Tibetan Declaration of Independence

[zen]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

None of them are childish points. Infact your points are childish, when you think that a random statement is a declaration of independence. It is not. As i said, i gave you some homework, go complete your homework like a good boy instead of trying to pretend you know what I am trying to say. 

Your question has been answered before, as i said, look and read- something you are failing at, given you cannot differentiate between a comparison and a hypothetical analogy.

 

Again, 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?" 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

Again, 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?" 

 

 

 

Post # 129 answered your question already. Now go do your homework like a good boy:

 

 Go read what is a declaration of independence and find me 1 nation in 20th & 21st century that has been recognized as independent by a third party without : a) declaration of independence  b) previous sovereign declaring it independent.

 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Post # 129 answered your question already. Now go do your homework like a good boy:

 

 Go read what is a declaration of independence and find me 1 nation in 20th & 21st century that has been recognized as independent by a third party without : a) declaration of independence  b) previous sovereign declaring it independent.

 

Here is post 129

 

There is no answer there. Again, 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?" 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

Here is post 129

 

There is no answer there. Again, 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?" 

 

Continue reading down to point #2.

 

Now, time for homework and not passing off your opinions as international law/facts. 

[zen]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Continue reading down to point #2.

 

Now, time for homework and not passing off your opinions as international law/facts. 

Quote

2. 17-point agreement is 're-negotiation between Sovereign & autonomous province'. As i said, that is the status quo of Tibet-China for 100s of years. Go check the documents of the 19th century western powers too- nobody addressed Tibet as sovereign, everyone negotiated right to deal with Tibet (sovereign decision) from China,before sending embassy to Tibet to deal with them directly (autonomy).

^ that is your dumb point 2 

 

There is no answer there. It is like typing today is 02/28. Again question: 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?"

 

PS Was it because the agreement papers were so heavy that it needed to be carried by 40k troops (or whatever the number)? Why?

Edited February 28, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

^ that is your dumb point 2 

 

There is no answer there. It is like typing today is 02/28. Again  question: 

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?"

Ofcourse there is an answer there. But you are having comprehension trouble as usual.

Whether china negotiates on gun-point or not, whether we like it or not, it doesnt change the FACT THAT China was the sovereign of Tibet. 

Tell me, how does it affect Tibet's status with China, if China sends troops or diplomats to negotiate ?

Does it change Tamil Nadu's status with India if India sends troops or diplomats to negotiate with its government ?!

 

Now go do your homework.

[zen]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Ofcourse there is an answer there. But you are having comprehension trouble as usual.

Whether china negotiates on gun-point or not, whether we like it or not, it doesnt change the FACT THAT China was the sovereign of Tibet. 

Tell me, how does it affect Tibet's status with China, if China sends troops or diplomats to negotiate ?

Does it change Tamil Nadu's status with India if India sends troops or diplomats to negotiate with its government ?!

 

Now go do your homework.

 

^ 

 

Again, the question:

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?"

 

Was it because the agreement papers were so heavy that it needed to be carried by 40k troops (or whatever the number)? Why?

Edited February 28, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

^ 

 

Again, the question:

 

"The point is WHY China needed to sent troops in and FORCE Tibet to sign the 17-point agreement. Is that how negotiations are done?"

 

Was it because the agreement papers were so heavy that it needed to be carried by 40k troops (or whatever the number)? Why?

Because China is a bad, bad government, with bad, bad totalitarian tendencies.

Still doesnt change the fact that Tibet was autonomous part of China and never declared independence. 

So now go do your homework and answer my question.

 

[zen]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because China is a bad, bad government, with bad, bad totalitarian tendencies.

Still doesnt change the fact that Tibet was autonomous part of China and never declared independence. 

So now go do your homework and answer my question.

 

^

 

Totalitarian tendencies, so would that mean that Tibet did not comply? 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, zen said:

^

 

Totalitarian tendencies, so would that mean that Tibet did not comply? 

Probably not. but again, Doesn't change the status of Tibet as China's vassal.

Now go do your homework.

 

[zen]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Probably not. but again, Doesn't change the status of Tibet as China's vassal.

Now go do your homework.

 

"Probably not", which means there is doubt as to whether China did not use force to make Tibet comply .... Below is the profile of Tibet on BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-16689779 

 

• Sovereignty: The Dalai Lama says Tibet was independent and has been colonised. China says its sovereignty over Tibet goes back centuries. (So Dalai Lama himself say Tibet was independent )
• Tibet has had a tumultuous history, during which it has spent some periods functioning as an independent entity and others ruled by powerful Chinese and Mongolian dynasties (Here it says that Tibet functioned as an independent entity through various periods in its history )
• China sent in thousands of troops to enforce its claim on the region in 1950. Some areas became the Tibetan Autonomous Region and others were incorporated into neighbouring Chinese provinces (Here it says China sent troops to enforce its claim in the region   )
• In 1959, after a failed anti-Chinese uprising, the 14th Dalai Lama fled Tibet and set up a government in exile in India. Most of Tibet's monasteries were destroyed in the 1960s and 1970s during China's Cultural Revolution. Thousands of Tibetans are believed to have been killed during periods of repression and martial law (Why would Tibet need to set up a govt in exile?  ) 

 

Below, a video on Tibet's independence (declaration already posted on this thread). Location is Tibet House in NYC: 

 

 

Below people celebrating 100 years of Tibetan Independence: 

 

 

Based on the info provided, is it possible that China used force to stop Tibet from remaining independent? Or is everyone lying about Tibet's independence including the Holy Highness Dalai Lama? 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

43 minutes ago, zen said:

"Probably not", which means there is doubt as to whether China did not use force to make Tibet comply .... Below is the profile of Tibet on BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-16689779 

 

• Sovereignty: The Dalai Lama says Tibet was independent and has been colonised. China says its sovereignty over Tibet goes back centuries. (So Dalai Lama himself say Tibet was independent )
• Tibet has had a tumultuous history, during which it has spent some periods functioning as an independent entity and others ruled by powerful Chinese and Mongolian dynasties (Here it says that Tibet functioned as an independent entity through various periods in its history )
• China sent in thousands of troops to enforce its claim on the region in 1950. Some areas became the Tibetan Autonomous Region and others were incorporated into neighbouring Chinese provinces (Here it says China sent troops to enforce its claim in the region   )
• In 1959, after a failed anti-Chinese uprising, the 14th Dalai Lama fled Tibet and set up a government in exile in India. Most of Tibet's monasteries were destroyed in the 1960s and 1970s during China's Cultural Revolution. Thousands of Tibetans are believed to have been killed during periods of repression and martial law (Why would Tibet need to set up a govt in exile?  ) 

Yep, Tibet was independent. over 600 years ago.

 

So, where is the Tibetan declaration of independence ?

 

As soon as you can find the document that declares Tibet independent, you can end this. So good luck and go find it.

 

PS: STILL WAITING FOR ANSWER TO MY QUESTION.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Muloghonto

[coffee_rules]

Every thread is turning out to be a troll war between LLWs - lord of last words! 

 

How do I block people?

Edited March 1, 2017 by coffee_rules

[zen]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yep, Tibet was independent. over 600 years ago.

 

So, where is the Tibetan declaration of independence ?

 

As soon as you can find the document that declares Tibet independent, you can end this. So good luck and go find it.

 

PS: STILL WAITING FOR ANSWER TO MY QUESTION.

 

Because the info (BBC profile, Videos, which also show the declaration) provided specifically discusses 1913 and onward period, can we say that there was a reasonable doubt  or some sort of confusion at least in some quarters about Tibet's status? (If not, there wouldn't be these profiles and videos)

 

(You were here to debate with me, I did not quote your post first, so if you want to come to debate be prepared to answer simple questions in a simple way. If you can't don't, come to debate. Also "Declaration" issue has been addressed a long time ago but you acted like a fraud and a sore loser) 

Edited March 1, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

Because the info (BBC profile, Videos, which also show the declaration) provided specifically discusses 1913 and onward period, can we say that there is a reasonable doubt, even a little,  (to put it in neutral terms) or confusion about Tibet's status? 

None of those are official documents. Those are news items, interviews, letters written in personal capacity, etc.

As i said, do your homework on what declaration of independence is. 
And no, there is no confusion to Tibet's status, since no country ever recognized Tibet as independent in the last 500 years, no Tibetan government has formally issued a declaration of independence either. If there is doubt to Tibet's status, then there is doubt to every sub-national unit across the planet too. 

 

Quote

(You were here to debate with me, I did not quote your post, so if you want to come to debate be prepared to answer simple questions in a simple way or don't come to debate) 

And i asked you a simple question which you keep running away from.

Show me an example in the last 200 years, where : a) the sovereign didnt declare a part of its nation independent AND b) The part of the nation never declared independence and yet you have a third party nation recognizing its independence.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

None of those are official documents. Those are news items, interviews, letters written in personal capacity, etc.

As i said, do your homework on what declaration of independence is. 
And no, there is no confusion to Tibet's status, since no country ever recognized Tibet as independent in the last 500 years, no Tibetan government has formally issued a declaration of independence either. If there is doubt to Tibet's status, then there is doubt to every sub-national unit across 

If there was no confusion, how do you explain the BBC profile, videos, Dalai Lama's statements, govt in exile, etc.? 

 

(Again answer the question, it is you who came to the table.Also "Declaration" issue has been addressed a long time ago but you acted like a fraud)

Edited March 1, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, zen said:

If there was no confusion, how do you explain the BBC profile, videos, Dalai Lama's statements, govt in exile, etc.? 

 

(Again answer the question, it is you who came to the table.Also "Declaration" issue has been addressed a long time ago but you acted like a fraud)

The only fraud is from you, trying to pass off interviews and personal opinions (of the Dalai Llama) as a declaration of independence. 

 You didnt answer the declaration issue, because you did not present a declaration of independence. Which is why i asked you to go learn what it means. A declaration of independence is a formal declaration of independence, done by the government (self proclaimed or otherwise) of the region and it sends said declaration to any/all/some foreign nations as evidence of declaration and DEFINITIVELY sends it to the former sovereign. 
Now show us such a document from Tibet or go educate yourself what it means and why it is important.

 

And there is also no confusion- its just whining from disaffected parties, thats it. A declaration of independence is what every single North & South American nation has and almost every single former colony has. 
 

So again, answer my question, as i've answered all of yours and you keep running away from mine.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The only fraud is from you, trying to pass off interviews and personal opinions (of the Dalai Llama) as a declaration of independence. 

 You didnt answer the declaration issue, because you did not present a declaration of independence. Which is why i asked you to go learn what it means. A declaration of independence is a formal declaration of independence, done by the government (self proclaimed or otherwise) of the region and it sends said declaration to any/all/some foreign nations as evidence of declaration and DEFINITIVELY sends it to the former sovereign. 
Now show us such a document from Tibet or go educate yourself what it means and why it is important.

 

And there is also no confusion- its just whining from disaffected parties, thats it. A declaration of independence is what every single North & South American nation has and almost every single former colony has. 
 

So again, answer my question, as i've answered all of yours and you keep running away from mine.

 

You claim to be a learned person but your action speaks otherwise .... Try again, answer this question:  If there was no confusion, how do you explain the BBC profile, videos, Dalai Lama's statements, govt in exile, etc.? 

 

 

As for the declaration, I already posted the one issued by the 13th Dalai Lama, the leader of Tibetan people. Already discussed the 1961 speech by 14th Dalai Lama, UN Resolution, etc. 

 

Tibetan Declaration of Independence

Proclamation Issued by His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama in 1913

PROCLAMATION ISSUED BY H.H. THE DALAI LAMA XIII, ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF THE FIRST MONTH OF THE WATER-OX YEAR (1913)

Translation of the Tibetan Text

I, the Dalai Lama, most omniscient possessor of the Buddhist faith, whose title was conferred by the Lord Buddha’s command from the glorious land of India, speak to you as follows:

I am speaking to all classes of Tibetan people. Lord Buddha, from the glorious country of India, prophesied that the reincarnations of Avalokitesvara, through successive rulers from the early religious kings to the present day, would look after the welfare of Tibet.

During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Ch’ing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship. A few years ago, the Chinese authorities in Szechuan and Yunnan endeavored to colonize our territory. They brought large numbers of troops into central Tibet on the pretext of policing the trade marts. I, therefore, left Lhasa with my ministers for the Indo-Tibetan border, hoping to clarify to the Manchu emperor by wire that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other. There was no other choice for me but to cross the border, because Chinese troops were following with the intention of taking me alive or dead.

On my arrival in India, I dispatched several telegrams to the Emperor; but his reply to my demands was delayed by corrupt officials at Peking. Meanwhile, the Manchu empire collapsed. The Tibetans were encouraged to expel the Chinese from central Tibet. I, too, returned safely to my rightful and sacred country, and I am now in the course of driving out the remnants of Chinese troops from DoKham in Eastern Tibet. Now, the Chinese intention of colonizing Tibet under the patron-priest relationship has faded like a rainbow in the sky. Having once again achieved for ourselves a period of happiness and peace, I have now allotted to all of you the following duties to be carried out without negligence:

1. Peace and happiness in this world can only be maintained by preserving the faith of Buddhism. It is, therefore, essential to preserve all Buddhist institutions in Tibet, such as the Jokhang temple and Ramoche in Lhasa, Samye, and Traduk in southern Tibet, and the three great monasteries, etc.

2. The various Buddhist sects in Tibet should be kept in a distinct and pure form. Buddhism should be taught, learned, and meditated upon properly. Except for special persons, the administrators of monasteries are forbidden to trade, loan money, deal in any kind of livestock, and/or subjugate another’s subjects.

3. The Tibetan government’s civil and military officials, when collecting taxes or dealing with their subject citizens, should carry out their duties with fair and honest judgment so as to benefit the government without hurting the interests of the subject citizens. Some of the central government officials posted at Ngari Korsum in western Tibet, and Do Kham in eastern Tibet, are coercing their subject citizens to purchase commercial goods at high prices and have imposed transportation rights exceeding the limit permitted by the government. Houses, properties and lands belonging to subject citizens have been confiscated on the pretext of minor breaches of the law. Furthermore, the amputation of citizens’ limbs has been carried out as a form of punishment. Henceforth, such severe punishments are forbidden.

4. Tibet is a country with rich natural resources; but it is not scientifically advanced like other lands. We are a small, religious, and independent nation. To keep up with the rest of the world, we must defend our country. In view of past invasions by foreigners, our people may have to face certain difficulties, which they must disregard. To safeguard and maintain the independence of our country, one and all should voluntarily work hard. Our subject citizens residing near the borders should be alert and keep the government informed by special messenger of any suspicious developments. Our subjects must not create major clashes between two nations because of minor incidents.

5. Tibet, although thinly populated, is an extensive country. Some local officials and landholders are jealously obstructing other people from developing vacant lands, even though they are not doing so themselves. People with such intentions are enemies of the State and our progress. From now on, no one is allowed to obstruct anyone else from cultivating whatever vacant lands are available. Land taxes will not be collected until three years have passed; after that the land cultivator will have to pay taxes to the government and to the landlord every year, proportionate to the rent. The land will belong to the cultivator.

Your duties to the government and to the people will have been achieved when you have executed all that I have said here. This letter must be posted and proclaimed in every district of Tibet, and a copy kept in the records of the offices in every district.

From the Potala Palace.

(Seal of the Dalai Lama)

Source (and further reading):

Tibet: A Political History, Tsepon W.D. Shagapda, New Haven, 1967, pp. 246-248.

 

^ The above is said by the Dalai Lama so we have to take it at face value. They don't have to issue it in the manner you want. 

 

 

This is the last opportunity for you to truthfully answer the question asked or there will not be any more debates with you as this shows that you are not capable of having one and your focus appears to be to somehow just make a post and act like a fraud when there is no way out

 

Last chance

 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

You claim to be a learned person but your action speaks otherwise .... Try again, answer this question:  If there was no confusion, how do you explain the BBC profile, videos, Dalai Lama's statements, govt in exile, etc.? 

Already answered. Disaffected parties and opportunists trying to create an issue when it doesn't exist, in terms of sovereign rights.

 

Quote

 

As for the declaration, I already posted the one issued by the 13th Dalai Lama, the leader of Tibetan people. Already discussed the 1961 speech by 14th Dalai Lama, UN Resolution, etc. 

....

 

^ The above is said by the Dalai Lama so we have to take it at face value. They don't have to issue it in the manner you want. 

And that is where you are showing your own inexperience with the topic. I repeat, EVERY SINGLE INDEPENDENT COUNTRY THAT DID NOT HAVE INDEPENDENCE GRANTED BY THE SOVEREIGN, HAS A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, in the last 200 years.
And even then, in cases such as India, Trinidad, Jamaica, etc. who were granted independence by the sovereign, has an official, declaration of independence for the overwhelming majority. 

 

So yes, they have to do it the way I (in this case, the standard for the world) want it done. Its called filing the correct procedure or you not having a case. 

That speech, is not a declaration of independence. because he does not formally assert Tibet to be independent. He simply claims it was so in the past (does not specify how much in the past, etc) and claims that the relationship with Beijing is that of a patron & a priest (his own version, others are free to disagree, as it is not based off of official bilateral agreement either). 
That is NOT a declaration of independence. That is simply a statement. As i said, for the umpteenth time, educate yourself on the topic, before you drink more hinduvta cool-aid and lose all faculties of reason.

 

The only one acting in fradulent behaviour, is you. As i have made it clear, what the requirements are. You can try and consider whatever piece you wish, but that is not how international law works. 

And that is why, nobody ever recognized Tibet as an independent nation in the last 500 years. Because Tibet never officially declared independence. The fact that nobody did, should be a clear case on why your position is absurd and that of an amateur.

 

PS: Let me make something abundantly clear. Do I think Nehru should've done something about Tibet ? Heck no. Reasons given above many times. However, do I think Nehru should've done something about Tibet IF TIBET DECLARED INDEPENDENCE ?

Its a tough question and yes, if the whole freaking free world wanted a 'commies vs us, round 2: rematch after Korea' fight, sure. China wasn't going to exactly stop troops pouring in and Russia would help its commie brethren, like it did in the Korean War. 

But i somehow,highly doubt that anyone who looks at the map of Tibet, would want a war of that kind in the 1950s.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Already answered. Disaffected parties and opportunists trying to create an issue when it doesn't exist, in terms of sovereign rights.

PS: Let me make something abundantly clear. Do I think Nehru should've done something about Tibet ? Heck no. Reasons given above many times. However, do I think Nehru should've done something about Tibet IF TIBET DECLARED INDEPENDENCE ?

Its a tough question and yes, if the whole freaking free world wanted a 'commies vs us, round 2: rematch after Korea' fight, sure. China wasn't going to exactly stop troops pouring in and Russia would help its commie brethren, like it did in the Korean War. 

But i somehow,highly doubt that anyone who looks at the map of Tibet, would want a war of that kind in the 1950s.

 

I will take that as you accepting that there was a certain amount of confusion about Tibet's status from 1913 .... Though, Dalai Lama, who issued the declaration of independence, and people of Tibet, to whom it was issued, would be active players 

 

On the subject of Tibet, you are towing the Chinese line blindly, while I am towing the Tibet line which a proactive and prudent statesman would do (Sardar Patel for example) 

 

Let's look at the point of contention -> Nehru messed up in Tibet too  

 

Now when it comes to national interests which includes having an independent buffer state as Tibet b/w Ind and China, Ind is expected to play (or even create -  using China's "totalarian tendencies" for example) on such confusion (Ind is said to have done that in BD)

 

And with that line of thinking, it does not matter "how" Tibet issued its declaration of independence (so it is hilarious what you wrote on that). Even a letter to Ind from Dalai Lama should encourage Ind to take some action 

 

Since Nehru did not take relevant action to take advantage of the situation, it does show that Nehru messed up in Tibet too 

 

/check and mate (for the umpteenth time)

 

**** 

 

Epilogue 

 

My friend, once I realized that you would act like a fraud after the declaration of independence was presented, I improvised my approach to solving this  .... You were naive / dumb enough to not realize that and kept asking of what would become irrelevant to the point of contention .... You often claim / imply in debates that you are a learned person, I am sure you must be but not at the level you rate yourself at ..... You may try to fool others but at least don't fool your own self 

 

Thank you! And with this the discussion ends .... period

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by zen