Conclusions


The analysis of the meaning of colonialism and the development of the characteristics of or criteria for colonialism contained in Part I of this study allow us to ascertain whether Chinese rule over Tibet is indeed a form of colonial rule. The fact that the government of the Peoples Republic of China itself does not recognise Tibet to be a colony is not relevant to the issue of whether Tibet is de facto a colony of China. It is the substance of the Chinse rule and of relations between Tibet and China which is relevant.

The distinctiveness of the Tibetan territory and of its people from China and the Chinese people is not seriously contested. Scholars and many other authors from Tibet, China and other countries have written volumes about the distinct racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and historic identity of the Tibetan people. The Tibetan landmass, the Tibetan plateau, is geographically distinct from China, and its unique physical characteristics has kept the land and people of Tibet entirely separate from the land and people of China and those of other countries for centuries. This is not to say that there were no political contacts, wars, conquests or periods of close interaction with Tibet's neighbours, including the Chinese. But the two entities and peoples remained separate and distinct throughout. This is the reason that to this day, both the Chinese and the Tibetans regard each other as foreign or alien peoples. The Chinese authorities and many of the Chinese people may consider that Tibet belongs to China, i.e. is a possession of China. Hence the many Chinese publications entitled China's Tibet. But this is perceived by both sides as the possession by one controlling and more powerful entity and people of the terrirory of a relatively weaker entity and people that is and remains distinct.

The present rule over Tibet was established in the way most colonial powers establish control: by military action and by a treaty which bears all the characteristics of an unequal treaty.

The administration of Tibet has all the characteristics of a colonial administration. The Tibetan people's participation in government is little else than a rubberstamp function, with all real decisionmaking and executive authority exercised by the Chinese, particularly through the Communist Party and the army. The most senior Tibetans in the Chinese government hierarchy (for example Ngapo Ngawang Jigme), are former aristocrats who have been co-opted, as was the case in most European owned colonies. But despite trying to give a semblance of autonomy, China mostly governs Tibet by direct, as opposed to indirect, rule.

Characteristic also of colonial relationships, China uses Tibet's economic backwardness, and at times also its alleged social and cultural backwardness to legitimise its rule over that country. It develops the region by bringing in skilled labor from China and exploiting natural resources and undertaking industrial projects or development projects that are primarily beneficial to China or to Chinese settlers in Tibet. This too, is typical of exploitation colonialism.

One of the serious charges levied against China is that it is carrying out a population transfer policy which has the effect of reducing Tibetans to a minority in their own land.


The movement of settlers to a colony from the metropolitan state is a central element of colonialism. For this element to exist it is not necessary that the migration occur as a result of a forced transfer or even a determined and consistent policy. The movement of Chinese from their homes in China to Tibet has taken place and is continuing at this time at a scale almost reminiscent of the settlement colonies.

As more settlers move in, the pessure on Tibetans to assimilate increases. At the same time, the Chinese authorities are once again repressing the use of the Tibetan language and other expressions of Tibetan national identity, including, in particular, religion.
The Chinese language clearly dominates, and the education system is designed to further strengthen this trend.

As resistance to these policies and to what Tibetans perceive as alien rule increases, it is met by suppression of human rights and political freedoms. The military and armed police presence is there to remind the population of who is in control. Once again in characteristic colonial fashion, the officer corps of the army is controlled by the Chinese, while Tibetans serve primarily in police ranks or hold low status army jobs.

Tibet has the characteristics of exploitation colonies and also some characteristics of settlement colonies. In fact, it could be best characterised as a mixed, hybrid-type colony.

Tibet was not included on the United Nation's list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, which was designed for the decolonization of territories colonised by European and other Western states. But when one compares the situation of Tibet with that of settlement colonies and exploitation colonies, including those who were put on the UN list, the resemblences are striking.

Despite China's insistence that Tibet is an integral and inalienable part of China, the study which we have undertaken shows that at least de facto Tibet must indeed be regarded as a colony of China.

[ Homepage ] [ Present Situation in Tibet ] [Tibet Mission Report ]



This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 3-Oct-97