Why China should declare Tibet a free and independent state
Tibet is a plateau region in Asia, in the north of Himalayas and it is the inhabitant of the Tibetan people - Why China should declare Tibet a free and independent state introduction. Tibet was once an independent kingdom but today is apart of the people of the republic of china. China came to control Tibet in the 18th century but they didn’t maintain their authority for so long. In the early 1910s, Tibetans rebelled and started a asserting their independence by trying to get rid of china officials and military stationed in Tibet.
The Tibetan government in exile, headed by his holiness the Dalai Lama, its head of state and spiritual leader believes that it has been under illegal Chinese occupation since China invaded its independent state. On the other hand the people of the republic of China insist that its relation with Tibet is an extremely internal affair. Why Tibet should be freed Tibet has existed as a state since 127 B. C. over years, it was entirely independent . The two nations struck a deal in the 9th century to respect each other’s sovereignty, which fastened Tibet’s continued independence.
More Essay Examples on Tibet Rubric
The other13 and 14th centuries that followed saw Tibet being subjugated by the Mongols, and the same thing happened to the Chinese. Around this period, it was not possible to consider Tibet as part of China, as both had been conquered by the Mongols. Between the 14th and early 20th centuries, Tibet assumed some close relations with China, but always maintained its independence. In its diplomacy, it could have been considered a vassal state of China, in which it paid tribute to China and received protection. But, the relationship did not mean Tibet could not govern its own affairs.
Invariably then, conclusion is that it was fully independent. (McKay, 2003). Another argument for Tibet sovereignty is borrowed from the fact that the PRC makes no claim to sovereign rights over Tibet as a result of its military subjugation and occupation of Tibet following the country’s invasion in 1949-1950. China never implies having acquired sovereignty by means of annexation in this period. On the contrary, it asserts it authority over Tiber merely on the theory that Tibet has been an integral part of China for centuries.
But this argument is lame. That China claim over Tibet is based on its own documents which it terms as ‘very historical and important’ cannot stand the test of logic or even knowledge. It does not base any of its claims on Tibetan historical documents. Since China is the annexor in this relationship, such a full reliance on its own documents is invalid. The problem for China is, of course, that Tibet’s own historical documents paint a clear history of Tibetan independence.
While it may be possible to say that Tibet was part of China in its history, we need to ask deeper questions about how this happened . It is not legitimate for countries to stake claims on regions or other countries simply because they have conquered those other countries in parts of their histories. Turkey, for instance, cannot lay claim over Hungary simply because the Ottoman Empire once conquered the region. The means by which a country acquired control over other countries is important. Conquering” other countries or regions can be cited as, at a minimum, a less legitimate form of achieving sovereign control over a region. It is possible to argue that China’s historical claim to Tibet is highly illegitimate, as it is based on a history of conquering and suppressing the Tibetan people against their will. More importantly, many countries have close ties and even assist one another militarily. But, this does not equate to a history of sovereign control (International Tibet Independence Movement, Para 7)
The people of the Republic of China should not continue to occupy the land of Tibet with the claims of historical basis of Manchu dynasty . The fact that in the earlier times that china occupied and ruled Tibet is not a worthwhile reason for the modern china to take over the Tibet nation. The People’s Republic of China is not a descendant of past Chinese governments. Quite the contrary, it is a form of government that is entirely different than all past Chinese imperial and other forms of government.
As such, any past claims to Tibet do not necessarily pass on to the modern Chinese government. The people of Tibet ought to be let free and govern the rich resources of the region and nation. The have autonomously given them some freedom why don’t they offer them full freedom instead of the restricting the Tibetans (Scalems, 2008). The government of Peoples Republic of China has not been able to accord the people of Tibet all human rights that people of a nation should have. They have violated the human rights in Tibet.
China also cruelly swallowed up a peaceful sovereign nation, slaved and tortured its people, destroying its culture and banned religion. The freedom to choose religion should be left to the people not to the nations. They claim that their rule over Tibet has prevented them from the persecution by the lama ruling classes, bringing them an opportunity to be more than slaves. This is not true; in any way the Tibetans have been oppressed by the Chinese leadership. This 81 years old man has been behind the bars because of being suspected to have printed illegal material including the Tibetan flag.
It has been claimed that no one should be arrested for printing books, flags or pictures because a government would want to suppress the ideas. It has been estimated that 1. 2 million Tibetans have died as a result of communist Chinese occupation as of the 1980s . Dalai Lama should be freed immediately and returned to Tibet. Even though he may not be seeking for the independence of Tibet but the preservation of the Tibetans culture and religion he is doing a good job. He has open appeals for non- violence and encourages Tibetan to co-exist with the Chinese ethnics.
The fact that Tibet may turn to be a Buddhism nation is not a strong argument because I believe that religion is supposed to be person al thing. It is unconstitutional to deny a land freedom because one fears they may make a country a one religion state. The Tibetans can be accorded their freedom the only thing that should be strongly fought with is discriminating on the line of religion. Also the existing instability and violence between China and Tibet will benefit neither of the two nations (Sangay, Para 7-12).
The Dalai Lama and his followers fled into exile in 1959 (Sangay, 1999) In deed the Tibetans should be set free and allowed to leave in freedom. All the fears and reasons that the People’s Republic of China have for holding them captive indirectly do not apply. On another front, Tibet has such characteristics that define a nation. It has a distinct national culture and a Tibetan language which has no relation to the Chinese Language. Tibet has its own national flag and anthem, and its people are ethnically distinct .
It geography is different from China not to mention that the country has its own currency. Tibet has attained diplomatic recognition by way of the Geneva conventions. Michael C. Walt, a member of the board of the International Campaign for Tiber notes in the Cultural Survival Quarterly Volume 12, 1988 that many countries made statements in the course of the UN General Assembly debates that reflected their recognition of Tibet Independent status (Walt, 2008).