Zak64

Evidence please?

__________________
If anyone complains about unlimited mass immigration we call them a racist - it's our culture!

Olympic Flame

No country recognised Tibet as an independent nation, before of after the Chinese Occupation. It swings from anarchy to being parts of greater China.

Zak64

Hmmm? How about the Chinese in 1914. They refused to sign a tri-partite agreement, the Simla Convention, between Tibet, Britain and China. The agreement was for all three to recognise Chinese suzerainity (IE authority) over Tibet.

Oh yes, and we Brits, we agreed a peace treaty with Tibet in 1904. Do nations draw up peace treaties with each other, or just provinces?

Tibet has also been recognised as a sovereign state by San Salvador and The Phillipines, both in 1950 (?) Prior to that Tibet had normal diplomatic relations with states such as India and China plus others. Tibet also issued it's own currency and had it's own (small) standing army.

__________________
If anyone complains about unlimited mass immigration we call them a racist - it's our culture!

kernow

Not being a political animal, I'm too ignorant of the facts to pass comment. I would be speaking for a lot of people!

Britannist

Olympic Flame

100 Questions and Answers About Tibet.
The Chinese didn't accept the deals which they see as very unfair.

But according this below
Just a gentle reminder that at the same era during Qing Dynasty of China, China basically had no say on "treaties" or diplomacy with colonial/imperial powers, from the Opium war to the invasion of Hongkong, Treaty of Nanking and the burning down of the old summer palace.



Im not sure and cannot find relevent evidence supporting your claim but read the sources below.
Putting the sovereignty technicality aside, no nation recognised Tibet as an independent nation prior to the 50s. ROC's constitution, which dates decades far earlier than the 50s includes Tibet and Mongolia both as parts of China. No body has any problem with that. Nor did Tiben leaders see themselves as leaders of totally independent subject. The frenzy only started when PRC reaffirmed her sovereignty since the 50s. Then did we see the "Free Tibet" movement and their symnpathiser to the sacred land of Shangri la as well as Washington leaders who want to make other deals with China.

It is clearly anti-China rather than freeing Tibet.

The Bear

Just study the history over tha last 1000 years.

AlanA

And of course, Christopher Booker puts a different, (and superb), slant on this terrible story.

EU helps China to cripple Dalai Lama's charity - Telegraph

Zak64

But it none the less lost China the chance to be recognised as having at least suzerainity over Tibet, and this would have been recognised by the Tibetans themselves. To me that weakens Chinas claim to sovereignty over Tibet.

That supports the idea that Tibet was an ipso facto sovereign state, as it was drawing up treaties with other states.

I find it very hard to accept that Chinese diplomats/politicians were incapable of drawing up treaties with other nations! You are mentioning things that were forced on China - not things China negotiated.


It's in 'A Strange Liberation - Tibetan Lives In Chinese Hands', by David Patt, Snow Lion publications, New York 1992 ISBN 1-55939-013-1

And that's the point: Government in exile.

Sovereignty is not a technicality to be put aside; it's central. There is plenty of historical evidence that Tibet functioned as an independent sovereign nation throughout much of her history. Having re read a few chapters of 'Seven Years In Tibet' by Heinrich Harrer in the last few days I'm reminded of just how sovereign a nation Tibet was. As well of the things I have mentioned previously Tibet had embassys from India and Nepal among others, she had her own legal system. Tibet would grant asylum to the needy. Also the Tibetans recieved a large quantity of silk from China each year. This was agreed between China and Tibet after a war between the two, which Tibet won. The Tibetans were once the warriors of central Asia, which is not the way we are used to thinking of Tibetans now.

Tibet was not isolated, as some will have you believe. She traded with China, Japan, India and even Germany. She allowed Chinese traders into Lhasa and other cities to trade, and some settled permanently.

Yes it was always going to be a painful process for Tibet to be dragged into the Twentieth Century. The Chinese invasion and aggression towards the people of Tibet made it much much worse than it ever should have been.

As for "anti - China", a claim for Tibetan independence is no more anti - China than anti - apartheit is anti - white South African, or pro East Timor is anti - Indonesian. If China dosen't like being critisized over her policy towards Tibet, tough, she's author of her own woes.

Incidently, if East Timor can have a free and fair UN supervised referendum on gaining independence from Indonesia why can't Tibet have a referendum on seccession from her enforced union with China? Surely that would put the matter to bed once and for all?

__________________
If anyone complains about unlimited mass immigration we call them a racist - it's our culture!

Olympic Flame

So this means that either China accepts the deal offered by Brits or Tibet should go independent?


Read again. There were Chinese officials involved. No where did Britain recognised Tibet as independent.


How can she negotitate when things are forced upon her?

The point is simple. You are trying to beat around the bush to use some cultural and regional trait to argue the "sovereignty" of a nation which in fact itself need much solid legal justification.
Your argument could well support the idea that tibet is a very autonomous region with a distinctive native culture, but not an independent nation.
The fact is no other nation recognised it before or after the 50s says lot about it.


By the same token it could be applied to the situation of the history of the Scots, Wales and the Irish and in their unique cultural circumstances with a much stronger justification for "independence". If you take a look at the history of England it would not be hard to notice that England was ruled by anglo saxon kingdoms from the 5th BC till 1066 until the Norman conquest. It was a literally displacement of the indigenious Britons who were placed at the bottom of the caste system and this is supported by the recent years of genetic studies done across the island. Yet I dont think it is a wise suggest to ship the majority of modern English to Denmark where they come from.

Likewise I dont believe in chasing Chinese settlers out of Tibet or include some for of "Chinese Exclusion Acts" supported by Dalai Lama.

Yet, it is still hard to qualify as a nation. It requires more solid things such as foreign recognition or her own constitution and so on. The lack of such things even showed that Tibetan leaders in the past dont see themselves as leaders of independent regimes.

In disagreement, people debate. In sheer movement of frenzy, there will always be skeptics and so on.

Im no expert on East timor but Im very sure that a bid for referendum for independence without regard to the constitution or the law of the host nation is not only illegal but against international laws. Thats why South Ossetia's independence is illegal and not recognised by any other country.
For the same reason Spain reject a referendum for Catalonia and the Basque country which is illegal, unconstistutional and against international law. India was no different.
East Timor's referendum was done on an Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Portuguese Republic on the Question of East Timor.

And I have no doubt that "Free Tibet" supporters will support a referendum for ethnically Tibetans and not for ethnically non-Tibetans despite having setlling there for a few generatios.