“The Historical Status of China's Tibet”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Given the de facto independence of Central Tibet in the first half of the twentieth century, The Chinese government remains sensitive to the argument that its sovereignty over Tibet is illegitimate.^[4]

As indicated in a postscript, the text of the first edition (1997) was the work of five co-authors: "The intro and Chapters 8-9 were rewritten by Wang Gui; Chapters 1-4 by Wu Wei; Chapters 5 and 7 by Yang Gyaincain; Chapters 6 and 12 by Xirab Nyima; and Chapters 10 and 11, as well as the Concluding Remarks by Tang Jiawei." It was a rewriting of an academic monograph entitled Comments on the Historical Status of Tibet that was co-authored by Wang Gui, Xirab Nyima and Tang Jiawei and published in 1995 by the Nationalities Press^[5]^[6]

The 1995 monograph itself was derived from an earlier Chinese response to Shakabpa's Tibet: A Political History authored by a team of Tibet-based writers and published by the Nationalities Publishing House in Beijing under a title that translates into English as Shakabpa's "Tibet: A Political History" and the True Face of Tibetan History.^[7]

Presentation

The book presents the official position of the People's Republic of China on the legal status of Tibet, i.e. the argument that, in one way or another, Tibet has always been a Chinese domain, roughly from the thirteenth century.^[8]^[9]

The book criticizes the interpretations and conclusions of The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law,^[10] a 1987 book entirely paid for by the exile government and authored by {{ill|Michael van Walt van Praag|fr}}, a legal adviser to the 14th Dalai Lama.^[11] It also questions the analysis of some important historical events made by Tibetan politician and historian Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa.^[12]^[13]^[14]

Authorship

The co-authors Wang Jiawei (王家伟) and Nyima Gyaincain (尼玛坚赞, pinyin: Nímǎ jiānzàn), are pseudonyms, derived from the combination of the names of the five contributors to the text (Wang Gui, Tang Jiawei, Wu Wei, Xirab Nyima, Yang Gyaincain) as indicated by a postscript to the book.^[15]

Other versions

Originally published in both Chinese and Tibetan in 1997^[16] as well as in English^[17], the book was translated and published in 2001 in French^[18] and then in 2003 in German^[19], Spanish^[20] and Russian.^[21]

The Washington Institute of China Studies published the introduction and 8 chapters of the book (with abstracts) in its Vol. 4, No 1, 2009 to Vol. 7, No 1, 3012 issues of the Journal of the Washington Institute of Chinese Studies.^[22]

Reception and analysis

According to Tibetologist John Powers, the book by Chinese authors was written to persuade Western readers that Tibetan claims of independence are unfounded and that historical facts show that Tibet has been part of China since time immemorial.^[23]

Tibetologist Gray Tuttle lumps in the same category Wang and Nyima's The Historical Status of China's Tibet on the one hand and Tibet: A Political History by W. D. shakabpa and The Status of Tibet by Michael C. van Walt van Praag on the other hand : "the historiography associated with the “Tibet is a part of China” argument and with the “Tibetan independence” argument both project anachronistic ideas of nation-states and even western international law back into the past."^[24]

See also

References

1. ^China Intercontinental Press - CBI MEMBERS. China Book International
2. ^{{cite web | url=http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwbjs/zsdw/Document/483174/483174.htm |title=五洲传播中心(五洲出版社)|website=State Council Information Office(中华人民共和国国务院新闻办公室)| language=zh}}
3. ^{{cite book | url=http://www.china.com.cn/ch-xizang/tibet/historical_status/chinese/introduction.html | title=中国西藏的历史地位引言 | trans-title=Introduction to The Historical Status of China's Tibet| language=zh}}
4. ^Gray Tuttle, Using Zu Yuanzhang's Communications with Tibetans to Justify PRC Rule in Tibet, p. 413-429, in Sarah Schneewind ed., Long live the Emperor! Uses of the Ming Founder across Six Centuries of East Asian History, Ming Studies Research Series, No 4, 2007. Citation: "Given the de facto independence of the state of central Tibet, based in Lhasa, in the first half of the twentieth century, the Chinese government remains sensitive to the argument that its sovereignty over Tibet is illegitimate."
5. ^Postscript.
6. ^That monograph is cited as [https://books.google.fr/books?id=c9dADgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q=%22Comments%20on%20the%20Historical%20Status%20of%20Tibet%22&f=false "Wang, G., Xiraonima, Tang, J. 1995. Comments on the Historical Status of Tibet"] by Chinese scholars Xu Mingxu and Yuan Feng, in "The Tibet Question: A New Cold War," in Barry Sautman, June Teufel Dreyer eds., Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development and Society in a Disputed Region, Routledge, 2017, 386 p., 2017 (1st edition 2005).
7. ^Gray Tuttle, "Using Zu Yuanzhang's Communications with Tibetans to Justify PRC Rule in Tibet,", p. 413-429, in Sarah Schneewind ed., LONG LIVE THE EMPEROR! Uses of the Ming Founder across Six Centuries of East Asian History, Ming Studies Research Series], No 4, 2007.
8. ^Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, Grove/Atlantic, Inc, 2007, 496 p., p. 106: "Wang Jiawei et Nyima Gyaincain present the government's viewpoint in the Historical Status of China's Tibet."
9. ^José Raimundo Noras, « O Tibete entre impérios: formação e sobrevivência de uma identidade cultural. Ensaio bibliográfico », Ler História [Online], 69, 2016, posto online no dia 07 Março 2017: "O ponto de vista chinês no debate sobre a «questão tibetana» também tem sido explorado por alguns autores, quase todos chineses. A doutrina oficial da República Popular da China nasce da argumentação segundo a qual, de uma forma ou de outra, o Tibete sempre foi um domínio chinês, sensivelmente, a partir do século XIII. É esta perspetiva histórica – com algum fundamento, como vimos sobretudo no que respeita ao período posterior ao século XVII – que é defendida por Jiawei Wang e Nyima Gyaincain no livro The Historical Status of China’s Tibet23. Essa obra constitui uma espécie de «história oficial chinesa» do «estatuto político» do Tibete." (The Chinese point of view in the debate on the 'Tibetan issue' has also been explored by some authors, almost all Chinese. The official doctrine of the People's Republic of China arises from the argument that, in one way or another, Tibet has always been a Chinese domain, roughly from the thirteenth century. It is this historical perspective – with some foundation, as we saw above all in regard to the period after the seventeenth century – which is advocated by Jiawei Wang and Nyima Gyaincain in The Historical Status of China's Tibet. This work constitutes a kind of 'official Chinese history' of Tibet's 'political status'.)
10. ^London: Wisdom, 1987.
11. ^Derek F. Maher, Ph.D., Translator's Preface, pp. xi-xxxiii, in Tsepon Wangchuck Deden Shakabpa, One Hundred Thousand Moons (2 vols.): An Advanced Political History of Tibet, Brill, 2009, p.xix: "Likewise, a similar thorough-going critique, perhaps written by the same people, was directed at Michael C. van Walt van Praag's very careful examination of Tibet's status in international law. i." - [i, p. xx] "Michael C. van Walt van Praag, The Status of Tibet: History, Rights, and Prospects in International Law (London: Wisdom, 1987). The critique is published in English as Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, The Historical Status of China's Tibet (Beijing: China Intercontinental Press, 1997)."
12. ^Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1967.
13. ^José Elías Esteve Moltó, op. cit.: “A historical review of Tibet's legal status that supports China's official view and openly criticizes the legal interpretations and conclusions in van Walt van Praag 1987. It also questions the analysis of important historical events made by the Tibetan politician and historian Shakabpa.”
14. ^Jamyang Norbu, [https://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2018/01/29/history-lessons/ Remembering Khewang Elliot Sperling], History Lessons, January 29, 2018: "[...] writers on Tibetan history as Michael Van Walt, who in his book “The Status of Tibet” (paid for entirely by the exile government) claims that Tibet’s patron-priest relationship with the Yuan and Qing was a viable system [...]."
15. ^"It seems that the (fictional) names of the authors to whom this work is attributed were created from the names of the contributors to the text, as underlined in the following list of authors: Wang Gui, Tang Jiawei, Wu Wei, Xirab (Sherab) Nyima, Yang Gyaincain, which when combined yields the names: Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain. As these latter pseudonyms are listed as the authors, I will refer throughout this article to Wang and Nyima as the authors of the work. The joint Chinese and Tibetan authorship of this text is a rarity in the world of Chinese publications about Tibet but was probably an attempt to lend some legitimacy to an obvious propaganda effort. (Long Live the Emperor!, Uses of the Ming Founder across Six Centuries of East Asian History, Society for Ming Studies, Minneapolis, 2007, Ming Studies Research, No. 4, 508p, Publisher: Center for Early Modern History (January 1, 2008), {{ISBN|978-0980063905}}, page 414.).
16. ^José Elías Esteve Moltó, Tibet, Oxford Bibliographies: "Original work published in Chinese and Tibetan with the title, The Historical Status of China’s Tibet (Beijing: China Intercontinental, 1997)."
17. ^https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2615685
18. ^Jiawei Wang et Nimajianzan, Le statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire, Beijing, China Intercontinental Press, 2001 ({{ISBN|978-7-5085-0259-5}}).
19. ^Historische Koordinaten Chinas Tibets, Beijing, China Intercontinental Press, 2003 ({{ISBN|9787508502571}}).
20. ^El estatus histórico del Tíbet de China, Beijing, China Intercontinental Press, 2003 ({{ISBN|9787508502588}}).
21. ^(ru) 王家伟 et 尼玛坚赞 (trad. Нимацянцзан Ван Цзявэй), Исторический статус Тибета Китая, Beijing, Изд-во "Пять континентов",‎ 2003 ({{ISBN|9787508502816}}).
22. ^See [https://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies/article/view/91/174 Vol. 4, No 1, 2009] and [https://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies/article/view/172/313 Vol. 7, No 1, 3012].
23. ^John Powers, [https://books.google.fr/books?id=D96ifo76RZEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=snippet&q=%22historical%20facts%22&f=false History As Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China], Oxford University Press, 2004, 224 p., p. 9: "These statements indicate the sort of actions in which Chinese authors believe themselves to be engaged. Their writings are intended to persuade a Western audience that claims of Tibetan independence are false and that an unbiased examination of "historical facts" will reveal that Tibet has been an integral part of China since time immemorial."
24. ^Gray Tuttle, op. cit., p. 416.