Bill Byrne was wrong to say that, historically, Tibet has always been an independent and sovereign nation ('Should Tibet have status like Hong Kong and Macau?', June 8).
At least as far back as the Yuen dynasty in the 13th century, Tibet was under the direct control of China, which set up its administration and laws. Later, Tibet was ruled by Buddhist sects, which recognised Ming Dynasty China as the sovereign.
About 1642, with Mongol support, the Gelugpa sect headed by the dalai lamas ascended to Tibet's ruling body. Conflicts developed between them and the Mongols. In 1718 and 1720, under the auspices of a dalai lama, a Qing Dynasty force twice entered Lhasa and drove out the remaining Mongol influence. China again became the sovereign power. No appointment of dalai lamas was legitimate unless it was sanctioned by the Qing emperor. In 1792, China repulsed an invasion by the British.
The collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 did not merely lead to Tibet declaring independence. Between 1910 and the 1920s, many Chinese provinces declared independence from Nanjing due to political turmoil. Does that mean that Guangdong, Yunnan and Hubei should also be regarded as one-time sovereign states? The historic justification for Tibet's independence is simply not there.
While there is room for discussion about the degree of autonomy Tibet should enjoy, regarding independence you might as well tell the US to return America to the Indians.
SIMON CHIU, Pokfulam
Anson's real message