[Totalitarian Regime Alert]
Yup. But it's still worth posting, because this is the version that one billion fellow humans get to read. And believe. And guess what: it may be not all wrong.
... By the Tang Dynasty (618-907), the Tibetans and Hans had, through marriage between royal families and meetings leading to alliances, cemented political and kinship ties of unity and political friendship and formed close economic and cultural relations, laying a solid foundation for the ultimate founding of a unified nation. ... In the mid-13th century, Tibet was officially incorporated into the territory of China's Yuan Dynasty. Since then, although China experienced several dynastic changes, Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of the central government of China. ... In 1368 the Ming Dynasty replaced the Yuan Dynasty in China, and inherited the right to rule Tibet. ... When the Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty in 1644, it further strengthened administration over Tibet. ... Upon its founding, the Republic of China declared itself a unified republic of the Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, Tibetan and other races. ... After an inspection tour in Lhasa by Wu Zhongxin, chief of the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, in 1940, Chiang Kai-shek, then head of the central government, approved Tibetan Regent Razheng's request to waive the lot-drawing convention, and the chairman of the national government issued an official decree conferring the title of the 14th Dalai Lama on Lhamo Toinzhub. Excerpts from Tibet -- Its Ownership And Human Rights Situation published by Information Office of the State Council of The People's Republic of China
... In the mid-13th century, Tibet was officially incorporated into the territory of China's Yuan Dynasty. Since then, although China experienced several dynastic changes, Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of the central government of China.
... In 1368 the Ming Dynasty replaced the Yuan Dynasty in China, and inherited the right to rule Tibet.
... When the Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty in 1644, it further strengthened administration over Tibet.
... Upon its founding, the Republic of China declared itself a unified republic of the Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, Tibetan and other races.
... After an inspection tour in Lhasa by Wu Zhongxin, chief of the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, in 1940, Chiang Kai-shek, then head of the central government, approved Tibetan Regent Razheng's request to waive the lot-drawing convention, and the chairman of the national government issued an official decree conferring the title of the 14th Dalai Lama on Lhamo Toinzhub.
Excerpts from Tibet -- Its Ownership And Human Rights Situation published by Information Office of the State Council of The People's Republic of China
The word "Ownership" was obviously not a very tactful translation choice. The title in Chinese is 西藏的主權歸屬與人權狀況, and the word "Ownership" translates the two concepts 主權 zhǔquán ("sovereignty") and 歸屬 guīshǔ ("be under the jurisdiction of"). Together they form a compound word , most likely a legal term, whose definition I cannot find, but which some google searching indicates is usually translated simply as "sovereignty" tout court, or "de jure sovereignty" (whatever that means), and it comes up often in connection with islands whose territorial control is in dispute, e.g. Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, the Falkland Islands, etc. The term contains the notion of "returning", as the character 歸 (guī) simply means "to return" or "to revert". 屬 (shǔ) in this context means "to belong". So, the entire term 主權歸屬 may mean "sovereignty of/over a territory that has been/should be/will be properly returned or restored to its original locus". A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
Sorry. I should not have joked about that. A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
"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
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.
