Beijing wants the world to know and remember Tibet in a way that serves its interests. It doesn’t seem to mind the amount of time the campaign takes.

-By Tenzin Chemey for StratNews Global

White Papers on Tibet, published by the State Council Information Office of the PRC, are a dime a dozen. However, the recent iteration displays a slight alteration from the time-bound, formulaic verbosity typical of the genre, evident in its title, “Human Rights in Xizang in the New Era.”

The almost obsessive repetition of “Xizang” 231 times throughout the document reflects, on one hand, the recent push by the CCP to replace “Tibet” with “Xizang” in the lexicon of global and nationalist discourse, while on the other hand, it exposes its increasing insecurity regarding its occupation of Tibet.

The White Paper was released on March 27, 2025, the day Beijing commemorated the 66th anniversary of the “democratic reform” that “abolished feudal serfdom”. China describes the occasion as a “significant milestone” representing a “monumental leap in the history of human civilization and global human rights”.

Superficial Data

 As expected, the lack of substantial arguments to justify the appealing contents further validates the Chinese government’s negligence in understanding the intricate elements of human rights or its failure to do so. The actual information in the document is superficial. The only data, limited as it is, that appears in the White Paper is focused on transport infrastructure, which, unsurprisingly, neither guarantees the protection of human rights nor ensures economic benefits to the Tibetans. Beijing’s rhetoric concerning “safeguarding national unity” and “combating separatist forces” as its primary focus in the region (Tibet) does not effectively inform or persuade the international community about the true state of human rights in Tibet.

Reading between the lines, the paper reflects broader policies and core principles that drive the Chinese government’s management of religious affairs, as well as linguistic, educational, and cultural rights. The White Paper fundamentally reiterates its fierce propaganda narrative claiming “undisputed” control and legitimacy over recognizing the reincarnation of the Tibetan Buddhist figures, including that of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The mention of the State’s rigorous efforts to “ensure” that religions in China “conform to China’s realities and remain compatible with a socialist society,” along with multiple references to the words “law” and “lawful,” in essence highlight Beijing’s tenacious control over religion in Tibet through an extensive and intricate web of laws, regulations, and policies.

Xizang Isn’t Tibet

Evading the actual human rights situation in Tibet, the paper emphasizes the use of the term ‘Xizang’ excessively. This is relatively a new practice- indeed, a fresh and rigorous approach that many perceive as a matter of identity, since ‘Xizang’ increasingly designates central and western Tibet rather than all of Tibet. Tibet comprises all of its three traditional provinces- U-Tsang, Kham, and Amdo.

China’s governmental push to refer to Tibet as ‘Xizang’ became more evident soon after Beijing hosted the International Seminar on Tibetan Studies on August 14, 2023. South China Morning Post quotes a report on Tongzhan Xinyu, a WeChat account run by the United Front Work Department where Wang Linping, a professor at Harbin Engineering University’s College of Marxism has called for the urgent need for the English translation of the word ‘Tibet’ that “accurately” describes China’s position. Beijing is attempting this campaign in an innocuous way as a corrective measure to make the international community understand its position on Tibet and not be “misled” by the universal name (Tibet) any longer.

Chinese Anxiety

Professor Tsering Shakya puts forth an argument that takes us beyond a mere corrective measure on the part of the Chinese government on naming places. Professor Shakya argues that the campaign is driven by China’s anxiety over the existing international perceptions of the term ‘Tibet’, “which conjures an image of a distinct country rather than merely a region of China.”

Beijing’s imposition of the term ‘Xizang’ to refer to Tibet is seen extending beyond the political arena to educational and cultural institutions in recent years, strongly reflecting China’s increasing pressure and influence beyond its borders. Click here to read more.