In the year 1994 the Chinese government published a book entitled "A Collection of Historical Archives of Tibet." Consisting of facimilies of about 100 documents throughout Chinese history from 1277 to 1956, the book was an attempt to prove that Tibet had, from the time of antiquity, been under the direct administrative control of what one might consider to be China.
I can't say much about the "Collection" itself. What I could find about it online was just a few articles from the party run press hailing the book as definitive proof that Tibet was a part of China. . As silly as it sounds for a party that once swore to eradicate history and tradition from the face of China to turn back to history and tradition to seek legitimacy in the occupation of an actively resisting region, that's what's happening. There aren't many copies available out there. Worldcat has only one and there are a few other copies here and there. None appear to be listed in US institutions. It seems that no one is taking this books seriously.
I would love to have the book in my hands, but it is still possible to argue against that claim it makes without it. Chinese history is not an unbroken line of easy succession. The idea of any part of China being under consistent administrative control, never mind a region as distant from the historical core of China as Tibet, is laughable to any scholar of Chinese history. The communist party itself is not a century old, and the KMT that ruled before it still exists in some sense in Taiwan and makes claim, however symbolic, to the whole of China. So what legitimizes the PRC's claim that it has inherited the territory of the dynasties and governments that came before it? Its authority over the territory it calls Zhong Guo is the result of successful military action for the most part. At no point was its inheritance assured.
None the less, the Tibetan Central Authority saw the need to respond to the claims in the "Collection" and published "A 60-Point Commentary" in 2008. In it, the CTA goes over each document one by one and refutes the claim that it is proof of China's historical ownership of Tibet in three basic ways. It claims that the documents do not come from "Chinese" authority, that China omitted documents disproving its claim, and that the "proof" provided is being interpreted in an extremely loose fashion.
Particularly in earlier historical documents, when the majority of China was under the control of the Mongols or Manchus, the CTA has tried to make the case that there is little to connect the administrations of the successive Han rulers, and, anyhow, Tibet enjoyed autonomy in those periods as one half of a Priest-Patron state relationship. With documents dated from around the 19th century and later rebuttals are focused on the intentional presumption of subsequent Chinese governments and the omission of documents that indicate that Tibet either acted independently of edicts or sent responses that countered them.
Where the Commentary simply relays the text of the "proof" and rebutts it, such as pointing out that threatening to recall troops from Tibet if it doesn't manage its internal affairs is not usually how a nation deals with its own territory, it is quite effective. When the Commentary tries to counter documents with those of its own it falls flat by failing to cite any of its documents. I suppose we can take it on faith that the documents like the Tibetan-Mongol treaty exist (I've seen a copy of that personally, at least), and we can do the legwork ourselves to confirm their existence, but a simple list with the institution housing the document seems like a basic necessity when we're talking about using historical documents as proof of anything. Even worse, some documents the Commentary claims exists are named in ambiguous fashion, and would be hard to track down with just the information presented in the book.
China's claims to a historical right to occupy Tibet is problematic at its face, and requires very little effort to counter. For this reason what the Commentary provides is more than adequate ammunition for the task. But were China's claim strong, and the documents it presented in its "collection" even the least bit convincing on their own, the Commentary would not make for the best rebuttal. It is not itself a collection of proof, and spends more time than it should claiming that counter proof exists when simply pointing out the inadequacy of the documents in question would be enough.
Ultimately, China's quest to find some sort of historical excuse for its occupation is begging the question. Even if there were such thing as a Chinese government that remained constant from the Mongols to now, and even if the PRC had inherited that tradition, its treatment of the Tibetan people has taken legitimacy from it. Even in the Chinese tradition the Mandate of Heaven dictates that a despotic ruler must be overthrown, whether they gained their power by right or not.
I can't say much about the "Collection" itself. What I could find about it online was just a few articles from the party run press hailing the book as definitive proof that Tibet was a part of China. . As silly as it sounds for a party that once swore to eradicate history and tradition from the face of China to turn back to history and tradition to seek legitimacy in the occupation of an actively resisting region, that's what's happening. There aren't many copies available out there. Worldcat has only one and there are a few other copies here and there. None appear to be listed in US institutions. It seems that no one is taking this books seriously.
I would love to have the book in my hands, but it is still possible to argue against that claim it makes without it. Chinese history is not an unbroken line of easy succession. The idea of any part of China being under consistent administrative control, never mind a region as distant from the historical core of China as Tibet, is laughable to any scholar of Chinese history. The communist party itself is not a century old, and the KMT that ruled before it still exists in some sense in Taiwan and makes claim, however symbolic, to the whole of China. So what legitimizes the PRC's claim that it has inherited the territory of the dynasties and governments that came before it? Its authority over the territory it calls Zhong Guo is the result of successful military action for the most part. At no point was its inheritance assured.
None the less, the Tibetan Central Authority saw the need to respond to the claims in the "Collection" and published "A 60-Point Commentary" in 2008. In it, the CTA goes over each document one by one and refutes the claim that it is proof of China's historical ownership of Tibet in three basic ways. It claims that the documents do not come from "Chinese" authority, that China omitted documents disproving its claim, and that the "proof" provided is being interpreted in an extremely loose fashion.
Particularly in earlier historical documents, when the majority of China was under the control of the Mongols or Manchus, the CTA has tried to make the case that there is little to connect the administrations of the successive Han rulers, and, anyhow, Tibet enjoyed autonomy in those periods as one half of a Priest-Patron state relationship. With documents dated from around the 19th century and later rebuttals are focused on the intentional presumption of subsequent Chinese governments and the omission of documents that indicate that Tibet either acted independently of edicts or sent responses that countered them.
Where the Commentary simply relays the text of the "proof" and rebutts it, such as pointing out that threatening to recall troops from Tibet if it doesn't manage its internal affairs is not usually how a nation deals with its own territory, it is quite effective. When the Commentary tries to counter documents with those of its own it falls flat by failing to cite any of its documents. I suppose we can take it on faith that the documents like the Tibetan-Mongol treaty exist (I've seen a copy of that personally, at least), and we can do the legwork ourselves to confirm their existence, but a simple list with the institution housing the document seems like a basic necessity when we're talking about using historical documents as proof of anything. Even worse, some documents the Commentary claims exists are named in ambiguous fashion, and would be hard to track down with just the information presented in the book.
China's claims to a historical right to occupy Tibet is problematic at its face, and requires very little effort to counter. For this reason what the Commentary provides is more than adequate ammunition for the task. But were China's claim strong, and the documents it presented in its "collection" even the least bit convincing on their own, the Commentary would not make for the best rebuttal. It is not itself a collection of proof, and spends more time than it should claiming that counter proof exists when simply pointing out the inadequacy of the documents in question would be enough.
Ultimately, China's quest to find some sort of historical excuse for its occupation is begging the question. Even if there were such thing as a Chinese government that remained constant from the Mongols to now, and even if the PRC had inherited that tradition, its treatment of the Tibetan people has taken legitimacy from it. Even in the Chinese tradition the Mandate of Heaven dictates that a despotic ruler must be overthrown, whether they gained their power by right or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment