CHIANG MAI, Thailand -- With India's recognition of the Tibet Autonomous Region as a part of China -- a corollary result of the recent talks in Beijing between Chinese and Indian leaders -- the region has ceased to be viewed as a historical buffer state between two Asian giants. This is of tremendous importance to all three parties concerned and to strategic balances in the heart of Asia as well. Tibet has been squeezed between these two great powers for centuries; now its tragic "liberation" of the '50s seems to have been acknowledged even by New Delhi in spite of the legacy of Pandit Nehru, who was always fearful of jeopardizing Tibet's crucial position as a buffer.
Without intending to enter all aspects of the debate about the destiny of the roof of the world, I would like to focus on a historic angle. It's nothing spectacularly original, but a reminder of undisputed facts conveniently ignored. Even if not a full-time historian, a dispassionate student can evaluate China's historic claims on the Buddhist stronghold of the Himalayas. Even if we accept the reality -- unpleasant in this case -- that a successful invasion, like a successful revolution, creates its own basis of legitimacy and that, therefore, Tibet has been, since 1959, under the Chinese sphere, we may still question Beijing's argument that China's historic claims go as far back as seven centuries or more.
The Chinese in fact maintain that Tibet has always been one of the many vassal states of the Middle Kingdom. Why then do most observers of the region not subscribe to this argument?