Transcript “All that Glitters is Not Gold”: Tibet as a PseudoState Barry Sautman Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.

“All that Glitters is Not Gold”: Tibet as a PseudoState
Barry Sautman
Hong Kong University of Science &
Technology
Traditional Tibet: Central-Western Tibet (U-Tsang), under the Dalai
Lama’s Regime; Eastern Tibet (Kham & Amdo) not under his regime
Dawa Tsering, chairman, Tibet Religious Foundation of the
Dalai Lama (Dalai Lama’s envoy in Taiwan), July 2009:
 “Throughout history, Tibetans were not a unified people
and the concept of a sovereign state in the modern sense
never existed in the minds of Tibetans before the People’s
Liberation Army invaded Tibet in the 1950s . . . The reason
why most Tibetan civilians did not resist when the Chinese
army entered Tibet in 1951 was because the concept that
‘our country is being invaded,’ did not exist for them.”
In period of “de facto independence” (1913-1951) few
Tibetans had Tibetan national or state consciousness
In fact, international law (IL) does not admit the concept of “de
facto independence”
Tibet was instead a pseudo-state, like Somaliland,
Transnistria, Turkish Republic of Cyprus, South Ossetia,
Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Tamil Ealam.
Tibet had all pseudo-state characteristics:
1. Experienced little development
2. Not recognized by any established states or international
organizations (League of Nations, UN)
3. Spent disproportionately on its military (army = 1% of
population)
4. Support of strong patron (Britain)
5. Seceded from a weak state (China during period of
warlordism, Japanese invasion and civil war).
Claim that Tibet independent from 1913-1951 because there
was Tibetan flag, anthem, currency, passport, postal
service, treaties
Many countries’ provinces have their own flags, songs
During period of 20th C. Chinese disunity, provinces and even
counties had their own currencies and stamps
Passports of an unrecognized state have not standing with
recognized states; placing of visa on them can’t imply
recognition
Tibet had no treaties with recognized states
Two theories of state recognition:
Declaratory theory: recognition not decisive; territory must
fulfill four criteria – 1. permanent population; 2. territory; 3.
government; 4. capacity to enter into foreign relations (but
if territory goes unrecognized, it lacks this capacity)
Constitutive theory: recognition by states makes a territory
into a state, whether or not it strictly fulfills the 4 criteria
Constitutive theory stronger since 1990s, because recognition
decisive in creating new states from ex-Soviet Union and
Yugoslavia. Under constitutive theory Tibet was not a state
because it was unrecognized
If declaratory theory applied, the result is the same:
Permanent population: Tibetans were seen by states and IOs
as the population of Tibet and as part of China’s
population. Tibetans didn’t see themselves as part of
separate state.
Part of elite in central-western Tibet “pro-China”; eastern
Tibetans not ruled by Lhasa and didn’t want to be; Lhasa
didn’t consider Eastern Tibet part of its territory in 1949
Tibet thus had no permanent population separate from
China’s population
Defined territory: to be a state, entity must own territory free
from claim of any other entity. All states recognized
China’s claim to all of Tibet
States and UN regarded Lhasa administration as exercising
its domestic authority in part of Tibet on behalf of China
Lhasa thus didn’t control territory separate from China’s
territory
Government: Two aspects, exercise of authority and right to
exercise it. Lhasa administration lacked right to exercise
state authority, like TRNC does today
Lhasa administration was local government; lacked legal title
for statehood purposes
Capacity to enter into foreign relations: state needs legal
identity distinct from any other state’s identity and must be
subordinate only to IL
Has this identity only if no other entity responsible for its
foreign relations. China carried out Tibet’s foreign relations
during most of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911)
British typically acceded to China’s demands that she handle
interactions related to Tibet
Tibetans were Qing’s 臣民. 狸法院 (Office of Border Affairs)
handled many external and internal aspects of Tibetan
affairs:
Stationed troops and border patrols
Appointed officials, defined border
Administered lama affairs, nomad affairs
Ran postal system, supervised trade
Presided over meetings and ceremonies
Ratified Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas
Created system of joint rule by nobles and lamas
From 1728, amban (imperial representative) handled foreign
and military affairs; from 1793, he had right to
Identify Dalai and Panchen Lamas and examine their
incomes and expenses
Supervise immigration, coinage, corvee labor, taxes and
penal system, appoint and pay military officers, certify
monks, attend important religious events, including
consecration of reincarnated lamas (tulku, 活佛）
Central/west Tibet territory of China under Qing; from 1724,
eastern Tibet incroporated into Chinese provinces
How much historic contact needed for a state to legitimate its
sovereignty in a territory? More than nil, but not much
US, Canada, UK, France, Russia, India, created through
forceful expansion into contiguous areas; annexed
territories soon treated as equal to pre-existing territory
Principle of inter-temporality: act sufficient to confer title at
time performed establishes title even if law later changes
Qing’s sovereignty in Tibet gave Tibetan elites protection and
status; they saw it as legitimate and themselves as
Emperor’s subjects
Elliot Sperling (Indiana U.) argues Tibet not independent, but
Mongols and Manchu not Chinese; thus Tibet was not part
of China
Han elite regarded Yuan rulers as Chinese; Manchu were
imperial subjects even before they created Qing and
identified their empire as Zhongguo
Terming Yuan and Qing rulers as not Chinese is like arguing
that Britain’s rulers have not been British because they
have been of German descent or Mughal rulers not Indian
because they were of Central Asian descent
PRC legal successor of ROC; ROC legal successor of Qing
Hiatus of 38 years in central government control of Tibet did
not diminish China’s sovereignty; IL “has traditionally
tolerated temporary lapses in the control of central
authorities over peripheral territories caused by internal
disruptions” (Michael Reisman, Yale Law School)
Despite IL, widespread belief that Tibet was independent and
has right to independence exists and affects China/India
and China/US relations
Indian elites believe that India’s acceptance of China’s control
of Tibet led to 1962 border war and continuing border
dispute
After war, Tibetan exiles told India supports Tibet’s “eventual
liberation”
China supposedly claims Arunachal Pradesh as “South
Tibet,” but mainly interested in Tibetan Tawang
Part of Indian elite wants to deny and rollback China’s
sovereignty in Tibet
India’s 2009 wargames focused on future “Chinese
aggression” from Tibet
Indian Major Gen. writing in 2009 defense publication,
opposes Indian acceptance that Tibet part of China as
making offensive against China difficult
US ex-State Dep’t official in 2009 essay forsees India/China
war over Tibet and US support for India
Indian Minister of External Affairs sees China as challenging
Indian interests; BJP wants India to “uproot Chinese rule
from Tibet”
US has cultivated Tibet elites in Tibet (1949-1959) and in
exile; financed guerilla war against China, funded DL and
funds Tibet Government-in-Exile (TGIE)
US Congress regards Tibet as “occupied country” and wants
US to recognize TGIE. Most Americans think Tibet should
be independent
Conservative US elites put Tibet in national security
framework; US keeps option of supporting Tibet
independence if there’s downturn in China/US relations
Conclusion: China sees position that Tibet always
independent and has right to independence as saying
Tibet should not be part of China because Chinese
sovereignty not legitimate and thus not inalienable
Pres. Clinton (1998): “I agree that Tibet is part of China and I
can understand why the acknowledgment of that would be
a precondition of dialogue with the Dalia Lama.”
DL won’t say that Tibet inalienable part of China because
exiles cling to hope that China will collapse
Exiles indifferent to consequences of state collapses: in exSoviet Union and Yugoslavia, hundreds of thousands died
If China collapses, Tibetan areas could become warring
pseudo-statlets
If exiles recognize that China has legitimate claim to Tibet,
threshold for resolving Tibet Question will be crossed.