951, which apparently "enjoyed the approval and
support of the people from every ethnic group in Tibet" (China White Paper, p.14).
In fact,
discrimination and the suppression of traditional practices in eastern Tibet drove hundreds of Tibetans up into
the mountains to conduct guerrilla warfare, while thousands more fled west to
Lhasa to escape Chinese persecution. In March 1959, growing Tibetan resistance
exploded in an uprising against the Chinese occupation. The 14th Dalai Lama
fled into exile in northern India, and the subsequent Chinese crackdown in Tibet was brutal. Even the Chinese
figures record 87,000 deaths in the National Uprising and its aftermath;
Tibetan sources suggest as many as 430,000 were killed in the Uprising and
subsequent years of guerrilla warfare.
Conclusion
Over the
course of their historical relations, Tibet
and China passed through periods of strength
and dominance and times of weakness and division. Both were able to threaten or
influence their neighbours on occasion. But East Asian perceptions of
international relations were fluid enough that countries could be subordinate
to a neighbour, even for considerable periods of time, without losing their
sense of independence. This was especially true in cases where a nation was
able to maintain a distinct identity.
Many modern
Chinese historians have claimed that those countries which fell under the
imperial influence of various Chinese dynasties somehow became integral parts
of China. This is a misleading argument,
based solely upon a doctrinaire misinterpretation of historical facts. Tibet has always maintained a distinct
cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic identity, and this is proof enough
to support its claims to independence.
FURTHER READING:
Tibet Facts 1 (Major Allegations: Key Facts on
the Chinese Occupation)
Tibet Facts 16 (Tibet and the PRC)
Tibet File 2 (Seventeen Point Agreement - May
1951)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Tibet Campaign Welcome page
