Edit: To give you some perspective, here is a gif showing all the Chinese empires since the Warring states (350 BC).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#/media/File:T...
The only two periods (from 350 BC to current) under which Tibet came under the Chinese empires was
Yuan Empire (1294 - 1368)
Qing Empire (1644 - 1912)
Finally annexation by the communist party in 1951.
It must be noted that both the Yuan and Qing empires were non-Han (Mongol, Manchu respectively).
Tibet was struggling to gain any sort of international recognition and was, as you say, independent de facto and not de jure. They were about as independent as the Principality of Sealand. In 1906 Great Britain and China signed the Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet, which recognized China's sovereignty over the region. The brief period during which the de facto independence existed was during the Chinese civil war, when the Tibetans took advantage of that situation and agitated for independence. Nothing ever became of that effort, because the formation of a new state requires international recognition.
The list of treaties recognizing China's authority over Tibet goes on, whereas there exists a distinct lack of anything resembling international recognition for the existence of an independent Tibet.
So that's why I have the idea that Tibet is a province, subordinate to the central Chinese government.
Also, being an independent kingdom with antiquity Tibet has a right to challenge status quo based on history, which again is nothing like Utah/Mormons and the US since there was no Mormom state prior to it being a US territory.
* The Dalai Lama doesn't want to form a theocracy.
* The popularly endorsed government of Utah was not violently overthrown by the US.
* The Dalai Lama doesn't want Tibet to secede from China, he just wants it to have more regional autonomy.
...but if you're interested in seeing how something like that might play out, you can take a look at the Southern Victory series by Harry Turtledove :D
He claims to be the leader of the legitimate government of Tibet, whose return to power he has made his goal. He is a monarch, appointed by religious rituals. He holds simultaneously the highest religious and political offices of his people. In what way is he not a theocratic leader?
> * The popularly endorsed government of Utah was not violently overthrown by the US.
Were it to make serious motions towards secession, that would undoubtedly be the result.
> * The Dalai Lama doesn't want Tibet to secede from China, he just wants it to have more regional autonomy.
Yes, today this is true. He now advocates for a "Third Way" which allows for cultural preservation of the Tibetan people while recognizing Chinese sovereignty. This has not always been his position, and it was not for most of his exile.
No, he doesn't. Since 1959 the government is exile has had a prime-minister/Sikyong/Kalon-Tripa[1]; since 2001 it's been an elected office; and since 2011 it has been the government in exiles most powerful political office.
They went form feudalism to a constitutional democracy with a titular monarch in less than 60 years. If nothing else about the Dalai Lama were impressive, overseeing that transition alone would be.
The condition of the Dalai Lama and Buddhist Tibet is analogous to this hypothetical situation in many ways, yet I find it hard to imagine that the world would rally around the exiled Mormon leaders and hail them as heroes. The biggest difference here is that the government of China is an authoritarian regime, but that fact notwithstanding, it still has autonomy within its own borders.