Historical Relationship of the Chinese and Tibetan People - Essay Example

? HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHINESE AND TIBETAN PEOPLE (THE CHINESE INVASION AND AGREEMENT 1949-51) Law: Historical Relationship of the Chinese and Tibetan People (The Chinese Invasion and Agreement 1949-51) Introduction The historical account of China Republic is often alienated clearly by historians into diverse historical era which include the Mao and the post Mao epoch. The Mao epoch lasted for a long time and it commenced from period of the People’s Republic since 1949. The Mao period began from early in 1950s including land reform, cultural re violation and evaluation of Mao legacy and other aspects. The People’s Republic of China was established when the Chinese and was destroyed by social wars and foreign attacks. The new economical and political order was created during the Soviet Union; thus China experienced comparatively immovability since the commencement of the Opium War. In 1950s, the 1People’s Republic of China (PRC) undertook a massive relative stability and social reconstruction that was desperately welcomed by the mass that early were waiting for political and economic stability. The Chinese troops invaded Tibet; thereby contributing to sudden and violent issues. The exclusive brand on Buddhism created the core of Tibetan culture and society; hence this was a drastic contrast to the anti-region principles of the Chinese communists; therefore, Tibet’s spiritual and temporal leader fled into exile in India during the dawn of Chinese invasion. The remarkable culture and inhabitants of Tibet have been drastically persecuted; thus China’s anger in Tibet was seen as more brutal and inhuman than any other communist regime across the globe. Chinese invasion in Tibet The Chinese invasion of Tibet was one of the historical issues that have been focused by historians. However, despite the Chinese invasion and varied policies that were implemented and designed to assimilate Tibetans, as well as, destroy their separate national, religious and cultural identities, Tibetans people have always been determined in preserving their freedom and heritage; the 2newly created communist government in China sent troops to attack Tibet in 1949 to 1950. The agreement was forced on the government of Tibet granting sovereignty over Tibet but recognizing the Tibetan government’s independence with respect to the internal affairs of Tibet; the Tibet dishonored the agreement imposed by the Chinese and this opened confrontation to their rule, which increased; thus contributing to the state Uprising in 1959. The issue of China invasion made the international community to react with shock towards the Tibet shocking events. Many international communities such as the United Nations organized the general assembly where they discussed the Tibet events on several occasions. They passed three decrees during the general congregation where they condemned China for violating the rights of human beings in Tibet; thus, the United Nation called the nation of China to value the human rights of Tibetans. The obliteration of ethnicity and heritage, as well as, coercion of Tibet people was vicious during the year 1951. The increased oppression and violation of human right of Tibetans contribute to national uprising where many Tibetans died as a result of Chinese policies. Many properties, temples, historical buildings and many other places were destroyed due to China inversion issues. The Communist Party general secretary was alarmed to the extent of destruction in Tibet after the period of his visit to Tibet; thus he called for serious and drastic political reforms. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was portrayed as atrocious and cruel leader of the Chinese administration than any other communist system. However, political and policy reform led to significant changes that came very slowly after 1979. Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet The Chinese invasion in Tibet led to varied changes and policy reforms; thus the 17 point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet was signed by Tibetan representative under the pressure of Chinese government. The treaty was signed by Tibet and China in the year 1951; thus these treaties enclosed varied elements, which were considered to be illegal. 3The agreements were only reached as a result of military intimidation and force on the Chinese part because China was not ready to sign the 17-point agreements. Moreover, the 17 point treaty was never legitimately ratified by the Dalai Lama who was the top leader of the Tibetan government. Lama simply postponed the sanction and tacitly sanctioned to the agreement during a short time that Lama experienced while with the Chinese authorities. In addition, the 17 point agreement ended up offering auxiliary grounds for China to consolidate its sovereignty over Tibet lawfully4. The agreement also provided the foundation for Chinese to exercise direct supremacy of Tibetan’s diplomacy, politics and armed forces, as well as, the basis for seizing the Tibetan Army. The government of Tibet was also assured independence with regard to politics and state affairs but this deprived its rights of international relations and self-protection. Therefore, the 17-point contract made it difficult for the Tibetans to exist as an independent realm. It also offered the grounds for the government of Tibetan living in exile to demand the Chinese government to recognize the autonomy of Tibetans. They wanted the Chinese government to ensure that the position of Dalai Lama is well preserved, avoid destruction of spoken, written language, customs and values, as well as religion of Tibet people. Thus, the Tibetans demanded the Chinese government to preserve and maintain the identity of the Tibetans as long as the government of Tibet continued to maintain any relationship with Chinese government in any form. The Communist Party began sending the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) into eastern during the earlier period of 1950s. The Communist Party took advantage of the traditional hostility of the Khan people by promising to support them in creating their own autonomous region. During the summer period of 1950, the PLA was in position along the river Yangtze and the Chinese at this point called the government of Tibet to send delegates to Beijing to negotiate for the peaceful liberation of Tibet people5. However, the Tibet people refused and sent an appeal to the UN revealing to them that China was threatening the independence of Tibet people. In October 1950, the PLA began invasion cross the River of Yangtze from eastern part of Kham. Tibetan forces were significantly overwhelmed but the PLA then stopped its inversion; thus it then called upon the Tibet government to negotiate for the peaceful liberation of Tibetans. The Tibetan government removed Dalai Lama and set him to the exile in India for safety and then sent other appeal to the United Nations. 6Goldstein, Dawei and William reveal that the 17-point Agreement that was signed by Tibet and China government were significant measures that aimed to promote peaceful liberation of Tibet people. The treaty measures defined the association between Tibet and China; thus the agreements are often shortened as the 17-point Agreement. The agreement was peacefully made but after the coercion forced on the Chinese government and since then, China government has maintained that the inversion and occupation of Tibet mainland was peaceful liberation. The government of Tibet under Dalai Lama in exile refuted the 17-point Agreement by arguing that Tibet was an independent state at the time of Chinese invasion. The Tibet government from exile also claimed that China was coerced to sign the 17-point Agreement but it was not signed by Dalai of the Tibet government. Dali had ultimate power to approve any treaty but the Tibet government in exile claimed that he was denied the chance to approve the treaty. Therefore, the Tibet government in exile argued that the agreement was unsound because it was futile to meet the official requirements for credit as a genuine or legal treaty. In addition, the conflicting issues dominated the debate over the treaty; thus it opened the grounds for determining in case the ruling and exercising of Sovereignty by China government over Tibet was legitimate. Varied scholars have conducted massive review about the 17-point Agreement; thus reflecting the sharp divide among the proponents and opponents in the debate. However, the discussions and review over the 17-point Agreement have been primarily concentrated on diverse arguments surrounding the authenticity of the negotiations and the treaty, as well as, the justification of the occupation of Tibet by the China Army7. 8Joes argues that before a new nation was established in the mainland of China in the year of 1949, the Tibet people considered themselves as an independent state and people who belong to different community completely form that of China. The 9Tibet people viewed themselves as completely different people form Chinese in terms of culture, language, religion, customs and culture. Therefore, such identities have been consistent throughout the history of Tibet people but it is unfortunate that many of them lacked national power and a standing army, which was strong enough to protect their identity. Tibetans have followed a pattern of closely monitoring the political environment of China up to the modern era; thus responding significantly to any challenges f acing them. The Communist Party claimed that China has held supremacy over the government of Tibet throughout history with an intention of attempting to save Tibet from Imperialist invasion. However, in reality, this acts meant that the Tibetans were an inseparable part of the Chinese people. The17-point Agreement contributed to varied issue whereby the Tibet government in exile stetted arguing that the peaceful liberation agreement was not signed by Lama. The Chinese invasion contributed to varied issue in Tibet, the UN countries intervened and warned China government over the inversion. However, 10China government maintained that they did not invade Tibet people; thus the Chinese government confused many who though that the problem could be peacefully negotiated. Therefore, the United Nations decided not to take the appeal made by the Tibet government based on the misperception made by the Chinese government. The Tibet government did not receive any support from the Untied Nations because of the allegations made by Chinese government claiming that they have not invaded Tibet government. Therefore, Tibet was obliged to send allots to Beijing in order to confer with the Chinese government about the diplomatic liberation. The delegates from Tibet were forced to accept Chinese conditions under the treat that PLA be ordered to advance to Lhasa. The Chinese government lastly coerced the Tibet delegates into signing the 17-point Agreement for the peaceful liberation of Tibet11. Since the 17-point Agreement was not approved by Tibet government therefore required ratification from Tibet government, which the Chinese government denied. Conclusion In conclusion, The Chinese invasion of Tibet was one of the historical issues that have been focused by historians. The Chinese invasion in Tibet led to varied changes and policy reforms; thus the 17 point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet was signed by Tibetan representative under the pressure of Chinese government. The agreement also provided the foundation for Chinese to exercise direct supremacy of Tibetan’s diplomacy, politics and armed forces. However, the conflicting issues dominated the debate over the treaty; thus it opened the grounds for determining in case the ruling and exercising of Sovereignty by China government over Tibet was legitimate. Thus, the17-point Agreement contributed to varied issue whereby the Tibet government in exile stetted arguing that the peaceful liberation agreement was not signed by Dalai Lama. Bibliography Blondeau, Anne-Marie, Katia Buffetrille, and Wei Jing. Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Goldstein, Melvyn C., Dawei Sherap, and William R. Siebenschuh. The Seventeen-Point Agreement. N.P.: University of California Press, 2004. Harrer, Heinrich. Return to Tibet: Tibet After the Chinese Occupation. London: Phoenix, 2000. Joes, Anthony J. Resisting Rebellion: The History and Politics of Counterinsurgency. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2004. Lal, Dinesh. Indo-Tibet-China Conflict. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications, 2008. McKay, Alex. The History of Tibet: Volume III. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003. Smith, Warren W. Tibet's Last Stand?: The Tibetan Uprising of 2008 and China's Response. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. Read More