Commenting on a recent speech given by the Dalai Lama to the British Parliament in which he said that "according to history and international law. Tibet is an independent country under the Chinese occupation", two Tibetologists, Dainzhub Angbun and Yang Gongsu, pointed out that Tibet has never been an independent state exactly according to history and international law.

Dainzhub Angbun, vice-president of the Central University of Nationalities, emphasized that the Chinese government began implementing residence registration, levying taxes and imposing corvee duties in Tibet as early the Yuan Dynasty (12711368), evident proof that it exercised sovereignty over Tibet, in the sense of modern international law.

According to the two scholars, all the facts point to a conclusion that Tibet has never intended to be independent from China throughout its history. Historical documents available nowadays demonstrate that the slogan of "Tibetan Independence" was actually initiated by some British imperialists plotting to occupy Tibet. The "evidence" provided by the Dalai Lama and his Western allies to serve as historical support for their "Tibetan independence" attempt are vague and groundless.

For example, one piece of their "evidence" is the Lhasa Convention which the invading British army compelled three major monasteries in Lhasa to sign in 1904. But the very fact is that the document could not go into effect because the high commissioner of the Qing government stationed in Tibet refused to sign it.

Although the Qing government conceded the Lhasa Convention later as an affiliated document to the Beijing Treaty, it articulated in the latter that "Britain should never occupy Tibet and interfere in any political event in the region," thus safeguarding Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.

Another piece of "evidences" is the Simla Conference held in 1913 and 1914 in India, which was sponsored and masterminded by the British government in collusion with Tibetan pro-British elements. Both sought to separate Tibet from Chinese territory.

The fact is that even though the notorious "McMahon Line" was negotiated between Tibet and Britain at the end of the tripartite conference on Tibet's status and boundaries, and named after the chief British representative Sir Henry McMahon, Chinese government delegates present refused to recognize the line on the grounds that Tibet was subordinate to China and had no power to make any treaties.

The Dalai Lama and his Western allies refer to a circular made by the 13th Dalai Lama to expel the Sichuan Army from Tibet after the 1911 Revolution which overthrew the Qing Dynasty (16441911) as a "declaration of the independence of Tibet." However, based on the research of Dainzhub Angbun and Yang Gongsu, the document did not mention "independence" for Tibet at all. It was the British who rendered the words "the snow land,"the other name of Tibet, as "state" in English.

The two scholars explained that the 13th Dalai Lama's move was merely a domestic conflict among regimes and warlords, and it had nothing to do with the "independence" of Tibet.

Dainzhub Angbun, who has been devoted to studies of the historical relationship between the central government and the local government of Tibet for decades, said: "The so-called 'Tibetan independence' is actually an outcome of foreign imperialists' attempts to invade Tibet over a long period in the past. Today, the Dalai Lama is seeking help from those same foreign powers which intended colonizing Tibet. Isn't this clearly a betrayal of the interests of Chinese people including Tibetans?"

According to Dainzhub Angbun, all Tibetan leaders sought political positions during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). During the Qing Dynasty, the titles of the Dalai and Panchen Lamas were also granted by the central government.

As to a viewpoint held by some Western scholars that Tibet was once merely a tributary state of China and,thus, China had no sovereignty over it, Dainzhub Angbun pointed out that a tributary state in essence, and by definition, is not a part of another country's territory, to which the central government does not send ministers, interfere in its change of rulers, and levy taxes despite its regular practice of submitting tribute to the central government. "It is obvious that Tibet should not be classified as a tributary state," said Dainzhub Angbun.

Prof. Yang Gongsu of Peking University was once appointed an assistant to the representative of the central government stationed in Tibet after the region's peaceful liberation in 1951 and worked in Tibet for 13 years afterwards. A Chinese ambassador to Nepal some years ago, he was able to travel in India and many other foreign countries frequently, thus becoming familiar with the situation and activities of the Dalai Lama and his "government-in-exile."

According to Prof. Yang, the young Dalai Lama was intelligent, wise and eager to learn some 40-odd years ago when Yang had frequent contact with him because of his duties. "He not only supported the central government, but also loved the Chinese motherland," Yang recalled.

"But, since he went abroad, he has been seeking help from foreign powers, thus eventually becoming a tool of anti-China forces and head of the Tibetan independence movement under the influence of some foreign powers and reactionary factions within his group. This makes me feel sad and disappointed," Prof. Yang said.

(This article appears  on page 13, No. 9, 1997)