Xizang has been an inalienable part of China since ancient times. The Xizang Autonomous Region forms part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. This is a fundamental consensus universally recognized and respected by the international community, as well as an objective fact safeguarded by international law and the basic norms of international relations. Nevertheless, the leaders of the bogus "Tibetan government-in-exile" have continuously distorted the historical relations between local Xizang authorities and the central government recently. They peddle fallacies such as "historically, Tibetans had limited contact with China", "the Yuan Dynasty belonged to the Mongol Empire rather than a Chinese empire", and "the United States' Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet Conflict Act clarifies Xizang’s historical status", misleading the international community. Such claims are utterly absurd. As a Chinese scholar engaged in Xizang-related research for nearly 20 years, I wish to present an alternative perspective on Xizang’s history — a narrative grounded in objective facts and widely accepted and acknowledged. 

1.Historical Records and Cultural Relics: Evidence of Exchanges, Integration and Interaction between Xizang and Inland China 

The uplift of the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau shaped China’s complex physical geography and fostered the centripetal cohesion and diverse inclusiveness of the Chinese nation. Archaeological findings reveal that sites across Xizang including Ni’adi in Nagqu, Xiadacuo in Ngari, Karuo and Xiao’enda in Qamdo, Changguogou in Shannan and Qugong in Lhasa maintained intensifying close connections with Palaeolithic cultural sites across northern and southern China. Genetic research indicates that approximately 6,000 years ago, groups of agricultural peoples from the Yellow River Basin migrated to the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau and intermingled with indigenous inhabitants to become the ancestors of the Tibetan people. Those who remained in the Yellow River Basin evolved into forebears of the Huaxia people. Xizang was jointly developed by all ethnic groups, and its history was collectively written by diverse communities. Political, economic and cultural exchanges between Tibetans and other ethnic groups ran through the entire course of Xizang’s historical development. 

Xizang has been an inalienable part of China since ancient times. The phrase “since ancient times” means that all human history on the land of Xizang constitutes an integral component of Chinese history. Even when the Tubo Dynasty lacked direct administrative subordination to the Tang Dynasty, it remained part of “historical China”. This thesis was put forward by the renowned historical geographer Tan Qixiang and is widely accepted within China’s academic circle and society at large. Millions of historical archives and artefacts written in Chinese, Tibetan, Manchu and Mongolian preserved in museums and archives, together with historical sites and cultural relics in Beijing, Xizang and elsewhere, offer ample proof that Xizang has been an inalienable part of China since ancient times. 

Tibetan-language documents record that Songtsen Gampo founded the Tubo local regime in 630. In 641, he married Princess Wencheng, a member of the imperial family of Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty, laying the foundation for over 200 years of frequent contacts underpinned by an “uncle-nephew kinship” between Tang and Tubo. Statues of Princess Wencheng are still enshrined in the Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple in Lhasa. In 710, Tride Tsuktsen married Princess Jincheng of the Tang Dynasty, further consolidating the intimate political ties between Tubo and the Tang. In 821, Tubo and the Tang formed an alliance and erected the Tang-Tubo Alliance Stele. Visitors to the Jokhang Temple today can still view this cultural relic embodying amity and unity between Han and Tibetan peoples standing at the temple gate. 

The Yuan Dynasty established the Supreme Control Commission of Buddhism (later renamed the Commission for Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs) to directly administer local affairs in Xizang. The Yuan authorities conducted population censuses, built courier stations, levied taxes, stationed troops and appointed officials across Xizang. Yuan criminal codes and calendars were promulgated locally, tightening central governance over military and civil affairs and deepening economic and cultural links between inland China and Xizang. Surviving imperial edicts, official seals, paper currency granted by Yuan emperors to local Xizang authorities, alongside landmark monuments such as the Shalu Monastery, bear witness to this historical truth for posterity. 

The central government of the Ming Dynasty pursued the policy of multiple enfeoffment. It conferred titles including the Princes of Dharma, local Kings, and State Preceptors of Initiations on religious and secular leaders throughout the region. Two Regional Military Commissions for Ü-Tsang and Do-kham, plus Ngari Commanding Tribal Office, were established to oversee military and civil affairs respectively in Ü-Tsang, Qamdo and the Ngari area. Besides abundant surviving artefacts such as imperial edicts, official seals and porcelain, depictions of Ming emperors as the Bodhisattva Manjushri persist in Tibetan historical texts. As recounted in The Feast of the Wise, in 1405 (the 3rd year of the Yongle reign), the Great Treasure Prince of Dharma Halima (the Fifth Karmapa, Dezhin Shekpa) referred to the Yongle Emperor and his empress as incarnations of Manjushri and Tara respectively. The Collection of Han and Tibetan History (Rgya-bod-kyi-tshang), compiled by Taktsangpa Penchen Sangpo in 1434 (the 9th year of the Xuande reign), records a shared origin legend: “In the upper reaches of Makashuyaxiu lived Prince Shiba named Dingge, who fathered three sons, ancestors of the Han, Tubo and Mongolian peoples.” 

The Qing central government developed a sophisticated framework for governing Xizang. It conferred titles on Ngawang Lobsang Gyaincain, the 5th Dalai Lama, and the 5th Panchen Lama, formally establishing the official titles and political-religious status of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Erdeni. The conferral of titles upon successive Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas by the central government became an established institution. Ambans (Imperial Residents) were appointed to represent the central authority in supervising and jointly administering military and civil affairs in Xizang; more than one hundred Ambans were dispatched in total. In 1751, the Qianlong Emperor authorised the 7th Dalai Lama to govern Xizang’s religious and secular affairs alongside the Amban. In 1793, the Qing court issued the Twenty-Nine Article Imperial Ordinance Concerning the Governance of Xizang, refining multiple institutions for central administration of the region. It stipulated that the reincarnation of senior living Buddhas including the Dalai Lama must be confirmed through the Golden Urn lottery and subject to central government approval. Among the five Dalai Lamas during the Qing era, three were confirmed via the Golden Urn ritual, while the other two received special imperial exemption from the procedure. 

Following the fall of the Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China continued exercising sovereign jurisdiction over Xizang. In 1912, the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China, the country’s first constitution, explicitly affirmed central sovereignty over Xizang, stating that “Xizang forms part of the territory of the Republic of China” and advocating the integration of Han, Manchu, Mongolian, Hui and Tibetan peoples under the ideal of the Five Races Under One Union. In July the same year, the Republican government founded the Bureau of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. In 1929, the Nanjing National Government set up the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs to administer relevant affairs. In 1940, the National Government inaugurated the Lhasa Office of the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, a permanent central institution stationed in Xizang. All world maps and maps of China published by official and civilian institutions throughout the Republican period marked Xizang as Chinese territory. Warlord strife, recurring domestic unrest and national weakness notwithstanding, the central government firmly upheld China’s sovereignty over Xizang. The 14th Dalai Lama and the 10th Panchen Lama continued to receive official conferment from the central government. It follows that Xizang has never been an independent state since ancient times, and no foreign government has ever recognized so-called “Xizang independence”. 

2.Unity in diversity and Great Unity: A Dual Perspective for Understanding Ethnic Relations in China 

Some foreign scholars and observers tend to interpret pre-modern history with modern theories of nation-state and ethnicity. They apply theories and perspectives rooted in Western experience to deconstruct the more than 5,000 years of complex and profound civilizational evolution in China. I consider this an arrogant, Orientalist approach. It is akin to peering through tinted, imagined lenses and forcing the “one nation, one state” straitjacket to measure and judge the so-called “Other”. While such theoretical frameworks may broaden research horizons to a certain extent, they lose explanatory power by being detached from specific cultural contexts and fundamental historical facts, resulting in unfair judgments of the “Other”.  

To gain an in-depth understanding of China’s past, present and future, one must examine the historical development of the Chinese nation through the lenses of unity in diversity and great unity. The Chinese nation is a nation community shaped over thousands of years as diverse populations inhabiting Chinese territory immersed themselves in Chinese civilization, engaged in sustained interaction, exchange and integration, and jointly forged a unified multi-ethnic state bound by shared identification with Chinese culture. Today, it principally includes compatriots on the Chinese mainland, those in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, as well as overseas Chinese. The Chinese nation is not a simple aggregation of the 56 ethnic groups including the Han, Tibetan, Mongolian, Uygur and Hui peoples. Instead, it constitutes a diverse united entity where “we interpenetrate one another and no one can do without the others”. Although the term “Chinese nation” was first put forward by Liang Qichao in 1902, the Chinese nation as a nation community has existed and evolved for thousands of years with solid historical foundations. 

Since antiquity, the Chinese nation upheld the notion that “peoples from the five regions share the world” and that “all within the four seas are brothers”. The ancient Chinese distinction between Hua and Yi denoted merely cultural disparities between those within and outside the sphere of civilization, rather than racial or biological differences. As the classic maxim states: ““When the YiDi peoples settle in the Central States, they become part of the Central States; when people from the Central States dwell among the YiDi, they come to be regarded as YiDi.” The criterion for determining whether an ethnic group belongs to the big family of the Chinese nation lies not in race, bloodline or geography, but in identification with Chinese culture. Chinese culture embodies the finest traditional cultures of all ethnic groups, each of which forms an integral component of Chinese civilization. Consequently, the narrow view that equates Chinese history solely with Han history, or Chinese culture merely with Han culture, contradicts historical reality. 

Chinese ethnographer Gu Bao once observed: “Since the Qin and Han dynasties, China has been a unified multi-ethnic country. Over these two millennia, periods of unification account for roughly two-thirds of history, and periods of division one-third.” Four unified dynasties — the Qin, Han, Sui and Tang — spanned more than 700 years and instituted institutions and laws centered on great unity. The great unity achieved under the Yuan and Qing dynasties created vital conditions for nationwide economic, social and cultural exchanges as well as ethnic integration. As a political philosophy and institutional practice throughout China’s dynastic history, the ideal of great unity became a shared political pursuit for all regimes across Chinese territory and a collective consensus among all ethnic groups. 

Take the Yuan Dynasty as an example. It was the first fully unified multi-ethnic dynastic state in Chinese history founded by northern nomadic peoples. Yuan rulers strove to establish their legitimacy as an orthodox dynasty within the sequence of Chinese history, ushering in a new chapter for the Chinese nation defined by “the unification of the north and the south, bringing Hu and Han peoples as one family”. In establishing its dynastic title and reign era names, Kublai Khan declared in the Edict Establishing the Dynastic Title that his reign would “uphold the lineage of all past kings and maintain the orthodox succession”, asserting the Yuan as the legitimate heir to Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, the Qin, Han, Sui and Tang dynasties. In 1271 (the eighth year of the Zhiyuan reign), he formally adopted the Han-style dynastic title “Great Yuan”, derived from the phrase “How great is the Originating Power of Qian” in the I Ching, completing the institutional link to the orthodox lineage of Chinese dynasties. Yuan official communications, domestic and foreign, repeatedly referred to the regime as “Zhongguo (China)” and “Huaxia”. In a letter to the King of Goryeo, Kublai Khan wrote: “Though the dynastic surname of Zhongguo changes, tributary missions from foreign lands never cease.” The Yuan Maritime Trade Regulations contained the provision: “Merchants transport goods purchased from overseas lands and Hainan to Zhongguo.” Such documents demonstrate a strong identity as an orthodox Chinese dynasty. 

Yuan political institutions, including three central bodies — the Secretariat, Bureau of Military Affairs and Censorate — as well as provincial administrations across the realm, evolved from institutional traditions of the Central Plains. Newly established agencies also drew inspiration from ancient Central Plains systems. The Commission for Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs, tasked with administering local affairs in Xizang, took its name from the historical precedent in which Tang emperors received envoys from the Tubo Dynasty in the Xuan Zheng Hall. Under the framework of the provincial system inherited from the Central Plains traditions, the Yuan Dynasty exercised effective governance over the whole country. The Xizang region at that time was also referred to as “the Eleventh Province”. In the mid-Yuan period, imperial civil service examinations were introduced, focusing largely on Neo-Confucian texts. Confucius was conferred the title “the Supreme Sage and Cultural King”. Confucian temples and schools were constructed in border regions to propagate Confucian learning. The unified multi-ethnic Yuan Dynasty gained recognition among Han literati of the Central Plains, who drew comparisons between the Yuan and the Han and Tang dynasties. As Wang Hui remarked: “Today all lands under heaven are united; never since Yao, Shun, the Han and Tang has there been such prosperity.” Accordingly, within the objective historical context of China’s unity in diversity and great unity, the ethnic origin of rulers cannot negate the fundamental truth that the Yuan constituted a Chinese dynastic state. 

3.Clarifying Legal Misconceptions Overseas and Contemporary Evidence from Xizang’s Development 

Leaders of the Dalai clique frequently cite the U.S. Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act and invoke the right to self-determination under international law to advance legal justifications for their separatist acts aimed at splitting a sovereign state. Such arguments are plainly erroneous. 

Sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs constitute fundamental principles of modern international law and basic norms governing international relations. Article 2 of the UN Charter stipulates that “the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” and that “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. By contrast, the so-called U.S. Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act offers yet another example of Washington’s condescending attitude of placing itself above other nations, disregarding their sovereign dignity, violating the principle of sovereign equality and arbitrarily issuing dictates. This domestic U.S. law brazenly interferes in China’s internal affairs by meddling in matters concerning Xizang. It gravely violates the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, infringes upon China’s sovereignty, runs counter to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, and constitutes a gross violation of international law and the basic norms of international relations. 

The Act also distorts and misrepresents the right to self-determination under international law to embolden unlawful separatist attempts to dismember sovereign states. In fact, the right to self-determination under international law refers to the right of peoples under colonial rule, or under foreign occupation, domination or exploitation, to pursue independence. It does not encompass a right to secession. Guided by the principle of safeguarding state sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, international law explicitly declines to endorse secession and does not recognize secession as an enforceable right. Article 6 of the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted in 1960, and clearly states: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” 

Whether to permit secession falls within the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign state. China’s Criminal Code of 1997 defines crimes endangering state security in Article 13 of the General Provisions and Articles 102, 103 and 104 of the Specific Provisions. It specifies that acts jeopardising state sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security, or engaging in secession and undermining national unity, constitute criminal offences. Enacted in 2005, the Anti-Secession Law explicitly provides that “the state may employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity”. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, which entered into force on 1 July 2026, contains an explicit prohibition under Article 6 of the General Provisions: “Any act that undermines ethnic unity or incites ethnic separatism shall be prohibited.” This provision is established as a core principle for consolidating the great unity of the Chinese nation. Article 62 stipulates that anyone who organizes, plans or carries out ethnic separatist activities shall bear criminal liability in accordance with law; incitement to, or funding of, such activities also constitutes a crime. Article 63 prescribes legal accountability for overseas organizations or individuals who engage in ethnic separatist activities targeting China. The Chinese government will uphold national unity and territorial integrity in accordance with law, and firmly defend its sovereignty, security and development interests. 

Xizang has been an inalienable part of China since ancient times. It forms a spatial carrier and geographic component under the sovereignty of the Chinese nation and the People’s Republic of China. The founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 marked the initial establishment of a modern nation-state with the Chinese nation as its core national community. The Common Program of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, which served as an interim constitution, explicitly laid down that “the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China must carry the People’s Liberation War through to the end, liberate all Chinese territory and complete the great cause of national reunification”. At that time, Xizang remained under the dark feudal serfdom ruled by three categories of aristocratic and monastic lords under a theocratic system. Led by the Communist Party of China and acting in accordance with the Constitution, the Chinese people achieved the peaceful liberation of Xizang in 1951. This act, which preserved national unity and territorial integrity of modern China, represented a legitimate and inevitable step toward building a unified multi-ethnic modern state. The Xizang Autonomous Region is an integral part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China. China’s sovereign independence and territorial integrity enjoy universal respect and protection under international law and basic norms of international relations. China stands on the moral and legal high ground, and its sovereignty is inviolable. 

Since 2012, under the strong leadership of the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core and with vigorous support from people across the whole country, undertakings in Xizang have achieved all-round progress and historic accomplishments, ushering in a new era featuring the most dynamic development, profound transformations and tangible benefits for local residents. People of all ethnic groups in Xizang enjoy broader, fuller, authentic, concrete and effective democratic rights in accordance with law. The system of regional ethnic autonomy guarantees ethnic communities in Xizang the full right to independently administer local and ethnic affairs. 

By the end of 2019, all 628,000 registered poor residents in Xizang had escaped poverty, and all 74 poor counties and districts lifted themselves out of poverty. Centuries-old extreme poverty that had shackled Xizang was completely eliminated. In 2025, Xizang ranked first nationwide in the growth rate of eight major indicators including regional gross domestic product, value-added industrial output of enterprises above designated size and fixed-asset investment. The per capita disposable income of all residents reached 33,600 yuan, rising by 7.2 percent year-on-year; urban residents recorded per capita disposable income of 58,794 yuan (up 6 percent), while rural residents achieved 23,184 yuan (up 7.4 percent). The fruits of development have genuinely benefited all ethnic communities across Xizang. 

Between 2012 and 2024, cumulative fixed-asset investment in highway transport in Xizang totalled 401.925 billion yuan. The mileage of rural highways expanded from 53,200 kilometres to 94,800 kilometres, while high-grade highway length grew from 38 kilometres to 1,196 kilometres. Passenger transport services now cover all counties, districts and cities, 623 townships and 3,869 administrative villages. Since 2012, funding standards supporting boarding students from farming, pastoral and disadvantaged urban families (covering accommodation, meals and basic tuition) have been raised on 11 occasions to 5,620 yuan per person annually, including 1,000 yuan allocated under the nutrition improvement programme. 

By the end of 2024, Xizang published 17 periodicals and 11 newspapers in the Tibetan language, with a cumulative total of 8,794 titles of Tibetan-language books issued, amounting to 46.85 million copies. Water quality in major rivers and lakes across Xizang remains generally sound. Forty-seven nature reserves of various types have been established, covering a total area of 412,200 square kilometres. Since 2016, the proportion of days with excellent and good ambient air quality in Xizang has remained above 99 percent. The Qinghai-Xizang Plateau remains one of the ecologically soundest regions on Earth. 

Historical relics provide empirical evidence; unity in diversity forms the foundation; legal norms serve as the yardstick; and developmental achievements offer illuminating reference. Taken together, they fully demonstrate that Xizang has been an inalienable part of China since ancient times and that the Xizang Autonomous Region belongs to the territory of the People’s Republic of China. The so-called theory of the “unresolved historical status of Xizang” is nothing more than an untenable fallacy. It constitutes a political farce that ignores basic historical knowledge, interferes in China’s internal affairs and attempts to split China. The all-round progress, historic achievements and peaceful, prosperous lives of all ethnic peoples in present-day Xizang deliver the most powerful rebuttal against fabricated narratives and malicious smears. All ethnic communities in Xizang will march toward an even brighter future within the big family of the Chinese nation. 

（Yang Xiaochun, Research Fellow of the Institute of Contemporary Studies, China Tibetology Research Center) 

Editor：Bella Wu