5

("part of" meaning not independent or "occupied independent") I am especially thinking of European countries.

  1. British, US and Soviet positions "spreading"?
  2. Actual situation after 1950?
  3. Independent judgement of situation an history before 1949?
  4. Chinese influence?

I do know that no countries have a different official position.

I know the British made their own judgement, but possibly it was influenced by politics (relation to China). AFAIK US was just very supportive of the Chinese (ROC), and did not give Tibet much attention in the beginning. When it became an issue they were bound by their relation to ROC.

7
  • 1
    Tibet was never an independently recongized sovereign nation. Please see my comment here Sep 21 '16 at 19:03
  • 1
    How many countries do you mean by various? Don't you think your question is too broad? Also, why do you want to know it?
    – Rathony
    Sep 22 '16 at 12:49
  • 1
    @DylanChensky: Somebody would have to be the first, so this is not an explanation. (I don't see any relevant comments on that link)
    – Olav
    Sep 22 '16 at 19:46
  • @Rathony : Why do you think it is to broad? (Possibly you know more than me and it is, but I don't think so). About "How many countries", I don't know exactly.
    – Olav
    Sep 22 '16 at 19:51
  • ROC is the Republic of China (Taiwan), PROC is the abbreviation of Communist China, which one you are referring to? Albeit cultural and language differences, Tibet has always been part of China, at least politically. The relationship between Tibet and the Central Government has seen up and downs, depending on who is in power.
    – r13
    Sep 12 at 23:15
2

There's only two real options when one country annexes another

  1. You (grudgingly) accept it. You might wring your hands and rattle sabers (i.e. sanctions), but do nothing else of substance (if you do anything at all).
  2. You go to war and force the invading country to cede the territory (and, of course, there's that little issue of keeping them out after you're gone).

Tibet isn't terribly important country to most folks (it's still a mostly agrarian society), and China has a very capable military. Add in that the history of Tibet is sometimes under Chinese rule and sovereignty claims gets murky fairly quick. War with China over a fairly mountainous and land-locked country would be difficult and costly on multiple fronts. As such, most countries don't hold an official position. The closest the US has come, for instance, is in applying pressure for greater access to the region

The law seeks to promote access to Tibet for U.S. diplomats and other officials, journalists and other citizens by denying U.S. entry for Chinese officials deemed responsible for restricting access to Tibet.

Which of course made China unhappy (which was probably the point)

“If the United States implements this law, it will cause serious harm to China-U.S. relations and to the cooperation in important areas between the two countries,” Hua said.

The official UK page has lots of hand wringing, punctuated by this

The UK’s policy on Tibet remains unchanged. The UK recognises Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China and does not support Tibetan independence. During 2014, we continued to call for all parties to engage in substantive dialogue. We pressed the Chinese authorities to exercise restraint, respect religious and cultural freedoms, and allow unrestricted access to Tibetan areas for international journalists, NGOs and diplomats.

Which, if you'll note, is more or less the same position as the US. I can't find any country where the government openly supports the independence of Tibet. Taiwan is in more or less the same boat.

2
  • "Taiwan is in more or less the same boat." Not really at this point. Taiwan doesn't fit you opening "when one country annexes another" since Taiwan is no longer occupied by China or even by a Chinese government (the Chinese dictatorship having ended in the 1990s and the Chinese Nationalist Party no longer in power in either the Presidency or the Legislature). However you are right about "As such, most countries don't hold an official position" applying to Taiwan, or at least many countries don't hold an official position. America for example "acknowledges" the claim of Chinese ownership.
    – Readin
    Sep 16 at 4:33
  • UK is actually committed to NOT recognizing Tibet as part of China (Simla). Not supporting Tibetan independence is not inconsistent with this, as the Tibetans (CTA) does not seek independence.
    – Olav
    Sep 22 at 13:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .