The TibetChina Conflict: History and Polemics,Used

Product DescriptionThe status of Tibet has been at the core of the TibetChina conflict for all parties drawn into it over the past century. China maintains that Tibet is an integral part of China, while Tibetans maintain that Tibet has historically been an independent country. In reality the conflict over Tibet's status has been a conflict over history. When Chinese writers and political figures assert that Tibet is a part of China, they do so on the basis of history. The People's Republic of China has pointedly accused the Dalai Lama of duplicity, stating that his unwillingness to recognize that Tibet has been an integral part of China for centuries renders his attempts to compromise on the Tibet issue unacceptable. The centrality of history in the question of Tibet's status could not be made clearer. This paper is a guide to the historical arguments made by the primary parties to the TibetChina conflict. It draws on the key assertions about the issue as they have been framed in Chinese and Tibetan to examine the extent to which positions on the Tibet issue that are thought to reflect centuries of popular consensus are actually very recent constructions, often at variance with the history on which they claim to be based.From the PublisherThis is the seventh publication in Policy Studies, a peerreviewed EastWest Center Washington series that presents scholarly analysis of key contemporary domestic and international political, economic, and strategic issues affecting Asia in a policy relevant manner.About the AuthorElliot Sperling is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington.Excerpt. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.Executive Summary:This paper is a guide to the historical arguments made by the primary parties to the TibetChina conflict. Given the polarization that has characterized this issue for decades, it is surprising that little has been done to analyze or at least disentangle the strands of historical argumentation that the parties have been using. This paper attempts to do this by relying as much as possible on the key assertions as they have been framed in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Chinese and Tibetanlanguage materials dealing with the historical status of Tibet are often more detailed and better documented, and hew more closely then Englishlanguage materials do to the thinking of the people most directly concerned with (and affected by) the TibetChina conflict. The status of Tibet is at the core of the dispute, as it has been for all parties drawn into it over the past century. China maintains that Tibet is an inalienable part of China. Tibetans maintain that Tibet has historically been an independent country. In reality, the conflict over Tibets status has been a conflict over history. When Chinese writers and political figures assert that Tibet is a part of China, they do so not on the basis of Chinese rule being good rule (although they do not hesitate to make that assertion, either), but on the basis of history. As one of Chinas more wellknown spokesmen once put it, 'Is Tibet, after all, a part of China? History says it is.' The fundamental place of history in the Tibet issue is not something imposed by outside parties. Even though the Dalai Lama and his governmentinexile appear quite at ease with accepting Tibet as a part of China, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) has pointedly accused the Dalai Lama of duplicity, stating that his unwillingness to recognize Tibet as having been an integral part of China for centuries renders his acquiescence unacceptable. The centrality of history in the question of Tibets status could not be clearer. This paper looks at the evolution of both Chinese and Tibetan positions, then at the prevailing views currently held by advocates on either side of the issue, and finally at how the major assertions made about Tibets historical status stand up against