The Tibet Question, the long-standing conflict over the political status of Tibet in relation to
China, is a conflict about nationalism—an emotion-laden debate over whether political units
should directly parallel ethnic units. This question pits the right of a "people" (Tibetans) to selfdetermination
and independence against the right of a multiethnic state (the People's Republic
of China) to maintain what it sees as its historic territorial integrity.
Such nationalistic conflicts have no easy answers, for the international community has
arrived at no consensus about when a people is justified in demanding self-determination or
when a multiethnic state has the right to prevent secession. The current United Nations
Charter illustrates the ambiguity. Whereas article 1 (section 2) states that the purpose of the
UN is to ensure "friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal
rights and self-determination ," article 2 (section 7) states that "nothing contained in the
present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentiallywithin the domestic jurisdiction of any state."[1] Force is often the final arbiter, as when
the United States went to war to settle the threat of Confederate secession.[2]
Although Tibet occupies a remote part of the world, the Tibet Question has captured the
imagination and sympathy of many in America and the West and resonates throughout the
American political landscape. It has also become a significant irritant in Sino-American
relations. But the conflict is not well understood. Typical of nationalistic conflicts, the struggle
to
? x ?
control territory has been matched by a struggle to control the representations of history and
current events. Both sides (and their foreign supporters) regularly portray events in highly
emotional and often disingenuous terms intended to shape international perceptions and win
sympathy for their cause. History is a major battlefield, and the facts of the conflict have
become obscured by an opaque veneer of political rhetoric. Interested observers are deluged
with contradictory claims and countercharges that render a dispassionate and objective
assessment of the conflict excruciatingly difficult, even for specialists.
The aim of this book is to peel away the layers of this veneer. In the following pages the
anatomy of the Tibet Question will be examined in a balanced fashion using a realpolitik
framework to focus on the strategies of the actors.
While issues such as cultural survival and population transfer will be discussed, this book
does not focus specifically on violations of individual human rights in Tibet, such as abusing
prisoners or arresting monks for peaceful political demonstrations. These rights violations exist
and are deplorable, but they are not at the heart of the problem. The Tibet Question existed
long before there was a People's Republic of China, and it also predates the recent Western
interest in universal human rights. In fact, if there were no human rights violations in Tibet
and if Tibetans could, for example, practice peaceful political dissent, the Tibet Question would
be every bit as contentious as it now is. The Tibet Question is about control of a territory—
about who rules it, who lives there, and who decides what goes on there.