. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The
attention of the world is rivetted on Korea where aggression is
being resisted by an international force. Similar happenings in
remote Tibet are passing without notice. It is in the belief that
aggression will not go unchecked and freedom unprotected in any part
of the world that we have assumed the responsibility of reporting
to the United Nations Organisation, through you, recent happenings
in the border area of Tibet. As you are aware, the problem of Tibet
has taken on proportions in recent times. This problem is not of
Tibet's own making but is largely the outcome of unthwarted Chinese
ambition to bring weaker nations on its periphery under its active
domination. Tibetans have for long lived a cloistered life in their
mountain fastnesses, remote and aloof from the rest of the world,
except in so far as His Holiness the Dalai Lama, as the acknowledged
head of the Buddhist Church, confers benediction and receives homage
from followers in many countries.
In
the years preceding 1912, there were indeed close friendly relations
of a personal nature between the Emperor of China and His Holiness
the Dalai Lama. The connection was essentially born of belief in
a common faith and may correctly be described as the relationship
between a spiritual guide and his lay followers; it had no political
implications. As a people devoted to the tenets of Buddhism,
Tibetans had long eschewed the art of warfare, practiced peace
and tolerance, and for the defence of their country relied on its
geographical configuration and on non-involvement in the affairs of
other nations. There were times when Tibet sought but seldom received
the protection of the Chinese Emperor. The Chinese, however, in their
natural urge for expansion, have wholly misconstrued the significance
of the ties of friendship and interdependence that existed between
China and Tibet as between neighbors. To them China was suzerain
and Tibet a vassal State. It is this which first aroused legitimate
apprehension in the mind of Tibet regarding China's designs on its
independent status.
The
conduct of the Chinese during their expedition of 1910 completed the
rupture between the two countries. In 1911-1912, Tibet, under the
Thirteenth Dalai Lama, declared its complete independence -- even
Nepal simultaneously broke away from allegiance to China -- while
the Chinese revolution of 1911, which dethroned the last Manchurian
Emperor, snapped the last of the sentimental and religious bonds
that Tibet had with China. Tibet thereafter depended entirely
on its isolation, its faith in the wisdom of the Lord Buddha,
and occasionally on the support of the British in India for its
protection. No doubt in these circumstances the latter could also
claim suzerainty over Tibet. Tibet, notwithstanding Anglo-Chinese
influence from time to time, maintained its separate existence,
in justification of which it may be pointed out that it has been
able to keep peace and order within the country and remain at
peace with the world. It continued to maintain neighbourly good
will and friendship with the people of China, but never acceded to
the Chinese claim of suzerainty in 1914.
It
was British persuasion which led Tibet to sign a treaty which
superimposed on it the nominal (non-interfering) suzerainty of China
and by which China was accorded the right to maintain a mission in
Lhasa, though it was strictly forbidden to meddle in the internal
affairs of Tibet. Apart from that fact, even the nominal suzerainty
which Tibet conceded to China is not enforceable because of the
non-signature of the treaty of 1914 by the Chinese. It will be seen
that Tibet maintained independent relations with other neighboring
countries, such as India and Nepal. Furthermore, despite friendly
British overtures, it did not compromise its position by throwing
in its forces in the Second World War on the side of China. Thus
it asserted and maintained its complete independence. The treaty
of 1914 still guides relations between Tibet and India, and China
not being a party to it may be taken to have renounced the benefits
that would have otherwise accrued to it from the treaty. Tibet's
independence thereby reassumed de jure status. The slender tie that
Tibet maintained with China after the 1911 revolution became less
justifiable when China underwent a further revolution and turned
into a full-fledged Communist State. There can be no kinship
or sympathy between such divergent creeds as those espoused by
China and Tibet. Foreseeing future complications, the Tibetan
Government broke off diplomatic relations with China and made
a Chinese representative in Lhasa depart from Tibet in July,
1949. Since then, Tibet has not even maintained formal relations
with the Chinese Government and people. It desires to live apart,
uncontaminated by the germ of a highly materialistic creed, but
China is bent on not allowing Tibet to live in peace. Since the
establishment of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese have
hurled threats of liberating Tibet and have used devious methods to
intimidate and undermine the Government of Tibet. Tibet recognises
that it is in no position to resist. It is thus that it agreed to
negotiate on friendly terms with the Chinese Government.
It
is unfortunate that the Tibetan mission to China was unable to
leave India through no fault of its own, but for want of British
visas, which were required for transit through Hong Kong. At
the kind intervention of the Government of India, the Chinese
People's Republic condescended to allow the Tibetan mission to have
preliminary negotiations with the Chinese Ambassador to India, who
arrived in New Delhi only in September. While these negotiations were
proceeding in Delhi, Chinese troops, without warning or provocation,
crossed the Dri Chu river, which has for long been the boundary of
Tibetan territory, at a number of places on October 7, 1950. In
quick succession, places of strategic importance such as Demar,
Kamto, Tunga, Tshame, Rimochegotyu, Yakalo, and Markham, fell to the
Chinese. Tibetan frontier garrisons in Kham, which were maintained
not with any aggressive design, but as a nominal protective measure,
were all wiped out. Communist troops converged in great force from
five directions on Chamdo, the capital of Kham, which fell soon
after. Nothing is known of the fate of a minister of the Tibetan
Government posted there.
Little
is known in the outside world of this sneak invasion.
Long after the invasion had taken place, China announced
to the world that it had asked its armies to march into Tibet.
This unwarranted act of aggression has not only disturbed the peace
of Tibet, but it is also in complete disregard of a solemn
assurance given by China to the Government of India, and it has
created a grave situation in Tibet and may eventually deprive
Tibet of its long-cherished independence. We can assure you,
Mr. Secretary-General, that Tibet will not go down without a fight,
though there is little hope that a nation dedicated to peace will
be able to resist the brutal effort of men trained to war, but we
understand that the UN has decided to stop aggression whenever it
takes place.
The
armed invasion of Tibet for the incorporation of Tibet in Communist
China through sheer physical force is a clear case of aggression. As
long as the people of Tibet are compelled by force to become a part
of China against their will and consent, the present invasion of
Tibet will be the grossest instance of the violation of the weak
by the strong. We therefore appeal through you to the nations of
the world to intercede on our behalf and restrain Chinese aggression.
The
problem is simple. The Chinese claim Tibet as a part of China.
Tibetans feel that racially, culturally, and geographically
they are far apart from the Chinese. If the Chinese find the
reactions of the Tibetans to their unnatural claim not acceptable,
there are other civilised methods by which they could ascertain
the views of the people of Tibet; or, should the issue be surely
juridical, they are open to seek redress in an international court
of law. The conquest of Tibet by China will only enlarge the area of
conflict and increase the threat to the independence and stability
of other Asian countries. We Ministers, with the approval of His
Holiness the Dalai Lama, entrust the problem of Tibet in this
emergency to the ultimate decision of the United Nations, hoping
that the conscience of the world will not allow the disruption of
our State by methods reminiscent of the jungle.
The Kashag (Cabinet) and National Assembly of Tibet,
Tibetan delegation, Shakabpa House, Kalimpong.
Dated Lhasa, the twenty-seventh day of the ninth Tibetan month
of The Iron Tiger Year (November 7, 1950)