The Tibetan sovereignty debate concerns two political debates regarding the relationship between Tibet and China. The first debate concerns whether Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and parts of neighboring provinces 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 debate, about whether Tibet was independent or subordinate to China during certain periods of its history. China has claimed control over Tibet since the 13th century, though this has been contested. All countries officially recognize Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China and do not acknowledge it as an independent state. While Tibetan independence advocates argue Tibet had periods of de facto independence, Chinese control was solidified in the 1950s. Today, Tibet has limited autonomy under Beijing’s oversight.[1][2]
It is generally believed that Tibet was independent from China prior to the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368),[3] and later under non-Tibetan suzerainty, initially under Mongol rulers during Yuan Dynasty. Tibet has functioned as an autonomous region within China since 1720 and has been governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 1959.[4][2]
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.[5]
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.[9] Some other regard Tibet as "part of a Mongol-ruled Chinese state".[10] Many scholars maintain that Ming China (1364-1644) possessed no administrative control in Tibet,[11] while some scholars indicated that Imperial Chinese superiority continued after Yuan and lasted until Qing.[12] Tibet was part of the Chinese Empire,[13] or at the very least subordinate to the Manchu-ruled China[14] during much of the Qing dynasty.[15]
Many scholars maintain that Tibet, from 1912 to 1951, enjoyed de factoindependence[16] with no formal international recognition.[17][18] Some other indicate that Tibet was lack of independence during and after the 1914 Simla Conference.[19][20]
^Petech, Luciano, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century, 1950, p250
^Latourette 1964, p. 253 "an appendage of". Gernet 1972, p. 481 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGernet1972 (help) "part of". Goldstein 1989, p. 44 "subordination of Tibet to China".
^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."