"Ownership" translates the two concepts 主權 zhǔquán ("sovereignty") and 歸屬 guīshǔ ("be under the jurisdiction of").
BTW, I am waiting for the PRC to officially declare Chinese sovereignity over Mongolia on the basis of
... Upon its founding, the Republic of China declared itself a unified republic of the Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, Tibetan and other races.
In any case, the independence of both Tibet and Mongolia continued not to be recognized by other powers, which continued to recognize at least the sucerainty of the Republic of China over these areas.
The rulers of Khalha gathered at a meeting during a Mandala devotion ceremony for Bogdo Gegeen Jebzundamba Hutuhtu VIII (1870-1924) in July of 1911 and carried out a decision to restore the independent Mongolian statehood in the view of the nearing collapse of the Qing Dynasty. Another decision was made in November 1911 to mobilise 1000 warriors from each of the 4 aimags of Khaklha and, on the occasion of the presence of these Khalha troops in Urga, the Manchu amban in Urga Sando was deported back to Beijing. Mongolia became independent on the 1st of December of 1911.
I could have sworn I read in some article on Asia Times that the Russian Czar (or the Soviets, can't recall) came to some "understanding" with China by which China got to keep Inner Mongolia and Mongolia was allowed to reamin independent, presumably as a buffer state, but I cannot find that datum anymore (nor on the Internet in general, actually.)
Incidentally, some claim that Tibet historically stood in more or less the same relationship with China that Thailand, Vietnam, Mongolia and Korea did, raising the general question, Why of all these must Tibet accept Chinese sovereignty over it today?
Francesco Sisci in Asia Times notes:
Another issue to consider is Britain's recognition of the Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet during the time of Emperor Qianlong. The concept of suzerainty might be weak and too undifferentiated as it is applied to political relations between Beijing and other "territories", say Korea or Siam (now Thailand), that are now "safely" out of the Chinese empire. But the English might have felt the weak and vague word fit their encroaching ambitions over the Chinese empire. The Russians were nibbling at the Qing Empire from the north; the French were established to the south in Vietnam and were aiming north; from their Indian base, the English wanted to reach the bordering Himalayan plateau. It was in the interests of all these powers to affirm, de facto or de jure, the weakness of Chinese rule over Tibet or other territories. <...> There might be more reasons for Vietnam - a country that has used Chinese writing for centuries, speaks a language close to southern Chinese dialects and was "conquered" during the Han Dynasty - to be considered part of China than Tibet. The latter speaks and writes a language very different from Chinese and has only more recent contacts with China proper. But recent history decided otherwise, so Tibet is within China and Vietnam is independent. Similar arguments could be made about Korea. The case of Vietnam is of particular interest. In 1950, when China reached to Tibet and the Vietnamese border, Vietnam was held by France and encroaching there would risk war with a great power. Tibet, conversely, was without any strong protector. Great Britain, which left India in 1947 but still retained large Asian interests, could have moved in by setting up some sort of protectorate in Tibet and by providing assistance, including military assistance. It could then have placed troops on the Himalayan plateau overlooking the sprawling Chinese plains. It is understandable that newly born Maoist China wanted to avoid this situation. "Tibet a defining issue for China"
<...>
There might be more reasons for Vietnam - a country that has used Chinese writing for centuries, speaks a language close to southern Chinese dialects and was "conquered" during the Han Dynasty - to be considered part of China than Tibet. The latter speaks and writes a language very different from Chinese and has only more recent contacts with China proper. But recent history decided otherwise, so Tibet is within China and Vietnam is independent. Similar arguments could be made about Korea.
The case of Vietnam is of particular interest. In 1950, when China reached to Tibet and the Vietnamese border, Vietnam was held by France and encroaching there would risk war with a great power. Tibet, conversely, was without any strong protector. Great Britain, which left India in 1947 but still retained large Asian interests, could have moved in by setting up some sort of protectorate in Tibet and by providing assistance, including military assistance. It could then have placed troops on the Himalayan plateau overlooking the sprawling Chinese plains. It is understandable that newly born Maoist China wanted to avoid this situation.
"Tibet a defining issue for China"
At the time, foreign diplomats (and possibly also later historians) tried to translate these Chinese political territorial claims in self-serving ways. These "translations" were very important because they could justify and legitimize all kinds of territorial encroachment on the Qing Empire. In response to this process, at the beginning of the last century, Sun Yat-sen and his Nationalist party made claims that "retranslated" for his domestic and foreign audience the Chinese territorial position. Those claims became the landmark definition of modern China and included Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia.
In response to this process, at the beginning of the last century, Sun Yat-sen and his Nationalist party made claims that "retranslated" for his domestic and foreign audience the Chinese territorial position. Those claims became the landmark definition of modern China and included Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia.
A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
Dobrá otázka! A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
