The Case Concerning Tibet
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CASE CONCERNING TIBET TIBET’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THE TIBETAN PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION by International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet (Andrew G. Dulaney and Dennis M. Cusack) and Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (Dr. Michael van Walt van Praag) Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre New Delhi First edition : 1998 Second edition : 2000 ©Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre Published by: Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre C-1/1267, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Printed at Archana, Ph. :431-1992, 432-2834 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................ 3 A. Tibet Was Fully Independent Prior To 1951 ................... 3 B. The Tibetan People Are Entitled To Self-Determination.. 5 II. TIBET IS RIGHTFULLY AN INDEPENDENT STATE.... 7 A. When The People’s Liberation Army Entered Tibet, Tibet Was Functioning As A Fully Independent State..... 7 1. A Distinctively Tibetan Population Inhabited Tibet ........................................................................ 7 2. The PLA Entered Distinctively Tibetan Territory....... 8 3. The Government Of Tibet Was Exercising Effective Control Over The Tibetan Population In The Tibetan Territory .......................................... 10 4. The Government Of Tibet Was Capable Of Entering Into International Relations And Had Entered Into Such Relations Repeatedly................... 11 5. Conclusions Regarding The Status Of Tibet In 1950 .................................................................. 17 B. The Seventeen-Point Agreement Of 1951 Is Absolutely Void Under International Law ..................................... 18 C. Historically, Tibet Never Became Part Of China .......... 21 1. Tibet Was Indisputably Independent Before The Thirteenth Century ................................................. 22 2. Tibet Did Not Become Part of China During The Mongol Yuan Dynasty............................................. 24 3. Tibet Was Not Part Of China During Tibet’s “Second Kingdom” ................................................. 27 4. Relations Between The Dalai Lamas Of Tibet And The Manchu Qing Dynasty Do Not Show That Tibet Was Part Of China......................................... 29 5. Tibet Was Not Part Of China During China’s Nationalist Period .................................................. 37 D. The Tibetan Government In Exile Is The Only Legitimate Government Of Tibet ................................... 42 E. Conclusions Regarding The Legal Status of Tibet ........... 45 III. THE TIBETANS ARE ENTITLED TO SELF- DETERMINATION ........................................................... 48 A. The Tibetans Are A People With The Right Of Self-Determination ......................................................... 48 1. International Law Recognizes The Right To Self-Determination .................................................... 48 2. Independence Is Only One Manifestation Of Self-Determination .................................................... 49 3. The Tibetans Are A People With The Right Of Self-Determination .................................................... 52 B. The Tibetans Are Entitled To Exercise Their Right Of Self-Determination Because The PRC Has Not Acted As The Legitimate Government Of The Tibetan People ............................................................... 54 1. Territorial Integrity Is A Right Only Of Legitimate Governments “Conducting Themselves In Compliance With The Principle Of Equal Rights And Self-Determination Of Peoples” ................................. 54 2. The PRC Does Not Respect The Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms Of The Tibetan People......................................................................... 61 a. The PRC unlawfully suppresses religion in Tibet.... 61 b. State-sanctioned population transfer violates the Tibetans’ fundamental rights ............................... 69 c. The PRC denies Tibetan women their right to reproductive freedom .......................................... 74 d. Tibetans are subject to discrimination on the basis of their race .................................................. 78 e. The PRC’s exploitation of Tibet’s natural resources and abuse of the environmentviolate the Tibetans’ human rights ....................................................... 80 f. The PRC has violated the Tibetan’s right to housing ................................................................ 85 g. Tibetans are subject to enforced and involuntary disappearances ...................................................... 88 h. Tibetans are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention ............................................................. 90 i. PRC officials torture Tibetan prisoners of conscience ............................................................ 94 j. The PRC subjects Tibetans to extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions ....................... 96 C. Enforcing The Tibetans’ Right To Self-Determination Will Enhance International Values Of Peace And Security And Promote Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms ........................................................................ 97 1. The Right Of Self-Determination Should Be Enforced As Against A Claim Of Territorial Integrity When Doing So Will Advance The Fundamental Values Of The International Community .............................. 97 2. Affording the Tibetans the Broadest Latitude in Exercising Their Right of Self-Determination Would Effectuate the Fundamental Values of the International Community ................................................................ 98 a. Affording the Tibetans the broadest latitude in exercising their right of self-determination would enhance international peace and security .............. 99 b. Affording the Tibetans the broadest latitude in exercising their right of self-determination would promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms .......................................... 103 D. The Tibetans’ Demand For “Genuine Self-Rule” Does Not Conflict With The PRC’s Claim Of Territorial Integrity ......................................................................... 105 V. Conclusion ...................................................................... 107 Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung and The Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre The Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung (FNSt) established in 1958 is a non- profit organization for public benefit. It promotes the liberal principle of Freedom in Human Dignity in all sectors of society, both nationally as well as internationally, in developed as well as developing countries. The Foundation is active in more than 75 countries. In the South Asian Region comprising the SAARC countries the Foundation’s work encompasses projects concerned with support for economic liberalisation; fostering regional economic cooperation in South Asia; promotion of civic and human rights and the rule of law; and environmental protection. All these activities are carried out in co-operation with local, national and international NGOs, the emphasis being on self-reliance and the setting up of democratic institutions. Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung in partnership with the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies has set up the Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre (TPPRC) with the purpose of strengthening the Tibetan diaspora in building up a healthy democratic working ethos. The objective is to prepare the Tibetans in exile for the assumption of responsibilities that would respond to their hopes and aspirations through a framework of legislative, executive and judicial institutions based on the concept of the Tibetan polity guided by Saddharma and with a view to generating human values and considerations based on man’s free will, equality, justice and non-violence. There is also the standing need to constantly remind the Tibetan diaspora of their national identity, culture and heritage and the global community of Tibet’s unique contribution to the world of thought and culture. Established in 1994, the Centre has already reached a very representative section of Tibetans residing in India and Nepal, encouraging them to get actively involved in their new democratic institutions and helping their leadership to formulate a vision for the future. Moreover, the Centre has a sound back-up programme of publications to disseminate information to build up national and international public opinion for the fulfilment of a just cause. PREFACE The Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre (TPPRC) is pleased to present a report on Tibet’s sovereignty and the Tibetan People’s right to self-determination. This report forms part of the action plan chalked out during discussions on the modalities and strategies of the workshops organised by TPPRC in 1994/96, on the issue of Self-Determination of Tibetans. During the workshop in New Delhi, in 1996, the participants decided that a concise legal brief be documented and presented. The brief would discuss the status of Tibet and the concept of self-determination, flowing from the discussions on the status of Tibet. The present comprehensive report discusses at length two very important but related issues. On one hand it argues convincingly that Tibet was fully independent prior to 1951. The report draws on international legal definition of statehood to prove Tibet’s pre-1951 independent status; disproves the seventeen-point agreement of 1951; and systematically states how Tibet historically never became a part of China. A very important