This is the third instalment of our Staff Reporter Lin Liangqi's interview with Li Yan on the Tibetan issue. The first two appeared in issues No.52, 1992 and No.2, 1993.

QUESTION: Some Westerners say "Tibet is under foreign occupation." Could you please tell me the truth?

ANSWER: During recent years, certain Westerners who claim to be "opposing aggression" have called for public concern about "the invasion of Tibet" at some international conferences. Who has invaded Tibet? This is well documented in Chinese and Western historical materials.

The 1840 Opium War marked the beginning of Western colonialist aggression against China. According to Western historical records, Britain dispatched people into Tibet in an attempt to incorporate the region in its trade sphere both before and after the war. This, however, was opposed by the local Tibetan government. In 1847 the British representative in China proposed the redelineation of the border between Tibet and the British colonies to the viceroy of Guangdong and Guangxi. This was also rejected by the Qing government.

In 1876 the British used gunboats to force the Qing government to sign an unequal treaty, the Chefoo Convention. A special article concerning Tibet granted Britain the right to send scouts to explore land routes there. But the British plot did not materialize because of the Tibetan people's unyielding opposition. Later, the British demanded that the Qing government open Tibet's border with India to trade. The Tibetan Gaxag government and the three major monasteries told the Qing high commissioner stationed in Tibet that the British had annexed India and other countries under the pretext of trade. The Tibetan people stood in unyielding opposition to any foreign aggression. "When monks and lay men alike, die, the women will rise to resist." Under these circumstances, the British government decided not to send people into Tibet, a decision which stood until 1886, when Great Britain and the Qing government signed the Sino-British Convention Relating to Burma.

Unreconciled to the failure, the British colonialists decided to resort to force. A road was built in 1886 from Sikkim to Tibet as a means of ingress. Unable to stop the British endeavor, the Tibetan Gaxag government constructed a big blockhouse on Mt Lungdo for self-defense.

The British finally launched two attacks on Mt Lungdo in February 1888. The Tibetan defenders fought heroically,killing some 100 invaders. The British rushed reinforcements to the site, inundating the blockhouse with heavy gun fire. They eventually captured Mt Lungdo and other places. Following this victory, the invading British troops seized Yadong, Ralung and other border passes. In 1890 they forced the emaciated Qing government to conclude the Anglo-Chinese Convention Relating to Sikkim and Tibet. The British thus occupied Mt Lungdo and other places and forced China to establish a trade mart at Yadong.

In the early 20th century, British colonialists intensified their aggression against Tibet. In 1903 the British Indian government sent a report to the British government which expressed the desire that a British delegation be sent to Lhasa without seeking permission from the Chinese government and without obtaining a Chinese visa. Once this plan was approved, it would have to be implemented in spite of protests. To cope with possible resistance, the report proposed armed escorts for the delegation. In his reply to the viceroy of British India, Lord Hamilton made it clear that once the decision was made to launch an armed intervention in Tibet, the establishment of a protectorate or permanent occupation would be unavoidable. However, Hamilton told the viceroy of British India that this issue involved the status of a part of the Chinese empire and should be viewed from an international angle. He went on to say that the British government felt the time was not ripe for such action because it might endanger Tibetan affairs.

Nonetheless, on the excuse of negotiating "theredelineation of borders," the British sent Francis Younghusb and J. MacDonald to Tibet as the head of an invading army of 10,000 in the winter of 1903. This enraged the Tibetan people, and the local Tibetan government immediately issued a conscription order.

Tibetan soldiers and civilians, armed with nothing more than home-made guns and swords, fought heroically with the well armed invaders. A field reporter accompanying the invading British troops wrote that in dealing with the Tibetans, one had to take into consideration things which were not anticipated. They would attempt to do what was seemingly impossible. A few dozen people would attack enemies superior enough numerically to make them despairingly mad, and they would fight on until their last drop of blood was shed. A small handful of conscripted peasants would fight and die to defend a village, as heroic as patriots in ancient Rome. A British officer later noted that although their bullets fell short and the British gunfire incurred heavy losses, they held their positions bravely, firing at the British battery positions shot by shot.

The resistance put up by the Tibetan people forced the invaders to play tricks. While entering into peace talks with the Tibetans, the British sent mounted troops and foot soldiers to launch surprise attacks. In a bloody battle pitting swords against modern equipment, some 1,500 Tibetans were slaughtered. That British field reporter wrote that some Tibetans tried to flee on donkeys and horses, but at least 700 were killed. It was no longer a fight. It was merely a massacre of the weak.

The invading British troops not only ruthlessly slaughtered Tibetan soldiers and civilians, they wantonly looted cultural relics. In his book recording the events of the battle, MacDonald admitted that he and another British general had collected so many cultural relics it took more than 400 donkeys to transport them all. These relics included rare books, statues of Buddha and other religious works, suits of armor, weapons and ceramics. Many ceramics were damaged beyond repair in transit.

When the invading British troops took Lhasa 14 months later, Young husband suggested the British government make Tibet a "vassal state" and forced the representatives of the three major monasteries and the Gaxag government of Tibet to sign the British dictated Treaty of Lhasa. The unequal treaty demanded the Tibetan local government raze all forts and fortifications, pay a war indemnity, accept continued British occupation and give no rights to any foreign power in Tibet. The Qing government rejected the treaty categorically.

This segment of history recorded in Western sources for the last 100 years suffices to show it was none other than Western colonialists and imperialists who invaded Tibet, hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, Tibetans included. Today, even though some people in the West are calling public attention to the "invasion of Tibet," they refrain from condemning the Western powers' invasion of Tibet. People can not help but doubt their knowledge of the truth and their sincerity in "opposing aggression."

Q: It has been reported the 14th Dalai Lama said "China launched an armed invasion of Tibet in 1949."

A: When the 14th Dalai Lama said this, he had forgotten the pain he had suffered in previous years.

China was once rent with imperialist aggression, which also caused the Dalai Lama to suffer a lot. A British document recorded that in 1901, when the viceroy of British India wrote to the 13th Dalai Lama for direct representation, the 13th Dalai Lama refused and declared that he would not maintain correspondence with any foreign government without consulting the high commissioner stationed in Tibet by the Qing government. The patriotic stance of the 13th Dalai Lama sent the British into a rage. In his letter to the viceroy of British India in 1903, Hamilton said: Your proposal to send an armed delegation to Lhasa, resort to armed force whenever necessary and station resident officials there should undoubtedly be upheld. The Tibetan authorities sent back your letters on three occasions...so it was legal for you to answer them as you did.

In the winter of 1903 the British made inroads into Tibet and seized Lhasa the following year. The 13th Dalai Lama fled to the interior. Taking advantage of this, the British pressed forward and moved into Xigaze, taking the Bainqen Erdeni under duress to India in a vain attempt to rule Tibet through him. As the Bainqen Erdeni was loyal to the motherland and returned to Tibet before long, the British imperialist plot fizzled out.

Following the failure of direct armed invasion, the British imperialists tried to cultivate pro-British separatists among the upper echelon of the Tibetan ruling class. In 1919 the 13th Dalai Lama said, "I swear to be loyal to our own country and jointly work for the happiness of the five races." Angered by the Dalai Lama's declaration, the British imperialists stood behind Carong and other pro-British elements who were plotting a coup. Seeing through this plot, the 13th Dalai Lama dismissed Carong and his men.

In 1947 the 14th Dalai Lama was still too young to assume power. The British incited the pro-British Regent Dagzhag to exclude patriotic monks and lay people and murdered the patriotic Living Buddha Razheng, the ex-regent, under a fabricated charge. In the meantime, the father of the 14th Dalai Lama was poisoned.

Because of this experience, the 14th Dalai Lama supported the patriotic forces in the Tibetan ruling class, who forced the Regent Dagzhag to step down. He took over power ahead of schedule in the early 1950s, after the Chinese People's Liberation Army had driven the imperialist forces out of China and unified the whole mainland. After coming to power, the Dalai Lama said in a letter to the central government that he had "decided to seek peace to satisfy the peoples' desires." He sent delegates to Beijing to negotiate the peaceful liberation of Tibet. After the delegates of the central people's government and the local government of Tibet signed the 17-article Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet on May 23, 1951, the Dalai Lama called a meeting of monk and lay officials and representatives of the three major monasteries to discuss acceptance of the agreement. The Dalai Lama stood by the majority and personally sent a telegram to Mao Zedong, then chairman of the central government, which read in part, "The Tibetan local government as well as the ecclesiastics and the laity unanimously support this agreement, and under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the central people's government, will actively support the People's Liberation Army in Tibet to consolidate national defense, drive out imperialist influences from Tibet and safeguard the unification of the territory and the sovereignty of the motherland." On October 26 of the same year, the People's Liberation Army marched into Lhasa, receiving a warm welcome from local officials and people.

It should be noted that the Dalai Lama moved with, instead of against, historical currents and contributed to the efforts of the People's Liberation Army to drive imperialist forces out of China and unify the whole mainland. Recalling those historic days five years later, the 14th Dalai Lama said, "In 1951 I sent delegates to Beijing for talks with the central people's government and, on the basis of unity and fraternity, they signed the Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for Peaceful Liberation of Tibet. Beginning then, the Tibetan people were rid of the yoke of imperialist enslavement forever and returned to the big family of the motherland. Like other fraternal nationalities and peoples in the country, the Tibetan people enjoy full rights to national equality and have begun to embark onto a bright road to freedom and happiness."

What the Dalai Lama said some 30 years ago is still fresh in people's minds. However, the Dalai Lama later negated his own experience and acted in total disregard of historical facts. In doing so, he has forgotten or is trying to avoid history. Such mean action does not conform with his position as a Buddhist leader.

(This article appears  on page 17, No. 5, 1993)