Echoes of Tibet: China’s Quest for Territorial Conquest

The debate over the legal status of Tibet has faded into the posterior in international conversation. That said, the story of Tibet’s annexation echoes loudly in consideration of China's recent encroachment on the borders of Bhutan—a neighboring Buddhist kingdom in southeast Asia. China has recently begun the construction of roads, settlements, and buildings within the Beyul and the Menchuma Valleys on the Bhutanese border of Tibet. This behavior calls for a comprehensive evaluation of how the precedents set in determining Tibet’s legal status impact China’s ability to replicate its actions in other Himalayan regions [1]. The lack of international response to violations of international law in the annexation of Tibet informs China's ability to disregard binding legal agreements with the kingdom of Bhutan in order to advance a political and economic agenda.

International Law defines a sovereign state under the criteria agreed upon in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, made effective in 1934. In order to be considered sovereign, a state must have “(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states” [2]. Additionally, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, adopted in 1949, states that, “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive” [3].

China’s claim on Tibet relies on past occupation of the region by the Mongol and Manchu Chinese dynasties between the 13th and 14th centuries and the 18th and 20th centuries, respectively [4]. While China claims that it and Tibet became a combined state in the periods of occupation—therefore arguing Tibet has never been sovereign—Tibet enjoyed nearly forty years of autonomous rule from 1912 to 1951. In the year 1911, Tibet gained its independence as Chinese troops withdrew following the establishment of the Chinese Republic. That same year, the 13th Dalai Lama returned to Tibet from India as its leader. In 1912, the Dalai Lama proved Tibetan sovereignty by issuing a proclamation which included evidence to support that Tibet, in its first year of freedom, already fulfilled all four of the criteria which would later classify it as a sovereign state under the Montevideo Convention’s definition. The proclamation included details about the Tibetan flag, national currency, army, and proof that the state had entered into treaties and received recognition from other states [5]. 

Tibet’s period of unchallenged autonomy ended in 1950. A year after Mao Zedong established the People's Republic of China, the country reasserted its historical claim on the Himalayan nation. Met with resistance from Tibetan officials, the PRC invaded. In 1951, the PRC forced Tibetan officials to sign the Seventeen Point Agreement which provided China with legal grounds to claim the legitimacy of their occupation in Tibet. That said, because the Agreement was signed under duress—with nearly 40,000 Chinese troops in Tibet at the time—it was considered null and void under international law [6]. That said, China treated the Agreement as legitimate and proceeded with annexation, despite lacking legal justification. In consideration of Tibet’s sovereign status, it is clear that China’s actions were unlawful, and therefore, that Tibet’s annexation was a violation of international law. Moreover, China began to move significant portions of its population into Tibet following its annexation, a violation of international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United Nations has passed several resolutions condemning the unlawful occupation of Tibet, with no consequence for China [7]. Tibet is not recognized as an independent state by the United Nations. 

Over seventy years later, how does China’s unlawful annexation of Tibet impact the world as we now know it? In recent weeks, we have seen echoes of Tibet's story most explicitly in Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, in concerns for the future of Taiwan, and in China’s recent activity on the border of Bhutan. The international community’s lack of enforced accountability for China in the case of Tibet has allowed the country to encroach upon territory understood as belonging to the government of Bhutan without concern for the country’s sovereignty [8]. China, having failed in its efforts to renegotiate its border with Bhutan, has chosen to disregard diplomacy by physically imposing itself upon the region [9]. The motivations behind the annexation of Tibet hold true in China’s motivations in the Beyul and the Menchuma Valleys. China originally sought to absorb Tibet because it acted as a buffer region between the country and its neighbor, India, whom it maintains ongoing disputes with. The Valleys in Bhutan would increase this buffer zone, assigning them strategic value: “Control over the remote Doklam plateau would potentially give China greater access to the adjoining ‘Chicken's Neck’ area, a strategic strip of land that connects India to its northeastern region” [10]. China is now claiming the regions as a part of South Tibet. 

The annexation of Tibet was a formative moment in history that set a precedent for how the United Nations responds to predatory territorial expansion. With success in Tibet, it appears likely that China will prove successful in rewriting its border with Bhutan, generating fear surrounding whether or not anything can be done should their ambitions for territorial expansion continue to grow in Bhutan or elsewhere. 

Grace Posorske is a sophomore at Brown University concentrating in International & Public Affairs and Classics. She is a staff writer for the BULR Blog and can be contacted at grace_posorske@brown.edu.