Even though tensions have been persistent and rising in Tibet for years, today, Tibet has come to the most perilous moment in its 3000-year existence. The continuous strain between the Chinese Government, struggling to maintain control over the region, and its indigenous people, fighting to be free from PRC’sover bearing control. This has caused mass violence and disruptedthe lives of millions of innocent inhabitants of the region. An estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have died as a direct consequence of the Chinese invasion (Dunham, 2004). The Chinese Government has been universally accused of causing Human Rights Violations and Environmental Degradation in Tibet. Chinese government claimsthat its actions in Tibet are in the interest of “Modernization of Tibet”, however, these have led to the further marginalizationof the ethnic Tibetans and the destruction of Tibet’s delicate ecosystem and indigenous culture. With the help of this paper, I would like to discuss the situation in Tibet and China’s geopolitical and economic interest in maintaining its control over the region.

I will begin by discussing the political positions of The People’s Republic of China and The Tibetan Government in Exile onthe Tibetan Sovereignty Debate. In this section I will also present a brief timeline of the events that shed light on the very dynamic relations that existed between China and Tibet between the 7th Century AD and 1912 AD. The next part will discuss the current situation in Tibet (post 1912). This section will also include a discussion the current issues of Human RightsViolations, Environmental Degradation and Development in Tibet onthe part of the Chinese Government. The last part of my paper will focus China’s geopolitical and economic interest in maintaining control of Tibet.

The Tibetan Sovereignty Debate encompasses two political debates. The first addresses the idea of the reunification of allethnically Tibetan areas into a single a “Greater Tibet” which would include the Tibetan Autonomous Region along with the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan. The second debate discourses whether Tibet was independent or subordinate toChina, historically.

Figure 1: TAR and “Greater Tibet”

(The dotted line outlines what the Tibetan Government in Exile claims to be the boundary of “Greater Tibet”)

The general consensus over the world is that China and Tibetwere independent prior to the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368) and the People’s Republic of China has ruled Tibet since 1959. However, it is the nature of their relationship in the intervening time that has been a matter of debate for decades now.

The People’s Republic of China claims that Tibet has been anindivisible part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) and thus, according to international law and the Succession of Statestheory, all subsequent Chinese governments have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising sovereignty over Tibet (Wang and Nyima, 1997). It also does not recognize the concept of “Greater Tibet”, as claimed by the Tibetan Government in Exile. The PRC asserts, that the ethnically Tibetan areas outside TAR, in the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan, were not controlled by TAR even before 1959, and were under the administration of The Republic of China (Goldstein, 2007). It further charges “foreign imperialists” to have contrived the ideaof “Greater Tibet” in order to fragment China (Goldstein, 2007).

On the other hand, the Tibetan Government in Exile claims that Tibet was an independent state until the People’s Republic of China invaded it in 1949 (Lama, 1987). His Holiness the DalaiLama in an interview with Newsweek said, “The Chinese government

wants me to say that for many centuries Tibet has been part of China. Even if I make that statement, many people would just laugh. And my statement will not change past history. History is history.” (Lui, 2008) In addition to dismissing its subjugation to China it also considers the reunification of “Greater Tibet” to be one of its most important political goals (Goldstein, 1997).

With the presence of such contrasting claims by the two governments and large amount of speculation on the part of the international community, the exact chronology of events remains ambiguous. However, it is an accepted fact that China and Tibet did share a political relationship throughout. Following is a timeline of their relationship according to Melvyn C. Goldstein’sbook “ The Snow Lion and the Dragon”:

With thecollapse of the Qing dynasty in 1912 and the declaration of China as aRepublic, theChinese Garrison surrendered to Tibetan authorities and Chinese soldiers weredisarmed and

escorted out of Tibet. After decades of rebuffing attempts by Britain and China to establish control, Tibet declared its independence and established Tibetan autonomy, which the Chinese Republican Government refused to acknowledge. During this time Tibet accepted no interference from Beijing and in fact banned all Chinese troops and officials from residing or even entering

Tibet (Goldstein, 1997). Thus, Tibet entered its era of de facto independence from China.

Post 1912, even though China maintained its stance on being in control of Tibet, the events within the country prevented it from exercising its control over the region. The Japanese Invasion of China in 1937 saved Tibet from having to defend its de facto independence. While China was not in state to exercise its control actively, using a propaganda campaign that essentially sought to create the impression that Tibet was in fact a part of China, China vigorously reinforced its position onTibet, all over the world.

After World War II, the Republican government entered into aCivil War with the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao Zedong and four years later in 1949, Mao Zedong inaugurated the People’s Republic of China. Tibet since its declaration of independence in1912, had still been functioning under de facto independent polity, even though it was militarily weak and internally disunited. Tibet had also failed to gain international recognition for its claim to independence. In 1950, China enforced their claim over Tibet and the 14th Dalai Lama officially became the head of state. In 1951, Tibet and China entered talks once again, at the end of which Tibetan leaders were forced to sign the “Seventeen Point Agreement” Treaty, whichwas dictated by China. This treaty professed to guarantee TibetanAutonomy and to respect Buddhism as a religion while also allowing China to establish civil and military headquarters in Lhasa. However, China failed to honor the treaty and thus an era of full-scale uprising began in Tibet. The Tibetan government under the Dalai Lama was exiled to Dharamsala and the Chinese government established the Tibetan Autonomous Region.

In 1958, under the leadership of Mao, China began implementing its first Five-Year Plan to accelerate China’s transition into a modern industrialized state in the form of the “Great Leap Forward” with the aim of doubling China’s agricultural production. The Great Leap turned out to be an economic failure of massive proportions for China and also led Tibet into a Famine. In a confidential report by Panchen Lama tothe Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai (1962), he wrote “In many parts ofTibet people have starved to death… In some places, whole

families have perished and the death rate is very high. This is very abnormal, horrible and grave” (Samsara: 1962 Panchen Lama Report). It was also during this time that the destruction of 6000 Tibetan monasteries took place (Craig, 1992).

In 1959, Tibet experienced a National uprising in response to Chinese repression. The misery of the Tibetans due to the Great Leap, was compounded by the millions of incoming Han Chinese immigrants. On June 20, 1959 the Dalai Lama stated: “The ultimate Chinese aim with regard to Tibet, as far as I can make out, seems to attempt the extermination of religion and culture and even the absorption of the Tibetan Race… Besides the civilianand military personnel already in Tibet, five million Chinese settlers have arrived in eastern Tso, in addition to which four million Chinese settlers are planned to be sent to U and Sung provinces of Central Tibet. Many Tibetans have been deported, thereby resulting in the complete absorption of these Tibetans asa race, which is being undertaken by the Chinese.” As a result a large number of Tibetans took up guerilla warfare in an effort toretaliate against the repression caused by the PRC. The Chinese government, in reprisal, made large efforts to prevent the uprising from gaining momentum. According to the Tibetan Government in exile, the Chinese government, in an effort to shutdown the rebellion, killed 430,000.

After the incredible failure of the “Great Leap Forward”, China, once again under Mao’s leadership experienced another movement- the Great Proletarian Culture Revolution, in 1966. The stated objective of the Cultural Revolution was to enforced communism in the country by removing capitalist, traditional and cultural from society, and to impose Maoist orthodoxy. The Cultural Revolution, just like the Great Leap, brought about disastrous consequences for Tibet. The CCP first reformed Tibet’sfarming and nomadic pastoral areas into communes, while also attacking Tibet’s culture and religion (Goldstein, 1997). In his book “The Snow Lion and the Dragon”, Goldstein describes the situation as, “ Between the rebellions, food shortages, and struggle sessions against “class enemies”, Tibet suffered substantial privation. The loss of life is still not clearly known, but the damage to Tibet’s culture was substantial… In brief, therefore, Buddhism was destroyed and Tibetans were forcedto abandon deeply held values and customs that went to the core

of their cultural identity. The class struggle sessions and the constant barrage of propaganda contradicting and ridiculing everything they understood and felt, sought to destroy the socialand cultural fabric of the Tibetans’ traditional way of life. These were terrible times for the Tibetans in Tibet.” (Goldstein,1997, Pg 59-60)

The end of the Cultural Revolution in the mid 1970s reduced the amount of repression the part of the Chinese government on Tibet. After Mao’s death in 1976, his successor Deng Xiaoping launched initiatives of dialogue with the leaders of Tibetan Government in Exile, in the hope of persuading them to come live in China. In the mean time, the Communist Party announced a reform program intended to improve the economic standards for Tibetans and foster for them some form autonomy to practice theirethnic and cultural traditions. This would have been a refreshingchange from the hard line policies dictated by the Maoist government in the 1960s, similar to those practiced in the 1950s.However, there was one key difference between the 1950s and this period: the absence of the Tibetan government (Goldstein, 1997). As a result, the Communist Party ordered a change in policy. Thusbegan the Communist Party’s efforts to “Revitalize Tibet’s culture, religion and language” through the building of more universities and colleges, and increasing the ethnic Tibetan representation in the local government (Goldstein, 1995). However, the liberalization of the economics caused the migrationof Han Chinese migrant workers in Tibet to increase, thereby onceagain threatening the livelihoods of the indigenous Tibetans withpotential competition. In the mean time, the dialogue between thetwo governments continued but yielded nothing.

The calm triggered by the death of Mao in the 1970s, was rather short lived. In 1986, the Tibetan Government in Exile began international efforts to gain support for their cause as a human rights issue, and received some backing from The United States House of Representatives, which passed a resolution in support of Tibetan human rights (Goldstein, 1997). Meanwhile, four major demonstrations occurred in Lhasa against the Chinese rule. Goldstein understood these riots to be “Spontaneous outbursts of pent up resentment and anger” generated, at least inpart, by the prospect of the United States pushing for an independent Tibet (Goldstein, 1997, Pg 86). The riots led to the

withdrawal of liberal policies and Beijing imposed martial law inTibet in 1989.

The year 1989 brought about two more set backs for Beijing. First, The Dalai Lama received the prestigious Nobel Prize for Peace. Tibetans, all over the world considered this a major victory- a global validation of their cause. Secondly, the Tiananmen Square massacre, which for the first time brought Beijing under global scrutiny. Beijing responded to this with even more severe policies for Tibet, while the Exile government continued its efforts to gather a larger global backing.

According to Goldstein, Beijing responded extremely defensively to the events of 1989. Its reactions included briningin of educated non-Tibetans to modernize the area and its people,increase in surveillance (police personnel and equipment) in volatile areas. As a result Beijing was able to suppress protest and demonstrations. In 1990 Beijing lifted Martial Law and introduced the national Chinese policy of rapid Economic Growth through development in Tibet. This included the setting up of a railway line between Lhasa and the Chinese city of Golmud, which increased tourism and brought in even more Han Chinese.

The sensitive political situation in Tibet post 1990 and thecountless simmering socio-economic issues led to 3.14 riots in Lhasa, in 2008. James Miles, a reporter with the Economist, was the only foreign media person who was granted the rights to conduct a coverage of the riots. According to Miles, the riots were “inspired by a general desire of Tibetans, both inside and among the Dalai Lama followers, to take advantage of this Olympicyear*. But was also inspired by, “All the these festering grievances on the ground in Lhasa” (Lhasa in Seige, 2008). Miles attributed the rioting “to be primarily an eruption of ethnic hatred” (Fire on the Roof top of the World, 2008 )with social discrimination, unequal pay, and rumors of the mistreatment of Tibetans monks also playing role (Berboza, 2008).

The last sixty years of Tibet’s history, owing to its tumultuous political situation, has left Tibet in a state of turmoil. China’s policy of occupation and oppression has succumbed the lives of the people of Tibet to destruction. Today,there are four major issues that threaten the very existence of

Tibet and its people: Identity Insecurity, Human Rights Violations, Environmental Degradation and the Lack of Developmentfor the Tibetans.

Identity Insecurity (Topgyal, 2011)

In Tibet today, there are number of questions regarding their national identity. The native Tibetans feel threatened by the rapid and insurmountable influx of Han Chinese migrants into Tibet. The Han Chinese migrants not only threaten the livelihood of Tibetans in Tibet’s stunted economy by not only competing for jobs and amenities with the Tibetans, but are also the ones who control the economy. Additionally, a large number of officials inTibet’s local government are educated Chinese, who came into Tibet post 1986.Under the disguise of “Modernization” and “Development”, The PRC promotes the migrations of Chinese populations into Tibet, there by marginalizing the Tibetans- economically, politically and socially. The newly built Railway line connecting Gormud to Lhasahas significantly increased the scale of this migration. According to the website of the Central Tibetan Administration, The Rail line brings in Lhasa an estimated number 5,000 to 6,000 Chinese everyday.If this situation continues, Tibetans run the risk of becoming minorities in their own land.

Human Rights Violations (Adams, 1998)

The cases of Human Rights violations in Tibet focus mostly Cultural Genocide, which is driven by China’s propaganda of the “Complete eradication of a distinctive Tibetan Way of Life” (Adams, 1998, Pg 77). This has been evident from the onset of theCultural Revolution, which in Tibet focused on eliminating all traces of Tibetan Religion and folk culture. Practicing Tibetan Buddhists, supporters of the Dalai Lama and those who propagate the idea of a non-Chinese Tibet, all run the risk of being imprisoned at any time due to non-tolerant ideology of the Chinese government. Additionally, the government has set up

massive sinicization programs, which include unrestricted inflow of Chinese peasants to TAR, the overthrow of the use of Tibetan as a language, and efficient privileging of mandarin speakers. However, the most serious offences of human rights in Tibet are not cultural but physical. These arise from the idea of eliminating the very existence of the Tibetan population rather then altering it. These include forced sterilizations and abortions, and forced inter-marriage between Tibetans and Chinese.

Environmental Degradation

Tibet has an extremely fragile ecosystem, which is being decimated by the unsustainable pace of development that the Chinese government is employing. These unprecedented rates of urbanization in China have left Tibet to be extremely susceptibleto a number of environmental disasters.

The Tibetan plateau, often referred to as “The Third Pole” or “The Water Tower of Asia”, holds the largest number of glaciers after the North Pole and the South Pole. The Global climate change trends of increase in average temperature, are melting these glaciers and thawing the permafrost and thereby increasing the possibility of a environmental catastrophe. (Qiu, 2008)

The Tibetan Plateau also plays a major role in the flow of the Monsoon winds. It draws in the moisture and becomes storage container for water, then distributes water through rising heat and transpiration to create monsoon rains across the region. The rapid destruction of Tibet’s fragile ecology through deforestation, mining and population transfer may change the pattern of the Monsoons with disastrous consequences.

Major Asian rivers, including the Mekong, Yangtze and Salween, originate in Tibet. Chinese dam projects on these will damage theenvironment, displace local population and affect the water supply of a large share of the world’s population, currently residing in Asia.

Chinese Capitalism Masked as Tibet’s Development

Despite China’s Claims of investing huge amounts of capital in Tibet, The Tibetan Autonomous Region continues to be China’s poorest administrative unit (Dreyer, 2010). The modernization of Tibet through development is a actually topic Tibetans have no say in. The Chinese Government makes these decisions; and they are more often than not, in the interest of China rather than Tibet.

o Roads and Railways: The land transport system, built withthe aim to produce tourism in Tibet and therebystrengthen its economy. It also allows military travelthroughout the region to be conducted with ease and helpswith the migration of Han Chinese into Tibet. The worryis that Tibetans can be displaced from their own citywith the large number incoming migrants from theMainland.

o Surveillance: The Government maintains constantsurveillance through the presence of police, the militaryand cameras, insisting that it is in the name of “keepingthe peace”

o Investment in infrastructure in Tibetan plateau region isa means for future extraction of petroleum and mineraldeposits there.

Despite much uprising in Tibet in the past decades, and a vast amount of international pressure and criticism aimed at China refuses to vanquish control over Tibet. China continues to hold it position over Tibet to satisfy its geopolitical and interests.

Geopolitical Interest: o Tibet: China’s Anchor into the Himalayas: The Himalayas

are bordered on the north by the Tibetan Plateau makingit China’s only access to the mountain range.

o Encirclement of India: On the other side of Tibet lies India, a significantly large country, developing almostas fast as China, with a comparable population.

“Containment of India has been “China’s Great Game”. AsZhang Guihong admitted, “An emerging India does mean a strong competitor for China from South, West, Southeastand Central Asia to Indian and Pacific Oceans where their interests and influences will clash”. Chinese activities “clearly indicate that concerted efforts areunderway aimed at the strategic encirclement of India .. . quite obviously designed to marginalize India in the long-term and reduce India to the status of a sub-regional power . . . it [China] is unlikely to countenance India’s aspirations to become a major regional power in the Asia-Pacific region”. (Scott, 2008)

If China did end up withdrawing from Tibet, the Indian population would begin migrating into Tibet, thus turning it into an extension of India and accordingly shifting their strategic frontier to border Sichuan andYunnan, giving India potential access to threaten the Chinese core.

Economic Interest: Water Resources: Tibet, also known as the “Water

Tower of Asia”, is the source many of Asia’s majorrivers. Mekong, Yangtze, Brahmaputra, Indus, Yellow River, Ganges and Salween all originate

from the Tibetan Plateau. The water supply from these rivers, support millions of people downstream in China, India, Bangladesh Bhutan etc.(Immerzeel, Stoorvogel, Antle, 2008).

China’s rapid urbanization has led to concerns about its access to water supplies to provide for the growing needsof the rapidly urbanizing population. Consequently, China is moving aggressively to dam and divert water resources of Tibetan Plateau. (Economy, 2010)

Mineral Resources: Chinese Government issued a report outlining the discovery of large mineral deposits under the Tibetan plateau, with an estimated value of $1.28 Billion.(New York Times, 2007) These can double Chinese reserves of Zn, Cu,Pb. Chinese government sees this as a way to alleviate the nation’s dependence on foreign mineral imports for its rapid urbanization processand growing economy. (Economy, 2010)

Thus, using the research conducted in this paper, we realize thatsituation in Tibet is extremely turbulent. The People’s Republic of China’ political policies have destroyed the lives thousands of native Tibetans. We also realize the China’s stance on the Sovereignty of Tibet, is in reality, not triggered by sovereigntyat all, instead it is manifested, keeping in mind China’s own interests.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Adams, V. (1998, January 1). Suffering the Winds of Lhasa: Politicized Bodies, Human Rights, Cultural Difference, and Humanism in Tibet. . Retrieved May 8, 2014, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1525/maq.1998.12.1.74/asset/maq.1998.12.1.74.pdf?v=1&t=huy9v46l&s=5b54b616604095e06b5b1fc263d55d2f65b87769

2. Barboza, David (March 25, 2008). "Pressed Oer Tibet, China Berates Foreign Media". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 23, 2008. Retrieved April 23, 2008.

3. Craig, Mary. Tears of Blood: A Cry for Tibet (1992) INDUS an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Calcutta. Second impression, 1993.

4. Dreyer, J. T. (2010, August 2). Economic Development in Tibet under the People's Republic of China. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved May 8, 2014, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10670560305470#.U2vEjq1dVw8

5. Economy, E. C. (2010, November 1). The Game Changer : CopingWith China's Foreign Policy Revolution. . Retrieved May 8, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20788725.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true

6. "Fire on the roof of the world." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 14 Mar. 2008. Web. 5 June 2014. <http://www.economist.com/node/108702

7. Goldstein, M. C. (1999). The snow lion and the dragon China, Tibet, andthe Dalai Lama. Berkeley: University of California Press.

8. Goldstein, Melvyn C.. Tibet, China and the United States: reflections on the Tibet question. Washington, D.C.: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1995. Print.

9. Great Leap Forward: Tang Tsou. [1986] (1986). The Cultural Revolution and Post-Mao Reforms: A Historical Perspective. University of Chicago Press

10. Liu, Melinda . "Interview: The Dalai Lama on Tibet." Newsweek.com. Newsweek, 19 Mar. 2008. Web. 5 June 2014. <http://www.newsweek.com/interview-dalai-lama-tibet-83609>.

11. Miles, J. (2008, March 17). Lhasa under siege. The Economist. Retrieved May 8, 2014, from http://www.economist.com/node/10871821

12. "Samsara: 1962 Panchen Lama Report."Samsara: 1962 Panchen Lama Report. Samsara: A Tibetan Human Rights Archive, 5 Oct. 1996. Web. 5 June 2014. <http://www.subliminal.org/tibet/testimony/1962-panchen.html>.

13. Scott, D. (2008, May 5). The Great Power ‘Great Game’ between India and China: ‘The Logic of Geography. . Retrieved May 8, 2014, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14650040701783243

14. Topgyal, T. (2011, February 6). Insecurity Dilemma and the Tibetan Uprising in 2008.Taylor and Francis. Retrieved May 8, 2014, fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10670564.2011.541627#.U2tz7q1dVw8

15. Wang, Jiawei, and Nyima Gyaincain Jiawei. The historical status of China's Tibet. Beijing: China Intercontinental Press, 1997. Print.