Tibetan sovereignty debate
The Tibetan sovereignty debate refers to two political debates. The first is whether the various territories within the People's Republic of China (PRC) that are claimed as political Tibet should separate and become a new sovereign state. Many of the points in the debate rest on a second debate, about whether Tibet was independent or subordinate to China in certain parts of its recent history.
It is generally agreed that China and Tibet were independent prior to the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368), and that Tibet has been ruled by the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 1959. The nature of Tibet’s relationship to China in the intervening time is a matter of debate. The PRC claims that Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty. The Republic of China (1912–1949) (ROC) claimed that "Tibet was placed under the sovereignty of China" when the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) expelled Nepal from Tibet in c. 1793. The Tibetan Government in Exile claims that Tibet was an independent state until the PRC invaded Tibet in 1949/50. Some Western scholars claim that Tibet and China were ruled by the Mongols during the Yuan Dynasty, that Tibet was independent during the Chinese Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). and that Tibet was ruled by China or subordinate to the Qing during much of the Qing Dynasty. Some Western scholars also claim that Tibet was independent from c. 1912 to 1950, although it had extremely limited international recognition.
- 1 View of the Chinese governments
- 2 View of the Tibetan government and subsequent government in exile
- 3 Third-party views
- 4 Human rights
- 5 See also
- 6 Notes
- 7 References
- 8 External links
View of the Chinese governments
The government of the Republic of China, which ruled mainland China from 1912 until 1949 and now controls Taiwan, had a cabinet-level Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission in charge of the administration of Tibet and Mongolia regions from 1912. The commission retained its cabinet level status after 1949, but no longer executes that function. On 10 May 1943, Chiang Kai-shek asserted that "Tibet is part of Chinese territory... No foreign nation is allowed to interfere in our domestic affairs". He again declared in 1946 that the Tibetans were Chinese nationals. The Republic of China still claims sovereignty over Tibet and Mongolia in its constitution.
In the late 19th century, China adopted the Western model of nation-state diplomacy. As the government of Tibet, China concluded several treaties (1876,1886,1890,1893) with British India touching on the status, boundaries and access to Tibet. Chinese government sources consider this a sign of sovereignty rather than suzerainty. However, by the 20th century British India found the treaties to be ineffective due to China's weakened control over the Tibetan local government. The British invaded Tibet in 1904 and forced the signing of a separate treaty, directly with the Tibetan government in Lhasa. In 1906, an Anglo-Chinese Convention was signed at Peking between Great Britain and China. It incorporated the 1904 Lhasa Convention (with modification), which was attached as Annex. A treaty between Britain and Russia (1907) followed. Article II of this treaty stated that "In conformity with the admitted principle of the suzerainty of China over Tibet, Great Britain and Russia engage not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government." China sent troops into Tibet in 1908. The result of the policy of both Great Britain and Russia has been the virtual annexation of Tibet by China. China controlled Tibet up to 1912. Thereafter, Tibet entered the period described commonly as de facto independence, though it was not recognized by any country as enjoying de jure independence. (See below)
More recently the position of the Republic of China with regard to Tibet appeared to have become more nuanced as was stated in the following opening speech to the International Symposium on Human Rights in Tibet on 8 September 2007 through the pro-Taiwan independence then ROC President Chen Shui-bian who stated that his offices no longer treated exiled Tibetans as Chinese mainlanders.
Legal arguments based on historical status
The position of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which has ruled mainland China since 1949, as well as the official position of the Republic of China (ROC), which ruled mainland China before 1949 and currently controls Taiwan, is that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China de jure since the Yuan Dynasty of Mongol-ruled China in the 13th century, comparable to other states such as the Kingdom of Dali and the Tangut Empire that were also incorporated into China at the time.
The PRC contends that, according to international law and the Succession of states theory, all subsequent Chinese governments have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty over Tibet, with the PRC having succeeded the ROC as the legitimate government of all China.
According to the PRC, successive Chinese governments have recognized Tibet as having its own unique culture and language; however, they believe that this situation does not necessarily argue in favor of its independence, because China has over 56 unique ethnic groups and is one of many multi-national states in the world.
De facto independence
The ROC government had no effective control over Tibet from 1912 to 1951; however, in the opinion of the Chinese government, this condition does not represent Tibet's independence as many other parts of China also enjoyed de facto independence when the Chinese nation was torn by warlordism, Japanese invasion, and civil war. Goldstein explains what is meant by de facto independence in the following statement:
...[Britain] instead adopted a policy based on the idea of autonomy for Tibet within the context of Chinese suzerainty, that is to say, de facto independence for Tibet in the context of token subordination to China. Britain articulated this policy in the Simla Convention of 1914.
While at times the Tibetans were fiercely independent-minded, at other times, Tibet indicated its willingness to accept subordinate status as part of China provided that Tibetan internal systems were left untouched and China relinquished control over a number of important ethnic Tibetan groups in Kham and Amdo. China insists that during this period the ROC government continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet. The Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China (1912) stipulated that Tibet was a province of the Republic of China. Provisions concerning Tibet in the Constitution of the Republic of China promulgated later all stress the inseparability of Tibet from Chinese territory, and the Central Government of China exercise of sovereignty in Tibet. In 1927, the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs of the Chinese Government contained members of great influence in the Mongolian and Tibetan areas, such as the 13th Dalai Lama, the 9th Panchen Lama and other Tibetan government representatives. In 1934, on his condolence mission for the demise of the Dalai Lama, the Chinese General Huang Musong posted notices in Chinese and Tibetan throughout Lhasa that alluded to Tibet as an integral part of China while expressing the utmost reverence for the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist religion.
The 9th Panchen Lama traditionally ruled over one-third of Tibet. On 1 February 1925, the Panchen Lama attended the preparatory session of the "National Reconstruction Meeting" (Shanhou huiyi) meant to identify ways and means of unifying the Chinese nation, and gave a speech about achieving the unification of five nationalities, including Tibetans, Mongolians and Han Chinese. In 1933, he called upon the Mongols to national unity and to obey the Chinese Government to resist Japanese invasion. In February 1935 the Chinese government appointed Panchen Lama "Special Cultural Commissioner for the Western Regions" and assigned him 500 Chinese troops. He spent much of his time teaching and preaching Buddhist doctrines - including the principles of unity and pacification for the border regions - extensively in inland China, outside of Tibet, from 1924 until 1 December 1937, when he died on his way back to Tibet under the protection of Chinese troops.
The Kuomintang government sought to portray itself as necessary to validate the choice of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama. When the current (14th) Dalai Lama was installed in Lhasa, it was with an armed escort of Chinese troops and an attending Chinese minister The Muslim Kuomintang General Bai Chongxi said that the Tibetans suffered under British repression, and he called upon the Republic of China to assist them in expelling the British. According to Yu Shiyu, during China's resistance war against Japanese invasion, Chiang Kai-shek ordered the Chinese Muslim General Ma Bufang, Governor of Qinghai (1937–1949), to repair the Yushu airport in Qinghai Province to deter Tibetan independence. In May 1943, Chiang warned that Tibet must accept and follow the instructions and orders of the Central Government, that they must agree and help to build the Chinese-India [war-supply] road, and that they must maintain direct communications with the Office of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission (MTAC) in Lhasa and not through the newly established "Foreign Office" of Tibet. He sternly warned that he would "send an air force to bomb Tibet immediately" should Tibet be found to be collaborating with Japan. Official Communications between Lhasa and Chiang Kai-shek's government was through MTAC, not the "Foreign Office", until July 1949 just before the Communists' final victory in the civil war. The presence of MTAC in Lhasa was viewed by both Nationalist and Communist governments as an assertion of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Throughout the Kuomintang years, no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition.
In 1950 after the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet Nehru stated that India would continue the British policy with regards to Tibet in considering it to be outwardly part of China but internally autonomous.
The PRC considers all pro-independence movements aimed at ending Chinese sovereignty in Tibet, including British attempts to establish control in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the CIA's backing of Tibetan insurgents during the 1950s and 1960s, and the Government of Tibet in Exile till the turn of the 21st century, as one long campaign abetted by Western imperialism aimed at destroying Chinese territorial integrity and sovereignty, or destabilizing China. Until 2008 the British position remained the same that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view which it revised on 29 October 2008, when the British Foreign Office recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by issuing a statement on its website. The Economist stated that although the Foreign Office's website does not use the word sovereignty, officials at the Foreign Office said "it means that, as far as Britain is concerned, 'Tibet is part of China. Full stop.' " The New York Times commented on the American policy during the 1960s saying that it was part of the CIA's efforts to undermine Communist regimes. After the end of the Cold War the United States uses the National Endowment for Democracy to primarily support Tibetan independence groups.
View of the Tibetan government and subsequent government in exile
Government of Tibet (1912–1951)
A proclamation issued by 13th Dalai Lama in 1913 states, "During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship. [...] the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other." He condemned that the " Chinese authorities in Szechuan and Yunnan endeavored to colonize our territory Chinese" in 1910–12 and stated that "We are a small, religious, and independent nation".
|This section does not cite any references or sources. (November 2013)|
In 2003, an old Tibetan passport was rediscovered in Nepal. Issued by the Kashag to Tibet's finance minister Tsepon Shakabpa for foreign travel, the passport was a single piece of pink paper, complete with photograph. It has a message in hand-written Tibetan and typed English, similar to the message by the nominal issuing officers of today's passports, stating that ""the bearer of this letter – Tsepon Shakabpa, Chief of the Finance Department of the Government of Tibet, is hereby sent to China, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other countries to explore and review trade possibilities between these countries and Tibet. We shall, therefore, be grateful if all the Governments concerned on his route would kindly give due recognition as such, grant necessary passport, visa, etc. without any hindrance and render assistance in all possible ways to him." The text and the photograph is sealed by a square stamp belonging to the Kashag, and is dated "26th day of the 8th month of Fire-Pig year (Tibetan)" (14 October 1947 in the gregorian calendar).
The passport has received visas and entry stamps from several countries and territories, including India, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Switzerland, Pakistan, Iraq and Hong Kong, but not China. Some visa do reflect an official status, with mentions such as "Diplomatic courtesy, Service visa, Official gratis, Diplomatic visa, For government official".
However, acceptance of a passport does not indicate recognition of independence, as for example the Republic of China passport is accepted by almost all the countries of the world, even though few of them recognize the ROC as independent.
Tibet Government in exile (post 1959)
In 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama fled Tibet and established a government in exile at Dharamsala in northern India. This group claims sovereignty over various ethnically or historically Tibetan areas now governed by China. Aside from the Tibet Autonomous Region, an area that was administered directly by the Dalai Lama's government until 1951, the group also claims Amdo (Qinghai) and eastern Kham (western Sichuan). About 45 percent of ethnic Tibetans under Chinese rule live in the Tibet Autonomous Region, according to the 2000 census. Prior to 1949, much of Amdo and eastern Kham were governed by local rulers and even warlords.
The view of the current Dalai Lama in 1989 was as follows:
During the 5th Dalai Lama's time [1617–1682], I think it was quite evident that we were a separate sovereign nation with no problems. The 6th Dalai Lama [1683–1706] was spiritually pre-eminent, but politically, he was weak and uninterested. He could not follow the 5th Dalai Lama's path. This was a great failure. So, then the Chinese influence increased. During this time, the Tibetans showed quite a deal of respect to the Chinese. But even during these times, the Tibetans never regarded Tibet as a part of China. All the documents were very clear that China, Mongolia and Tibet were all separate countries. Because the Chinese emperor was powerful and influential, the small nations accepted the Chinese power or influence. You cannot use the previous invasion as evidence that Tibet belongs to China. In the Tibetan mind, regardless of who was in power, whether it was the Manchus [the Qing dynasty], the Mongols [the Yuan dynasty] or the Chinese, the east of Tibet was simply referred to as China. In the Tibetan mind, India and China were treated the same; two separate countries.
The International Commission of Jurists concluded that from 1913 to 1950 Tibet demonstrated the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law. In the opinion of the commission, the government of Tibet conducted its own domestic and foreign affairs free from any outside authority, and countries with whom Tibet had foreign relations are shown by official documents to have treated Tibet in practice as an independent State.
The United Nations General Assembly passed resolutions urging respect for the rights of Tibetans in 1959, 1961 and 1965. The 1961 resolution calls for that "principle of self-determination of peoples and nations" applies to the Tibetan people.
The Tibetan Government in Exile views current PRC rule in Tibet, including neighboring provinces outside Tibet Autonomous Region, as colonial and illegitimate, motivated solely by the natural resources and strategic value of Tibet, and in gross violation of both Tibet's historical status as an independent country and the right of Tibetan people to self-determination. It also points to PRC's autocratic policies, divide-and-rule policies, and what it contends are assimilationist policies, and regard those as an example of ongoing imperialism aimed at destroying Tibet's distinct ethnic makeup, culture, and identity, thereby cementing it as an indivisible part of China. That said, the Dalai Lama stated in 2008 that he wishes only for Tibetan autonomy, and not separation from China, under certain conditions, like freedom of speech and expression, genuine self-rule, and control over ethnic makeup and migration in all areas claimed as historical Tibet.
During the Tang Dynasty of China, Tibet and China frequently warred. Parts of Tibet were temporarily captured by the Chinese and became territories of the Tang dynasty (618–907 AD). Around 650, the Chinese captured Lhasa. In 763, Tibet very briefly took the Chinese capital of Chang'an during the Tang civil war.[better source needed]
Most scholars outside of China say that during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), Tibet was independent without even a nominal Ming suzerainty. In contrast since the mid-18th century it is agreed that China had control over Tibet reaching its maximum in the end of the 18th century. Luciano Petech, a scholar of Himalayan history, indicated that Tibet was a Qing protectorate.
The patron and priest relationship held between the Qing court and the Tibetan lamas has been subjected to varying interpretation. The 13th Dalai Lama, for example, knelt, but did not kowtow, before the Empress Dowager and the young Emperor while he delivered his petition in Beijing. Chinese sources emphasize the submission of kneeling; Tibetan sources emphasize the lack of the kowtow. Titles and commands given to Tibetans by the Chinese, likewise, are variously interpreted. The Qing authorities gave the 13th Dalai Lama the title of "Loyally Submissive Vice-Regent", and ordered to follow Qing's commands and communicate with the Emperor only through the Manchu Amban in Lhasa; but opinions vary as to whether these titles and commands reflected actual political power, or symbolic gestures ignored by Tibetans. Some authors claim that kneeling before the Emperor followed the 17th-century precedent in the case of the 5th Dalai Lama. Other historians indicate that the emperor treated the Dalai Lama as an equal
Tibetologist Melvyn C. Goldstein writes that Britain and Russia formally acknowledged Chinese authority over Tibet in treaties of 1906 and 1907; and that the British invasion of Tibet stirred China into getting more directly involved in Tibetan affairs and working to integrate Tibet with "the rest of China."
The status of Tibet after the Xinhai Revolution ended the Qing Dynasty is also a matter to debate. After the revolution, the Chinese Republic of five races, including Tibetans, was proclaimed. Western powers recognized the Chinese Republic, however the 13th Dalai Lama proclaimed Tibet's independence. Some authors indicate that personal allegiance of the Dalai Lama to the Manchu Emperor came to an end and no new type of allegiance of Tibet to China was established, or that Tibet had relationships with the empire and not with the new nation-state of China. Barnett observes that there is no document before 1950 in which Tibet explicitly recognizes Chinese sovereignty, and considers Tibet's subordination to China during the periods when China had most authority comparable to that of a colony. Tibetologist Elliot Sperling noted that the Tibetan term for China, Rgya-nag, did not mean anything more than a country bordering Tibet from the east, and did not include Tibet. Other Tibetologists write that no country publicly accepts Tibet as an independent state, although there are several instances of government officials appealing to their superiors to do so. Treaties signed by Britain and Russia in the early years of the 20th century, and others signed by Nepal and India in the 1950s, recognized Tibet's political subordination to China. The United States presented a similar viewpoint in 1943. Goldstein also says that a 1943 British official letter "reconfirmed that Britain considered Tibet as part of China." 
Thomas Heberer, professor of political science and East Asian studies at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany, wrote: "No country in the world has ever recognized the independence of Tibet or declared that Tibet is an 'occupied country'. For all countries in the world, Tibet is Chinese territory." However during the early 1990s governmental bodies, including the European Union and United States Congress, and other international organisations declared that Tibetans lacked the right to self-determination or that it was an occupied territory.
In 2008, European Union leader José Manuel Barroso stated that the EU recognized Tibet as integral part of China: On 1 April 2009, the French Government reaffirmed its position on the Tibet issue. In 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama stated that "We recognize Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China. We are not in favor of independence."
This lack of legal recognition makes it difficult for international legal experts sympathetic to the Tibetan Government in Exile to argue that Tibet formally established its independence. On the other hand, in 1959 and 1960 the International Commission of Jurists concluded that Tibet had been independent between 1913 and 1950.
Groups such as the Madrid-based Committee to Support Tibet claim the death toll in Tibet since the 1950 People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet to be 1,200,000 and have filed official charges of genocide against prominent Chinese leaders and officials. This figure has been disputed by Patrick French, a supporter of the Tibetan cause who was able to view the data and calculations, but rather, concludes a no less devastating death toll of half a million people as a direct result of Chinese policies.
According to an ICJ (International Commission of Jurists) report released in 1960, there was no "sufficient proof of the destruction of Tibetans as a race, nation or ethnic group as such by methods that can be regarded as genocide in international law" found in Tibet.
||The neutrality of this section is disputed. (March 2011)|
The PRC argues that the Tibetan authority under successive Dalai Lamas was also itself a human rights violator. The old society, the Chinese government and its supporters say, was a serfdom and, according to reports of an early English explorer, had remnants of "a very mild form of slavery" prior to the 13th Dalai Lama's reforms of 1913.
Tibetologist Robert Barnett wrote about clerical resistance to the introduction of anything Anti-Buddhist that might disturb the prevailing power structure. Clergy obstructed modernization attempts by the 13th Dalai Lama.
Old Tibet had a long history of persecuting non-Buddhist Christians. In the years 1630 and 1742, Tibetan Christian communities were suppressed by the lamas of the Gelugpa Sect, whose chief lama was the Dalai Lama. Jesuit priests were made prisoners in 1630 or attacked before they reached Tsaparang. Between 1850 and 1880, eleven fathers of the Paris Foreign Mission Society were murdered in Tibet, or killed or injured during their journeys to other missionary outposts in the Sino-Tibetan borderlands. In 1881 Father Brieux was reported to have been murdered on his way to Lhasa. Qing officials later discovered that the murder cases were in fact covertly supported and even orchestrated by local lamaseries and their patrons—the native chieftains. In 1904, Qing official Feng Quan sought to curtail the influence of the Gelugpa Sect and ordered the protection of Western missionaries and their churches. Indignation over Feng Quan and the Christian presence escalated to a climax in March 1905, when thousands of the Batang lamas revolted, killing Feng, his entourage, local Manchu and Han Chinese officials, and the local French Catholic priests. The revolt soon spread to other cities in eastern Tibet, such as Chamdo, Litang and Nyarong, and at one point almost spilled over into neighboring Sichuan Province. The missionary stations and churches in these areas were burned and destroyed by the angry Gelugpa monks and local chieftains. Dozens of local Westerners, including at least four priests, were killed or fatally wounded. The scale of the rebellion was so tremendous that only when panicked Qing authorities hurriedly sent 2,000 troops from Sichuan to pacify the mobs did the revolt gradually come to an end. The lamasery authorities and local native chieftains' hostility towards the Western missionaries in Tibet lingered through the last throes of the Manchu dynasty and into the Republican period.
Three UN resolutions of 1959, 1961, and 1965 condemned human rights violation in Tibet. These resolutions were passed at a time when the PRC was not permitted to become a member and of course was not allowed to present its singular version of events in the region (however, the Republic of China on Taiwan, which the PRC also tries to claim sovereignty over, was a member of the UN at the time, and it equally claimed sovereignty over Tibet and opposed Tibetan self-determination). Professor and sinologist A. Tom Grunfeld called the resolutions impractical and justified the PRC in ignoring them.
Grunfeld questioned Human Rights Watch reports on human rights abuses in Tibet, saying they distorted the big picture.
According to Barnett, since Western powers and especially the United States used the Tibet issue in the 1950s and 1960s for cold war political purposes, the PRC is now able to get support from developing countries in defeating the last nine attempts at the United Nations to criticize China. Barnett writes that the position of the Chinese in Tibet would be more accurately characterized as a colonial occupation, and that such an approach might cause developing nations to be more supportive of the Tibetan cause.
The Chinese government ignores the issue of its alleged violations of Tibetan human rights, and prefers to argue that the invasion was about territorial integrity and unity of the State. Furthermore, Tibetan activists inside Tibet have until recently focused on independence, not human rights.
Leaders of the Tibetan Youth Congress which claims 30,000 over members  are alleged by China to advocate violence. In 1998, Barnett wrote that India's military includes 10,000 Tibetans, causing China some unease; and that "at least seven bombs exploded in Tibet between 1995 and 1997, one of them laid by a monk, and a significant number of individual Tibetans are known to be actively seeking the taking up of arms; hundreds of Chinese soldiers and police have been beaten during demonstrations in Tibet, and at least one killed in cold blood, probably several more."
Chinadaily.com reported on the discovery of weapons subsequent to the protests by peaceful Buddhists monks on March 14, 2008: "Police in Lhasa seized more than 100 guns, tens of thousands of bullets, several thousand kilograms of explosives and tens of thousands of detonators, acting on reports from lamas and ordinary people."
And on 23 March 2008, there was a bombing incident in the Qambo prefecture.
While the earliest ROC constitutional documents already claim Tibet as part of China, Chinese political leaders also acknowledged the principle of self-determination. For example, at a party conference in 1924, Kuomintang leader Sun Yat-sen issued a statement calling for the right of self-determination of all Chinese ethnic groups: "The Kuomintang can state with solemnity that it recognizes the right of self-determination of all national minorities in China and it will organize a free and united Chinese republic." In 1931, the CCP issued a constitution for the short-lived Chinese Soviet Republic which states that Tibetans and other ethnic minorities, "may either join the Union of Chinese Soviets or secede from it." It is notable that China was in a state of civil war at the time and that the "Chinese Soviets" only represents a faction. Saying that Tibet may secede from the "Chinese Soviets" does not mean that it can secede from China. The quote above is merely a statement of Tibetans' freedom to choose their political orientation. The possibility of complete secession was denied by Communist leader Mao Zedong in 1938: "They must have the right to self-determination and at the same time they should continue to unite with the Chinese people to form one nation". This policy was codified in PRC's first constitution which, in Article 3, reaffirmed China as a "single multi-national state," while the "national autonomous areas are inalienable parts". The Chinese government insists that the United Nations documents, which codifies the principle of self-determination, provides that the principle shall not be abused in disrupting territorial integrity: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations...."
The PRC also points to what it claims are the autocratic, oppressive and theocratic policies of the government of Tibet before 1959, its toleration of existence of serfdom and slaves, its so-called "renunciation" of (Arunachal Pradesh) and its association with India and other foreign countries, and as such claims the Government of Tibet in Exile has no legitimacy to govern Tibet and no credibility or justification in criticizing PRC's policies.
...It is often forgotten that many Tibetans, especially educated people in the larger towns, were so keen to modernize their society in the mid-20th century that they saw the Chinese communists as allies against rule by monks and serf-owning landlords. The Dalai Lama himself, in the early 1950s, was impressed by Chinese reforms and wrote poems praising Chairman Mao.
Instances have been documented when the PRC government gained support from a portion of the Tibetan population, including monastic leaders, monks, nobility and ordinary Tibetans prior to the crackdown in the 1959 uprising. The PRC government and some Tibetan leaders characterize PLA's operation as a peaceful liberation of Tibetans from a "feudal serfdom system."(和平解放西藏).
When Tibet complained to the United Nations through El Salvador about Chinese invasion in November 1950—after China captured Chamdo (or Qamdo) when Tibet failed to respond by the deadline to China's demand for negotiation-- members debated about it but refused to admit the "Tibet Question" into the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. Key stakeholder India told the General Assembly that "the Peking Government had declared that it had not abandoned its intention to settle the difficulties by peaceful means", and that "the Indian Government was certain that the Tibet Question could still be settled by peaceful means". The Russian delegate said that "China's sovereignty over Tibet had been recognized for a long time by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the U.S.S.R." The United Nations postponed this matter on the pretext Tibet was officially an "autonomous nationality region belonging to territorial China", and because the outlook of peaceful settlement seemed good.
Subsequently, The Agreement Between the Central Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Method for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, also known as Seventeen-Point Agreement, was signed between delegates of China and Tibet on 23 May 1951. The Dalai Lama,despite the massive Chinese military presence, had ample time and opportunity to repudiate and denounce the Seventeen-Point Agreement. He was encouraged and instigated to do so with promise of public but not military support by the US, which by now had become hostile to Communist-ruled China.
On May 29, the 10th Panchen Erdeni (i.e. 10th Panchen Lama) and the Panchen Kampus Assembly made a formal statement, expressing their heartfelt support for the agreement. The statement indicated their resolution to guarantee the correct implementation of the agreement and to realize solidarity between the different ethnic groups of China and ethnic solidarity among the Tibetans; and on May 30, the 10th Panchen Erdeni telegrammed the 14th Dalai Lama, expressing his hope for unity and his vow to support the 14th Dalai Lama and the government of Tibet with the implementation of the agreement under the guidance of the Central Government and Chairman Mao.
The Agreement was finally accepted by Tibet's National Assembly, which then advised the Dalai Lama to accept it. Finally, on 24 October 1951, the Dalai Lama dispatched a telegram to Mao Zedong:
The Tibet Local Government as well as the ecclesiastic and secular People 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 defence, drive out imperialist influences from Tibet and safeguard the unification of the territory and sovereignty of the Motherland.
On 28 October 1951, the Panchen Rinpoche [i.e. Panchen Lama] made a similar public statement accepting the agreement. He urged the "people of Shigatse to give active support" to carrying out the agreement.
Tsering Shakya writes about the general acceptance of the Tibetans toward the Seventeen-Point Agreement, and its legal significance:
The most vocal supporters of the agreement came from the monastic community...As a result many Tibetans were willing to accept the agreement....Finally there were strong factions in Tibet who felt that the agreement was acceptable...this section was led by the religious community...In the Tibetans' view their independence was not a question of international legal status, but as Dawa Norbu writes, "Our sense of independence was based on the independence of our way of life and culture, which was more real to the unlettered masses than law or history, canons by which the non-Tibetans decide the fate of Tibet...This was the first formal agreement between Tibet and Communist China and it established the legal basis for Chinese rule in Tibet." 
On March 28, 1959, premier Zhou Enlai signed the order of the PRC State Council with regard to the uprising in Tibet, accusing the Tibetan government of disrupting the Agreement despite the facts that this was not true (see, for review). The creation of the TAR finally buried the Agreement that was discarded back in 1959.
On April 18, 1959, the Dalai Lama published a statement in Tezpur, India, which explained the reasons for his escape to India. He pointed out that the 17 Point Agreement was signed under pressure because the Tibetans had no other choice; later the Chinese side permanently violated it. According to Michael Van Walt Van Praag, "treaties and similar agreements concluded under the use or threat of force are invalid under international law ab initio". Therefore, this Agreement is not considered legal by those who consider Tibet as an independent state before its signing; but it is considered legal by those who deny Tibet's independence. In either case the PRC did not abide by the agreement.
- Tibetan Independence Movement
- Patron and priest relationship
- South Tibet
- Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme
- Protests and uprisings in Tibet since 1950
- Hawaiian sovereignty movement
- Ryukyu independence movement
- Wang and Nyima (1997) p.20. Sperling (2004) p.21
- Sperling (2004) p.17. Shakya (1999) p.90. Latourette (1964) p.419. Spence (1999) p.500.
- Wang and Nyima (1997) p.20. Grunfeld (1996) p.256. Sperling (2004) p.10.
- Sperling (2004) pp.6,7. Goldstein (1989) p.72. Both cite the ROC’s position paper at the 1914 Simla Conference.
- Sperling (2004) p.21
- "Five Point Peace Plan". The Dalai Lama. 21 September 1987. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
- Feigon (1996) p.58. Gernet (1972) pp.369, 384. Goldstein (1997) pp.3, 4.
- Goldstein (1997) pp.4,5. Feigon (1996) pp.63-64,
- Latourette (1964) p.253 “an appendage of”. Gernet (1972) p.481 “part of”. Goldstein (1989) p.44 “subordination of Tibet to China”.
- Sperling (2004) pp.27-29
- Feigon (1996) pp.86,88,90, in contrast, claims that the Qing had little control over Tibet and compares Tibet with the Vatican.
- Shakya (1999) p.4 "independent state", 90 "international legal status" was "independent state". Feigon (1996) p.119 "border between the two countries" of China and Tibet in 1917. Goldstein (1997) pp.30-37 Chapter titled “Interlude: De Facto Independence”. Latourette (1964) pp.333 "practically independent" from 1912, 419 "accepted the suzerainity of the Communists" in 1951.
- "The Question of Tibet". Council of Foreign Relations. 5 December 2008. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
Western countries, including Britain and the United States, did not recognize Tibet as fully independent
- Image from a display at the UN building. See also:http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm United Nations Cartographic Section - The World in 1945, no. 4135 Rev.2 September 2009
- The World in 1945, no. 4135 "The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or any area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers boundaries."
- History of Tibet
- The Issue of Tibet in China-US Relations During The Second World War
- The last of the Tibetans By Ian Buruma
- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Published 1912: Tibet
- Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet (1906)
- Convention Between Great Britain and Russia (1907)
- 'President Chen Shui-bian's Remarks at the Opening Ceremony of the 2007 International Symposium on Human Rights in Tibet' Sep 8, 2007[dead link]
- For the PRC's position, see State Council's whitepaper Tibet - Its Ownership and Human Rights Situation, 1992 and Beijing Review's 100 Question about Tibet, 1989; for ROC's position, see Government Information Office's online publication
- Grunfeld, A. Tom, Reassessing Tibet Policy, 2000 (also in PDF file)
- For a definition of the “Succession of states theory in international law”, see West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, The Gale Group, Inc., 2008 : “Succession occurs when one state ceases to exist or loses control over part of its territory, and another state comes into existence or assumes control over the territory lost by the first state. A central concern in this instance is whether the international obligations of the former state are taken over by the succeeding state. Changes in the form of government of one state, such as the replacement of a monarchy by a democratic form of government, do not modify or terminate the obligations incurred by the previous government. When the state ceases to exist, however, the treaties it concluded generally are terminated and those of the successor state apply to the territory. These include political treaties like alliances, which depend on the existence of the state that concluded them. But certain obligations, such as agreements concerning boundaries or other matters of local significance, carry over to the successor state. More difficult to determine is the continuing legality of treaties granting concessions or contract rights. Scholarly opinion has diverged on this aspect of succession, and state practice has likewise divided. Consequently each case must be studied on its merits to determine whether the rights and duties under the contract or concession are such that the successor state is bound by the obligations of the previous state.”
- Rene Kamm, The Sino-Tibetan Dialogue: Talk Shop or Path to Resolution?, Marc Blecher, advisor, Oberlin College, East Asian Studies Honors, 2012 April 26, p. 7: "The PRC contends that, according to international law and the succession of states theory, all subsequent Chinese governments have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty over Tibet."
- Scott David Parker, Department of Political Science, Sierra College Truckee, California, All (Geo-)Politics are Local: the Consequences of the People’s Republic of China’s Military Doctrine of Local War for the East Asia Region, Paper submitted for presentation at the Canadian Political Science Association annual meeting, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, June 12–15, 2012 : ”In the view of its leadership, the PRC replaced the ROC as the legitimate government of all China under the succession of states theory of international law. That the majority of the world’s states agree reinforces this assertion and serves to isolate the Taipei regime”.
- Grunfeld, 1996, p256
- A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn Goldstein, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press(1989), p822
- Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet: 1913-1951, 1989, pp 239-241, 248, 271
- Grunfeld, A. Tom, The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1996, p245, regarding Kham and Amdo: "The historical reality is that the Dalai Lamas have not ruled these outer areas since the mid-eighteenth century, and during the Simla Conference of 1913, the 13th Dalai Lama was even willing to sign away rights to them"
- History of Tibet
- The Consistent Stand Taken by the Successive Chinese Central Governments towards the Sovereignty over Tibet after the Revolution of 1911
- Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China, issued March, 1912; Constitution of the Republic of China, issued May, 1914; Provisional Constitution in the Political Tutelage Period of the Republic of China, issued June 1931
- "Did Tibet Become an Independent Country after the Revolution of 1911?", China Internet Information Center
- The History of Tibet By Alex McKay (ed), London: RoutledgeCurzon (2003) p.427,571
- A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn C. Goldstein, 1989, p227
- A Short History of Tibet by T.T. Moh
- A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn C. Goldstein, 1989, p.263
- McKay (ed), p419-431; Panchen Lama's speech about unification of five nationalities, p422; Panchen Lama preached resistance against Japanese, p425; Panchen Lama preached about principles of unity and peace for the border regions, p.429; under the protection Chinese troops, p.431
- Richardson, Hugh E. (1984). Tibet and its History. 2nd Edition, pp. 134-136. Shambhala Publications, Boston. ISBN 0-87773-376-7 (pbk).
- The History of Tibet By Alex McKay (ed), London: RoutledgeCurzon (2003) p571; "the coronation of the Dalai Lama"; the British representative Basil Gould there was not afforded the privilege to attend the installation ceremony; Note 2 on p.572
- Wu Chung hsin walking towards a sedan chair "Information" of the photo: Richardson discusses Wu's mission to Lhasa in Tibet and Its History(2nd Ed.)Boston & London: Shambala (1984), "Wu also claimed that he personally conducted the enthronement and that, in gratitude, the Dalai Lama prostrated himself in the direction of Peking." (p. 154)
- The Search for, and Installation of 5-Year-Old Tenzin Gyatso as the 14th Dalai Lama. Video No. 2 (in Chinese)
- Diana Lary (1974). Region and nation: the Kwangsi clique in Chinese politics, 1925-1937. Cambridge University Press. p. 124. ISBN 0-521-20204-3. Retrieved 2010-06-28.
- 奥运会、“藏独”和文化自信 Chinese article, retrieved on April 17, 2008
- The Dragon in the Land of Snows by Tsering Shakya,pp.7,11
- For the British and U.S. positions on Tibet, see Goldstein, 1989, p 399, p386, UK Foreign Office Whitepaper: Tibet and the Question of Chinese Suzerainty (10 April 1943), Foreign Office Records: FO371/35755 and aide-mémoire sent by the US Department of States to the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. (dated 15 May 1943), Foreign Office Records: FO371/35756
- A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn Goldstein, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press(1989), p673-4
- Jacques Gernet's A History of Chinese Civilization [Cambridge University Press, 1996] saying "From 1751 onwards Chinese control over Tibet became permanent and remained so more or less ever after, in spite of British efforts to seize possession of this Chinese protectorate at the beginning of the twentieth century."
- Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From CIA
- Reassessing Tibet Policy by A. Tom Grunfeld; Tibet, China and the United States: Reflections on the Tibet Question by Melvyn C. Goldstein; Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA
- Origins of So-Called "Tibetan Independence, Information Office of the State Council, 1992
- Staff, Britain's suzerain remedy, The Economist, 6 November 2008
- Reassessing Tibet Policy by Tom Gunfeld
- Global Researcher,"Democratic Imperialism": Tibet, China, and the National Endowment for Democracy by Michael Barker
- Flag of Tibet
- Shakabpa, Tsepon W. D. "Tibet: A Political History, Yale University Press, 1967. p246-248
- Goldstein, Melvyn C., The Snow Lion and the Dragon, University of California Press, 1997, p71
- Gyatso, Tenzin, 14th Dalai Lama. Tibet, China and the World: A Compilation of Interviews, Dharamsala, 1989, p. 31.
- Legal Inquiry Committee, Tibet and Chinese People's Republic, Geneva: International Commission of Jurists, 1960, pp. 5,6
- Walt Van Praag, Michael C. van, The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law, (Westview, 1987)
- United Nations General Assembly - Resolution 1353 (XIV)
- United Nations General Assembly - Resolution 1723 (XVI) and alternative:
- United Nations General Assembly - Resolution 2079 (XX)
- "Tibetans just want autonomy, Dalai Lama says". MSNBC. 13 April 2008. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
- WORLD HISTORY: THE HUMAN ODYSSEY, West Educational Publishing. ISBN 0314205616. Author: Jackson J. Spiegvogel
- Charles Bell (1992). Tibet Past and Present. CUP Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 28. ISBN 81-208-1048-1. Retrieved 2010-07-17.
- University of London. Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom (1960). The China quarterly, Issue 1. p. 88. Retrieved 2010-07-17.
- Roger E. McCarthy (1997). Tears of the lotus: accounts of Tibetan resistance to the Chinese invasion, 1950-1962. McFarland. p. 12. ISBN 0-7864-0331-4. Retrieved 2010-07-17.
- Gernet, J., Foster, J.R. & Hartman C., A History of Chinese Civilization, Cambridge University Press, 1982, p481 reads in part: "From 1751 onwards Chinese control over Tibet became permanent and remained so more or less ever after, in spite of British efforts to seize possession of this Chinese protectorate at the beginning of the twentieth century."
- Petech L.,China and Tibet in the Early XVIIIth Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet, 1972, p260
- The History of Tibet: Volume III The Modern Period: 1895-1959 edited by Alex McKay, London and New York: Routledge Curzon (2003), p.9
- A wall painting showing the 13th Dalai Lama kneeling before the Dowager Queen
- Grunfeld, A. Tom, The Making of Modern Tibet, p. 42, reads in part "Both (Tibetan and Chinese) accounts agree that the Dalai Lama was exempt from the traditional kowtow symbolizing total subservience; he was, however, required to kneel before the emperor."
- Laird, Thomas. (2006). The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, pp. 170-174. Grove Press, New York. ISBN 978-0-8021-1827-1.
- Tibet, China and the United States: Reflections on the Tibet Question by Melvyn C. Goldstein
- Alexandrowicz-Alexander C.H. The Legal Position of Tibet. - The American Journal of International Law, vol. 48, No. 2, 1954, pp. 265-274.
- Dulaney, A.G., Cusack, D.M., and Van Walt van Praag, M., 1998. The Case Concerning Tibet. Tibet's Sovereignty and Tibetan People's Right to Self-Determination. New Delhi, p.1-2, 29-30, 38.
- Robert Barnett in Steve Lehman, The Tibetans: Struggle to Survive, Umbrage Editions, New York, 1998. pdf p.12, 
- Sperling, E. The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics. - Policy Studies 7, 2004, p. 34.
- Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region by Barry Sautman and June Teufel Dreyer, New York: M.E.Sharpe (2006),p3
- Clark, Gregory, "In fear of China", 1969, saying: ' Tibet, although enjoying independence at certain periods of its history, had never been recognised by any single foreign power as an independent state. The closest it has ever come to such recognition was the British formula of 1943: suzerainty, combined with autonomy and the right to enter into diplomatic relations. '
- Clark, Gregory, "No rest for 'China threat' lobby", Japan Times, 7 Jan 2006
- Grunfeld, A. Tom, "The Making of Modern Tibet", p258
- Goldstein, 1989, p717.
- The History of Tibet By Alex McKay (ed), London: RoutledgeCurzon (2003) p657-8.
- Treaties of 1906, 1907 and 1914
- Since then Tibet has been regarded by Nepal and the Republic of India as a Region of China
- Aide-mémoire sent by the US Department of States to the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.(dated 15 May 1943), Foreign Office Records: FO371/35756, quoted from Goldstein, 1989, p386 "For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that...the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims."
- Melvyn C. Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State pp.401-402
- West is 'waging a new Cold War against China' Chinadaily.com quotes German newspaper. Retrieved on April 17, 2008
- "SPIEGEL Interview with Tibet's Communist Party Chief". De Spiegel. 16 August 2006. Retrieved 23 July 2012.
- "European Parliament Resolution on the Situation in Tibet". Yale. 2008. Retrieved 23 July 2012.
- "TIBET: UN TO VOTE ON RIGHTS ABUSES IN TIBET - EUROPEANS TABLE CENSURE MOTION; US POSITION SEEN AS KEY". International Commission of Jurists. 26 February 1992. Retrieved 23 July 2012.
- European Parliament Resolution on Panchen Lama
- Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236, § 536, 108 Stat. 382, 481 (1994), saying "Because Congress has determined that Tibet is an occupied sovereign country under international law". Congress has imposed a reporting requirement on the Secretary of State regarding, inter alia, the state of relations between the United States and "those recognized by Congress as the true representatives of the Tibetan people."), see also Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-138, § 355, 105 Stat. 647, 713 (1991) saying "It is the sense of the Congress that...Tibet...is an occupied country under the established principles of international law [and] Tibet’s true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people..." (See the Bill)
- EU boss wants good news soon on Tibet, NEWS.com.au, 25 April 2008
- EU's Barroso Encouraged by Tibet Talks with China, Deutsche Welle, 25 April 2008
- Joint communiqué issued by the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- "Remarks by President Obama and President Xi Jinping in Joint Press Conference". 23 November 2014.
- Bradsher, Henry S. Tibet Struggles to Survive, Foreign Affairs, July 1969 Vol. 47 Issue 4, p.753 "Even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial or republican..."
- Tibet and the Chinese People's Republic, International Commission of Jurists, 1960 "Tibet demonstrated from 1913 to 1950 the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law."
- China rejects Spain's 'genocide' claims
- He May Be a God, but He’s No Politician By PATRICK FRENCH
- Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region by Barry Sautman and June Teufel Dreyer, New York: M.E.Sharpe (2006),p12
-  TIBET, TIBET, A PERSONAL HISTORY OF A LOST LAND Nov 17, 2008 Category: Book Reviews
- ICJ Report on Tibet and China (excerpt) (1960), p.346
- For existence of serfdom and slaves, see Grunfeld, 1996, pp12-17 and Bell, Charles, 1927, pp78-79; for other forms of human rights violation, see Bessac, Frank, "This Was the Perilous Trek to Tragedy", Life, 13 Nov 1950, pp130-136, 198, 141; Ford, Robert W., "Wind Between The Worlds", New York, 1957, p37; MacDonald, David, "The Land of the Lamas", London, 1929, pp196-197
- When Christianity and Lamaism Met: The Changing Fortunes of Early Western Missionaries in Tibet by Hsiao-ting Lin
- The History of Tibet By Alex McKay (ed), London: RoutledgeCurzon (2003) p640-1,643 Christian missionaries banned
- Grunfeld, 1996, p180
- Passages extracted by Robert Barnett from Steve Lehman, The Tibetans: Struggle to Survive, Umbrage Editions, New York, 1998. pdf p.9
- http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/12/content_6612118.htm Retrieved on 12 April 2008
- Passages extracted by Robert Barnett from Steve Lehman, The Tibetans: Struggle to Survive, Umbrage Editions, New York, 1998. pdf p.13
- http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/11/content_6608921.htm 'Tibetan Youth Congress' is pure terrorist organization Retrieved on 13 April 2008
- Police crack bombing at Tibetan township government building
- Quoted from National and Minority Policies, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Report of China 277, 1951, pp148-149
- Brandt, C., Schwartz, B. and Fairbank, John K. (ed.), A Documentary History of Chinese Communism, 1960, pp223-224
- "Report on the International Seminar on the Nationality Question"
- United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
- Goldstein, Melvyn C., "A history of modern Tibet", pp683-687
- Ford, R. W., "Wind between the Worlds", p178, saying: ' There was no sacking of monasteries at this time. On the contrary, the Chinese took great care not to cause offense through ignorance. They soon had the monks thanking the gods for their deliverance. '
- Grunfeld, A.T., "The Making of Modern Tibet", p115, saying: ' By most accounts there were some Tibetans who were pleased to see the Han in Tibet. Peter Aufschneiter told British diplomats in Kathmandu that ordinary Tibetans liked the Han because they were honest and they distributed land. Among the younger generation of the nobility it was seen as an opportunity to make some positive changes. '
- Grunfeld, A.T., "The Making of Modern Tibet", M. E. Sharpe, 1996, p127, saying ' When the communists first arrived in Lhasa, only a few of the aristocracy joined them enthusiastically. In Kham, however, the upper classes welcomed them as potential liberators from the strongly disliked Lhasan officials. '
- Xinhuanet.com. "Xinhuanet.com." 人民解放軍和平解放西藏.
- "." Full Text of Speech By Chinese President Hu Jintao at Tibet's Peaceful Liberation Anniversary Rally
- Tell you a true Tibet -- Peaceful Liberation of Tibet
- A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn C. Goldstein, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press(1989), p676-9,699,729-735
- Melvyn C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama Berkeley:University of California Press, (1999), p41; cited by Yuliya Babayeva in the article The Khampa Uprising: Tibetan Resistance Against the Chinese Invasion pdf p15.
- A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn Goldstein, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press(1989), p761-769,784-812
- Signing of the Agreement on Methods for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet Retrieved on 25 April 2008.
- The History of Tibet: Volume III The Modern Period: 1895-1959 edited by Alex McKay, London and New York: Routledge Curzon (2003), p.603
- The History of Tibet: Volume III The Modern Period: 1895-1959 edited by Alex McKay, London and New York: Routledge Curzon (2003), p.604
- Kuzmin, S.L. 2011. Hidden Tibet: History of Independence and Occupation. Dharamsala: LTWA, p. 239-240
- Shakya, Ts. 1999. The Dragon in the Land of Snows. A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947. London: Pimlico, p. 306
- Walt Van Praag, Michael C. van, The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law. Westview, 1987, p. 98
- Kapstein, Matthew T. 2006. The Tibetans. London: Blackwell, pp. 280-290
- International Commission of Jurists, The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law. Feb. 2009
- Ahmad, Zahiruddin. China and Tibet, 1708-1959: A resume of facts (Chatham House memoranda) (1960) Distributed for the Royal Institute of International Affairs by the Oxford University Press.
- Ardley, Jane. Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (2002) RoutledgeCurzon. ISBN 0-7007-1572-X
- Bajoria, Jayshree (2008.12.5) The Question of Tibet Council of Foreign Relations. Accessed 12 July 2012.
- Barnett, Robert (2013). Language practices and protracted conflict: The Tibet-China dispute. Secessionism and Separatism in Europe and Asia: To have a state of one’s own (Routledge). pp. 196–219.
- Brandt, Conrad; Schwartz, Benjamin; Fairbank, John K. Documentary History of Chinese Communism (2008) (first published 1952) Routledge. ISBN 0-415-36146-X
- Bstan-dzin-rgya-mtsho. Tibet, China, and the world: A compilation of interviews (1989) Narthang Publications.
- Chapman, Spencer. Lhasa: The Holy City (1940) Readers Union Ltd., London.
- Clark, Gregory. In Fear of China (1969) Barrie & Jenkins. ISBN 0-214-66767-7
- Feigon, Lee (1996) Demystifying Tibet: Unlocking the Secrets of the Land of Snows Ivan R. Dee Inc. ISBN 1-56663-089-4.
- Ford, Robert. Wind Between The Worlds The extraordinary first-person account of a Westerner's life in Tibet as an official of the Dalai Lama (1957) David Mckay Co., Inc.
- Gernet, Jaques (1972) A History of Chinese Civilization Librarie Armand Colin, Paris. English translation 2nd Edition 1996 Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0-521-49781-7.
- Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 1: 1913-1951 The Demise of the Lamaist State (1989) University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-06140-8.
- Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 2: 1951-1955 The Calm Before the Storm (2007) University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24941-7.
- Goldstein, Melvyn C. The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama (1997) University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21951-1.
- Goldstein, Melvyn C.; Dawei Sherap; Siebenschuh, William R. A Tibetan Revolutionary: The Political Life and Times of Bapa Phüntso Wangye .
- Grunfeld, A. Tom. The Making of Modern Tibet (1996) East Gate Book. ISBN 978-1-56324-713-2
- http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=article&id=170&catid=30:news&Itemid=12 Kuzmin, Sergius L. (2011) Hidden Tibet: History of Independence and Occupation. Dharamsala, LTWA - ISBN 978-93-80359-47-2
- Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1964) The Chinese, Their History and Culture 4th Ed. Macmillan Company. New York, USA. Library of Congress catalog card number 64-17372.
- Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet (1956) King's Crown Press.
- McKay, Alex. History of Tibet (2003) RoutledgeCurzon. ISBN 0-7007-1508-8.
- Sautman, Barry and Dreyer, June Teufel. Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region (2005) M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-1357-3.
- Shakabpa, Tsepon W. D. Tibet: A Political History, Yale University Press, 1967.
- Shakya, Tsering (1999) The Dragon In The Land Of Snows Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-11814-7.
- Sperling, Elliot (2004) The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics. East-West Center. Washington, D.C. USA. ISBN 1-932728-13-9.
- Spence, Jonathan (1999) The Search for Modern China, 2nd Ed. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York, USA. ISBN 0-393-97351-4.
- Van Walt Van Praag, Michael C. (1987) The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law Boulder, Colo.: Westview. - ISBN 0-813-30394-X.
- Wang, Jia Wei & Nyima Gyaincain (1997) The Historical Status of China's Tibet China Intercontinental Press. ISBN 978-7-80113-304-5.
- Central Tibetan Administration
- Tibet Society
- Photos of Tibet issued postage stamps from "International Junior Postage Stamp Album" printed in 1939 by Scott Publ, NY
- Sperling, Elliot, Don’t Know Much About Tibetan History, New York Times, 13 April 2008.
- Sperling, Elliot (2004). The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics (PDF). Washington: East-West Center. ISBN 1-932728-13-9. ISSN 1547-1330.