Tibetan Declaration of Independence

[zen]

 For reference to those interested in Tibet issue:

 

a) 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 

 

Tibet meets the declarative theory's points and declares below:

 

 

b) Treaty with Mongolia

 

 

"Treaty of Friendship and Alliance Between the Government of Mongolia and Tibet (1913) [397]

 

TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALLIANCE

Concluded Between the Government

of Mongolia and Tibet at Urga

29 December 1912 (11 January 1913)

(translation of the Tibetan text)

Mongolia and Thibet, having freed themselves from the dynasty of the Manchus and separated from China, have formed their own independent States, and, having in view that both States from time immemorial have professed one and the same religion, with a view to strengthening their historic and mutual friendship the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Nikta Biliktu Da-Lama Rabdan, and the Assistant Minister, General and Manlai baatyr beiseh Damdinsurun, as plenipotentiaries of the Government of the ruler of the Mongol people, and gudjir tsanshib kanchen-Lubsan-Agvan, donir Agvan Choinzin, director of the Bank Ishichjamtso, and the clerk Gendun Galsan, as plenipotentiaries of the Dalai Lama, the ruler of Thibet,'have made the following agreement."

 

 

 

c) Tibet's Declaration of Independence

 

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.

 

d)  Nepal's application to  UN recognizing Tibet as a  country 1949

 

 

 

e) Tibet's appeal to UN 1950

 

 

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)

 

 

f) Tibet's appeal to UN 1961

 

 

1961

Statement of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the Second Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day

 

 

On the 10th of March 1959 the Tibetan people reasserted their Tibetan independence suffering almost nine years of foreign domination. Foreign rule, alas, still continues in Tibet but I know that I am proud to know that the spirit of our people remains uncrushed and unshaken in their resolve to fight on till independence is regained. I know that the struggle, which began a few years ago is still being waged in Tibet against the invader and the oppressor who masquerades under the name and guise of ‘liberator'. I can confidently assert that the civilized world is, every day, becoming more and more aware of those, who, in the name of liberation, are crushing out the freedom of defenceless neighbours.

 

The world has been made aware of the terrible happening in Tibet by the two illuminating reports of the International Commission of Jurists. These reports have pointed out that the Chinese have, ruthlessly, trampled on the elementary human rights of our people, that thousands of our people have been killed for the only reason that they asserted their right to live in the manner they desired to do, following their cultural and religious heritage. The reports have further pointed out that the Chinese have been guilty of genocide by reason of their killing many Tibetans with the intent of destroying the Tibetan religion and by deporting thousands of children to China.

 

The sympathy aroused in the world was evidenced by the fact that the United Nations by their Resolution in 1959 appealed for the cessation of practices depriving the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and their traditional autonomy. I assert that it is not autonomy but independence of which we have been deprived. Anyway, so far as the Chinese are concerned, the appeal fell on deaf ears. Things have become worse as is clear from the steady and unceasing flow of refugees from Tibet.

 

As further evidence of that sympathy, we had in New Delhi in April 1960, a Convention by representatives of 19 nations, convened by the respected Indian leader, Shri Jayaprakash Narayan. This Convention brought to the notice of the world the happenings in Tibet. The Afro-Asian Council, established by the Convention sent its representatives to New York to support the Tibetan appeal in the World Assembly in 1960. On behalf of the Tibetan people, I express my sincere thanks to the Afro-Asian Council for the great interest they have taken in our cause and the valuable help they have rendered. I am glad to learn that the Council is deputing Shri Pushottam Trikamdaas to be in New York when the Assembly reconvenes.

 

Shortly the question of Tibet will come up for discussion in the plenary session of the U.N. Assembly. I appeal to the sponsors and to the Assembly to get the Chinese to vacate their aggression and to help restore the independence of Tibet. Any half measures will be of little avail. Our gratitude is due to the federation of Malaya, Thailand, Ireland and El Salvador for sponsoring our cause. May I appeal to India, our great neighbour, which has given refuge to thousands of us, to lend its powerful support to our cause.

 

Recently the United Nations passed a resolution on the declaration of the grant of independence to colonial possessions. Our country, which was till recently independent, has been reduced to the status of a colonial possession. We cannot in any event be denied the right to self-determination.

 

I am aware that the Tibetan people, inside Tibet, are undergoing the travail, that foreign rule brings in its wake. I appeal to them to keep up their spirit and their resolve to regain their independence. On my part, I need hardly say, I am far from happy to be away from my country and my beloved and brave people. I want to tell them that I share with them their hopes and their agony.

 

To the thousands of my countrymen in India, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, I want to say that a heavy responsibility devolves on all of us to prepare ourselves for the day when we can return to our country and build a happier and greater independent Tibet. New Tibet will need thousands of trained and skilled men and women, necessary to bring Tibet in consonance with the spirit of democracy without losing our cultural and religious heritage or our soul.

 

During the Chinese occupation before I was compelled to leave Tibet, the Kashag and myself made efforts to introduce land and other reforms in Tibet but as is well known our efforts were blocked by the Chinese. The Communists are today forcing what they call reforms down the throats of our people. I have given careful consideration to these so-called reforms and I have come to the conclusion that at the end of the reforms the Tibetan people will be reduced to the state of mental and economic serfdom.

 

Such reforms are not in consonance with the Charter of the U.N. nor with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The reforms that I visualise must, while preserving the intellectual, moral and religious freedom, bring about an equitable distribution of wealth of the country. In this connection I shall repeat what I said sometime back in Dalhousie: “In order to make Tibet a rich, strong and vigorous nation, the special privileges and the large estates enjoyed, whether by monasteries or aristocratic families, will have to go and every one will have to learn and live with and help the common people.” I further said, “Changes must come in all spheres. The government structure will also have to undergo far-reaching reforms so that the people are more intimately associated with the policies of the government and the administration of the country. The task and responsibility of establishing improved political and religious institutions lies upon all of us.”

 

I am preparing a draft of the constitutional and economic structure, which I visualise for our country and I shall place it shortly before the representatives of the Tibetan people in India and neighbouring countries for their consideration. Ultimately it will be the whole Tibetan people will have to decide.

 

The world has become very rightly concerned by recent murders in the Congo. I join my voice in condemning these murders whether in the Congo or in Algeria or elsewhere. I would, however, ask the world not to forget that thousands of Tibetans have been and are being killed for the only reason that they refused to accept foreign domination.

 

I want to remind my countrymen inside and outside Tibet that God's ways are inscrutable and the travail of Tibet cannot be to no purpose. The cause of Truth and Justice must prevail and out of this night of horror and suffering a bright day for Tibet and its people is bound to dawn.

 

I want to express my deep gratitude to India, Bhutan, Sikkim and Nepal for the hospitality and the kindness in which we have received from these neighbours of ours. I must also express my gratitude to the various international and Indian institutions and individuals, who have been given generous aide for the relief of our refugees. Since refugees are still pouring in I shall appeal to everyone to continue to help us in the same generous way they have done so far.

 

Finally, I request my people to join me in my prayer for peace in the world.

 

The Dalai Lama
March 10, 1961

 

 

g) UN Resolution on Tibet - 1959, 1961, 1965

 

 

h) British - Tibet Treaty

 

 

 

i) Letter to UK 

 

 

j) Letter to US

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

^

Already refuted.

1. Declarative theory still needs declaration. Otherwise all states in India are also free because they too meet declarative theory

2. Definition of declaration of independence is claiming sovereignty and sending claim to multiple nations. Not joint statement with only one other nation.  Therefore, no declaration has come officially. 

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

^

Already refuted.

1. Declarative theory still needs declaration. Otherwise all states in India are also free because they too meet declarative theory

2. Definition of declaration of independence is claiming sovereignty and sending claim to multiple nations. Not joint statement with only one other nation.  Therefore, no declaration has come officially. 

 

You haven't refuted anything but just displayed your lack of understanding of DT and evidence presented 

 

 

 

PS

 

On 3/5/2017 at 9:45 AM, Muloghonto said:

Yep, Tibet was an autonomous province of China, that saw weakness in China and decieded to act like an independent state. When China was pissed off about that and came with troops to 'remind Tibet who is boss', Tibet hoped Nehru would intervene, like it has for hundreds of years (playing off its master against its neighbours when in a pinch by either) but without official declaration of independence, Nehru would be conducting terrorism in another sovereign's territory, so Nehru, wisely, did nothing.

"By your own admission, Tibet acted like an independent state .... and this goes with all the evidence presented 

 

Thank you"

 

PSS

 

Note that not every post is addressed to you. I post for those who are interested in the subject too (post 161, videos, etc) If a post is addressed to you , I will "quote" you 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by zen

[zen]

For those interested in the Tibet issue, below are some clips:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

59 minutes ago, zen said:

You haven't refuted anything but just displayed your lack of understanding of DT and evidence presented 

 

 

 

That is not evidence of sending declaration of independence to multiple nations. 

Still waiting.

I have refuted your claim that Tibet has officially declared independence, because you cannot produce the document Tibet sent to multiple nations, as per protocol.

 

 

Quote

"By your own admission, Tibet acted like an independent state .... and this goes with all the evidence presented 

 

Thank you"

 

Yes, it acted illegally, over-reaching its authority and put into place by China, which nobody contested. because tibet didnt follow official protocol.

Simple.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

That is not evidence of sending declaration of independence to multiple nations. 

Still waiting

 

First of all, under DT, sending "letters" to multiple nations is not a requirement 

 

However if your claim is that EVERY country that got or asked for independent sent letters to multiple countries (instead of just issuing a standard declaration letter like Tibet), why not start by posting letters sent by EVERY country that got or asked for independent to other nations? (Just typing such things wont work)

 

Please prove your claim esp since you have been spaming this thread with that (and when there is no such requirement under DT)

 

If you cannot prove what you are asking others of, we will assume you to be a fraud and a sore loser trying to waste every one's time

 

PS let's start with US declaration of independence individually addressed to other countries

 

Thank you 

Edited March 7, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, zen said:

First of all, under DT, sending "letters" to multiple nations is not a requirement 

Ye, it is. Since every single nation that has declared independence against the wishes of its sovereign over the last 100+ years have done so.

You are not making a case on WHY this should not apply to Tibet given it has applied to every single nation for well over 100+ years to do so.

 

Quote

 

Please prove your claim esp since you have been spaming this thread with that (and when there is no such requirement under DT)

You keep running away from the fact that DT requires a proper declaration. 

Now as for proving my claim, do your homework as i asked from 2-3 pages ago. Every single nation declaring independence has filed independence papers with multiple nations. That, is a fact of official protocol of declaring independence.

 

Quote

PS let's start with US declaration of independence individually addressed to other countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Publication_and_reaction

 

Excerpt: 

 

"

British officials in North America sent copies of the Declaration to Great Britain.^[116] It was published in British newspapers beginning in mid-August, it had reached Florence and Warsaw by mid-September, and a German translation appeared in Switzerland by October. The first copy of the Declaration sent to France got lost, and the second copy arrived only in November 1776.^[117] It reached Portuguese America by Brazilian medical student "Vendek" José Joaquim Maia e Barbalho, who had met with Thomas Jefferson in Nîmes.

The Spanish-American authorities banned the circulation of the Declaration, but it was widely transmitted and translated: by Venezuelan Manuel García de Sena, by Colombian Miguel de Pombo, by Ecuadorian Vicente Rocafuerte, and by New Englanders Richard Cleveland and William Shaler, who distributed the Declaration and the United States Constitution among creoles in Chile and Indians in Mexico in 1821"


PS: See how i predicted it would take 2-3 pages for you to address this point and you finally have ? 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Ye, it is. Since every single nation that has declared independence against the wishes of its sovereign over the last 100+ years have done so.

You are not making a case on WHY this should not apply to Tibet given it has applied to every single nation for well over 100+ years to do so.

 

You keep running away from the fact that DT requires a proper declaration. 

Now as for proving my claim, do your homework as i asked from 2-3 pages ago. Every single nation declaring independence has filed independence papers with multiple nations. That, is a fact of official protocol of declaring independence.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Publication_and_reaction

 

Excerpt: 

 

"

British officials in North America sent copies of the Declaration to Great Britain.^[116] It was published in British newspapers beginning in mid-August, it had reached Florence and Warsaw by mid-September, and a German translation appeared in Switzerland by October. The first copy of the Declaration sent to France got lost, and the second copy arrived only in November 1776.^[117] It reached Portuguese America by Brazilian medical student "Vendek" José Joaquim Maia e Barbalho, who had met with Thomas Jefferson in Nîmes.

The Spanish-American authorities banned the circulation of the Declaration, but it was widely transmitted and translated: by Venezuelan Manuel García de Sena, by Colombian Miguel de Pombo, by Ecuadorian Vicente Rocafuerte, and by New Englanders Richard Cleveland and William Shaler, who distributed the Declaration and the United States Constitution among creoles in Chile and Indians in Mexico in 1821"


PS: See how i predicted it would take 2-3 pages for you to address this point and you finally have ? 

I am not agreeing with you but asking you to prove your claims 

 

I expected you to post this knowing well enough that you would not know the difference b/w American officials submitting papers vs British officials submitting to its own government .... and than you would take copies published in paper as official submissions (you posted it)

 

By the same logic, Chinese officials would have submitted copies of Tibet's letter to their govt too and the letter is already in circulation

 

So again either America does not meet your own criteria or Tibet meets it. Which one is it?

 

You are struggling in the very first country and there is still whole world to cover!

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

I am not agreeing with you but asking you to prove your claims 

Yes, as i predicted, it'd take you 2-3 pages to address the point.

 

Quote

 

I expected you to post this knowing well enough that you would not know the difference b/w American officials submitting papers vs British officials submitting to its own government .... and than you would take copies published in paper as official submissions (you posted it)

The British officials got it from the American officials. The article states that the British officials got the paperwork to britain. Since America already had British officials in USA, it sent it to them.

Besides, my point was any nation declaring independence against the wishes of its sovereign claims official sovereignty on a given date (Tibet never claimed sovereignty on a given date- they disputed their status. Very different under international law) have to file it with multiple nations. 
America meets that requirement.

 

Quote

 

By the same logic, Chinese officials would have submitted copies of Tibet's letter to their govt too and the letter is already in circulation

multiple nations.

 

Quote

So again either America does not meet your own criteria or Tibet meets it. Which one is it?

America officially claimed sovereignty. Tibet did not. America sent it to multiple governments, Tibet sent it to nobody.

I know a semi-educated hinduvta like you thinks these are 'technical pranks and jumping through hoops on one leg' but this is international law. This is how law works, where its all about technicality- a technicality every single nation fulfills and Tibet does not.

 

 

[zen]

22 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, as i predicted, it'd take you 2-3 pages to address the point.

 

The British officials got it from the American officials. The article states that the British officials got the paperwork to britain. Since America already had British officials in USA, it sent it to them.

Besides, my point was any nation declaring independence against the wishes of its sovereign claims official sovereignty on a given date (Tibet never claimed sovereignty on a given date- they disputed their status. Very different under international law) have to file it with multiple nations. 
America meets that requirement.

 

multiple nations.

 

America officially claimed sovereignty. Tibet did not. America sent it to multiple governments, Tibet sent it to nobody.

I know a semi-educated hinduvta like you thinks these are 'technical pranks and jumping through hoops on one leg' but this is international law. This is how law works, where its all about technicality- a technicality every single nation fulfills and Tibet does not.

 

 

I m not addressing any points but only asking you to verify your claims that you have been constantly spaming on

 

 

No where does it state America filed it. Neither is the letter addressed to individual countries.  If you think that British got it from American officials, countries including China, Nepal, Sikkim, etc., would have got that from Tibet too .... the letter is already in circulation 

 

Lets not forget that there were foreign missions in Tibet and vice versa too .... Tibet also set up its foreign affairs office

 

 

So again? If America meets it, so does Tibet. If America doesn't, your claim is invalid 

 

(And we are only in the first country)

 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, zen said:

I m not addressing any points but only asking you to verify your claims that you have been constantly spaming on

Oh yes you are. I have been harping about the whole 'declare independence properly by filing it with multiple nations' for 3 pages now and i predicted, it would take you 2-3 pages to come around. 

 

Quote

 

If you think that British got it from American officials, countries including China, Nepal, Sikkim, etc., would have got that from Tibet too .... the letter is already in circulation 

Prove to us that Tibet sent it to multiple nations and state the nations it was sent to.

 

Quote

 

So again? If America meets it, so does Tibet

As we can see, we have decisive proof that America asserted independence (Tibet did not - it merely disputed its original status. That is not a declaration, that is a dispute) and that it sent it to multiple nations (Tibet did not). So America != Tibet.

 

[zen]

30 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Oh yes you are. I have been harping about the whole 'declare independence properly by filing it with multiple nations' for 3 pages now and i predicted, it would take you 2-3 pages to come around. 

 

Prove to us that Tibet sent it to multiple nations and state the nations it was sent to.

 

As we can see, we have decisive proof that America asserted independence (Tibet did not - it merely disputed its original status. That is not a declaration, that is a dispute) and that it sent it to multiple nations (Tibet did not). So America != Tibet.

 

Yes, you have been harping about "it" without showing such a criteria is valid in the first place

 

Based on my criterias, I have proved my points .... However you have failed to justify the criteria that you have been harping about - "every country that got independence or asked for it filed with multiple nations"

 

In America's case, you have failed to show that it "filed" with multiple nations. You have only posted what officials of some countries discussed bssed on what is available in publuc domians and posted in newspaper, which is hardly an official filing process

 

So prove that America officially filed with multiple nations (and this is only the first country being discussed, you spoke about "every" country) .... If you can't prove that, your driteria is invalid and does not merit a discussion

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, zen said:

Yes, you have been harping about "it" without showing such a criteria is valid in the first place

 

Based on my criterias, I have proved my points .... However you have failed to justify the criteria that you have been harping about - "every country that got independence or asked for it filed with multiple nations"

 

In America's case, you have failed to show that it "filed" with multiple nations. You have only posted what officials of some countries discussed bssed on what is available in publuc domians and posted in newspaper, which is hardly an official filing process

 

So prove that America officially filed with multiple nations (and this is only the first country being discussed, you spoke about "every" country) .... If you can't prove that, your driteria is invalid and does not merit a discussion

1. Nobody cares about your critieria or mine. What everyone cares about is the international protocol. In which, you are totally clueless, as your posts on this thread shows. You are the one bewakoof swinging wildly between stating such a protocol doesnt matter and Tibet has satisfied the protocol, so make up your mind.

 

 

Quote

In America's case, you have failed to show that it "filed" with multiple nations. You have only posted what officials of some countries discussed bssed on what is available in publuc domians and posted in newspaper, which is hardly an official filing proces

'available in public domain' ? This is 1776. Not 2004 and the internet. No photography, photocopy, etc. either. 

 

I've already posted proof that American declaration of independence was filed with multiple nations.

It was officially sent to France

 

You have to prove your claim that Tibet satisfies same criterias by naming the countries, with proof, that got Tibet's declaration. Your turn.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

19 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Nobody cares about your critieria or mine. What everyone cares about is the international protocol. In which, you are totally clueless, as your posts on this thread shows. You are the one bewakoof swinging wildly between stating such a protocol doesnt matter and Tibet has satisfied the protocol, so make up your mind.

 

 

'available in public domain' ? This is 1776. Not 2004 and the internet. No photography, photocopy, etc. either. 

 

I've already posted proof that American declaration of independence was filed with multiple nations.

You have to prove your claim that Tibet satisfies same criterias by naming the countries, with proof, that got Tibet's declaration. Your turn.

 

No you havent shown the proof you are asking others to provide

 

Letter was posted in newspapers in US. And if you think America handed it, Tibet handed it too. If you want proof that Tibet handed it, show us America handed it too 

 

Again, show us where it says America officially filed for its independence with multiple nations 

 

As I said we are in the very first country. For your criteria to be worth discussing, it should be applicable to every country. Even if ONE country fails to meet, your criteria is invalid and you are struggling in the very first country

Edited March 7, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

16 minutes ago, zen said:

No you havent shown the proof you are asking others to provide

 

Letter was posted in news papers in US. And if you think America handed it, Tibet handed it too. If you want proof that Tibet handed it, show us America handed it too

 

Again, show us where it says America officially filed for its independence with multiple nations y

You asked for evidence that US sent it to other nations. I presented evidence. 

US clearly sent a copy to France and sent an official copy to Britain via its officers. The copy sent to Latin America was personally given by Thomas Jefferson, who is an official source of the constitution. All presented in the wiki link. 

Also here it proves that official copy of declaration of independence was sent to Britain, not just newspaper clippings.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106259774

Quote

As I said we are in the very first country. For your criteria to be worth discussing, it should be applicable to every country. Even if one country fails, your criteria is invalid and you are struggling in the very first country

Unluckily for you, there are not that many countries in the last 100-150 years that have declared independence without the sovereign's consent and still got it.

 

The bulk majority of independence in the 20th century does not apply, because bulk majority of independence of 20th century came from the consent of its sovereign (US, France & UK).

 

Now, answer my question before i answer yours : Show us the nations Tibet sent its declaration to. 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You asked for evidence that US sent it to other nations. I presented evidence. 

US clearly sent a copy to France and sent an official copy to Britain via its officers. The copy sent to Latin America was personally given by Thomas Jefferson, who is an official source of the constitution. All presented in the wiki link. 

 

Unluckily for you, there are not that many countries in the last 100-150 years that have declared independence without the sovereign's consent and still got it.

 

The bulk majority of independence in the 20th century does not apply, because bulk majority of independence of 20th century came from the consent of its sovereign (US, France & UK).

 

Now, answer my question before i answer yours : Show us the nations Tibet sent its declaration to. 

 

Unforunately, what is clear to you, you cant prove .... sent to France, by whom? 

 

2nd if you think Jefferson handed it out counts, DL the official leader of Tibet handed / advised that too 

 

So again, prove for America and then for every country that I will ask proof for. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

Unforunately, what is clear to you, you cant prove .... sent to France, by whom? 

By the government of USA. As the link states, it was sent officially. Same with the official copy sent to Britain. 
Or else, how does one get an official copy, if not sent officially ? This is before the era of camera and photocopies !

 

Quote

 

2nd if you think Jefferson handed it out, DL the official leader of Tibet did that too 

 

The article clearly states who Jefferson handed it out to. Who did the DL send the so-called declaration to ? 

 

Quote

 

So again, prove for America and every country that I will ask proof for.

Links already provided.

Now you will talk for 3 more pages over other things before providing what you've been asked for.

 

Show us the nations Tibet sent its declaration to. Name the nations/person it was sent to.

 

[CasualVisitor]

@Mulo, what in your view could be the reason(s) why DL is not officially declaring it? There must be something to it!

 

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

 

 

[zen]

29 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

By the government of USA. As the link states, it was sent officially. Same with the official copy sent to Britain. 
Or else, how does one get an official copy, if not sent officially ? This is before the era of camera and photocopies !

 

The article clearly states who Jefferson handed it out to. Who did the DL send the so-called declaration to ? 

 

Links already provided.

Now you will talk for 3 more pages over other things before providing what you've been asked for.

 

Show us the nations Tibet sent its declaration to. Name the nations/person it was sent to.

 

LAST CHANCE

 

Post the official letter sent by USA and addressed to the govt(s) you claimed to have received them 

 

If not, your criteria is invalid

Edited March 7, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

LAST CHANCE

 

Post the official letter sent by USA and addressed to the govt(s) you claimed to have received them 

 

If not, your criteria is invalid

Links have been posted.

Clearly states that US sent copies to Britain and France, Thomas Jefferson authorized sending copies via the person named to Latin America.

 

You said :

 

Quote

And if you think America handed it, Tibet handed it too. If you want proof that Tibet handed it, show us America handed it too 

I've provided links in post 167 and 175.

Now your turn to substantiate the claim "Tibet handled it too"

 

Show us the nations Tibet sent its declaration to. Name the nations/person it was sent to.