In April 1951, a delegation from the Xizang local government, led by Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme, arrived in Beijing for a month of negotiations. This significant event in Chinese history ultimately led to the signing of the Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Xizang on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Xizang (commonly referred to as the 17-Article Agreement). The document was a formal declaration of the peaceful liberation of Xizang to the world.

Aggression or liberation?

The Dalai Lama clique, however, referred to the peaceful liberation of Xizang as "the Communist Party of China's aggression against Xizang." To determine whether this accusation is true, we should refer to the international community's definition of aggression.

In 1974, the 29th United Nations General Assembly adopted the Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Article 1 of the document, titled General Definition of Aggression, clearly states: "Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition."

Article 3 of the resolution specifies seven acts that constitute aggression, each involving one state dispatching armed forces to invade, attack, occupy, annex, bomb, blockade, station, or engage in other armed actions against the territory of another state or using its territory to allow aggression against a third state .

In summary, two key conditions must be met to constitute aggression: First, aggression occurs between two states, not within a single country; it must be an action of one state against another. Second, the purpose of aggression is to plunder and enslave another state, damaging the other state's territory and sovereignty.

Regarding the case of Xizang, on the one hand, Xizang has been an integral part of China, with the central government exercising administrative jurisdiction over it since the Yuan Dynasty (1206–1368). The interactions and conflicts between Xizang and other parts of China, or between the central government and the Xizang local government, are all internal affairs and cannot be termed "aggression."

On the other hand, on the eve of Xizang's peaceful liberation, the local authorities in Xizang were controlled by pro-imperialist separatist forces, colluding with countries like the U.S. and the U.K., seeking opportunities to separate Xizang from China. In response, the Central People's Government dispatched armed forces to peacefully march into Xizang to expel imperialist forces and to safeguard national unity. This act was not "damaging the other state's territory and sovereignty," but "safeguarding our own country's territory and sovereignty."

Xizang independence: Product of modern imperialist aggression against China

Since the 18th century, the West has been influenced by Orientalist ideologies and fantasized Xizang as an utopian paradise established and ruled by Westerners in the East, or a peaceful and mystical land with residents either from the West or closely related to Western ancestors.

In the early Western exploration of Xizang, missionaries played a significant role. These missionaries, mainly from the Franciscan Order, claimed their purpose in Xizang was to "find lost Christians." They believed that Xizang people were descendants of early medieval Christians who spread the gospel in Asia Minor and Central Asia, and to find them was a "religious obligation."

Influenced by this belief, generations of Christian missionaries have traveled to the East since the 13th century, searching for the Xizang in their imaginations. A notable example was Ippolito Desideri, an Italian missionary who traveled via India and Kashmir to Lhasa in 1716. He lived in Lhasa for five years, studying Xizang culture in detail, and compiling five missionary books in the Tibetan language. Under the guise of "research and exploration," these Westerners harbor their constant covetousness for Xizang.

By the late 19th century, amid the imperialist scramble to divide China, British forces sought to annex Xizang, aiming to use it as a strategic base for launching invasions into mainland China and as a front line in their rivalry with Tsarist Russia. Britain attempted military invasions of Xizang in 1888 and again in 1903, but both endeavors failed due to the resistance from the Xizang army and people.

Unable to achieve their objectives through direct military action, the imperialists turned to fostering separatist movements in Xizang, inciting "Xizang independence" and orchestrating a series of activities aimed at separating Xizang from China:

— On August 31, 1907, Britain and Tsarist Russia signed the Xizang Agreement, marking the first international document redefining China's sovereignty over Xizang as "suzerainty."

— In 1913, the British Empire orchestrated the Simla Conference, encouraging Xizang representatives to declare "Xizang independence," a move swiftly rejected by the Chinese government. The British representative then proposed a so-called "compromise plan," aiming to reclassify China's sovereignty over Xizang as "suzerainty," thereby presenting Xizang as independent under the pretense of autonomy.

— In 1942, the Xizang local government, with British support, suddenly announced the establishment of a Foreign Affairs Bureau, openly engaging in "Xizang independence" activities.

— On the eve of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the Xizang local government, under the pretext of "keeping Communists away from Xizang," drove away personnel from the Kuomintang government office in Xizang, which became known as the "Expulsion of Han Incident."

— In November 1949, the Xizang local government decided to send a so-called "goodwill mission" to the U.S., the U.K., India, Nepal, and other countries, seeking political and military support for "Xizang independence" with intensified activities to split the country.

— In the first half of 1950, a shipment of American guns and ammunition entered Xizang via Calcutta to prevent the People's Liberation Army's march into Xizang.

All these historical facts clearly demonstrate that the so-called "Xizang independence" concocted by imperialists is part of their conspiracy to carve up Chinese territory and a segment of their history of expansion, colonization, and external aggression. The idea of "Xizang independence" originated in modern times, spanning barely over a century.

The common aspiration of the Xizang people

In response to the "Xizang independence" activities plotted by imperialists and the reactionary upper class of Xizang, on September 2, 1949, Xinhua News Agency, with authorization from the Communist Party of China, published an editorial titled Foreign Aggressors Are Resolutely Not Allowed to Annex China's Territory—Xizang.

The editorial received enthusiastic responses from people across all sectors of Xizang, who expressed their hope that the PLA would enter Xizang soon:

— On the day of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the 10th Panchen Lama telegraphed the central government, stating "Please send troops to liberate Xizang and expel the imperialists as soon as possible."

— On December 2, 1949, Reting Yeshe Tsultrim, the close attendant of the 5th Regent Reting Rinpoche, went to Xining, Qinghai, to report to the PLA on imperialist attempts to destroy Xizang's internal unity, urging the PLA to liberate Xizang without delay.

— In early 1950, over 100 representatives of Xizang farmers, herders, youths, women, and democrats gathered in newly liberated Lanzhou, demanding the liberation of Xizang.

— The 5th Gedar Tulku of Beri Monastery in Garze, Xikang (Kham, encompassing today's western Sichuan and eastern Xizang) Province, headman Shaka Tobden of Yilung in northern Xikang, and representatives sent by the business tycoon Pangda Dorje in southern Xikang went to Beijing to pay tribute to Chairman Mao Zedong and expressed the Xizang people's urgent and earnest wish for liberation.

The authors are Yang Liyuan, an assistant researcher at Contemporary Research Institute of the China Tibetology Research Center, and Yang Xiaochun, a Researcher at Contemporary Research Institute of the China Tibetology Research Center.

Liu Xian /Editor    Hu Min /Translator

Yang Xinhua /Chief Editor    Liu Xian /Coordination Editor

Liu Li /Reviewer

Zhang Weiwei /Copyeditor    Tan Yujie /Image Editor

The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina.