Released in the number 46, The Elm, the article "History talks: does Tibet belong to China?" gives an affirmative answer. The author, Dr. Paul H. Tai considers Tibet belongs to China. Below is part of his article:
I did an extensive literary research on Tibetan history, finding three prevailing views on Tibet as reflected in the following representative works: Melvyn C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon (1997), an American specialist presenting a Western perspective; Tsering Shakya, The Dragon in the Land of Snow (2000), a leading Tibetan historian articulating the beliefs of the exile movement in India; and Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, The Historical Status of China's Tibet (1997), two authors presenting the PRC's views.
The Chronicle
This sort of intellectual odyssey enables me to construct a chronicle of the Tibet-China historical relations that is substantially consistent with these three works, thus, being close to reality.
1. 7th-13th century: In the 630s, Songtsen Gampo created the Tubo Kingdom in what is now Tibet and its peripheral lands inside today's China (part of Qinghai, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces). An admirer of Chinese civilization, Songtsen Gampo initiated contact with the court of the Tang Dynasty (618-907) in Chang'an, China and married in 641 a Tang princess Wencheng. Thus commenced lengthy political and cultural contacts of the two countries, with a total of 191 missions exchanged in the period from 634 to 846. The Tubo lasted two centuries when it collapsed, while the Tang was eventually succeeded by the Song Dynasty (960-1279). In these four centuries, Tibet and China were independent of each other.
2. 13th-17th century: During the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368), Khubilie--a Chinese emperor of Mongol origin--proclaimed Tibet as a province of China under the governance of an agency (the Xuancheng Yuan) in Beijing, appointed Tibetan religious leaders as Imperial Spiritual Tutors at the Yuan court, and deployed forces in Tibet to insure compliance with his rule. China thus acquired possession of Tibet but established no direct administration over it. In the following dynasty, the Ming (1368-1644), China continued in general this pattern of relationship but exercised practically no control of Tibet. In these four centuries, China established what is known as suzerainty over Tibet.
3. 17th-20th century: Under the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), China adopted a number of measures to create a closer relationship with Tibet: (a) The Qing court commenced in 1652 a process of authenticating the Dalai Lama as Tibet's spiritual leader and initiated in 1793 procedures for selecting the Dalai Lamas through a lottery of candidates drawn from a "Golden Urn." (b) In the 18th century the Qing court twice reorganized the Tibetan governmental structure and appointed two Imperial Commissioners (ambans) to supervise the Tibetan administration; the reforms assured the Dalai Lama as the spiritual as well as political leader, thus effecting a theocratic form of government. (c) In the same century the Qing court dispatched troops to Tibet several times to settle sectarian and political feuds and to repulse foreign invasion; it maintained garrisons in Tibet till the end of the dynasty.
These measures changed the status of China vis-à-vis Tibet, from suzerainty to sovereignty. Such a change has been largely accepted by the international community; as noted Melvyn C. Goldstein, "Western democracies maintained a consistent policy of ?accepting the official Chinese position that Tibet was one of the territories comprised by the Chinese nation."
4. 20th century-to the present: The Qing was replaced by the Republic of China (ROC) in 1912. From then to 1949, the ROC, plagued by incessant wars, virtually left Tibet completely alone. Its government dispatched several largely symbolic missions to Tibet without materially affecting the autonomy of the territory. However, Tibet's autonomy was never transformed into de jure independence, which could be granted under international law only by the Chinese government--an event that has never happened. Under the ROC, Chinese sovereignty over Tibet can best be described as being held in abeyance.
In 1950 the PRC decided to reclaim Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by attacking the territory with 40,000 troops. In the following year, while it was under the occupation of the Chinese army, Tibet concluded with the PRC a "Seventeen-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet." Though forced upon Tibet, the agreement permitted the territory to retain its existing political and social systems.
The policies of the Chinese occupational authority, however, proved to be highly unpopular with the Tibetans, leading to extensive riots in 1959. In response, the PRC terminated the agreement and began enforcing two fundamental reforms in Tibet. One was to abolish Tibet's theocratic form of government, stripping the 14th Dalai Lama of his position as political ruler. The other was a forcible transfer of ownership of agricultural land from Tibet's monasteries and aristocratic families to the peasants. These reforms precipitated more riots and the flight of the Dalai Lama and his followers to India, where they have maintained an exile government since.
During the Cultural Revolution in 1966-1976, rampaging Red Guards ransacked monasteries, imprisoned monks, and banned religious practices in Tibet. These atrocities amounted to, as Tesring Shakya has described, a wanton assault on the Tibetans' thousands-of-years-old way of life and incurred widespread international criticism. The PRC has since significantly improved Tibet's economy and demonstrated respect for the Tibetans' right to worship in the 2,700 Buddhist religious institutions that exist today. But a latent yearning for the return of the Dalai Lama, one suspects, exists among certain Tibetans.
Prospective Solutions
This record of Tibet-China relations in the last fourteen centuries seems to set the perimeters for resolving the problems between the PRC and the Dalai Lama-led dissident movement. The issue of sovereignty is clearly settled in China's favor; hence, the idea of independence of Tibet is neither justified nor feasible. And the abolition of theocracy and feudalistic land system cannot be reversed.
In September 2004 the Dalai Lama sent his representatives Lodi Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen to Beijing to negotiate for the future of Tibet. On April 27, 2005, the U.S. Department of State issued a statement to encourage the negotiation. The statement further noted: "The United States recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan autonomous prefectures and counties in other provinces to be a part of the People's Republic of China. This long-standing policy is consistent with the view of the international community. In addition, the Dalai Lama has expressly disclaimed any intention to seek sovereignty or independence for Tibet and has stated that he only seeks for China to preserve Tibetans culture, spirituality, and environment." On June 30-July 1, 2005, Chinese and Tibetan representatives resumed their negotiations in Berne, Switzerland. Officials of the U. S. and the European Community expressed support of the move.