正文
新发现! 主子都承认南藏属于中国, 奴才还能坚持多久？
送交者: coolcat999 2009年08月14日
据以下报道，英帝国(British Raj)在划McMahon Line 时就已签约承认南藏(Outer Tibet)属于西藏 (Tibet)。而去年英国又正式承认西藏属于中国。 所以，南藏的的确确的是中国的！ 这个情形的发展，彻底地剥夺了印度侵占我国南藏历史上与法律上的根据(借口)。
基于这个新发现，我现在什么都不怕，就怕中国高层决策人的出了。
Chris Devonshire-Ellis: British Government Redefinition Could Re-Ignite China-India Border Dispute
A statement posted on the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office website last year could cause potential conflict over North-East India territories which are also claimed by China. Since the days of the British Raj, the historic border areas between Tibet,
07.26.2009 – A statement posted on the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office website last year could cause potential conflict over North-East India territories which are also claimed by China. Since the days of the British Raj, the historic border areas between Tibet, British India and China were usually coordinated by the three.
Although some conflicts remain in West China and India due to agreements made by Tibet and British India and not ratified by the Chinese, the new potential for dispute centers on the Eastern territories of India. These have based upon the Simla Accord, signed in 1913 and 1914 in which Britain only recognized the suzerainty of China over Tibet, and not sovereignty.
Suzerainty is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which controls its foreign affairs while allowing the tributary some limited domestic autonomy. The superior entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the head of state of that more powerful entity, is called a suzerain.
"
The term suzerainty was originally used to describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its surrounding regions. It differs from sovereignty in that the tributary has limited self-rule. This definition for Tibet has never been accepted by China.
The Simla Accord provided that the area referred to as “Outer Tibet” would “remain in the hands of the Tibetan government at Lhasa.” This region, approximately the covering today’s Tibet Autonomous Region, would be under Chinese suzerainty, but China could not interfere in its administration.
The accord with its annexes also defined lines which would designate the boundary between Tibet and China proper and between Tibet and British India, also known as the McMahon Line. However, China refused to accept the accord and their plenipotentiary, Ivan Chen, withdrew on July 3, 1914.
After his withdrawal the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries attached a note denying China any privileges under the accord and sealed it as a bilateral agreement on the same day. This lack of a tri-party agreement is the root cause of the existing border disputes that now exist between India and China, and over which several border wars have flared.
This issue was visited again when the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, issued a ministerial statement on its website last October 29 that recognized Chinese claim over Tibet.
On the ministerial statement an Economist article published last year, reported that although the statement does explicitly recognize Chinese sovereignty, it does mean that as far as Britain is concerned: “Tibet is part of China. Full stop.”
This change in Britain’s position consequently affects India’s claim to the North Eastern territories which rely on the same Simla agreement that Britain’s prior position on Tibet’s sovereignty was based upon.
The diplomatic consequences mean that India’s claim over the state of Arunachal Pradesh is compromised, a situation that has already seen China refuse to grant a loan by the Asian Development Bank to India because of its sovereignty claims on the same territory.
The state has a population of over a million people and is agriculturally fertile. How the future of the state will be played out remains uncertain. China has a long history of being patient and is unlikely to repudiate its claims. India however views the state as historically part of India, however, any attempt to further development the state is likely to be met with strong opposition from China.
One hopes the present easing of diplomatic tensions between China and India, as demonstrated at the recent meeting of foreign ministers continues. However, the position that has now risen gives a stronger play to China’s claims and any dispute between the two nations is likely to focus on this region.
Chris Devonshire-Ellis is founder of the Asia Briefing publications and the foreign direct investment firm Dezan Shira & Associates.
送交者: coolcat999 2009年08月14日
据以下报道，英帝国(British Raj)在划McMahon Line 时就已签约承认南藏(Outer Tibet)属于西藏 (Tibet)。而去年英国又正式承认西藏属于中国。 所以，南藏的的确确的是中国的！ 这个情形的发展，彻底地剥夺了印度侵占我国南藏历史上与法律上的根据(借口)。
基于这个新发现，我现在什么都不怕，就怕中国高层决策人的出了。
Chris Devonshire-Ellis: British Government Redefinition Could Re-Ignite China-India Border Dispute
A statement posted on the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office website last year could cause potential conflict over North-East India territories which are also claimed by China. Since the days of the British Raj, the historic border areas between Tibet,
07.26.2009 – A statement posted on the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office website last year could cause potential conflict over North-East India territories which are also claimed by China. Since the days of the British Raj, the historic border areas between Tibet, British India and China were usually coordinated by the three.
Although some conflicts remain in West China and India due to agreements made by Tibet and British India and not ratified by the Chinese, the new potential for dispute centers on the Eastern territories of India. These have based upon the Simla Accord, signed in 1913 and 1914 in which Britain only recognized the suzerainty of China over Tibet, and not sovereignty.
Suzerainty is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which controls its foreign affairs while allowing the tributary some limited domestic autonomy. The superior entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the head of state of that more powerful entity, is called a suzerain.
"
The term suzerainty was originally used to describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its surrounding regions. It differs from sovereignty in that the tributary has limited self-rule. This definition for Tibet has never been accepted by China.
The Simla Accord provided that the area referred to as “Outer Tibet” would “remain in the hands of the Tibetan government at Lhasa.” This region, approximately the covering today’s Tibet Autonomous Region, would be under Chinese suzerainty, but China could not interfere in its administration.
The accord with its annexes also defined lines which would designate the boundary between Tibet and China proper and between Tibet and British India, also known as the McMahon Line. However, China refused to accept the accord and their plenipotentiary, Ivan Chen, withdrew on July 3, 1914.
After his withdrawal the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries attached a note denying China any privileges under the accord and sealed it as a bilateral agreement on the same day. This lack of a tri-party agreement is the root cause of the existing border disputes that now exist between India and China, and over which several border wars have flared.
This issue was visited again when the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, issued a ministerial statement on its website last October 29 that recognized Chinese claim over Tibet.
On the ministerial statement an Economist article published last year, reported that although the statement does explicitly recognize Chinese sovereignty, it does mean that as far as Britain is concerned: “Tibet is part of China. Full stop.”
This change in Britain’s position consequently affects India’s claim to the North Eastern territories which rely on the same Simla agreement that Britain’s prior position on Tibet’s sovereignty was based upon.
The diplomatic consequences mean that India’s claim over the state of Arunachal Pradesh is compromised, a situation that has already seen China refuse to grant a loan by the Asian Development Bank to India because of its sovereignty claims on the same territory.
The state has a population of over a million people and is agriculturally fertile. How the future of the state will be played out remains uncertain. China has a long history of being patient and is unlikely to repudiate its claims. India however views the state as historically part of India, however, any attempt to further development the state is likely to be met with strong opposition from China.
One hopes the present easing of diplomatic tensions between China and India, as demonstrated at the recent meeting of foreign ministers continues. However, the position that has now risen gives a stronger play to China’s claims and any dispute between the two nations is likely to focus on this region.
Chris Devonshire-Ellis is founder of the Asia Briefing publications and the foreign direct investment firm Dezan Shira & Associates.
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
