More on Tibet

Anyway, to make up for my lack of knowledge on the subject, I have been semi-following the issue. Here is a quick excerpt on the NY Times that gives some interesting background behind the debate, that is hopefully unbiased. In any case, it seems that both sides are somewhat a valid argument:

From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/world/asia/17tibet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Historians generally agree that the relationship between China and Tibet became fully intermingled during the Yuan Dynasty, from the 1270s to 1368. The dispute is over the nature of the relationship.

The Tibetan government in exile says Buddhist lamas established a “priest-patron” relationship under which they became spiritual advisers to the Yuan rulers without sacrificing Tibetan self-rule or independence — an arrangement replicated in the last imperial dynasty, the Qing, which lasted from 1644 to 1912.

Chinese scholars say this logic is disingenuous. They point to records detailing how Tibet was subject to certain laws of the Yuan and Qing rulers — a paper trail they say proves not just that Tibet is an inalienable part of China but also that Chinese emperors had the authority to select the Dalai Lama.

Elliot Sperling, a leading Tibet specialist at Indiana University, said both sides massage their interpretations. He said Tibet cannot be regarded as truly independent during the Yuan and Qing dynasties, given that records show Tibet as subservient to Chinese rules and policies.

But Dr. Sperling said China’s claim to unbroken control of Tibet was also dubious. During the Ming dynasty, from 1368 to 1644, Tibet had scant connection to Chinese rulers, he said. And describing the Yuan and Qing dynasties as “Chinese” overlooks the fact that each took power after what was at the time viewed as a foreign invasion: Mongols established the Yuan; Manchus invaded and founded the Qing.

“What China doesn’t want to deal with is the fact that the Mongols had an empire,” said Dr. Sperling, director of Tibetan Studies at Indiana University’s department of Central Eurasia Studies. “It wasn’t a Chinese state. It was an empire.”

In this context, some scholars consider Tibet’s past relationship with China more akin to that of a vassal state. China’s government relinquished any remaining control over Tibet after the fall of the Qing in 1912. The current Dalai Lama, and his predecessor, ruled Tibet until 1951, when Mao invaded in what China maintains was a “peaceful liberation” that freed Tibetans from a feudal theocracy.