Tibetan Declaration of Independence

[zen]

21 hours ago, Mariyam said:

I think I can join this debate too. Random Bollywood scenes and hieroglyphics ftw.

 

@ zen @ mulo

 

What do you have to say about this?

 

Sabse bada shikari kaun hai?

 

 

Can you decipher the answer from this?

 

Roald Dalh once said

Come with me and you'll be
In a world of pure imagination
Take a look and you'll see
Into your imagination

We'll begin with a spin
Trav'ling in the world of my creation
What we'll see will defy
Explanation

man catches bird, cooks bird, eats bird .... man goes out .... bird sees man. bird eats man 

 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, zen said:

1. Tibet has believed that it is de-facto independent

 

2. Continuing on the de-facto independent spirit, below is the declaration by the 13th DL (already posted before)

If Tibet believed it is independent, it'd have filed the papework properly like every single other nation. And as i said, that is not a declaration of independence.

Quote

Tibet is fighting for its independence from China for much longer. Already posted that after being let down by politicians such as Nehru, DL appears to have compromised to the "mid-way" approach

The Dalai Llama let down the people of Tibet, not Nehru, by not even issuing a declaration of independence.

 

Quote

 

Tibet does not see itself as independent -> countered with DL's speech, UN resolution, letters to Nehru, Tibetans celebrating independence day on Feb 13th, Tibet's govt in exile 

The UN resolution does not address Tibet as a sovereign, neither does it say Tibet claims to be sovereign. 

Rest of it, is nothing more than Tibet dropping the ball on formal declaration of independence.

 

Quote

• Independence or its intent does not count unless a letter of declaration is available  ->  countered by presenting the letter of declaration by the 13th DL in 1913 

Except there is no declaration of independence in it, just a claim.

Quote

 

• The letter posted has to have the word independence in it -> countered by pointing out the words in the letter and the title itself says letter of declaration of "independence" 

Doesn't make it a letter of independence. A declaration of independence has to have a formal declaration of sovereign rights and be filed with ministries of foreign governments. Mongolia did. Tibet did not.

 

Quote

• The letter of declaration is not valid, no country recognized Tibet as independent -> countered by providing info that Mongolia did a treaty with Tibet

Mongolia did not address Tibet as a sovereign.

 

Quote

• Nepal does not list Tibet as a country in the application -> countered by pointing out that the UN application of Nepal clearly lists Tibet among "countries" where it has diplomatic relations (and when those were highlighted in yellow in the post you responded to so there was no need by you to even make such points in the first place)

 

A country can be a vassal to another country. Nepal does not address Tibet as a sovereign at any point. 

 

 

Quote

 

So let's see some more childish points from you. You dug and continue to dig your own grave 

Says the man who doesnt even know what a formal declaration of independence is, doesnt even know that every single country that has had to get independence despite sovereign's objection has done it in the last 100+ years.

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

If Tibet believed it is independent, it'd have filed the papework properly like every single other nation. And as i said, that is not a declaration of independence.

The Dalai Llama let down the people of Tibet, not Nehru, by not even issuing a declaration of independence.

 

The UN resolution does not address Tibet as a sovereign, neither does it say Tibet claims to be sovereign. 

Rest of it, is nothing more than Tibet dropping the ball on formal declaration of independence.

 

Except there is no declaration of independence in it, just a claim.

Doesn't make it a letter of independence. A declaration of independence has to have a formal declaration of sovereign rights and be filed with ministries of foreign governments. Mongolia did. Tibet did not.

 

Mongolia did not address Tibet as a sovereign.

 

 

A country can be a vassal to another country. Nepal does not address Tibet as a sovereign at any point. 

 

 

Says the man who doesnt even know what a formal declaration of independence is, doesnt even know that every single country that has had to get independence despite sovereign's objection has done it in the last 100+ years.

Already addressed the crossed out part ....  As the saying goes - the difference b/w stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits 

 

 

Formal declaration by 13th DL in 1913 is already posted  .... And Tibet meets the declarative theory of statehood criteria - https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/declarative-theory-of-statehood/ 

 

 

The declarative theory of statehood is one of the several theories describing when a state should be recognized as sovereign. According to declarative theory, the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. The theory defines a state as a person in international law if it has:

a. a defined territory;

b. a permanent population;

c. a government; and

d. a capacity to enter into relations with other states 

 

 

Tibet meets the declarative theory's points

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

25 minutes ago, zen said:

Already addressed the crossed out part ....  As the saying goes - the difference b/w stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits 

 

 

Formal declaration by 13th DL in 1913 is already posted  .... And Tibet meets the declarative theory of statehood criteria - https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/declarative-theory-of-statehood/ 

 

 

The declarative theory of statehood is one of the several theories describing when a state should be recognized as sovereign. According to declarative theory, the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. The theory defines a state as a person in international law if it has:

a. a defined territory;

b. a permanent population;

c. a government; and

d. a capacity to enter into relations with other states 

 

 

Tibet meets the declarative theory's points

 

 

 

^

Except it never formally declared independence. According to declarative theory, every Indian state and every Canadian province also meets all four points. Doesn't mean they are independent or even claim independence. 

Your innane pronouncements aside, you simply cannot get away from the fact that :
a) Tibet did not officially declare independence and you have consistently shown your ignorance of the issue. You even cited Mongolia to try and help Tibet, without realizing that Mongolia formally declared independence. Then you quietly ran away from that too.

 

b) For any foreign nation to 'do something' about another nation's sovereign territory, one of two things must happen : 
i) They must 'Pakistan-it' aka sponsor terrorism & engage in terrorism

ii) the part of sovereign territorry must, atleast formally, show signs of 'wanting independence'. Ie, have a declaration from the government or someone with popular appeal claiming to be the government or atleast the former government that's been deposed through force & not process.

 

The Dalai Llama's government meets the definition of the latest 'or'. Now, you can't sit here and pass the blame off of the Dalai Llama, a very educated man, who for 30+ years (from early 50s and his exile to the late 80s) didn't issue a formal declaration of independence, in his official capacity as spiritual & titular head of Tibet's old government. Not once. 

 

So my question is, why blame Nehru, when there isn't an ultra-strong independence movement amongst the Tibetans that is killing itself over it or the official former government refuses to issue a declaration. 

Whether you like it or not, Tibet, a deeply buddhist & sparse country, is 'not going to be stirred into independence frenzy, even when visited by foreign nations without the Dalai Llama explicitly supporting it. And he has consistently, denied the support as the Dalai Llama's, the official of Tibet. he has offered 'his personal views'- which are separate from the 'views of the office of the Dalai Llama'. 

And when you see what has happened, it makes perfect sense, that this is exactly how Tibet has been since Kublai Khan invaded it and officially annexed it (Tibet surrendered its sovereign rights) : Through most of the next 800 years, Tibet has dealt with threats from outside that is not China (aka from Badakhshan, Ladakh, Nepal, Dzungaria, Chagataids, etc) by hiding behind China's coat-tails, while doing as it pleases trade-wise, while China doesnt really care- the revenue from Tibet is too small and they care more about their annual tribute and titular gestures being subordinate to the Emperor of China. The few times 'Tibet got riled up and wanted to break away'- which is their right to try- China crushed it and a few times, China was too busy falling apart itself, to do anything about it. 

The fact is, Tibet never issued a formal declaration of independence and the responsibility of that, falls on the Dalai Llama. 

See I love this Dalai Llama as a person- he is awesome individual.But he is like Gandhi in his last days : too busy about being himself and adding to his image to make some hard choices and do the right thing politically.  What you needed was a Sardar Patel, what you got, was a Gandhi in his last 5 years- doesn't care about political realities. 
So he is not going to go down as the Supreme spiritual leader who committed Tibet to way of existential war for first time in 200+ years. Simple. 

And without his office, explicitly saying something that EVERY nation (who is going against its sovereign's wishes)  does, to diplomatically & officially assert sovereignty, nobody is going to go fight a war, in quite literally the toughest battlefield in the world. Over a whole bunch of....notihng. So far, Tibet isn't just bubbling with oil or uranium or something - atleast, not that we know of. 

This is the simple problem of Tibet and Tibet is going to go nowhere- not until either this Dalai Llama or the next one, in his official capacity as the spiritual leader of Tibet, formally asserts independence fro People's Republic of China.

Tell him to do that first, before anything is expected to happen. 

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

^

Except it never formally declared independence. According to declarative theory, every Indian state and every Canadian province also meets all four points. Doesn't mean they are independent or even claim independence. 

Your innane pronouncements aside, you simply cannot get away from the fact that :
a) Tibet did not officially declare independence and you have consistently shown your ignorance of the issue. You even cited Mongolia to try and help Tibet, without realizing that Mongolia formally declared independence. Then you quietly ran away from that too.

 

b) For any foreign nation to 'do something' about another nation's sovereign territory, one of two things must happen : 
i) They must 'Pakistan-it' aka sponsor terrorism & engage in terrorism

ii) the part of sovereign territorry must, atleast formally, show signs of 'wanting independence'. Ie, have a declaration from the government or someone with popular appeal claiming to be the government or atleast the former government that's been deposed through force & not process.

 

The Dalai Llama's government meets the definition of the latest 'or'. Now, you can't sit here and pass the blame off of the Dalai Llama, a very educated man, who for 30+ years (from early 50s and his exile to the late 80s) didn't issue a formal declaration of independence, in his official capacity as spiritual & titular head of Tibet's old government. Not once. 

 

So my question is, why blame Nehru, when there isn't an ultra-strong independence movement amongst the Tibetans that is killing itself over it or the official former government refuses to issue a declaration. 

Whether you like it or not, Tibet, a deeply buddhist & sparse country, is 'not going to be stirred into independence frenzy, even when visited by foreign nations without the Dalai Llama explicitly supporting it. And he has consistently, denied the support as the Dalai Llama's, the official of Tibet. he has offered 'his personal views'- which are separate from the 'views of the office of the Dalai Llama'. 

And when you see what has happened, it makes perfect sense, that this is exactly how Tibet has been since Kublai Khan invaded it and officially annexed it (Tibet surrendered its sovereign rights) : Through most of the next 800 years, Tibet has dealt with threats from outside that is not China (aka from Badakhshan, Ladakh, Nepal, Dzungaria, Chagataids, etc) by hiding behind China's coat-tails, while doing as it pleases trade-wise, while China doesnt really care- the revenue from Tibet is too small and they care more about their annual tribute and titular gestures being subordinate to the Emperor of China. The few times 'Tibet got riled up and wanted to break away'- which is their right to try- China crushed it and a few times, China was too busy falling apart itself, to do anything about it. 

The fact is, Tibet never issued a formal declaration of independence and the responsibility of that, falls on the Dalai Llama. 

See I love this Dalai Llama as a person- he is awesome individual.But he is like Gandhi in his last days : too busy about being himself and adding to his image to make some hard choices and do the right thing politically. So he is not going to go down as the Supreme spiritual leader who committed Tibet to way of existential war for first time in 200 years. Simple. 

And without his office, explicitly saying something that EVERY nation (who is going against its sovereign's wishes)  does, to diplomatically & officially assert sovereignty, nobody is going to go fight a war, in quite literally the toughest battlefield in the world. Over a whole bunch of....notihng. So far, Tibet isn't just bubbling with oil or uranium or something - atleast, not that we know of. 

This is the simple problem of Tibet and Tibet is going to go nowhere- not until either this Dalai Llama or the next one, in his official capacity as the spiritual leader of Tibet, formally asserts independence fro People's Republic of China.

Tell him to do that first, before anything is expected to happen. 

 

 

1. Tibet did declare independence -> Declaration of Independence signed by the 13th DL (written this for the umpteenth time) 

 

2. For Tibet to be become un-occupied now, someone would have to get rid of China form there. Not many would want to do that now considering China's strength which is why the DL has compromised and asked for the "mid-way"

 

3. So the key point was not allowing China to come in to Tibet and enforce the 17 point program. If that had been accomplished, Tibet would have not been in the clutches of China. Don't forgot Mongolia was attacked by China too but survived because of the Russian support. Tibet lacked that support from Nehru, who actually backed China for UN and despite warnings from Sardar Patel 

 

 

PS As has been discussed - since Tibet meets the declarative theory, the discussion on Tibet's independence is over 

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by zen

[Laaloo]

how the eff did we get from that issue to freaking tibet revolution? You bozos dont have anything else to do in Canada?

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

1. Tibet did declare independence -> Declaration of Independence signed by the 13th DL (written this for the umpteenth time) 

No, it didn't. That, is not a declaration of independence. For the umpteenth time, as i said, go do your homework.

Quote

 

3. So the key point was not allowing China to come in to Tibet and enforce the 17 point program. If that had been accomplished, Tibet would have not been in the clutches of China. Don't forgot Mongolia was attacked by China too but survived because of the Russian support. Tibet lacked that support from Nehru, who actually backed China for UN and despite warnings from Sardar Patel 

Mongolia had russian support, because Mongolia officially declared independence. Tibet did not. Tibet did not claim sovereign status in that document or send it to multiple governments. Mongolia did. 

Quote

 

PS As has been discussed - since Tibet meets the declarative theory, the discussion on Tibet's independence is over 

Meeting qualifying criterias for declarative theory is not declaring independence. Just as Tibet qualifies, so does every province in Canada. 

 

PS:Make up your mind You are running back and forth between trying to justify a letter written to India as a declaration of Independence and trying to say that 'standard procedure in international law for declaring independence' doesnt apply for Tibet.

Comical indeed.

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by Muloghonto

[coffee_rules]

Mods, move these discussions to one thread and let the two have a go at it without involving others in the discussion. 

[zen]

16 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

No, it didn't. That, is not a declaration of independence. For the umpteenth time, as i said, go do your homework.

Mongolia had russian support, because Mongolia officially declared independence. Tibet did not. Tibet did not claim sovereign status in that document or send it to multiple governments. Mongolia did. 

Meeting qualifying criterias for declarative theory is not declaring independence. Just as Tibet qualifies, so does every province in Canada. 

 

PS:Make up your mind You are running back and forth between trying to justify a letter written to India as a declaration of Independence and trying to say that 'standard procedure in international law for declaring independence' doesnt apply for Tibet.

Comical indeed.

 

Your posts display a level of stupidity rarely seen 

 

The point is Tibet declared its independence, and that act of announcing independence qualifies under declarative theory. So there is no point in saying xyz did this "officially" and Tibet did not as declarations issued under declarative theory are "official" too. Whether abc qualifies for independence under what theory is irrelevant to the discussion which is not about how countries should declare independence

 

Earlier you may not have known about "the declarative theory". At this point, you are debating for the sake of it. If you are trying to show that you are still in this debate by making random posts, let me tell you that I consider this debate to be over a long time ago. You still have to learn a lot, my friend  

 

"Today is Saturday here" (so to continue the debate, you can now make a post saying that it is not and we can do that everyday to make you feel you are still in the debate) 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by zen

[zen]

14 hours ago, laaloo said:

how the eff did we get from that issue to freaking tibet revolution? You bozos dont have anything else to do in 

Just by skimming the thread, a great and highly intelligent person like you should be able to infer how a discussion has developed

 

As for time on hand, we are not busy moderating on ICF, don't have dishes to clean, don't gossip much, have folks to whom we can deligate work to, sleep relatively less everyday so of course bozos like us will have more time vs busy folks like you 

 

PS As Amir Khan said in Andaz Apna Apna -> aap purush hi nahin ho .... aap maha purush ho

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by zen

[Laaloo]

3 hours ago, zen said:

Just by skimming the thread, a great and highly intelligent person like you should be able to infer how a discussion has developed

 

As for time on hand, we are not busy moderating on ICF, don't have dishes to clean, don't gossip much, have folks to whom we can deligate work to, sleep relatively less everyday so of course bozos like us will have more time vs busy folks like you 

 

PS As Amir Khan said in Andaz Apna Apna -> aap purush hi nahin ho .... aap maha purush ho

 

Abe yaar naraaz kyu ho rahe ho. Simple SA question pucha tha.

 

I don't moderate yours or mulos posts so believe me I have lots of time too. Dishes toh 5 minute ka kaam hai. I sleep around 7 hours. I guess that's enough. 

[zen]

13 minutes ago, laaloo said:

Abe yaar naraaz kyu ho rahe ho. Simple SA question pucha tha.

 

I don't moderate yours or mulos posts so believe me I have lots of time too. Dishes toh 5 minute ka kaam hai. I sleep around 7 hours. I guess that's enough. 

Good so we all have time on our hands!

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, zen said:

Your posts display a level of stupidity rarely seen 

 

The point is Tibet declared its independence, and that act of announcing independence qualifies under declarative theory. So there is no point in saying xyz did this "officially" and Tibet did not as declarations issued under declarative theory are "official" too. Whether abc qualifies for independence under what theory is irrelevant to the discussion which is not about how countries should declare independence

 

Earlier you may not have known about "the declarative theory". At this point, you are debating for the sake of it. If you are trying to show that you are still in this debate by making random posts, let me tell you that I consider this debate to be over a long time ago. You still have to learn a lot, my friend  

 

"Today is Saturday here" (so to continue the debate, you can now make a post saying that it is not and we can do that everyday to make you feel you are still in the debate) 

 

 

 

It is clear you are developing your understanding as you go along and data-mining. You made up your mind that Nehru is culpable for Tibet, so you are trying to present every bit of one-sided information you can.

At first, you argued the Dalai Llama letter is a declaration of independence. It isn't, because he isn't claiming sovereignty

Then you wish to argue that the letter issued by the Llama of Mongolia is a declaration of independence. Sorry, but another nation saying 'we are free!' isn't a declaration of independence FOR YOUR NATION. 
Then you tried to argue that Russia helped Mongolia, why should we not help Tibet- you ran away from that point, when i proved that Mongolia followed protocol and declared independence, Tibet did not.

Then you come up with declarative theory- and now you are running away from the fact that MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIVE THEORY DOES NOT MEAN DECLARATION HAS HAPPENED. Which is why you are refusing to address the point that every single Indian state, every single US state, every single Canadian province also qualifies under declarative theory. Doesn't mean they are independent because they have not declared it so. Same applies for Tibet.

 

No matter how much you'd like to twist the issue, it is a simple issue. A declaration of independence is a statement issued by the current or former government of a region, claiming legitimacy and claiming sovereign rights, declared of a certain day (that will be the independence day), sent to multiple governments around the world as a declaration. Every nation that has broken away form its sovereign in the last 100+ years, has done so. Mongolia did so. Tibet did not. Therefore, the blame for Tibet, lies squarely on the Dalai Llama.

End of story and nothing you've presented will change this simple fact.

 

[zen]

40 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

It is clear you are developing your understanding as you go along and data-mining. You made up your mind that Nehru is culpable for Tibet, so you are trying to present every bit of one-sided information you can.

At first, you argued the Dalai Llama letter is a declaration of independence. It isn't, because he isn't claiming sovereignty

Then you wish to argue that the letter issued by the Llama of Mongolia is a declaration of independence. Sorry, but another nation saying 'we are free!' isn't a declaration of independence FOR YOUR NATION. 
Then you tried to argue that Russia helped Mongolia, why should we not help Tibet- you ran away from that point, when i proved that Mongolia followed protocol and declared independence, Tibet did not.

 

At least represent my points accurately: 

 

1. Yes, Nehru let Tibet down 

2. Yes, 13th DL, the leader of Tibet, did issue a letter of independence in 1913 

3. Tibet considered itself as de-facto independent much like Mongolia after the fall of Qing dynasty 

4. The treaty b/w Mongolia and Tibet signifies that Tibet was seen as independent (counter to your point on NO country whatever) 

5. The point on Russia is that Mongolia is seen as independent because it received help from Russia. If Ind had done that to Tibet, you may not be debating this .... Not that Mongolia declared its independence through some official channel and everyone agreed it is independent. China actually, like in Tibet, tried to take Mongolia, but was prevented from doing so by Russia, something Nehru did not do for Tibet 

6. Tibet declared independence. Per declarative theory it is an official act (and not how you think what should be official)

 

 

With that^ cleared,  now to answer your point on Indian states and to expand your understanding on the declarative theory: 

 

The declarative theory of statehood is one of the several theories describing when a state should be recognized as sovereign. According to declarative theory, the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. The theory defines a state as a person in international law if it has:

a. a defined territory;

b. a permanent population;

c. a government; and

d. a capacity to enter into relations with other states

 

So explain to me, which Indian state for e.g. has a foreign embassy on its soil treating it as a separate / autonomous / vassal / etc. entity from rest of Ind? .... In Tibet's case, it did treaty with Mongolia, had foreign missions in Lhasa, Tibet had its own passport, Nepal listed Tibet as a country in Nepal application to UN 

 

 

 

Quote

No matter how much you'd like to twist the issue, it is a simple issue. A declaration of independence is a statement issued by the current or former government of a region, claiming legitimacy and claiming sovereign rights, declared of a certain day (that will be the independence day), sent to multiple governments around the world as a declaration. Every nation that has broken away form its sovereign in the last 100+ years, has done so. Mongolia did so. Tibet did not. Therefore, the blame for Tibet, lies squarely on the Dalai Llama.

Since we are debating Tibet, we have to go by what it believed and presented .... Declarative theory supports it .... When we discuss your independence, we will go by what you think about how you should achieve it 

Edited March 4, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

At least represent my points accurately: 

 

1. Yes, Nehru let Tibet down 

2. Yes, 13th DL, the leader of Tibet, did issue a letter of independence in 1913 

3. Tibet considered itself as de-facto independent much like Mongolia after the fall of Qing dynasty 

4. The treaty b/w Mongolia and Tibet signifies that Tibet was seen as independent (counter to your point on NO country whatever) 

5. The point on Russia is that Mongolia is seen as independent because it received help from Russia. If Ind had done that to Tibet, you may not be debating this .... Not that Mongolia declared its independence through some official channel and everyone agreed it is independent. China actually, like in Tibet, tried to take Mongolia, but was prevented from doing so by Russia, something Nehru did not do for Tibet 

6. Tibet declared independence. Per declarative theory it is an official act 

 

 

With that^ cleared,  now to answer your point on Indian states and to expand your understanding on the declarative theory: 

 

The declarative theory of statehood is one of the several theories describing when a state should be recognized as sovereign. According to declarative theory, the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. The theory defines a state as a person in international law if it has:

a. a defined territory;

b. a permanent population;

c. a government; and

d. a capacity to enter into relations with other states

 

So explain to me, which Indian state for e.g. has foreign embassy treating it as a separate / autonomous / vassal / etc. entity from rest of Ind? .... In Tibet's case, it did treaty with Mongolia, had foreign missions in Lhasa, Tibet had its own passport, Nepal listed Tibet as a country in Nepal application to UN 

 

Please explain before drawing irrelevant analogies with Tibet 

 

 

 

Since we are debating Tibet, we have to go by what it believed and presented .... When we discuss your independence, we will go by what you think about how you should achieve it 

1. Nehru didnt let Tibet down, the Dalai Llama did. 

 What is clear about Tibet, is it never officially declared independence and in 30 years since 1950s, the Dalai Llama never once officially declared Tibet independent. Then in the 80s he went back on it and said he wants only autonomy. So blame lies with him.

 

2. It was not a declaration of independence, because it did not say Tibet declares sovereignty over itself, neither did it send the document to various nations as required to. 

 

3. Not much like Mongolia at all, Mongolia followed protocol, officially declared independence claiming sovereignty, send the document to multiple nations. Tibet did not.

 

4. Mongolia does not accord Tibet sovereign rights either. The recognition of Tibet, comes from the office of the Llama in Mongolia, not the government of Mongolia. So it is a personal opinion, not an official state opinion.

 

5. Russia helped Mongolia, because Mongolia followed protocol, declared independence, sent the document to multiple nations declaring sovereignty. Tibet did not.  Mongolia only got help, after it followed official protocol. Tibet did not, so it got no help. pretty simple.

 

 

6. It doesnt need to have a foreign embassy to enter into relations with other states. When the state of West Bengal makes a deal with the government of Nigeria to supply cheap drugs, it is entering into relations with other states. Similarly, when California or British Columbia send trade delegations to China, it is entering into relations with other states.

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Nehru didnt let Tibet down, the Dalai Llama did.  Your personal opinion .... Likes of Sardar Patel have a different view 

 

What is clear about Tibet, is it never officially declared independence and in 30 years since 1950s, the Dalai Llama never once officially declared Tibet independent. Then in the 80s he went back on it and said he wants only autonomy. So blame lies with him.

False. DL appeal to UN 1950 and 1961 .... Establishing govt in exile .... And since 13th DL did it in 1913, independence is an ongoing 

1950 Appeal to UN is also posted below 

 

2. It was not a declaration of independence, because it did not say Tibet declares sovereignty over itself, neither did it send the document to various nations as required to. 

Again, your own rule .... Declarative Theory supports Tibet claim as official

 

3. Not much like Mongolia at all, Mongolia followed protocol, officially declared independence claiming sovereignty, send the document to multiple nations. Tibet did not.

Without Russia help, Mongloia would not be independent .... does not matter what it did

 

4. Mongolia does not accord Tibet sovereign rights either. The recognition of Tibet, comes from the office of the Llama in Mongolia, not the government of Mongolia. So it is a personal opinion, not an official state opinion.

FALSE. The accord clearly state Govt of Mongolia 

 

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

5. Russia helped Mongolia, because Mongolia followed protocol, declared independence, sent the document to multiple nations declaring sovereignty. Tibet did not.  Mongolia only got help, after it followed official protocol. Tibet did not, so it got no help. pretty simple.

FALSE. Below is what Russia did at first:

The delegation to St. Petersburg brought with it a letter signed in the name of the Khutuktu and the “four khans of Khalkha.” It asked for assistance against the Chinese, including arms, and implied that Russian troops would be needed against a Chinese unit which the Mongolians believed was at that moment advancing into Mongolia. To coax a commitment, the Mongols promised economic concessions in return. The letter itself was unclear as to the specific type of relationship the Mongols wished to establish with Russia. Russia wanted to include Outer Mongolia in its sphere of influence and as a buffer state offering protection from China and Japan, but never planned to make it a part of her empire.^[11] The Russian government decided to support, by diplomatic rather than by military means, not full independence for Mongolia, but autonomy within the Qing empire. It did, however, increase its consular guard in Urga to protect the returning delegation.^[12]

 

6. It doesnt need to have a foreign embassy to enter into relations with other states. When the state of West Bengal makes a deal with the government of Nigeria to supply cheap drugs, it is entering into relations with other states. Similarly, when California or British Columbia send trade delegations to China, it is entering into relations with other states.

Nope, those deals are carried out under the name of WB, being a part of Ind ....  But if you think so, they can declare independence if they wish. I have no problems with that 

 

See my response in orange above and the 14th DL appeal to UN in 1950 below:

 

Appeal by His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama 
of Tibet to the United Nations (1950) 
(UN Document A11549-11) November 1950, Kalimpong.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

The attention of the world is rivetted on Korea where aggression is being resisted by an international force. Similar happenings in remote Tibet are passing without notice. It is in the belief that aggression will not go unchecked and freedom unprotected in any part of the world that we have assumed the responsibility of reporting to the United Nations Organisation, through you, recent happenings in the border area of Tibet. As you are aware, the problem of Tibet has taken on proportions in recent times. This problem is not of Tibet's own making but is largely the outcome of unthwarted Chinese ambition to bring weaker nations on its periphery under its active domination. Tibetans have for long lived a cloistered life in their mountain fastnesses, remote and aloof from the rest of the world, except in so far as His Holiness the Dalai Lama, as the acknowledged head of the Buddhist Church, confers benediction and receives homage from followers in many countries.

In the years preceding 1912, there were indeed close friendly relations of a personal nature between the Emperor of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The connection was essentially born of belief in a common faith and may correctly be described as the relationship between a spiritual guide and his lay followers; it had no political implications. As a people devoted to the tenets of Buddhism, Tibetans had long eschewed the art of warfare, practiced peace and tolerance, and for the defence of their country relied on its geographical configuration and on non-involvement in the affairs of other nations. There were times when Tibet sought but seldom received the protection of the Chinese Emperor. The Chinese, however, in their natural urge for expansion, have wholly misconstrued the significance of the ties of friendship and interdependence that existed between China and Tibet as between neighbors. To them China was suzerain and Tibet a vassal State. It is this which first aroused legitimate apprehension in the mind of Tibet regarding China's designs on its independent status.

 

The conduct of the Chinese during their expedition of 1910 completed the rupture between the two countries. In 1911-1912, Tibet, under the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, declared its complete independence-- even Nepal simultaneously broke away from allegiance to China -- while the Chinese revolution of 1911, which dethroned the last Manchurian Emperor, snapped the last of the sentimental and religious bonds that Tibet had with China. Tibet thereafter depended entirely on its isolation, its faith in the wisdom of the Lord Buddha, and occasionally on the support of the British in India for its protection. No doubt in these circumstances the latter could also claim suzerainty over Tibet. Tibet, notwithstanding Anglo-Chinese influence from time to time, maintained its separate existence, in justification of which it may be pointed out that it has been able to keep peace and order within the country and remain at peace with the world. It continued to maintain neighbourly good will and friendship with the people of China, but never acceded to the Chinese claim of suzerainty in 1914.

 

It was British persuasion which led Tibet to sign a treaty which superimposed on it the nominal (non-interfering) suzerainty of China and by which China was accorded the right to maintain a mission in Lhasa, though it was strictly forbidden to meddle in the internal affairs of Tibet. Apart from that fact, even the nominal suzerainty which Tibet conceded to China is not enforceable because of the non-signature of the treaty of 1914 by the Chinese. It will be seen that Tibet maintained independent relations with other neighboring countries, such as India and Nepal. Furthermore, despite friendly British overtures, it did not compromise its position by throwing in its forces in the Second World War on the side of China. Thus it asserted and maintained its complete independence. The treaty of 1914 still guides relations between Tibet and India, and China not being a party to it may be taken to have renounced the benefits that would have otherwise accrued to it from the treaty. Tibet's independence thereby reassumed de jure status. The slender tie that Tibet maintained with China after the 1911 revolution became less justifiable when China underwent a further revolution and turned into a full-fledged Communist State. There can be no kinship or sympathy between such divergent creeds as those espoused by China and Tibet. Foreseeing future complications, the Tibetan Government broke off diplomatic relations with China and made a Chinese representative in Lhasa depart from Tibet in July, 1949. Since then, Tibet has not even maintained formal relations with the Chinese Government and people. It desires to live apart, uncontaminated by the germ of a highly materialistic creed, but China is bent on not allowing Tibet to live in peace. Since the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese have hurled threats of liberating Tibet and have used devious methods to intimidate and undermine the Government of Tibet. Tibet recognises that it is in no position to resist. It is thus that it agreed to negotiate on friendly terms with the Chinese Government.

 

It is unfortunate that the Tibetan mission to China was unable to leave India through no fault of its own, but for want of British visas, which were required for transit through Hong Kong. At the kind intervention of the Government of India, the Chinese People's Republic condescended to allow the Tibetan mission to have preliminary negotiations with the Chinese Ambassador to India, who arrived in New Delhi only in September. While these negotiations were proceeding in Delhi, Chinese troops, without warning or provocation, crossed the Dri Chu river, which has for long been the boundary of Tibetan territory, at a number of places on October 7, 1950. In quick succession, places of strategic importance such as Demar, Kamto, Tunga, Tshame, Rimochegotyu, Yakalo, and Markham, fell to the Chinese. Tibetan frontier garrisons in Kham, which were maintained not with any aggressive design, but as a nominal protective measure, were all wiped out. Communist troops converged in great force from five directions on Chamdo, the capital of Kham, which fell soon after. Nothing is known of the fate of a minister of the Tibetan Government posted there.

 

Little is known in the outside world of this sneak invasion. Long after the invasion had taken place, China announced to the world that it had asked its armies to march into Tibet. This unwarranted act of aggression has not only disturbed the peace of Tibet, but it is also in complete disregard of a solemn assurance given by China to the Government of India, and it has created a grave situation in Tibet and may eventually deprive Tibet of its long-cherished independence. We can assure you, Mr. Secretary-General, that Tibet will not go down without a fight, though there is little hope that a nation dedicated to peace will be able to resist the brutal effort of men trained to war, but we understand that the UN has decided to stop aggression whenever it takes place.

 

The armed invasion of Tibet for the incorporation of Tibet in Communist China through sheer physical force is a clear case of aggression. As long as the people of Tibet are compelled by force to become a part of China against their will and consent, the present invasion of Tibet will be the grossest instance of the violation of the weak by the strong. We therefore appeal through you to the nations of the world to intercede on our behalf and restrain Chinese aggression.

 

The problem is simple. The Chinese claim Tibet as a part of China. Tibetans feel that racially, culturally, and geographically they are far apart from the Chinese. If the Chinese find the reactions of the Tibetans to their unnatural claim not acceptable, there are other civilised methods by which they could ascertain the views of the people of Tibet; or, should the issue be surely juridical, they are open to seek redress in an international court of law. The conquest of Tibet by China will only enlarge the area of conflict and increase the threat to the independence and stability of other Asian countries. We Ministers, with the approval of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, entrust the problem of Tibet in this emergency to the ultimate decision of the United Nations, hoping that the conscience of the world will not allow the disruption of our State by methods reminiscent of the jungle.

 

The Kashag (Cabinet) and National Assembly of Tibet, Tibetan delegation, Shakabpa House, Kalimpong. 
Dated Lhasa, the twenty-seventh day of the ninth Tibetan month of The Iron Tiger Year (November 7, 1950)

 

 

As I said, you have no valid points. If you want to feel like you are in it, may be we can do "Today is Saturday here" 

 

[Muloghonto]

32 minutes ago, zen said:

Your personal opinion .... Likes of Sardar Patel have a different view 

Sure. But their view is unsupported by facts. Nehru cant do anything legal without Tibet doing what is required of it.

 

Quote

False. DL appeal to UN 1950 and 1961 .... Establishing govt in exile .... And since 13th DL did it in 1913, independence is an ongoing 

1950 Appeal to UN is also posted below 

Nowhere does it claim that he is declaring independence. he is stating that he has believed Tibet is independent- something ALL nations disagree on.

As i said, he had 30 years to file proper paperwork. he didnt. blame is on him.

 

Quote

Again, your own rule .... Declarative Theory supports Tibet claim as official

You just learnt a new thing. Some region qualifying under declarative theory doesnt mean it has officially declared independence.

 

Quote

 

Without Russia help, Mongloia would not be independent .... does not matter what it did

Yep, but Russia helped because Mongolia followed protocol. Otherwise Russia wouldn't have helped, since it'd be like Pakistan, aka fomenting terrorism.

 

Quote

 

FALSE. Below is what Russia did at first:

Mongolia declared independence in December, 1911. Delegation to St.Petersburg happened after.

 

Quote

Nope, those deals are carried out under the name of WB, being a part of Ind ....  But if you think so, they can declare independence if they wish. I have no problems with that 

That is fulfilling 'capacity to enter in agreements with other governments'. So WB, every single state in India, USA and province in Canada qualifies under declarative theory. And you said it yourself- they CAN declare independence. But they haven't. Same with Tibet. It CAN declare independence under declarative theory.It hasn't.

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. But their view is unsupported by facts. Nehru cant do anything legal without Tibet doing what is required of it.

 

Nowhere does it claim that he is declaring independence. he is stating that he has believed Tibet is independent- something ALL nations disagree on.

As i said, he had 30 years to file proper paperwork. he didnt. blame is on him.

 

You just learnt a new thing. Some region qualifying under declarative theory doesnt mean it has officially declared independence.

 

Yep, but Russia helped because Mongolia followed protocol. Otherwise Russia wouldn't have helped, since it'd be like Pakistan, aka fomenting terrorism.

 

Mongolia declared independence in December, 1911. Delegation to St.Petersburg happened after.

 

That is fulfilling 'capacity to enter in agreements with other governments'. So WB, every single state in India, USA and province in Canada qualifies under declarative theory. And you said it yourself- they CAN declare independence. But they haven't. Same with Tibet. It CAN declare independence under declarative theory.It hasn't.

 

You are repeating the same things which are answered,  ignoring what is presented and not using common sense. 

 

 

Again from the 1950 appeal to UN - "The conduct of the Chinese during their expedition of 1910 completed the rupture between the two countries. In 1911-1912, Tibet, under the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, declared its complete independence" 

 

It clearly states that Tibet declared its independence in 1911-12. In 1913, the 13th DL also issued the letter (already posted). All this is supported by the Declarative Theory  

 

Now if you have issues with the Declarative Theory, that is your problem. Not anyone elses or Tibet's .... If in the court, a verdict is delivered under certain section, you cannot start debating on the section. Whether the section is valid is a seperate debate. Your personal opinion on the section does not take away the verdict given based on that section 

 

As I said, you have a lot to learn. Your opinions are formed on unidimentional views and incomplete information 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

You are repeating the same things which are answered,  ignoring what is presented and not using common sense. 

Nothing has been answered, you just keep trying to pass BS as legally stringent protocols. 

This is not about what you or i think. Or standing on one leg drinking Orange juice as you put it. This is international legal protocol. Declare sovereignty, send declaration to multiple nations- the same copy of the declaration. Mongolia did this, Tibet did not do this.

 

Quote

 

Again from the 1950 appeal to UN - "The conduct of the Chinese during their expedition of 1910 completed the rupture between the two countries. In 1911-1912, Tibet, under the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, declared its complete independence" 

Except, the Dalai Llama should know, the previous one did not declare independence. he did not declare sovereign rights- just said Tibet has 'always been free, its a special arrangement blahblahblah'. That is NOT declaration of independence. Furthermore, he did not follow protocol and file it with several nations. So no declaration of independence has been achieved by Tibet. 

And I am sure the Dalai Llama has been informed of this, he had 30 years to officially declare independence. he did not. Those are the simple facts.

 

Quote

 

Now if you have issues with the Declarative Theory, that is your problem. Not anyone elses or Tibet's .... If in the court

No problem with declarative theory, but Tibet has not put declarative theory in action. Meeting requirements for declarative theory doesn't mean you are independent. You still have to officially declare it. Tibet hasn't.

 

Quote

 

As I said, you have a lot to learn. Your opinions are formed on unidimentional views and incomplete information 

Bhai, we can all see here who needs a lot to learn and who is doing the learning in real time to try and support an unjustified opinion. And that is you. 

I've maintained from the start that Tibet didn't declare independence. It hasn't officially claimed sovereign status and filed paperwork with multiple foreign governments. Those are the facts.

It is you who keeps swinging between claiming Tibet has declared independence, to 'Tibet doesnt need to officially follow protocol', to 'Mongolia did the same'- all of which are false claims as i've shown. 

 

Tibet had 60 years to officially declare independence. The protocol is simple- all it requires is claiming on XYZ day, you, the leader of Tibet, vested with authority over the people of Tibet, declare independence and file it with multiple nations. Mongolia did this. Every nation in 100+ years who declared independence against the wishes of its sovereign, did this. Tibet has not. 

Simple.

So therefore, blame lies with Dalai Llama.

 

[zen]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Nothing has been answered, you just keep trying to pass BS as legally stringent protocols. 

This is not about what you or i think. Or standing on one leg drinking Orange juice as you put it. This is international legal protocol. Declare sovereignty, send declaration to multiple nations- the same copy of the declaration. Mongolia did this, Tibet did not do this.

 

Except, the Dalai Llama should know, the previous one did not declare independence. he did not declare sovereign rights- just said Tibet has 'always been free, its a special arrangement blahblahblah'. That is NOT declaration of independence. Furthermore, he did not follow protocol and file it with several nations. So no declaration of independence has been achieved by Tibet. 

And I am sure the Dalai Llama has been informed of this, he had 30 years to officially declare independence. he did not. Those are the simple facts.

 

No problem with declarative theory, but Tibet has not put declarative theory in action. Meeting requirements for declarative theory doesn't mean you are independent. You still have to officially declare it. Tibet hasn't.

 

Bhai, we can all see here who needs a lot to learn and who is doing the learning in real time to try and support an unjustified opinion. And that is you. 

I've maintained from the start that Tibet didn't declare independence. It hasn't officially claimed sovereign status and filed paperwork with multiple foreign governments. Those are the facts.

It is you who keeps swinging between claiming Tibet has declared independence, to 'Tibet doesnt need to officially follow protocol', to 'Mongolia did the same'- all of which are false claims as i've shown. 

 

Tibet had 60 years to officially declare independence. The protocol is simple- all it requires is claiming on XYZ day, you, the leader of Tibet, vested with authority over the people of Tibet, declare independence and file it with multiple nations. Mongolia did this. Every nation in 100+ years who declared independence against the wishes of its sovereign, did this. Tibet has not. 

Simple.

So therefore, blame lies with Dalai Llama.

 

Great! So when 14th DL says 13th DL declared independence, he does not know what he is talking about even though Declarative Theory supports such act 

 

So we have to take your word over DL's on how Tibet should declare independence 

 

All these comments to just defend Nehru when even Sardar Patel warned him 

 

The dope you smoke must be effective