A quiet but crucial battle is being waged within some of Britain’s most respected institutions – a battle over a name: Tibet. The campaign against the increasing use of “Xizang” by organisations like the British Museum, the British Library, and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) isn’t simply about semantics.
It’s about reclaiming historical accuracy, upholding Tibetan self-determination, and resisting a narrative imposed by the Chinese government. This campaign draws strength from recent successes in information transparency, demonstrating the power of public pressure and legal tools like Freedom of Information requests.
“Xizang,” the Chinese transliteration for Tibet, is increasingly replacing the historically accurate and internationally recognised “Tibet” in institutional contexts. This shift, often driven by Chinese state influence, seeks to erase Tibet’s distinct identity, history, and the Tibetan people’s right to self-determination, effectively legitimising China’s occupation and control.
For centuries, the world has known the region as Tibet. Replacing this with “Xizang” normalises China’s claim and silences Tibetan voices. It also ignores the historical opposition to the term by Tibetans themselves. As early as 1946, Tibetan representatives in the Republican Chinese Legislative Assembly objected to the use of “Zang” (from Xizang) and proposed a phonetic rendering of “Bod” (the Tibetan word for Tibet), highlighting long-standing Tibetan resistance to this imposed name.
The campaign argues that institutions like the British Museum and the British Library, entrusted with preserving and presenting history, have a fundamental responsibility to uphold accuracy and respect. Using “Xizang” not only misrepresents historical reality but also disrespects the Tibetan people and their rich cultural heritage. Furthermore, it disregards the core principle of “名從主人; 尊重當事人” (naming rights belong to those at the core of the matter), the right of the Tibetan people to name their own land. The FCDO, responsible for UK foreign policy, should similarly prioritise accuracy and avoid language that lends credence to politically motivated distortions of history.
This mirrors the successful fight for transparency highlighted in cases like the recent Nottingham City Council example, where a court ordered the release of a confidential report concerning the city’s relationship with a Chinese city. This victory, secured through persistent Freedom of Information requests and journalistic investigation, demonstrates the power of public scrutiny in holding institutions accountable.
Just as the Nottingham case revealed misleading statements and a lack of transparency, the campaign against the use of “Xizang” aims to expose similar issues within these prominent institutions. By utilising Freedom of Information requests, campaigners are seeking to uncover internal discussions, policy documents, and correspondence related to the adoption of “Xizang.” This strategy, mirroring the successful tactics used in cases like Nottingham, aims to bring to light any undue influence or political pressure that may be driving this linguistic shift. The precedent set by the Information Commissioner in similar cases reinforces the validity of these requests and the public’s right to access information held by public bodies.
Activists are calling on these institutions to acknowledge the historical context, respect Tibetan self-determination, and revert to using “Tibet.” They emphasise that this is not about taking a political stance, but about upholding historical integrity and respecting the right of a people to self-determination. Just as institutions would not alter the name of another country or region to appease a foreign power, they should not do so in the case of Tibet.
The historical evolution of names for Tibet (Wusiguo, Wusi-Zang, Tubote, Tangut) further underscores that the current, imposed name is not historically fixed or inevitable. The success of campaigners in cases like the Nottingham example, where even the council’s own information officer admitted statements were “misleading,” provides a powerful example of what can be achieved through persistent pursuit of information.
The fight against “Xizang” is a fight for truth and historical accuracy. It’s a call for institutions to resist political pressure, respect Tibetan self-determination, and stand on the side of historical integrity, ensuring that Tibet’s story, and the Tibetan people’s identity, are not erased. The strategic use of Freedom of Information requests, inspired by successful campaigns, offers a powerful tool to achieve this goal.
